The Solomon Scandals A Washington newspaper novel by David Rothman

3Sep/100

The Solomon Scandals novel vs. online gossip about Skyline Towers and the intel community

imageThe Solomon Scan­dals is a novel, but two actual events helped inspire it and are the top­ics of online gos­sip today—sev­eral decades later:

The deadly Sky­line Tow­ers build­ing col­lapse in North­ern Vir­ginia, where 14 work­ers died and dozens were injured.

The late Sen. Abra­ham Ribicoff’s secret and ille­gal invest­ment in a CIA-occuped build­ing in Arling­ton.

The com­bined result? The extremely fic­ti­tious Vulture’s Point, a rick­ety high-rise hous­ing some CIA oper­a­tions on the banks of the Potomac, at least sev­eral miles from Skyline.

imageSo what’s invented and what’s fact? Well, in the Con­necti­cut news­pa­pers, I myself revealed Ribicoff’s extremely prob­lem­atic invest­ment, which he claimed was an acci­dent despite his vague­ness about the cir­cum­stances under which he found out about the mis­take. The story made the NBC Nightly News, after I bluffed Ribicoff’s trustee into reveal­ing the senator’s stake in the Key Build­ing in Arling­ton. But my dis­clo­sure  mys­te­ri­ously stayed out of the Wash­ing­ton dailies for rea­son still unknown to me. Adver­tis­ing pres­sure? Friend­ships? A government-press cover-up? Or just an hon­est mis­take in news judg­ment? I don’t know. I cer­tainly had fun con­coct­ing an imag­i­nary con­spir­acy to explain it all.

But you can’t keep a good story—or par­tial story?—down. Now gos­sip is spread­ing online that the actual Sky­line com­plex houses cer­tain secre­tive agen­cies well known for their ini­tials, the very kind of out­fit about which I wrote in Scan­dals. True? Once again, I don’t know. I’d wel­come some authen­tic and ver­i­fi­able infor­ma­tion. What I can say is that I do see a need for intel agen­cies in this era, given that the United States has bun­gled so badly in Iraq and else­where for want of the facts. If I find the rumors pan out, I’ll not pub­lish the exact loca­tions of the intel offices if I dis­cover them and think there is any national secu­rity threat in the information’s becom­ing pub­lic. I’m reach­able via email at davidrothman@pobox.com.

Related: The Wash­ing­ton Post series on Top Secret Amer­ica.

You might also enjoy:
29Nov/080

The ACTUAL Telegram?

image A friend and I had just seen a movie with a soft-spoken and obscenity-free edi­tor, a bald­ing Boy Scout of the city room. Now she won­dered if my novel hadn’t sinned in mak­ing such a wild char­ac­ter out of George McWilliams, edi­tor at the fic­ti­tious Wash­ing­ton Telegram. Her mes­sage couldn’t have been clearer. Ben Bradlee, exec­u­tive edi­tor of the Wash­ing­ton Post, would never behave like my Mac.

Some of Bradlee’s ene­mies would emphat­i­cally dis­agree. I won’t take a stand. But here’s the real point: I wasn’t even writ­ing about the Wash­ing­ton Post. I had cre­ated my own Wash­ing­ton, with its own morn­ing news­pa­per. The duty of a nov­el­ist isn’t to report facts but to con­vey basic truths, and ide­ally to enter­tain the reader along the way. By blend­ing in details from dif­fer­ent news­pa­pers, I could write a bet­ter book. Nowa­days, inci­den­tally, Sam Zell lords it over the Chicago Tri­bune and sis­ter news­pa­pers, rides a motor­cy­cle and sup­pos­edly says it’s fine for his peo­ple to watch porn on the job as long as they’re pro­duc­tive. He’s an owner, not an edi­tor, but you get the idea: dif­fer­ent cul­tures sprout up in dif­fer­ent news­rooms or at least dif­fer­ent exec­u­tive suites (no, I’m not accus­ing Trib jour­nal­ists of tak­ing up Zell on his offer!).

