Dixon should step aside

Baltimore Sun

Mayor Sheila Dixon's legal filings Friday indicate that she intends to use every tactic at her disposal to fight her conviction on a charge of embezzlement and to stay in office. The cloud her attorneys have created could take months to clear, leaving Baltimore in a leadership limbo as the mayor is distracted by her legal woes and potential allies and partners are reluctant to work with a city whose top official has been found guilty by a jury of her peers. Clinging to power may be good for Ms. Dixon, but it is hard to imagine that her determination to continue as if nothing was wrong is anything but harmful to the city she professes to love. Mayor Dixon has every right to pursue her legal options, but in the meantime, she needs to step aside.

The state constitution anticipates a transfer of power in such a situation. It says that if an official has been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor related to her public duties that is a crime of moral turpitude and that carries a possible prison sentence, she is suspended from office during the period of appeals. If the appeals are unsuccessful, she is permanently removed, but if the conviction is overturned, she returns to office. The catch is that under a three-decade-old attorney general's opinion, which has never been tested in court, a conviction, for the purposes of that section of the constitution, becomes official at the sentencing, not with a jury's guilty verdict. Her sentencing is now set for Jan. 21, but it is unclear whether her legal efforts might force a delay. Arguments about whether her crime fits the definition in the constitution could extend this period of uncertainty even further.

That means Mayor Dixon can stay in office over the coming weeks no matter what else happens in court. But it doesn't mean she has to. The Baltimore City Charter says that "in case of, and during, sickness, temporary disqualification or necessary absence of the mayor, the city council president shall be ex officio mayor of the city." Mayor Dixon could, if she so chose, use that provision to hand over the reins of power while her legal situation is settled without permanently forfeiting office.

There is precedent for such a step. In 1977, when then- Gov. Marvin Mandel was on trial for mail fraud and racketeering, he abdicated his duties as governor to then-Lt. Gov. Blair Lee III. He said at the time that he was stepping down temporarily for health reasons - he had suffered a minor stroke - and that for him to attempt to run the state, recuperate and attend his trial at the same time would shortchange the citizens. Thus, Mr. Lee was already acting governor when Mr. Mandel was convicted in August of that year. In the two months before his sentencing, Mr. Mandel did not resign from office, but he did not resume his duties as governor either.

As much as the mayor and her staff insist that her conviction has no effect on the running of the city, there is no question that it does. Witness the announcement this week that the mayor's annual Holly Trolley, a charity program that provides Christmas gifts to the poor but which was also central to the mayor's trial, was being discontinued. Ms. Dixon's refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing - or even the appearance of impropriety - put her administration in an untenable situation. They could not very well continue the tradition because of her continued presence in office. But because of her legal strategy, they could not acknowledge that the trial had exposed the ethical laxity with which the event had been conducted in the past.

Also telling were the comments from Jennifer Langford-Gilligan, the director of sales for Baltimore's Ritz-Carlton Residences, which is sponsoring its own toy giveaway this year. The company sought out a list of names of needy children and was eventually referred to the mayor's office, which provided one. But Ms. Langford-Gilligan took pains to disassociate her company's effort from the mayor's office. "We are not going to align ourselves with the city," she said. "It is not politically motivated."

Having the Ritz keep its distance is small potatoes compared to the others who may not wish to associate themselves with a tainted administration. President Barack Obama disinvited Ms. Dixon from a White House meeting of big-city mayors when she was merely under indictment. What kind of partnership can we expect now that she's been convicted? Other Maryland leaders have not yet called on her to resign, but how many will stand with her when it comes time to seek more state aid?

Even before the trial, the mayor's legal troubles were creating difficulties in the normal operation of city government. Ms. Dixon agreed to recuse herself from Board of Estimates votes related to Doracon, the company owned by her former boyfriend, Ronald H. Lipscomb - a central figure in her perjury trial, scheduled for March, who was expected to be key to her November theft trial. Twice this fall, Doracon was involved as a subcontractor in multimillion-dollar disputes before the Board of Estimates; in one case, lobbyists for a competing firm raised the specter of favoritism in the procurement process related to Doracon. Both times, the Board of Estimates deferred action, delaying projects that could pump nearly $160 million into the local economy.

That pales in comparison to the biggest conflict created by the mayor's precarious legal situation: Patrick Turner's $1.4 billion Westport development. Westport has received the largest city tax break in Baltimore history, and it has the potential to create a new community to rival the Inner Harbor. Business related to the project came before the City Council just this past week. But Mr. Turner was the key witness in Ms. Dixon's recently completed trial. He bought the gift cards she embezzled, and jurors said that reviewing video of his testimony turned the tide in their deliberations. If Ms. Dixon and her lawyers succeed in winning a new trial, Mr. Turner would have to go on the stand again. In that context, how could the Dixon administration possibly treat any matters related to his project objectively?

Mayor Dixon has every right to fight her conviction, to attempt to clear her name and to try to save her legacy and pension. But in the meantime, she no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. Baltimore cannot continue for weeks or months with a distracted, tainted leader. For the good of the city, Mayor Dixon needs to step aside.

Readers respond Why should Sheila Dixon remain as Baltimore City's mayor? Why Is she still Baltimore City's mayor?

To take away from the underprivileged and children - how dare she? Then to not even make an apology about it? And she wants us to act as though nothing happened? I voted for her, I believed in her, and now I listen to nothing she has to say.

Tracie Turner

The citizens of Baltimore need to step back and think about the difference between right and wrong. If that was their relative convicted of stealing, they would be in jail. Our mayor had to have seven lawyers, and we are lucky if we get one. The evidence is clear. Stop making excuses.

Wnjspink

The failure of our city leaders to call for Ms. Dixon's immediate resignation in the wake of her conviction for stealing gift cards from poor children forces me to conclude that government of the people, by the people and for the people has perished from Baltimore City. Clearly, our leaders govern only to enrich themselves, their families and their friends. This is truly disheartening.

Patrick Sheridan

Copyright © 2021, The Baltimore Sun, a Baltimore Sun Media Group publication | Place an Ad
61°