The District’s Board of Ethics and Government Accountability ruled that while there is “substantial evidence” that Councilmember Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) broke the code of conduct for D.C. employees in the awarding of a lottery contract, Graham will not be subject to any official sanctions.

In a ruling released today, the board said that because it was not empowered in 2008, when Graham is accused of having support a bidder to run the D.C. Lottery in exchange for that company withdrawing from the competition for a Metro building project. At the time, Graham represented the District on the board of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

But because the ethics board also concluded that it lacks the legal authority to properly punish Graham, it declined to order a fuller investigation. “Councilman Graham engaged in conduct that adversely affected the public confidence in the integrity of government,” the board wrote. “Given this evidence, we would vote to begin a formal investigation and issue a notice of violation. We are, however, without any sanction authority.”

The board found that Graham’s actions reeked of “pay to play” politics, but stopped short of going further in its condemnation of the councilmember because it could not determine if the five-year statute of limitations in the ethics law passed by the D.C. Council in late 2011 empowers can be applied retroactively. Graham was effectively chewed out, but will not face any further proceedings.

Had the board elected to go ahead, though, Graham would have had more of an opportunity to rebut the allegations, which he has consistently denied. In a statement from Graham’s office, the councilmember’s lawyer, William W. Taylor III, slammed the board.

“It is disappointing and unfair, however, for the Board to purport to make ‘findings’ which Mr. Graham has no opportunity to contest and had no notice would be at issue in this matter,” Taylor wrote. “The Board had not conducted a hearing in which any fact-finding could occur. Mr. Graham has not even seen the evidence upon which the so called Cadwalader Report relied. He has had no opportunity to question any witness or to present evidence. We regret that the Board found it necessary or appropriate to make these observations in the course of dismissing the proceeding. We are now considering our legal options.”