- The Washington Times - Thursday, February 28, 2002

The D.C. Office of Personnel yesterday confirmed in a report that the inspector general is a bona fide D.C. resident and put to rest questions about his compliance with the city's residency requirement for high-level government workers.
D.C. personnel officials had called in Brightline Compliance, an independent investigation and consulting firm, to review the testimony of D.C. Inspector General Charles C. Maddox and determine whether he resides in the District or Maryland.
Yesterday, D.C. Personnel Director Milou Carolan affirmed Brightline's conclusion that Mr. Maddox lives in the city and meets the residency requirements set forth in the D.C. Code.
"Based on the totality of the evidence provided, I concur with the assessment of the investigators … that Mr. Maddox is in compliance," Mrs. Carolan said in the report.
"There certainly should be no question now that I am a District resident," said Mr. Maddox, who had been accused of skirting the District's residency requirement.
"None of the allegations were proved to be true, and they were all based on hearsay," he said.
But some D.C. Council members said the report did not change their "no-confidence" position on Mr. Maddox, nor did the report convince them that he is a D.C. resident.
"It doesn't change anything, in my eyes," said council member David A. Catania, at-large Republican.
Mr. Catania said he was not surprised by the D.C. personnel office's findings, but said that the report carries no weight with the council.
"Only the Corporation Counsel can issue a report of any substance for the D.C. government," he said.
Kathy Patterson, Ward 3 Democrat, said she, too, remains unconvinced, but added that the report will aid the council in future residency-requirement decisions.
"I think it was a good report from a consultant that will help us review and look at our laws in the near future," Mrs. Patterson said.
"I don't think we will revisit the issue."
It appeared to some that Mr. Maddox's house in Fort Washington was his principal residence, which led to several hearings during which council members determined that the inspector general did not live in the District.
The Washington Times reported last month that at a Jan. 17 hearing, D.C. Council member Vincent B. Orange Sr., Ward 5 Democrat, questioned Mr. Maddox's residency and term-limit status, as well as his qualifications as inspector general.
Mr. Orange said he thought Mr. Maddox was serving the remainder of former Inspector General E. Barrett Prettyman's term, which ended on Jan. 15.
But Mrs. Carolan; Daniel A. Rezneck, former general counsel for the financial control board; and Mr. Prettyman testified on Mr. Maddox's behalf, saying he definitely was serving a new six-year term.
Mrs. Carolan also testified that Mr. Maddox had fulfilled the residency requirement.
Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp requested that an investigation into Mr. Maddox's residency be conducted before any further action was taken.
On Feb. 5, the D.C. Council unanimously voted "no confidence" in Mr. Maddox, who said later he holds no ill will towards the council and remains convinced that neither the no-confidence vote nor the investigation were politically motivated.
"I am pleased Chairman Cropp took the initiative to conduct a thorough and independent investigation into these allegations," Mr. Maddox said. "I will continue to do my job and report to them [the council] as required."
Mr. Maddox did testify during the Jan. 17 hearing that he owns two condominiums in the District one of which he shares with his adult son at Logan Circle in Northwest and a residence in Upper Marlboro, which he said is his wife's principal residence.
Mr. Maddox told the Times that last year his Maryland home was taxed as part of his principal residence.
"I amended my taxes within a week after that became an issue," he said.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide