Photo by mosley.brian.

Remember back in mid-December, when the Council voted unanimously to remove Banneker Ventures — headed by Mayor Fenty’s fraternity buddy Omar Karim — from the city’s contracting rolls? Well, that obviously didn’t stop the city from giving them some money. The Post’s Nikita Stewart reports that the D.C. Housing Authority wrote a check to Banneker for $2.5 million dollars on Christmas Eve. At a another hearing on the latest Fenty/Council pissing match ongoing Department of Parks and Recreation construction kerfuffle, DCHA chief financial officer Debra Toothman testified that she approved the check’s release, without Council knowledge.

Councilmembers, as you can imagine, were none too pleased about the early Christmas present. From Stewart’s account of events:

“In all respects, this looks highly questionable,” council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) said. […] Council member Michael A. Brown (I-At Large) and others said someone should have contacted the council, particularly member Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5), chairman of the Committee on Libraries, Parks and Recreation, which is leading the investigation of the contract.

“The reason you didn’t make a phone call is because you knew he would raise hell,” Brown said.

Yeah, we get it, Council: you really would have liked it if you would have had the option to attempt to prevent DCHA from issuing a check in this particular crusade. But DCHA isn’t exactly in the wrong. Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development Valerie Santos told the Council during the hearing that the $2.5 million payment was due Banneker (including a consultant and 12 subcontractors) for services already provided between September and November. As far as this editor knows (note: while I’m not an attorney, I do have experience in administrating government contracts, including ones with the District), the city entered into a contract with Banneker for said services. If those milestones were performed to completion and without some kind of gross negligence, the city is pretty much bound to pay the agreed-upon amount. Otherwise, it’s lawsuit-a-palooza with not only Banneker, but probably most, if not all, of the 13 other parties who were due some slice of that pie.

Would the Council have rather dealt with a protracted legal fight with multiple plaintiffs than swallow their pride in issuing a one-off payment to an out-of-favor contractor? Sure appears that way.