The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that, after due deliberation and a thorough and thoughtful consideration of all the evidence, a D.C. judicial commission seems to have finally reached the painfully obvious conclusion that Roy L. Pearson, he of the 65-million-dollar pants, should not be reappointed to be an administrative-law judge.
Unfortunately for the people of D.C., however, it looks like the firing process will still drag on for quite some time. After many weeks of consideration, the members of the Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges has finally reached a consensus — to send Pearson a letter. The vote was not to fire Pearson but to "formally notify" him "that he may not be reappointed to the bench." Does anyone really need formal notice by now that this is a possibility? If Pearson does, that is probably just another reason not to reappoint him.
The letter, described as a "key step" in the process, apparently cites not only Pearson’s lawsuit against his arch-enemy, Custom Cleaners, but unspecified facts about "his work as a judge the past two years." In addition to judicial acts, the letter also cites Pearson’s sending of certain e-mails questioning the competence and integrity of one Tyrone T. Butler. This is considered significant since Mr. Butler happens to be the Chief Administrative Law Judge for the District (and also a member of the commission considering Pearson’s fate).
Generally, business experts do not recommend direct personal attacks against one’s boss, especially when you are new to the job. But Roy L. Pearson marches to the beat of a different drum. Butler reportedly has had trouble deciding what position to take on the matter, which is strange given Pearson’s long-standing campaign against him. Less than three months after starting work, Pearson fired off a 14-page letter to the mayor accusing Butler among other things of "demonstrably poor judgment," which seems awfully ironic now. He also described Butler’s leadership as "Mafioso-style." A 33-page letter followed in February 2006. All this apparently started because of a minor misunderstanding over when Pearson’s initial two-year term began, which suggests demonstrably poor judgment on someone’s part.
Pearson now has 15 days to file a rebuttal to the letter, and can appear before the commission at its next meeting, in September, if he likes. In the meantime, the commission has also said that it is carefully reviewing an number of other applications.