Wilson Building Bulletin: The D.C. Council gets more secretive

It may well get a little more challenging in the weeks to come to bring you all the news of the D.C. Council.

This week the council passed emergency legislation that significantly expands lawmakers’ ability to meet behind closed doors and away from the prying ears and eyes of the press and public. (Ironically, an unrelated bill was introduced this week called the “Transparency is Accountability Act.”) Proponents of the emergency measure – the 10 of 12 members who voted for it, at least – say it’s a needed tweak to an existing law they say makes it impossible for them to have informal gatherings to discuss critical issues in a fast-moving and unpredictable political environment. But critics say it’s a self-serving push to move the public’s business away from, well, the public. 

The issue at play is D.C.’s Open Meetings Act, a 15-year-old law that largely requires all government bodies – boards and commissions in addition to the council and ANCs – to conduct their business in public, spare limited enumerated exceptions. Late last week Council Chairman Phil Mendelson and his 11 colleagues unveiled the emergency bill that made sweeping changes to the act by expanding the circumstances under which a government body could meet without telling the public. More notably, though, the bill would flip the act’s burden of openness on its head: No longer would the legislature’s functions be presumed public with limited exceptions, but instead they would be presumed closed unless otherwise noted.

Mendelson said the bill grew out of lawmakers’ frustrations that the Open Meetings Act was constraining their ability to do basic work and also respond nimbly to emergencies. On the former point, At-Large Councilmember Robert White said the act made it challenging for him to organize a field trip for members to visit public housing, because he would have to advertise it for at least 48 hours and invite the press and public to attend. Mendelson said the act made it impossible for the council to meet behind closed doors to strategize on how to respond to challenges coming from the White House and Capitol Hill, or to get confidential briefings on large-scale economic development deals being negotiated by Mayor Muriel Bowser.

Other members said the Open Meetings Act stifled the impromptu meetings and chance conversations that can be so important to governing. “It does strike me as strange that we don’t have the ability to have any basic conversations unless they are in public. That’s not how normal people do work. It leads to a lot of grandstanding,” said Ward 1 Councilmember Brianne Nadeau. 

But critics – the press included – saw the bill as a cynical effort by the council to escape public scrutiny. Possible negotiations between D.C. and the Washington Commanders over the fate of a new stadium at RFK are ongoing, and keeping those under wraps could limit opportunities for public criticism of any deal that would involve public funding. (In fact, it was just a year ago that the council got dinged for meeting behind closed doors to get a briefing on a deal to keep the Washington Capitals from decamping to Virginia, which ultimately involved $515 million in taxpayer funds.) 

The D.C. Open Government Coalition, which advocates for transparency in government, blasted Mendelson’s proposal as “a substantial threat to the right of D.C. residents to see and hear about what their government is doing on their behalf, and to fulfill their duty as part of an informed electorate.” (Disclosure: About a decade ago I briefly served on OGC’s board.)

At Tuesday’s legislative meeting, Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen tried to bridge the gap between both sides. He proposed an amendment that would limit the scope of the bill to only the council (instead of every other public board and commission), and to clarify that the council could meet behind closed doors “to be briefed about economic development negotiations involving the District government or federal government relations, specifically, provided that no official action is taken.”

“I’ve been a longtime advocate for the District’s sunshine laws and the accountability and public trust they foster, and I think we should narrow the emergency bill before us today to fix the problem we’re trying to solve – which is: our open meetings law should not be a barrier on our ability to conduct unannounced agency site visits for oversight purposes, to organize a retreat to discuss issues that are top of mind for the council, to strategize with ourselves or other branches of government on a federal response, or receive a confidential briefing on the status of important economic development projects or legal negotiations impacting the District government,” he said.

His amendment ultimately failed, garnering only four votes. But it did prompt Mendelson to propose his own successful alternative, limiting the scope of the bill to only the council. But in so doing, Mendelson pulled a sleight of hand: his amendment declared that only the council’s legislative and committee meetings would be considered public, while any other functions would be presumed closed. 

What could this mean in practice? The council’s monthly breakfast preceding every legislative session – where lawmakers often engage in spirited and unguarded debate on all sorts of issues – is now presumed closed, and open to the press only if Mendelson deems it so. As is the monthly breakfast between Bowser and the council. Even public hearings on bills and roundtable discussions can be closed to the public without any notice or justification.

