Graves Ethics Inquiry Still A Source of Conflict: "There Are Grounds To Be Very Worried Indeed"

Though the the House ethics committee cleared Rep. Sam Graves last month of wrongdoing connected to an appearance by a friend last spring, the handling of Graves' matter has remained in the news.  The House ethics committee and the new semiautonomous Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) have been fighting about the handling of his case, and whether or not Graves' "appearance of a conflict of interest" was actually problematic.

Yesterday, The Hill printed an opinion piece from Meredith McGehee of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, in which McGehee argues that the Congressional ethics process is not working as well as some would hope.

Exhibit A is the committee’s handling of its investigation of Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) for failing to reveal his ties to a witness he arranged to have testify before a committee Graves sits on. The Graves matter brings to light three serious concerns about a process that cannot be described as “fixed.”

First, a fair reading of the report on Graves puts the committee’s conclusion in question. Should he (and by extension, other members) have been advised to disclose relationships with witnesses in the future? Yes. Was, in this case, a minor admonishment sufficient? Probably. Instead, Graves has boasted about his exoneration. It is disturbing that the ethics committee can look at the facts in the report and conclude that his conduct didn’t merit even a caution. If the dismissal is indicative of how the committee will handle other investigations, then there are grounds to be very worried indeed.

A second concern is the committee’s conclusion that Graves had not violated any rules because there is no appearance standard for selecting witnesses for a hearing. This conclusion is deeply troubling and just plain wrong, turning a minor matter into a major problem. The ethics committee has in the past used the appearance standard in various instances to find violations, and the appearance standard is an important element of ethics enforcement. House leadership should quickly correct this misinterpretation and incorrect application.

The third issue raised by the Graves matter is that the committee went out of its way to attack the OCE in its report. This comes on the heels of a group of members assailing the OCE just months into its existence. One of those critics is, unfortunately, Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.). Members of the Congressional Black Caucus were so upset about the OCE’s investigation of the Caribbean trip by five caucus members that they held a meeting with OCE board members and staff to voice their complaints.

Such complaints are unsurprising given the see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil posture of the committee since the mid-1990s. When combined with the latest ethics committee attacks, including more than a dozen pages in the Graves report, the assaults have graduated beyond griping, and constitute an unjustified threat to the OCE’s future.

Last week, The New York Times questioned the committee's decision to dismiss Graves' "appearance of impropriety" out of hand.

At issue was the behavior of Representative Sam Graves of Missouri in asking a business associate of his wife to testify before the Small Business Committee. In clearing the congressman, the ethics committee attacked the O.C.E. for suggesting there may be “an appearance of a conflict of interest.” There is no explicit rule barring an appearance of conflict, the committee thundered, accusing the O.C.E. of trying to invent one.

Wait a minute. The House does have an ethics standard mandating members behave “at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House.” Its ethics manual includes cautions against “appearance of impropriety.” The worrisome question now is whether the ethics panel has promulgated a loophole for flatly ignoring appearances of conflict of interest.

And interestingly, the San Antonio Express-News weighed in on the conflict yesterday:

In its vindication of Graves, the committee found “no relevant House rule or other standard of conduct prohibits the creation of an appearance of a conflict of interest when selecting witnesses for a committee hearing,” The Hill reported.

Perhaps ethics committee members should reread the current House Ethics Manual.

The document notes that the committee “has admonished all members to avoid situations in which even an inference might be drawn suggesting improper action” along with repeated references to issues that might raise the “appearance of impropriety.”

The OCE acted appropriately and with good judgment. The committee members are evidently unaware of their own responsibilities, and that lack of awareness continues to make the words “House ethics” an oxymoron.

I think it's fair to describe this story as more about the ethics committee and Office of Congressional Ethics than Rep. Graves. But I have to believe that he wishes this turf fight involved someone else; if he'd disclosed his relationship with family friend Brooks Hurst as he should have, it all could have been avoided.

Image credit: LaEstrella.com.