CFO in the Hot Seat

Natwar Gandhi may be on shaky ground, but his office's independence shouldn't be.

THE ALLEGATIONS of thievery from the District's tax office have provoked understandable questions about the D.C. chief

financial officer, who was supposed to oversee the office and guarantee its integrity. The questions center both on whether the incumbent, Natwar M. Gandhi, is still the right person for the job and on whether the job itself should be redefined to render the CFO less independent. To the first, we offer an equivocal yes; to the second, an unequivocal no.

Mr. Gandhi, though several layers removed from the alleged swindlers, can't escape responsibility. The scheme may have been hatched when he still headed the implicated office. Later, he brushed off D.C. Auditor Deborah K. Nichols when she raised red flags about a spike in the amount of tax refunds going out. In testimony to the council Thursday, Mr. Gandhi could not bring himself to say that Ms. Nichols was right and that her concerns should have been acted on. That refusal only gave credence to her testimony that the office of the CFO is arrogant and dismissive of criticism.

At the same time, the totality of his accomplishments, his ability to drive needed reform and the impact of his departure on the District's fiscal standing must be carefully considered. When Mr. Gandhi was lured here 10 years ago by Anthony A. Williams, then the chief financial officer, dysfunction and cronyism were legion. The city was the butt of late-night TV jokes. The Office of Tax and Revenue that Mr. Gandhi took over was a shambles, with tax returns piled on the floor and documents stuffed into shoeboxes. Mr. Gandhi overhauled the office, installing new technology, improving service and bringing reforms that resulted in more revenue. He built on that work when he was promoted to CFO. Indeed, that the District is no longer under the thumb of a control board and enjoys an enviable financial reputation is due, in large measure, to Mr. Gandhi.

There is still much to be learned about how two low-level employees in the tax office allegedly pulled off the largest local government scam ever in the Washington region. If continuing inquiries by prosecutors and the D.C. inspector general point to greater fault, Mr. Gandhi's status can be reconsidered; he has said he will not stay if Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and the D.C. Council lose confidence in him. But Mr. Gandhi realizes how this scandal has eroded the trust he helped to restore in this government and its finances, and he has outlined an energetic strategy of improvements. No one is more motivated than the proud Mr. Gandhi, and no one has his skills, experience and track record.

Meanwhile, if the council seizes on this scandal as an excuse to seek to limit the CFO's independence, the blow to confidence in the District's finances will be far greater. The CFO, who can be removed only at the mayor's behest with a two-thirds vote of the council, is largely protected from the vagaries of city politics. He should remain so. Those who would tamper with his authority or his independence would do well to answer the question of whether the District was better off before Natwar Gandhi set up shop.