WaPo Calls for Barry to Step Down

In an editorial released this morning, the Washington Post states that the DC Council should "censure Barry, strip him of important committee assignments and refer the allegations to the U.S. attorney's office and the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance."  But, a great, great point, that they also make is that "even if the council invokes the toughest sanctions available to it...it won't be enough to make up for what Mr. Barry's repeated misbehavior has cost the very people he professes to serve.  It frankly is disgusting to hear Mr. Barry talk ... about the needs of his resource-poor community when his main agenda has been his own welfare.  He seems not to recognize the connection between the deprivations of Ward 8 and his lack of effective leadership.  If Mr. Barry were really sorry, he would realize it is time for him to make way for someone who can deliver."

Well said, WaPo.

In response to my post about whether Barry should be impeached (earlier this week), a commentor has stated that the community should be ashamed for suggesting such a thing, and that if we feel any action should be taken, our only recourse is a recall election.  And as much as I hate to say it, the commentor is correct, but in my opinion, not for all the reasons he/she suggests.  This is the District of Columbia, not the House of Representatives, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the good people of the District of Columbia do not have the power to impeach our elected officials.  But if we did, should our local government do so?  What responsibility does our local government have to protect the citizens of this city?  Is it the same duty that the House/Senate has in terms of our President?  Should our officials be charged with holding our leaders accountable regardless of who voted them into office and should they be able to remove elected officials from office?

To explain to those of you who don't know, a recall election is usually initiated by voters and can be based on "political charges", for example mismanagement, and is usually, but not always, based on an indictable offense.

However, impeachment is a formal process in which an elected official is accused of unlawful activity by a legislative body, and which may or may not lead to the removal of that official from office.  Impeachment is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law.  An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment.  Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibility of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction where he was removed.

I think, we can all agree that what Barry has done is an indictable offense, and should be persued as such by both our community (via a recall) and our local government (via censure et. al). But if our local government had the right to impeach, should they? 

In my opinion, since Barry's actions do not just affect Ward 8, but also the entire city--then the Ward 8 community, should not be the only entity that gets to decide Barry's fate.  I believe the local government has a duty to uphold the law and hold Barry accountable as well, and if impeachment were an option, we should persue it.