At a deeper level, if some­one asks if par­al­lels existed in the 1970s between the Post and the Telegram in the treat­ment of fed­eral land­lords, I’ll plead igno­rance and mean it. I’d love to know why the Post and other local papers didn’t make more out of the rela­tion­ship between Sen. Abra­ham Ribi­coff and Charles Smith, the biggest of the landlords—especially after the NBC evening news spot­lighted Ribicoff’s hid­den invest­ment in a CIA-occupied build­ing through a Smith part­ner­ship. Fear of loss of real estate ads? Or some­thing more innocu­ous? Maybe  a series of over­lap­ping friend­ships existed, mak­ing the Post less curi­ous than it might have been oth­er­wise. Art Buch­wald, the late humor colum­nist and close friend of Bradlee, was even a Smith investor. And David Broder, the polit­i­cal colum­nist, sug­gested Abe Ribi­coff as a vice pres­i­den­tial possibility—-perhaps reflect­ing  some other Post people’s fond­ness for Ribi­coff, which was also abun­dantly evi­dent in the paean of an obit. Last but not least, the Key Build­ing story could sim­ply have been up against the Not Invented Here Syn­drome; per­haps the Post pre­ferred to focus on orig­i­nal sto­ries rather than devote resources to ver­i­fy­ing mine.

Bot­tom line: The Post is not the Telegram, and Bradlee isn’t George McWilliams, who, inci­den­tally, is Brooklyn-born and in many ways is the antithe­sis of a Bradlee-style Boston Brah­min.

Some pos­i­tives about the Old Guard at the Post: Let me also throw in some pos­i­tives about the Bradlee-era at the Post despite my dis­ap­point­ment over the paper’s less-than-complete cov­er­age of Ribicoff-related mat­ters. Not long ago, maybe partly as a way of show­ing it didn’t want to live in the past, the Post painted over a lobby col­lage that included Bradlee and Katharine Gra­ham.  That, I think, may have been a mistake—especially in the era of the Net, when news­pa­pers have to dis­tin­guish them­selves from other media. Say all the nice things you want about the Post’s Slate mag­a­zine, of which I’m a fan, and from which vis­i­tors to the Post will see pages on a high-resolution mon­i­tor in the lobby. But where was Slate dur­ing the fuss over Water­gate and the Pen­ta­gon Papers? Maybe the best solu­tion would be four mon­i­tors in the outer lobby to dis­play not only Slate, Newsweek.com and washingtonpost.com but also scenes from the Post’s past.

Related: Deep Throat is dead—and so are the old rules of inves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ism.

Photo credit: Jack Weir (image released into the pub­lic domain).

You might also enjoy:
29Nov/080

Sen. Ribicoff’s spooky investment

imageSen. Abra­ham Ribi­coff, the late Con­necti­cut sen­a­tor who also served in Pres­i­dent John F. Kennedy’s cab­i­net, secretly held a $20,000 invest­ment in a GSA–leased build­ing that the CIA moved into.

My story for States News Ser­vice, repro­duced below, appeared in the New Haven Reg­is­ter on May 29, 1975, and later made the NBC Nightly News.

The facts in it helped inspire The Solomon Scan­dals, which is fiction.

In real life, did Abe Ribi­coff delib­er­ately break fed­eral law and related GSA rules? They banned mem­bers of con­gress from par­tic­i­pat­ing in fed­eral leases, which the widely admired sen­a­tor was doing as a part­ner in the Wil­son Asso­ciates part­ner­ship in Arling­ton, Vir­ginia. Alas, this ques­tion is not com­pletely settled.

imageBut con­sider that even after the pub­lic learned of Ribicoff’s invest­ments in nongovernment-leased build­ings owned by the same GSA land­lord and the real estate tycoon’s other friends, the Sen­a­tor still did not with­draw from those part­ner­ships. What’s more, he was chair­ing a Sen­ate com­mit­tee over­see­ing the agency.

