METRO BOARD Chairman Jack Evans has acknowledged — contrary to his earlier outspoken denials — that he did indeed violate the transit system’s ethical code of conduct by failing to disclose a conflict of interest. He apologized and said he will resign from the Metro board. Mr. Evans had no other choice; his credibility was shattered, he could no longer serve effectively, and his continued presence would have harmed Metro in Congress and the region.
But Mr. Evans’s departure from the board does not put an end to the troubling questions that surround his actions and statements. There needs to be a fuller and more public airing — by the full Metro board, as well as the D.C. Council, on which Mr. Evans (D-Ward 2) also serves — of allegations that he blurred the line between public office and personal business interests. There also must be an examination of the serious flaws of the investigation by the ethics committee. It was conducted in a way that has inspired little public confidence; “a clown show” was the apt description of a Metro board member quoted by The Post’s Robert McCartney.
Mr. Evans came under scrutiny in March after The Post reported that he tried to market himself to the private sector touting his influence and connections as Metro board chairman and a District council member. In May, Metro ethics committee Chair Clarence W. Crawford announced that “the matter has been resolved” — while refusing to disclose the findings or even explain how the probe was conducted. This week, hours after receiving a letter from the governors of Maryland and Virginia urging disclosure, Mr. Crawford changed course. He released a letter revealing that the law firm hired to investigate Mr. Evans found multiple ethics rules violations, while the four-member committee could agree on only one.
That one is serious enough. Mr. Evans was getting paid $50,000 to do consulting work for a parking company while trying to instigate an investigation by Metro’s inspector general into one of the client’s competitors. To make matters worse, Mr. Evans did not see fit to disclose the arrangement. Mr. Evans’s client wasn’t doing business or seeking to do business with Metro, but he — a lawyer and veteran lawmaker — should have realized there was a conflict or, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict. He should return the $50,000.
The public also is entitled to know more about the allegations against Mr. Evans on which the ethics committee failed to agree. It is beyond comprehension that the law firm was not required to prepare a written report and that no minutes were kept of the secret committee meeting in which its findings were discussed. An internal memo written by the law firm after the ethics committee closed its investigation summarizes its findings and alleges a pattern of misconduct by Mr. Evans in which he used his office to help friends and clients. Those findings must be aired in public.
Mr. Evans’s activities are also being scrutinized by federal authorities who have subpoenaed records from the D.C. government related to Mr. Evans and his private clients. We urge them to show urgency in bringing resolution to this matter.
Read more: