Believe it or not, there is more going on in Congress than posturing and negotiating over the debt limit. Before I get back into that morass, I do want to address another mess: the story this week that the House Ethics Committee was knee-deep (make that neck-deep) in controversy over the case of Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.).
According to Politico, the controversy gripped the committee before last year’s election when the seeming entente between Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and ranking member Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) broke down after Lofgren suspended two staffers working on the case, Morgan Kim and Stacy Sovereign. Bonner strenuously objected, and everything froze.
The documents from last year allegedly show that former committee Staff Director Blake Chisam warned Lofgren that the two staffers had inappropriately given privileged information about the case to Republican Members, withheld some evidence from Waters and her lawyers and improperly accessed information from other staffers’ computers. The two staffers, in turn, accused Chisam of trying to protect Waters and Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), who was eventually censured by the House.
When Lofgren tried to dismiss Kim and Sovereign, Bonner blocked her, and the two were placed on paid administrative leave. When Bonner became chairman in January, he tried to retain them, and the Democrats blocked him from doing so.
Lofgren is no longer on the committee, and most of the members are new, but it is clear — whatever the truth of any of the allegations — that the ethics process in the House descended into partisan distrust, bickering and worse, and now has jeopardized any movement forward on the Waters case.
There is no easy answer to the problems that are always there in a body that has the responsibility to police itself. Times when the two parties get along in the process usually result in an “old-boy network” that protects friends and colleagues from punishment or humiliation. Times when the parties do not get along can sometimes result in the same outcome, with a tacit “mutually assured destruction” dynamic in which neither side will pursue an ethics case against someone from the other party for fear it will unleash a nuclear ethics war. Or, as with the Waters case (and possibly, the leaked documents suggest, the Rangel case), they can result in partisan jockeying over an explosive set of charges.
The lowest point ever for the ethics process came in 2005, when a Republican-led Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as the panel was then known, did its job without regard to partisanship and recommended several admonishments of then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).
Then-Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) responded by firing Chairman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) and dismissing two other Republican members of the committee who had done their jobs — Kenny Hulshof (Mo.) and Steven LaTourette (Ohio) — and in the process stained the committee and the integrity of the House. We are not near that low point now, but this is not exactly a reassuring set of revelations.
Because of the inherent predicament here, and in the context of the poisonous partisan atmosphere in contemporary politics, I was heartened when the House, by the narrowest of margins, created the Office of Congressional Ethics in the 110th Congress to improve the integrity of the process and the public’s confidence in it.
Roll Call has launched a new feature, Hill Navigator, to advise congressional staffers and would-be staffers on how to manage workplace issues on Capitol Hill. Please send us your questions anything from office etiquette, to handling awkward moments, to what happens when the work life gets too personal. Submissions will be treated anonymously.