Sig­nif­i­cantly, Ribi­coff was an actual part­ner in the CIA-occupied Key Build­ing, shown to the right, instead of going through a cor­po­ra­tion. And GSA vio­lated its own rule that leases name all part­ners. Not even the name of Ribicoff’s trustee in his “blind trust” appeared in the lease, parts of which I’ll repro­duce here via a PDF. Also, Ribi­coff didn’t with­draw from the invest­ment until after his reelec­tion in 1968. He said he couldn’t recall when or from whom he had learned of the CIA’s pres­ence in the Key Build­ing in Arling­ton, Vir­ginia. Dur­ing the cam­paign Ribi­coff had denied con­flict of inter­est alle­ga­tions from a Repub­li­can rival.

Com­pared to, say, Dick Cheney, Ribi­coff would be a thou­sand times less of a sleaze. Ribicoff’s eth­i­cally dubi­ous busi­ness rela­tion­ship with his friend the GSA land­lord was small pota­toes by cur­rent stan­dards. Same for the ques­tion­able actions of the real estate peo­ple he dealt with. No one started a war and killed thou­sands of Iraqis—with oil grabs and con­tract­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties being among the major moti­va­tions of the White House and friends.

image But here’s the ulti­mate sig­nif­i­cance of Abe Ribicoff’s hid­den invest­ment and the landlord’s fail­ure to fol­low GSA reg­u­la­tions and name part­ners in the related lease. Ribi­coff was a hero in such areas as auto­mo­bile safety and civil rights, some­one I admired. He was even sec­re­tary of Health, Edu­ca­tion and Wel­fare under John Kennedy; and I expected more of him than of typ­i­cal politi­cians. Check out a video of Ribicoff’s well-crafted speech nom­i­nat­ing George McGov­ern, as a pres­i­den­tial can­di­date, at the Demo­c­ra­tic National Con­ven­tion. Notice his adept han­dling of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who wasn’t pleased? Ribi­coff did many good things, and did them well.

That said, I’d be sur­prised if some Repub­li­cans didn’t notice the fail­ure of the Sen­ate Ethics Com­mit­tee to rep­ri­mand Ribi­coff for his prob­lem­atic invest­ment. In the aggre­gate, mem­o­ries of sim­i­lar sit­u­a­tions could have helped Repub­li­cans like Cheney ratio­nal­ize away their own mis­deeds. A les­son for the reform­ers in the Obama Admin­is­tra­tion to remem­ber? Indeed. Same for their con­gres­sional allies. — David Roth­man (who voted for Obama and would do so again)

============

Ribi­coff Was Involved In 1965–68 U.S. Lease

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Abra­ham A. Ribi­coff, D-Conn., was from 1965 to 1968 one of a group of own­ers of an office build­ing leased to the fed­eral gov­ern­ment, in appar­ent vio­la­tion of fed­eral law.

The law, Sec. 431 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, pro­hibits mem­bers of Con­gress from ben­e­fit­ing from most con­tracts with the fed­eral gov­ern­ment. While the law pro­vides for up to $3,000 in fines, the statute of lim­i­ta­tions has expired on Ribicoff’s involve­ment in the lease, which would pre­clude any legal action being taken.

While the gov­ern­ment con­tin­ues to lease 100,000 square feet of the build­ing, Ribi­coff dis­posed of his inter­est in the prop­erty in 1968.

Ribi­coff and his top aides con­sis­tently denied any such fed­eral involve­ment dur­ing his re-election cam­paign last year. He has been a mem­ber of the Gov­ern­ment Oper­a­tions Com­mit­tee since 1963, and is now its chair­man. The com­mit­tee over­sees the Gen­eral Ser­vices Admin­is­tra­tion (GSA), which han­dles most fed­eral pro­cure­ment, includ­ing the lease of the build­ing in question.

