Heard in the Hall

Perhaps Camille Burnett has more of a "past" than she would like us to know. Please read the following from the Washington Business Journal:

"We are "shocked, shocked," to discover the District is paying Camille Barnett $500,000 for one year's mediocre work. That's the final tab for Barnett's salary, severance package and moving expenses for her cameo appearance as chief management officer.

Horror stories like this one are getting harder to come by, now that someone is actually monitoring the District's finances.

Camillegate's shock value, in fact, is a tribute to how far we've come from the not-so-distant days when the city's mistakes were frequently counted in millions, not thousands, of dollars.

But we still know foolishness when we see it, don't we?

The most delightful twist of irony, however, is that Camillegate isn't the District's doing -- not directly, anyway.

The fault lies with the stars, not the underlings: This boo-boo belongs to the D.C. financial control board.

Former control board Chairman Andrew Brimmer signed off on a number of wasteful boondoggles during his term, but the five-year contract given to Barnett in December 1997 tops them all.

Under the terms of that platinum parachute, Barnett is entitled to be paid her full $155,000 annual salary for all five years, whether or not she stayed and earned the $620,000 balance remaining.

In that light, giving Barnett $275,000 to go quietly is a bargain.

With the $345,000 saved, the city can hire a real hands-on manager for three years at a salary of $115,000 -- the same amount budgeted for the vacant city administrator's position.

Forget the calls for a congressional inquiry of Camillegate. It would be nice, however, if Congress picked up the check. After all, Congress created the control board and chief management officer's position. And as we now know, the control board signed Barnett to a sweetheart deal and billed the District's budget for it.

This is the type of boardroom boondoggle that occurs when Fortune 500 companies need to dump a chief executive. So it's not that surprising that Brimmer, who has sat on the boards of Gannett, DuPont, BankAmerica and Mercedes-Benz, wrote Barnett a blank check.

Brimmer also saw no waste in spending $800,000 to hire consultants for a 90-day study of District regulations, ignoring a year-long, first-class and essentially free report on the same thing by the D.C. Business Regulatory Reform Commission.

But Barnett's buyout is a fraction of the waste that occurred under the city's elected leaders before the control board was created in 1995. If the District's elected leaders had acted responsibly, there would be no control board, no Barnett and no buyout boondoggle."

Her contract said she was supposed to get paid for all 5 years, regardless of whether she served them, and she agreed to take less than that. Why did they give her such a silly contract in the first place? It's all in how you spin it.

I love how people are going out of their way to dig up as much dirt as they can on Nutter's cabinet appointments, while ignoring any positive coverage those people have gotten.

I'll just wait and see what happens. We'll eventually find out how good his choices turn out to be. Assuming, of course, that we can get around the spin from people like the previous commenter -- or from people who have only positive things to say while ignoring anything negative. The lack of objectivity in politics is appalling... but I guess that's to be expected, isn't it?

To the previous post, if you are so convinced of the positive choice for Managing Director, why didn't you sign your work other than "anonymous"?

Sorry, forgot to sign my name. It's Simon Malone.

This City has never had a MD as experienced and credentialed as Dr. Barnett. Good for you Philadelphia!

I do not see the connection with "spin" with the original comment. The Washington Business Journal was simply reporting the facts of Camille Barnett's settlement.

... and Mr "Glennon" introduced the article in such a way that the reader goes into it looking for negative comments about Dr Barnett, and might be pre-disposed to decide that she's a money grubbing swindler. It could well be that she is, but the article really doesn't give enough information to judge her one way or another on that particular issue. My point was that the poster apparently wanted to create a negative image of Barnett, and I stand by that.

I'm really sorry that I gave that impression by my introduction to the article from the Washington Business Journal. I was simply amazed that the news coverage regarding Ms. Barnett's appointment lacked much factual research. No spin was intended.

I love spin, its amazing how one can twist actual events. Harry Reid's office has a pretty amazing example of spin - http://bit.ly/bkfLRU