Dixon's friend Dale Clark
Do you think we could get this settled? I mean -- a mayor being in trouble with the law after being elected -- that would be pretty embarassing, and the last thing Baltimore needs.
As citizens of this city prepare to vote in the primary less than two weeks from now, it would be helpful to know if the Present Mayor, Sheila Dixon, has operated within the bounds of the law with regard to city contracts and other matters stemming from her reign as City Council President.
We still do not have an answer to the nagging questions raised by the Sun's investigations last year. But the Maryland State Prosecutor is apparently still knocking on this door.
The state prosecutor charged Dale Clark, Dixon's longtime friend and former campaign chairman, with failing to file state income taxes in 2002, 2003, 2004 -- years during which Clark was feeding at City Hall's trough.
(Some friend: "Hey, Sheila, forgot to tellya -- I won't be filing tax returns during the years I'm workin' for you.")
Clark's company received some $600,000 in no-bid computer services contracts through Dixon's office -- all without a written contract. We still don't know if this was a matter of Dixon kicking back some gelt to a friend, or bureaucratic ineptitude. We do know that a member of Dixon's staff discussed keeping payments to Clark below $5,000 each because anything above that would have required Board of Estimates approval.
And we know this: Dixon did not take responsibility for the questionable payments to Clark. She blamed her staff.
The most troubling aspect of this whole affair -- why it's hard to accept it as a mistake -- is the effort to keep the payments to Clark under $5,000. How is it possible Dixon knew nothing about that?
According to Sun reports last year, Dixon had personally crafted a no-bid contract for Clark. Though that deal expired in March 2001, Clark continued to get paid without a contract. Dixon said at the time that she was wrong for setting up the deal and that she would seek competitive bids.
OK. . . But a month later, on May 3, 2001, Tripps sent Clark an e-mail suggesting a way around the rule requiring board approval for contracts. The aide suggested Clark just submit invoices for amounts under $5,000.
What was Dixon's reaction at the time The Sun published stories on the matter?
She accused us of printing "lies" about her and her staff. "There were mistakes made in my office that I had no knowledge of, in some cases," she said.
What did Dixon have to say yesterday? Asked whether she had been cooperating with the state prosecutor, she said: "You'll have to take that up with my attorney."
Like the transparency there?
You can't rush justice. But it would be nice to know if the state prosecutor has found real corruption here -- not just unpaid taxes by the mayor's friend -- and the sooner the better, before the election please. Dixon and voters deserve to know one way or the other if she's on the hook.
Comments
Thanks Mr. Rodricks for rehashing the same old story again that the Sun's reporters just rehashed on the main pages of your newspaper.
Your thoughts aren't so Random after all I suppose.
No where in your blah, blah did you mention the fact that the State Prosecutor has said nothing about Sheila Dixon doing anything wrong or the fact that the city Ethics Board said she did nothing wrong.
No where in your blah, blah do you mention that after a bunch of innuendo about wrong doing at City Hall, all the state prosecutor charged Dale Clark with was not paying his taxes.
Tell the whole story. Sorry you missed out on your Pulitzer for being the great "white hope" for drug addicts trying to find jobs, maybe you'll get one for telling half-truths about Sheila Dixon.
Posted by: Joi | August 30, 2007 5:19 PM
Are you serious, Joi? You're attacking Dan, and negating the genocide that is taking place as we speak. I just don't get it. How many more young black men have to die before somebody actually realizes what's going on in Baltimore? How many more mothers need to lose a son? How many sons need to lose thier fathers? Dixon hasn't done a damn thing besides console the perpetrators of these crimes. She's been more critical of the Police and Fire chiefs than the thugs that actually run our city. Although, I do acknowledge she one thing right... As a Terps fan, I do thank her for looking after Juan. But please, her "community policing" is literally killing the communities of Baltimore. I really don't care about her corrupt behavior as much her denying public safety to our citizens. Wake up people. Genocide on the Streets of Baltimore is the most important story day in and day out. I hammer ol Danny Boy for not being critical enough of O'Malley, but I give him credit for the positive initiatives he promotes in the city. Why don't you respond, and tell us the whole truth about Sheila? Tell us how she's not accountable for tolerating genocide? You have your chance now to share why we should vote for her. I'm listening...
