[Mb-civic] Nap Time for Ethics - Washington Post Editorial

[William Swiggard]

Nap Time for Ethics
House panel does no business -- as usual.

Washington Post Editorial
Saturday, April 1, 2006; A16

REP. ROBERT W. NEY (R-Ohio) has been implicated in accepting lavish 
trips and other gifts from Jack Abramoff in exchange for helping the 
lobbyist's clients. Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has been caught up in the 
Abramoff net as well; yesterday his former deputy chief of staff pleaded 
guilty to conspiracy charges arising from his dealings with Mr. 
Abramoff. On the Democratic side, a former aide to Rep. William J. 
Jefferson (La.) has pleaded guilty to helping Mr. Jefferson try to 
obtain bribes for brokering telecommunications deals in Africa. And 
that's not even the whole roster of alleged ethical improprieties. Busy 
times for the House ethics committee, right?

If you answered yes, you don't know this ethics committee. Fifteen 
months into the 109th Congress, the panel managed on Thursday to have 
its first real meeting of the Congress. Members gathered behind closed 
doors for six hours and . . . drumroll . . . agreed to continue a 
previously launched investigation of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) for 
distributing an intercepted cellphone call between House leaders in 
1996. That's all.

This would be the same ethics committee whose chairman, Rep. Doc 
Hastings (R-Wash.), offered almost a year ago to name an investigative 
subcommittee to "review various allegations concerning travel and other 
actions by Mr. DeLay." If anything, the developments in the months since 
have only added to the argument for investigating Mr. DeLay and others. 
The ethics committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W. Va.), 
offered this understatement after the meeting: "This result falls far 
short of the committee's obligations in the current circumstances."

Whatever the reason for the stalemate, the panel's inactivity in the 
face of scandal is itself scandalous. Certainly, it's important that the 
ethics committee not take actions that interfere with the criminal 
investigations and prosecutions that have been sprouting from the 
Abramoff affair. But that doesn't mean it needs to be entirely inert, 
either. It's important that the committee not go into hibernation while 
prosecutors finish their work. Prosecutors and the ethics panel have 
separate roles, with the ethics committee responsible for monitoring 
potential rule violations that would not come close to being a criminal 
offense. In fact, there's a useful precedent that shows how both 
entities can do their work simultaneously: the ethics panel's 
investigation into former representative Bud Shuster (R-Pa.) at the same 
time that Mr. Shuster was the subject of a criminal probe.

The Senate just rejected a proposal for an independent congressional 
office to investigate complaints against members. The argument was that 
there was no evidence the Senate ethics committee itself wasn't up to 
the job. What, exactly, will the House ethics committee be able to say 
for itself when the issue comes up in that body?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033101697.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060401/ee794750/attachment.htm