Dec. 28, 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

‘Admonishment’ Is Not Covered by Ethics Rules

When the House ethics committee opted to admonish Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) last week, it also highlighted limitations in its process for sanctioning Members, legal experts and former Congressional aides said.

“The House committee has availed itself notably in the Rangel matter and previously in the [then-Rep. Tom] DeLay [R- Texas] matter of the opportunity to admonish Members, even though strictly speaking the rules don’t give them that authority,” said Rob Walker, an attorney with Wiley Rein who served as a top aide to the Senate and the House ethics committees.

In its decision Friday, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct ruled that two Caribbean trips involving six Members violated House rules because the events secretly received corporate funding.

Although it excused five of the Members who attended while still requiring they repay the cost of the trip, the ethics panel admonished Rangel on the basis that his staff was aware of the conflict.

“It is the intention of the Committee that publication of this Report will serve as a public admonishment by the Standards Committee of Representative Rangel,” the report stated. It used identical language to chastise Dawn Kelly Mobley, a former aide to then-ethics Chairwoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio).

Under the ethics committee’s rules, the committee may opt to sanction a Member or aide following an investigation, with punishments ranging from a “letter of reproval” to recommending expulsion from the House or dismissal for aides.

“With respect to the sanctions that the Committee may recommend, reprimand is appropriate for serious violations, censure is appropriate for more serious violations, and expulsion of a Member or dismissal of an officer or employee is appropriate for the most serious violations,” according to House ethics rules.

But Walker and other attorneys familiar with the process said that those specific punishments may only be initiated through an onerous process.

“Even for the committee to issue a letter of reproval ... [it] has to go through the entire adjudicatory hearing process,” Walker said.

“It’s cumbersome. It’s a process that kind of ties the committee’s hands in terms of flexibility and speed with which it can approach a matter,” he said.

Walker added that he supports the idea of a formalized admonishment process, noting that the Senate Ethics Committee employs such letters when it identifies a de minimis rules violation.

“I understand the impulse to create this kind of response,” Walker said. “But it certainly seems to me that it’s at the least an open question as to whether or not this kind of response by the committee is authorized by its rules.”

But Stefan Passantino, another former House aide who is now chairman of the political law team at McKenna Long & Aldridge, suggested the ethics committee may be permitted flexibility in its decisions.

“At the end of the day, all of the House ethics rules are really a creation of the House’s own self-imposed rules, and for that reason, if the Members want to get together and they want to decide an admonishment is the appropriate sanction, they certainly have the right to do it,” Passantino said.

comments powered by Disqus

SIGN IN




OR

SUBSCRIBE

Want Roll Call on your doorstep?