Dec. 17, 2014 SIGN IN | REGISTER
Download CQ Roll Call's Definitive Guide to the 114th Congress | Sign Up for Roll Call Newsletters | Get the Latest on the Roll Call App

What Is a Letter of Qualified Admonition?

Q: As a longtime Chicago resident, I have been keeping a close eye on the saga surrounding Roland Burris’ (D-Ill.) appointment to the Senate by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D). Prosecutors opted not to press charges, and the Senate Ethics Committee a few weeks ago announced that it had concluded its investigation and issued a public letter of qualified admonition to Burris. In response, Burris has said that the committee cleared him of the charges. Others have said the letter had the opposite effect. I am having trouble assessing who is right. What is the significance of a letter of qualified admonition?

A: This question goes right to the heart of the authority of the Senate Ethics Committee, so let’s start there. The committee was established in 1964 to oversee the Senate’s authority to discipline its own Members. One of the committee’s primary duties is to investigate allegations of Senators’ misconduct, beginning with what is called a “preliminary inquiry.” After the committee conducts such an inquiry, it has several options. One of those options is to issue a public letter of admonition. According to the Senate resolution governing the committee’s procedures, such a letter may be appropriate if there is evidence of a violation, but the violation is “inadvertent, technical, or otherwise of a de minimis nature.” A letter of admonition “is not considered discipline” and is not subject to appeal.

In Burris’ case, on Nov. 20 the committee issued a “Public Letter of Qualified Admonition” to Burris for “actions and statements reflecting unfavorably upon the Senate in connection with [his] appointment to and seating in the Senate.” Specifically, the committee found that Burris made sworn statements to the Illinois House of Representatives that were “inconsistent, incomplete, and misleading.” The letter also stated that Burris’ “shifting explanations” about the sworn statements “appear less than candid.” Finally, the letter said that Burris had a telephone conversation with Blagojevich’s brother that was “inappropriate in its content and implications.”

Reactions to this letter have been difficult to reconcile. Burris himself said he was “pleased” and issued a news release titled “Senate Ethics Committee Clears Senator Roland W. Burris of Legal Wrongdoing” and cited the language in the committee’s letter that it did not find evidence supporting “any actionable violations of law.” On the other hand, his fellow Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin (D), said the committee found that Burris’ actions had “brought discredit on him and the Senate.”

comments powered by Disqus

SIGN IN




OR

SUBSCRIBE

Want Roll Call on your doorstep?