When I asked Mendelson about whether this would happen, he said no – we should trust that he would keep them open.

“But we’d be trusting the good Mendelson,” I responded, noting that decisions on whether to open a variety of council functions to the press and public would come down to him. “What if evil Mendelson comes along and closes everything?” 

“Well, the evil Mendelson can be evil, but not in that way,” he responded.

That may well be true. But as Ward 4 Councilmember Janeese Lewis George pointed out during the council’s debate, the weight of the law matters more than someone’s promise to be merciful. “Even with the best intentions, the text of any law is what matters above all else. And so we must make sure the text of this bill does not allow for council activities to be closed when they should be open,” she said. 

The rest of the council seemed content with remaining the merciful guardians of the public’s access to its business; only Lewis George and Allen voted against the bill. But Mendelson promised to move quickly on a permanent version of the bill, saying he would schedule public hearings at the end of April or in early May.

Those, we expect, will be open to the public – unless the evil Mendelson decides otherwise.

Budgeting some extra time

Wednesday was supposed to have been a big day in D.C. politics, with Mayor Muriel Bowser having scheduled the unveiling of her proposed budget for the 2026 fiscal year – thus setting off the two-month council scramble to review and make changes to the government’s spending plans.

But the day came and went, with no budget to be had.

The delay comes in part due to the ongoing uncertainties over D.C.’s current budget, which as you might recall is facing a congressionally imposed cut of more than $1.1 billion that the House of Representatives has yet to resolve. 

Bowser aides say that they’re awaiting congressional action because that will determine whether they’d have to submit a revised version of the current 2025 budget to account for the cuts imposed by Congress. Lawmakers, though, say the two issues are separate; they argue that Bowser could unveil her 2026 budget now and manage any changes to the 2025 budget if they become necessary. 

Still, they concede there is overall uncertainty with the city’s budgets – largely the product of what’s happening on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. “There’s a lot of angst because no one is sure what’s going to happen,” said Mendelson earlier this week.

D.C. is already looking at a tight budget for the years to come; a recent revenue estimate by D.C. CFO Glen Lee shaved more than $1 billion in planned revenue off of the city’s books. On top of that, in March two ratings agencies – Moody’s and Fitch – put the city’s credit rating on watch because of the potential cuts that Congress has yet to fix. Should the agencies formally downgrade D.C.’s status, it would make it more costly for the city to borrow money – which would produce yet another budget hit. 

Speaking at a public safety event on Thursday, Bowser sounded a note of frustration over the fate of the city's current budget in Congress – and how it could affect crime rates in the city. "If our budget doesn’t pass and we have to look more closely at overtime spending for public safety officials, that will have an impact on crime. These are distractions that are completely avoidable and we need to have our budget issue resolved at the Congress and we need it done as soon as possible," she said.

Trayon is in

We can add one more name to the growing list of candidates for the empty Ward 8 seat on the D.C. Council – Trayon White, who was removed from that very seat earlier this year over federal bribery charges.

White filed paperwork to run for the seat he had occupied since 2017 earlier this week, joining the almost two-dozen candidates who are similarly vying to represent Ward 8 on the council. And in keeping with his distinct persona, White teased his bid on Instagram – much like when he announced he was running for mayor in 2022 via a comment on someone else’s Instagram post. 

Just like the other contenders, White will have until April 17 to submit 500 signatures from Ward 8 voters to get on the ballot for the July 15 special election. But it remains to be seen what type of campaign he mounts; as of this week, he had yet to open a campaign committee, which would allow him to fundraise and spend money promoting his candidacy. Two other contenders – Sheila Bunn and Salim Adofo – have already qualified for public funding, and have each received more than $60,000 they can put toward their campaigns.

Still, White sounded a note of confidence this week in an interview with WTOP. “Once I get on the ballot, it’s gonna become a problem for everyone who’s running,” he said. And he’s probably not wrong: given his name recognition in Ward 8, the more challengers he has the higher the probability that they split the vote against him.

But if he wins, the problem he faces is the very one that got him to this point – whether or not the council votes to oust him again. White isn’t set to go on trial until January 2026, but in February his former colleagues unanimously expelled him. There is nothing stopping them from doing so again should he reclaim the seat.