Recently Ribi­coff con­firmed his involve­ment in the lease, but denied any wrong­do­ing, say­ing he sold his inter­est in the build­ing as soon as he learned there were fed­eral ten­ants in it.

Ribicoff’s part own­er­ship in Wil­son Associates—linked with the Charles E. Smith Cos., a large Washington-area real estate man­age­ment firm and developer—was unveiled recently by this reporter dur­ing a lengthy inves­ti­ga­tion into GSA leas­ing practices.

Dur­ing last year’s cam­paign, Ribicoff’s oppo­nent, Repub­li­can James H. (Buddy) Bran­nen, charged Ribi­coff with a con­flict of inter­est in that he had large hold­ings with the Smiths whose firms in turn grossed at least $13 mil­lion a year from leases with the fed­eral government.

How­ever, the Sen­ate Ethics Com­mit­tee declined to inves­ti­gate Brannen’s charges, with Chm. Howard W. Can­non, D-Nev., call­ing Brannen’s charges “Unde­fined, vague and unsubstantiated.”

The Smith-linked com­pa­nies, which hold some $150 mil­lion in leases from the gov­ern­ment, are believed to be the largest lessor to Uncle Sam; the firm also owns and man­ages a great deal of pri­vate real estate.

Ribi­coff through a blind trust still has sub­stan­tial hold­ings with the Smith firm. While he refused to esti­mate his total invest­ment, one source con­ser­v­a­tively esti­mated it at “well over $100,001,” while another said, “it may be as high as $250,000.”

Ribi­coff estab­lished the “blind trust” in late l973, just prior to giv­ing out a sum­mary of his hold­ings to the Con­necti­cut News Service.

A check of a list of his cur­rent Smith hold­ings, pro­vided by Ribi­coff, seems to con­firm his state­ment that none housed fed­eral ten­ants. How­ever, Brannen—and some Smith crit­ics here—have charged it is poor pol­icy for a fed­eral offi­cial to have invest­ments with a firm which does sub­stan­tial busi­ness with the fed­eral gov­ern­ment through related sub­sidiaries. Dur­ing last year’s cam­paign, Ribi­coff and his aides replied that none of his invest­ments had any gov­ern­ment ten­ants in them presently, or in the past. This week, how­ever, Ribi­coff said, “I was refer­ring to these invest­ments con­tained in the list I released” of his present hold­ings dur­ing the campaign.

It has now been learned that Ribi­coff from 1963 to 1968 owned 2.88 per cent of Wil­son Asso­ciates, which owns the Key Build­ing in Ross­lyn. Va., just across the Potomac River from the George­town sec­tion of Wash­ing­ton. Ribiooff paid $20,000 for his inter­est in Wil­son Asso­ciates in 1963. In late 1964, 10 of the buildup’s 12 floors were leased to fed­eral gov­ern­ment for $4 mil­lion for 10 years, effec­tive in 1965.

Accord­ing to a 1974 GSA com­puter print­out, the fed­eral ten­ants in the build­ing at that time were the Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency (CIA), and the “Exec­u­tive Office of the “President.”

Ribicoff’s invest­ment was with­drawn fol­low­ing his re-election in 1968, after Wil­son Asso­ciates had grossed some $l.5 mil­lion from GSA. This week he said, “In 1963, there was no fed­eral ten­ant when I acquired my inter­est… In 1965, with­out my knowl­edge, there was a gov­ern­ment ten­ant. This was the first time I had heard about it, and I dis­posed of it immediately.”

He said he couldn’t recall exactly when, or from whom, he found it out.

The state’s senior sen­a­tor denied any wrong­do­ing, say­ing he had told Charles Smith, the firm’s founder “and a very close per­sonal friend” that “under no cir­cum­stances would I tol­er­ate hav­ing my money invested in a build­ing with fed­eral tenants.”

Ribi­coff, in an ear­lier inter­view, said, “I can’t tell you the name of a sin­gle ten­ant in a Smith build­ing … I don’t know who the Key Building’s ten­ants ever were except some­time in ’68 it came out in the course of a con­ver­sa­tion that there was a fed­eral tenant.”

