The Post reported this morning that D.C. Council contender Elissa Silverman offered fellow candidate Matthew Frumin support for a bid against Councilmember Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) if he dropped out of the race for an At-Large seat that will be decided tomorrow. But today Silverman disputes that claim, releasing emails that she says prove that no such deal was offered.

In an email to Frumin sent on April 14 and marked “CONFIDENTIAL,” Silverman said that the results of a recent poll showed that if he stayed in the race he would put a possible victory for her at risk. The poll found Interim Councilmember Anita Bonds (D-At Large) leading with 19 percent, Silverman and Republican Patrick Mara tied at 13 percent and Frumin drawing eight percent.

“I know you and Ken spoke,” wrote Silverman, referring to Ken Archer, her campaign treasurer and a friend of Frumin’s. “Our campaign’s feeling is that voters are deciding between you and me, not Mara. I know you want the best for our city. I think this shows I have a bit more momentum and citywide reach. I think working together, we can see a progressive win this seat and swing momentum toward an agenda we both want. I’d hate for the difference in the election to be a few hundred votes.”

“I would be happy to talk about how I can help reach your goals in the future, because I’d love to see you remain a vocal school and reform advocate,” she concluded. (The full emails are here.)

Frumin rebuffed her suggestion, though, saying that the poll wasn’t accurate.

“As you might imagine, there is a ton about the attached poll that calls into question its likely accuracy as a guide of what might happen on April 23rd. As you suggest, one area is who are the likely voters. The poll does not appear to even attempt to discern that and appears to be based on registered voters and then suggests close to 70% of them will definitely vote. Perhaps I am missing something but that does not strike me as likely. Even with all the grounds for skepticism the poll invites, it puts the figure of undecideds at 43%— all kinds of room for dramatic movement,” he wrote.

“There is just no way a poll like this one could form the basis for the kind of decision you are asking me to make. I do not fault you for making the suggestion, but cannot imagine you would react differently in my shoes.”

In an interview, Archer denied a formal deal was offered. “I didn’t offer any deal,” he said. Archer said that he spoke to Frumin only as a friend; Frumin had come to Archer early in the campaign and asked for his support, but Archer was already committed to Silverman. Archer said that he was only raising “hypothetical scenarios.” (Archer tweeted an explanation this morning.)

Still, both in Silverman’s email and Archer’s account of his exchange with Frumin, the hint of a deal seems to come through. “I would be happy to support and endorse you if you decided on a run in Ward 3 or if another seat opened up,” wrote Silverman in an email responding to Frumin.

The hint of a deal could be problematic for Silverman, who has run for the seat on the promise that she would be more transparent and accountable than existing legislators and her competitors. (Last week she did follow up on a promise to release her tax returns.) There’s an additional level of awkwardness: Silverman’s campaign chairperson is former Ward 3 councilmember Kathy Patterson, who supported Cheh in her run for the seat in 2006.