There is no defensible reason to explain why political appointees in the D.C. government are routinely leaving their jobs with huge severance packages, courtesy of the taxpayers.

The practice of giving any severance pay to political appointees is wrong and needs to be stopped. D.C. City Council never should have created legislation that makes the practice legal.

City Administrator John Koskinen's recent attempt on WAMU's "D.C. Politics Hour" to defend the planned awarding of at least $22,000 in severance pay to Timothy Dimond, the outgoing Office of Property Management director, revealed that a ludicrous attitude toward public service exists in the administration of Mayor Anthony A. Williams.

Dimond - who should be fired for allowing his office to put the welfare of local developers ahead of the taxpayers - is being allowed to resign, effective June 27. His former deputy director, Michael Lorusso, also was allowed to resign in January and was rewarded for his government service with approximately $11,000 in severance pay - after questions already had been raised about multimillion dollar deals that Lorusso made with developer Douglas Jemal's companies.

Jemal recently asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when subpoenaed to testify before Council-man Jim Graham's oversight committee, which is investigating the dirty deals. Lorusso did not respond to a subpoena. D.C. Auditor Deborah Nichols, at the urging of Graham and Councilwoman Carol Schwartz, recently asked federal authorities to launch a criminal investigation of the matter after finding evidence of financial transactions with offshore bank accounts.

Koskinen says Dimond deserves severance pay because he appears to have had no direct involvement in any wrongdoing. Dimond, when called to testify before Graham's committee, has repeatedly claimed ignorance of the deals made by his staff.

Makes you wonder what sort of job performance is expected from political appointees who direct important government functions in the Williams administration, doesn't it?

There is a good reason for allowing mayors to appoint their political supporters to run government agencies "at the pleasure of the mayor." The intent is to provide continuity in the mayor's efforts to carry out the programs that he promised to the voters who elected him.

That's also why the recent practice of signing contracts with the directors of all D.C. government departments is wrongheaded. Contracts protect the interests of the political appointees, not the taxpayers. A mayor is supposed to be able to replace his political appointees for any reason. The jobs were never meant to be career appointments. The focus of the people appointed to these positions is supposed to be public service, not career advancement.

A person would have to be blind, deaf and dumb in this town to not know that the possibility of losing your job comes with the territory when you accept a political appointment. Political appointees who embarrass the boss know their days are numbered.

So why did severance pay ever become part of the equation when "cause" is not necessary to replace political appointees? Aren't the enormous $100,000-plus salaries these people receive from the taxpayers reward enough for their public service?

This gravy train - or hush money, as the case may be - needs to be stopped now.

Copyright 2003, The Common Denominator