Chairman Phil Mendelson is calling for the D.C. Council to reprimand Jack Evans, the Ward 2 councilmember facing mounting allegations that he has used his elected office for personal gain. Emails released by the Washington Post last week show he used his council email address to send business proposals to law firms that lobby city officials, leveraging his connections as the longest-serving current councilmember and chair of the Metro Board.

“The issue is quite clear and it doesn’t require an investigation,” Mendelson said after the Council breakfast on Tuesday, referring specifically to those emails. “Using Council resources to seek private gain is a violation of our code of conduct.”

Mendelson’s office released the reprimand resolution on Tuesday afternoon, with the notion of scheduling a vote in two weeks’ time. The resolution lays out how Evans “directed a Council employee to use government resources to email business proposals seeking employment” and “knowingly used the prestige of his office and public position seeking private gain.” The resolution states that “this reprimand does not concern other allegations that have been reported in the public press” aside from the emails in question.

According to D.C. Council rules, a reprimand is a “formal statement of the Council officially disapproving the conduct of one of its members.” (Unlike a censure, it is not technically punishment or discipline, and so it doesn’t necessitate an investigation or hearing.)

So far, three councilmembers, 11 advisory neighborhood commissioners, and the Washington Post editorial board have called for a special committee to further investigate Evans’ “ethical judgement” and potentially strip him of his finance committee chairmanship. The Post’s release of the emails on Friday follows longstanding questions about his relationship with an electric sign company, which has prompted a federal grand jury to issue a subpoena for more information.

At-Large Councilmember David Grosso, who has backed an ad hoc committee since at least December, characterized a reprimand in a statement as “merely a slap on the wrist, allowing the Council to check a box and move on,” because Evans would keep his chairmanship and the Council wouldn’t further probe Evans’ actions. “Based on media reports over the past year, this does not appear to be an isolated incident, but rather a pattern of behavior.”

Mendelson maintained that the reprimand was the right course of action for now. “Other issues that are swirling are issues that are being investigated by the U.S. Attorney or by [the Board of Ethics and Government Accountability], and if we were to try to enter that field right now, they would push us back,” he said. “I think a reprimand is a better way to go at this point. It’s a highly unusual action for this council to take … If there are further revelations, we’ll revisit whether there should be further sanctions.”

The last time the Council reprimanded one of its members, it was then-Ward 1 Councilmember Jim Graham in 2013, for “substantial evidence” he broke the code of conduct for city employees when awarding a D.C. Lottery contract. He was voted out of office the following year.

Ward 7 Councilmember Vincent Gray, a former council chairman, said that it was “a very difficult position for a chairman to be in, and you want to do the right thing, and I think that the balance, if there is such a thing, to be struck, and I think Phil has found that. I’m sure Jack doesn’t like it, because he doesn’t feel like he did anything. On the other hand, you’ve got to say something … [Mendelson] is trying to show that the leadership of the Council is taking action on this situation. I think it’s a responsible effort on his part to let people ponder, to think about this, not try to rush it through today.”

Shortly after the Council breakfast on Tuesday morning, Evans stood in front of flashing media cameras and apologized. “I would have done a lot of things different,” he said. “I certainly made some major mistakes and I want to take this opportunity to apologize to my constituents, to the residents of the District of Columbia, and to my colleagues, and so, that’s all I have to say.”

But what, exactly, was he apologizing for? The emails showing he touted his role as a government official to win private employment, which are subjecting him to multiple investigations, including one from the Metro board? The relationship with an electric sign company that has similarly prompted investigations? Evans declined to answer further questions from media.

It was “just a blanket statement of an apology,” his spokesperson, Joe Florio, tells DCist.

Previously:
Notes On A Scandal: WTF Is Going On With Ward 2’s Jack Evans?

This story has been updated with the draft of the resolution and comment from Councilmember Vincent Gray.