Ethics Panel Staff: Reform Bill 'a Bad Idea'
With the House theoretically set to vote later today on an ethics reform proposal, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct's top Republican, Rep. Doc Hastings (Wash.), has informed his fellow members that the panel's staff has "serious concerns" about the bill.
The reform bill would create a new Office of Congressional Ethics, run by a bipartisan board of six non-members, to screen allegations and potential complaints against lawmakers. Republicans are mostly opposed to the bill, which has been delayed twice already, and in a "Dear Colleague" letter and an attached internal committee memo, both of which were obtained by Capitol Briefing, Hastings wants the House to know that committee aides don't like it either.
"I think the proposal is a bad idea on a number of levels," wrote Bill O'Reilly, the ethics committee's staff director and chief counsel, in an e-mail to his fellow staff.
In an accompanying memo, written in November in response to a draft version of the ethics reform bill, panel senior counsel Kenneth Kellner raised several potential areas of concern, including worries that the new ethics office could interview witnesses who might then be interviewed again by the ethics committee; that the ethics office would share some of its findings with the subject of an investigation at too early a stage; and that the proposal might put "artificial pressure" on the ethics committee to do a probe too quickly.
Of course, it's not completely surprising that the ethics committee might be resistant to a reform bill that's based on the idea that the committee is fundamentally incapable of doing its job without outside help. But the views of the panel's staff are still interesting and worth a look, mainly because the committee's aides are nonpartisan and generally well-regarded on both sides of the aisle. Will Hastings' letter and the staff memo have any effect on tonight's vote? We'll know soon.
By Ben Pershing |
March 11, 2008; 5:11 PM ET
Ethics and Rules
Previous: Spitzer Mulls Resignation While Craig Fights On |
Next: House Passes Ethics Bill Amid Squabbling
Posted by: Patrick Huss | March 11, 2008 8:42 PM
It seems to me that w/ only 2 rep. initiating and possibly conducting an investigation, w/ those being investigated not being able to know who their accusers are, you have the makings of a show trial and a "star chamber".
A rep. can be accused for various and sundry reasons. How can that person defend him/herself? This is even before it reaches the ethics comm. How can the rep. get their reputation back? This a great way to attack someone you hope to have defeated in an upcoming election, just through bringing the name before the panel and suggesting there may be a problem. This is so undemocratic. House comm. and investigative panels should be conducted by House members. Passing the buck is another demonstration of irresponsibility.
Posted by: martin Mishket | March 12, 2008 12:08 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
"Of course, it's not completely surprising that the ethics committee might be resistant to a reform bill that's based on the idea that the committee is fundamentally incapable of doing its job without outside help."
It wouldn't be surprising, but I really don't think that adequately describes this memo. I think a reasoned reading reveals some very sensible criticisms of the proposed reforms presented in a professional and tactful tone.
It doesn't take much of an imagination, though, to envision the lawmakers themselves actually benefiting from the "flaws" in the proposed reforms.
Will that discourage them from addressing Kellner's concerns? If they are truly serious about improving ethics investigations, it will not.