Contracts in the shadows

THE MORE you learn about how Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's administration bypassed the D.C. Council to award tens of millions of dollars in contracts, the more troubling it becomes. It's critical that these deals be submitted to the council for thorough review and, if warranted, revocation.

The administration funneled an estimated $82 million through the D.C. Housing Authority for construction contracts that ended up being awarded -- without the required council approval -- to some firms with connections to the mayor. A council hearing on Friday raised questions about the selection of Banneker Ventures, owned by a friend and supporter of Mr. Fenty, to manage a number of projects. Council members want to know why it was paid more than $4.2 million to do a job that the Department of Parks and Recreation has a staff to do. Even more worrisome is why it was allowed to distribute million of dollars in contracts to firms apparently of its choosing, some of which also have ties to Mr. Fenty. One firm receiving a subcontract is owned by the mayor's long-time friend, Keith Lomax, who recently made news when he was spotted driving the mayor's city car.

Administration officials say the practice of using the housing authority's procurement process predates them and is the fastest and most efficient way to get work done. Mr. Fenty's record of building and refurbishing recreation centers and parks is admirable, so it would be a shame to see that progress undermined by questionable practices.

City Administrator Neil O. Albert told us that the administration has "nothing to hide" and will cooperate with the council. He said the administration will submit any contract that hasn't been signed -- and the vast majority have not not been -- to the council for approval. The administration also will provide all information and any witnesses the council needs to determine whether the contract with Banneker, already signed, was appropriately bid and awarded.

Mr. Albert will be returning to the council for another session on Thursday. We would like to suggest to council members that if they truly want to get some answers, they should give government witnesses an opportunity to answer. The tendency of council members -- as evidenced in recent public hearings -- to interrupt, insult and bully those testifying does not reflect well on them; nor does it serve the public interest. The administration may have plenty to answer for here; let's hear the answers.