Posted by: Justin Proctor | August 30, 2007 6:36 PM
The fact that a friend of Sheila Dixon is under indictment for failing to file taxes does not mean she is not the best candidate for Baltimore's future. What are voters being asked to do? Decide between Dixon and her nearest nearest opponent, Keiffer Mitchell, on the grounds of her over-all record, her work ethic, and her vision for the City, or on the grounds of their fear (of what might happen after September 11, 2007)? Should the voters on the fear that Mitchell, Aundrey Bunley, Jill Carter, and the other mayoral candidates might all perish in an Ocean City rip-current after September rush and vote for Dixon? Or should they climb outside of their emotions (which are probably being manipulated bysome invisibly and purely selfish interests) decide on some more responsible and solid grounds. And please! Don't give me the business that patronage, cronyism, or nepotism was nonexistent in Baltimore City government prior to its first Black mayor. Baltimore City government was born to patronage, cronysim, and nepotism. It was formatted on the Tammany Hallism of New York City. It was nurtured and institutionalized starting with the Irish in the latter 1800s, on through the Jewish, Italian, German, and Greek Politicians of the 1990s. It use to be overt. Today, it is covert, hiddened behind "respectability!" Today, patronage operates from high offices, where power-hungy men can play God with the laws via their cronies in media! All it takes is a phone call to a reporter to swing an election? You mean, after more than a hundred years of city government this kind of 'gotcha-politics' is still being played?! No wonder our city is in such a mess!!!
Posted by: Charles Brown | August 30, 2007 6:47 PM
. I think she will be elected mayor but hope and pray I am wrong, since it will dismantle everything positive that happened under the O'Malley administration.
But I will never, ever vote for her.
F
Posted by: Anonynous | August 30, 2007 9:12 PM
We are talking about Dixon's "friend" indicted. How soon do you think it will be before hes pills the beans on her. Be real, why else would anyone care about him. I still want to know the results of the Mitchell campaign finance audit that he claimed was to follow is $56,000 scandal of purported misuse of campaign finance money. It looks like both of the Sun's top two candidates for mayor (I say the Sun's because when you talk to residents and voters, very few like these two candidates) have difficulty with "transparency" and family and friends' financial integrity.
Sheila, I think your goose is about to be cooked. Keiffer, I think it's suspicious that you haven't yet accountd for the $56,000 in "campaign expenditures". Good thing, the people get to elect a mayor of their choosing on September 11.
Posted by: Nicole | August 30, 2007 9:24 PM
I couldn't have said it better myself! Please pursue this matter like a hound dog!
Posted by: Anonymous | August 30, 2007 10:41 PM
If the so-called number one candidate is unethical and the expressed number two candidate is unethical, then that leaves the real candidate and the new number one - Jill Carter.
Come on, what are you afraid of? She received more votes in 06 than any delegate in the state of Maryland. She is the sleeper...
Posted by: Brenda Easley | August 31, 2007 1:43 AM
Mitchell is far from unethical.
Posted by: Lisa | August 31, 2007 10:15 AM
Let be real people, I've been out with both Dixon and Clark and if you think Dixon did not know what was going on...you must be as dumb as George Bush...!
Posted by: Anonymous | September 7, 2007 8:39 PM
Thanks, Dan, for keeping this story in the public's mind. Your paper, unfortunately, reports on it but likes to bury it in the middle of an article as if it's inconsequential (I guess it wouldn't look good to endorse a potential criminal).
Posted by: rudy_d | September 7, 2007 9:38 PM