Graham addressing reporters following his reprimand by the D.C. Council. (Photo by Benjamin R. Freed)

The D.C. Council voted overwhelmingly to rebuke one of its own today when it reprimanded Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) over an investigation into his role in the awarding of a 2009 D.C. Lottery contract.

Reacting to a report earlier this month by the Board of Ethics and Governmental Accountability that found “substantial evidence” that Graham used his position as a Metro board member to persuade a potential contractor to back off in exchange for getting the lottery deal, Council Chairman Phil Mendelson scheduled an emergency session to issue a reprimand against Graham and strip him of one of his biggest oversight roles.

“It is an uncomfortable day for the District of Columbia,” Mendelson said in his opening remarks on his reprimand resolution. Though a reprimand comes with no actual punishment, the motion against Graham marks just the second time in the history of the D.C. Council has cracked down on one of its own members.

Most members indicated they planned to support the reprimand as they headed into the Council chamber at the John A. Wilson Building.

“It’s the right thing to do,” Anita Bonds (D-At Large) said.

Only Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), who was censured in 2010, came to Graham’s defense. During his speaking time on the dais, Barry read from the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, saying that in issuing the reprimand, the Council was violating Graham’s right to due process.

“One’s life and liberty cannot depend on political bargaining,” Barry said before the session. Barry called out the attorneys who sit on the Council, particularly Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3), who is also a professor of constitutional law.

But the reprimand faced little opposition. It passed on 11-2 vote, with only Barry and Graham voting no. The debate over the resolution also featured some peculiar statements on the importance of the Council’s attempts to maintain the public trust. David Grosso (I-At Large) addressed this point by reading aloud emails he has received since being sworn in. “Great job, David!” he said.

The other resolution today moved oversight of the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration from Graham’s Human Services Committee to the Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Committee, which is chaired by Vincent Orange (D-At Large). Although Graham has long been associated with the regulation of D.C.’s alcohol sales and liquor licensing, Mendelson said after the hearing that the change in ABRA oversight was designed to add some weight to today’s reprimand, which on its own is little more than a statement expressing the sense of the Council. That motion passed 10-2, with Barry and Graham again opposing, and Orange voting “present.”

Graham said after the votes that he and his lawyers are still pursuing their case against the ethics board, which Graham has said violated his constitutional rights. But he said that he is trying to put the reprimand behind him.

“I’m relieved, because it’s over,” he said. Graham did not give a firm answer to questions about whether he plans to seek a fifth term next year, saying only that he will leave it to the Democratic primary.

Following the hearing, Mendelson reiterated his statements from last week that the reprimand was issued because the inquiries into Graham’s conduct on the lottery and Metro contracts undermined public confidence in the D.C. Council. Even though investigations by the ethics board, the Office of the Inspector General, and a law firm hired by Metro found that Graham did not receive any financial benefit, Mendelson said the suggestion of influence-peddling was damaging to the Council’s reputation.

“The issue is public’s trust in government,” the chairman said. “This was a barter not with councilmembers, but between potential contractors. There is no question the public’s confidence has been harmed.”