The Smith firm—run by the senior Smith, his son Robert H. and son-in-law, Robert P. Kogod—depends heav­ily on the favor of GSA. Of the 20 leases it and its sub­sidiaries have with the gov­ern­ment, 13 of them weren’t pub­licly bid or advertised.

In the Key Build­ing lease, GSA per­mit­ted another irreg­u­lar­ity in addi­tion to Ribicoff’s participation.

The lease failed to name all the part­ners of Wil­son Asso­ciates, despite a clause in the doc­u­ment stat­ing: “When the lessor is a part­ner­ship, the names of the part­ners com­pos­ing the firm shall be stated in the body of the lease.” Many of Smith’s leases, and those of other lessors, have not met this requirement.

Between 1963 and 1968. Ribi­coff said, the invest­ment yielded him only $7,000, which was can­celed out by a cap­i­tal gains tax. He said he could have sold the $20,000 inter­est for $30,000, but vol­un­tar­ily opted for sell­ing it at the orig­i­nal $20,000 so as not to make a profit.

Speak­ing for the Smith firm, Kogod recently said Ribicoff’s pres­ence in the Key Build­ing part­ner­ship was an accident.

The Wil­son Asso­ciates part­ner­ship papers don’t con­tain Ribicoff’s name. Instead, “David Kotkin, Trustee,” is listed. Asked by this reporter how he had heard of this invest­ment oppor­tu­nity, Kotkin said, “I don’t remem­ber ever know­ing any­thing about it. Why?”

When told his name was on the doc­u­ment and asked whether he might have been rep­re­sent­ing Ribi­coff, Kotkin—Ribicoff’s for­mer law part­ner from Hartford—replied, “Oh yes, yes, that’s what it must be…”

Asked why the part­ner­ship papers didn’t list Kotkin as the trustee for Ribi­coff, but rather just as a trustee. Kotkin said, “Undis­closed prin­ci­pal is a device—and I use that word in the good sense, not the bad sense—that’s used by many people.”

He said. “Pro­fes­sional man­age­ment (was) equipped to han­dle the man­age­ment of the build­ing which would include the ordi­nary com­plaints…” Kotkin said it would be bad if peo­ple pestered a U.S. sen­a­tor about leaky faucets.

A long inves­ti­ga­tion shows that the Smith firm fol­lowed a prac­tice of includ­ing well-connected peo­ple in its ven­tures, giv­ing large polit­i­cal con­tri­bu­tions and enjoy­ing very good rela­tions with GSA.

But Robert Smith recently denied that the firm’s many con­tacts led to their many con­tracts. From their past state­ments, they attribute their suc­cess to low prices and their abil­ity to beat the competition.

How­ever, at least 13 of their 20 leases with GSA, includ­ing a more than $1O mil­lion lease in sub­ur­ban Vir­ginia, were not pub­licly advertised.

One high-ranking GSA offi­cial, who asked to not be iden­ti­fied, recently said, “Maybe we got a good deal” from the Smiths, “but did we get the best deal?” On the $60 mil­lion lease of 720,000 square feet, he pointed out that if the gov­ern­ment had been able to lower the rental cost one nickel below the approx­i­mately $4.25 per square foot agree­ment, the gov­ern­ment would have saved $720,000 over the 20-year life of the lease.

“… I’d ask for an inves­ti­ga­tion,” he said. “You mean to say that if we adver­tised, we couldn’t have cut those things a nickel a square foot?”

The three adja­cent build­ings in this lease house fed­eral agen­cies rang­ing from the Defense Depart­ment to the Library of Con­gress. The GSA offi­cial ques­tioned the need for the GSA-demanded space require­ment of 720,000 square feet which, he said, sub­stan­tially reduced the poten­tial com­pe­ti­tion for the lease.

You might also enjoy: