Photo by Mr. T in DC.

During a lengthy hearing yesterday, members of a D.C. Council committee discussed how best to address the ethical scandals which have plagued the District’s elected leaders this year. But even after seven hours of testimony and pointed questions, little consensus emerged as to how serious the internal ethics rot might be, how dramatically legislators may have to overhaul laws and enforcement mechanisms and how quickly they should act.

The 30 residents, government watchdogs and officials that testified pitched proposals ranging from the establishment of an internal ethics commission to public financing of campaigns. The D.C. GOP laid out 33 ethics fixes, while longtime political consultant Chuck Thies proposed an immediate suspension of chairmanships and voting privileges for any councilmember indicted for a felony. (Currently, an elected official can only be removed from office if incarcerated for a felony.)

Former At-Large candidate Bryan Weaver pushed for stronger enforcement of laws against the bundling of campaign contributions, while Councilmember David Catania (I-At Large) suggested a Connecticut-styled commission that could police legislators and lobbyists and only publicize investigations after a member of the judiciary had ruled that enough evidence existed. For Councilmember Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), the answer was more aggressive disclosure rules and penalties for failing to follow them.

The responsibility of cobbling together a comprehensive legislative solution from 10 proposed bills and the hours of debate now falls on Councilmember Muriel Bowser (D-Ward 4), who said yesterday that she planned on moving something out of committee by the end of November and presenting it to the full Council by December.

In calling for a “transformative approach” to dealing with ethics in the District’s government, Bowser further hinted that she’d look to split up the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics into two distinct entities. Under the Bowser plan, a new Board of Ethics and Government Accountability would be created and vested with the sole responsibility of centralizing ethics regulations and enforcement across the government. The Open Government Office, which was created as part of a new Open Meetings Law earlier this year but has yet to take shape, would also exist within the new ethics board.

In his testimony, BOEE’s General Counsel Kenneth McGhie largely sided with Bowser’s proposal, arguing that existing D.C. ethics laws are “fragmented” and that enforcement has been left to a number of different agencies, creating gaps.

“Personally, I believe that an entirely new office for ethics compliance or a chief ethics compliance officer position should be created. This new entity or position should be primarily responsible for overseeing and managing compliance with our ethics laws,” McGhie said. He also noted that BOEE, which was created in 1955, was only vested with responsibility of the city’s ethics laws in 1977.

Regardless, a new ethics office may run into opposition. Councilmember Vincent Orange (D-At Large), who remained at the hearing through its entirety, argued that a new office would split what few resources BOEE and the Office of Campaign Finance currently have. Moreover, Orange said he was concerned that the committee was looking to act expediently rather than intelligently.

“We’re on such a fast pace right now; I’m unsure of the final quality of the product. I’m a little bothered by the fact that both Bowser and [Kwame] Brown have indicated that they’ll have a bill by the end of the year. I’m more concerned about getting it right,” he said.

Orange’s own proposal to create an ethics task force that would work over the course of a year was bolstered when McGhie noted that New Jersey had established a successful ethics taskforce of its own. Still, Orange’s proposed task force was voted down by his colleagues earlier this month, and Bowser seems intent on moving forward as quickly as possible.

Despite not having originally planned for it, Bowser grudgingly admitted yesterday evening that a second hearing may be necessary to review whatever comprehensive proposal she puts together. Should that hearing happen, it could push the timeline for a full Council vote to the end of the year or the beginning of 2012.

See also: Post, Mike DeBonis, Examiner, Washington Times, WAMU.