Where did Jack Evans get the cash to afford those fancy Georgetown digs????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The difference between Evans's job and Cheh's is that a law firm is likely to represent clients with DC contracts; a professor does not have that problem. If you Google, you immediately find possible conflicts involving hotel and gaming interests, for example.

This view is too simplistic. Cheh is a tenured professor at GWU, which has numerous issues before city agencies from its campus plans (in Foggy Bottom and Foxhall Road) to its hospital. GW is also one of the city's largest employers. There are lots of potenial conflicts of interest resulting from Cheh's work for the university and the council. Hopefully she manages it by recusal in appropriate cases. My point is, it's no more of less than Evans' potential conflicts, just different.

A professor is paid to teach, not to represent the University's interests. I concede that any outside job has the potential of conflict, and I support making the Council being a full time position, but I still maintain that being paid specifically to represent the interests of those who have financial dealings with the District is qualitatively different from other outside jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The difference between Evans's job and Cheh's is that a law firm is likely to represent clients with DC contracts; a professor does not have that problem. If you Google, you immediately find possible conflicts involving hotel and gaming interests, for example.

This view is too simplistic. Cheh is a tenured professor at GWU, which has numerous issues before city agencies from its campus plans (in Foggy Bottom and Foxhall Road) to its hospital. GW is also one of the city's largest employers. There are lots of potenial conflicts of interest resulting from Cheh's work for the university and the council. Hopefully she manages it by recusal in appropriate cases. My point is, it's no more of less than Evans' potential conflicts, just different.

A professor is paid to teach, not to represent the University's interests. I concede that any outside job has the potential of conflict, and I support making the Council being a full time position, but I still maintain that being paid specifically to represent the interests of those who have financial dealings with the District is qualitatively different from other outside jobs.

Professors are greatly impacted by, and involved in, campus planning issues. And Cheh is just as close to her provost as Evans is to some other attorney in his firm who might have business in front of the district.

[Anonymous]

I think it is a lovely home! I like houses that have tons of white, black/dark brown and neutral; it's not my personal style for every room of the house but I enjoy it.

I think it works really great for beach houses.

I do think the house looks really "done" for 8 people living there. My house is pretty "done" but it has far more personality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The difference between Evans's job and Cheh's is that a law firm is likely to represent clients with DC contracts; a professor does not have that problem. If you Google, you immediately find possible conflicts involving hotel and gaming interests, for example.

This view is too simplistic. Cheh is a tenured professor at GWU, which has numerous issues before city agencies from its campus plans (in Foggy Bottom and Foxhall Road) to its hospital. GW is also one of the city's largest employers. There are lots of potenial conflicts of interest resulting from Cheh's work for the university and the council. Hopefully she manages it by recusal in appropriate cases. My point is, it's no more of less than Evans' potential conflicts, just different.

A professor is paid to teach, not to represent the University's interests. I concede that any outside job has the potential of conflict, and I support making the Council being a full time position, but I still maintain that being paid specifically to represent the interests of those who have financial dealings with the District is qualitatively different from other outside jobs.

If you know anything about ethics law, which it sounds like you don't, it doesn't really matter if she's representing them or employed by them, she still has (or doesn't have) a conflict of interest because actions affecting her employer might have a direct and predictable financial effect on her.

As long as each of them properly recuse I don't see any particular issue ...

[Anonymous]

AT any given point in time, up to half the Council seems to practice law privately in addition to being a Council member.

It might be best to make it a full time position. Without a big salary bump, we'd get a totally different pool of people running. Is it better to have people who don't need the money, but who have potential conflicts of interest, or people for whom this is their livelihood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The difference between Evans's job and Cheh's is that a law firm is likely to represent clients with DC contracts; a professor does not have that problem. If you Google, you immediately find possible conflicts involving hotel and gaming interests, for example.

This view is too simplistic. Cheh is a tenured professor at GWU, which has numerous issues before city agencies from its campus plans (in Foggy Bottom and Foxhall Road) to its hospital. GW is also one of the city's largest employers. There are lots of potenial conflicts of interest resulting from Cheh's work for the university and the council. Hopefully she manages it by recusal in appropriate cases. My point is, it's no more of less than Evans' potential conflicts, just different.

A professor is paid to teach, not to represent the University's interests. I concede that any outside job has the potential of conflict, and I support making the Council being a full time position, but I still maintain that being paid specifically to represent the interests of those who have financial dealings with the District is qualitatively different from other outside jobs.

If you know anything about ethics law, which it sounds like you don't, it doesn't really matter if she's representing them or employed by them, she still has (or doesn't have) a conflict of interest because actions affecting her employer might have a direct and predictable financial effect on her.

As long as each of them properly recuse I don't see any particular issue ...

You idiots realize that damn near EVERY state house and senate are part time jobs, right? Seriously every city council is to, ok, probably not real cities like or LA or NYC....this is just DC, not a state, not a vote. And a professor really doesn't that's any involvement in the schools legal matters. There is no reason that a college uses their law school faculty as their office of general counsel. Did Harvard use Chief Warren? No, but Big Insurance did to screw policy holders out of asbestos claims.