Some Things We Can Take Away from Rep. Rangel's Ethics Proceeding
Although the ethics proceedings involving Rep. Charles Rangel (NY) are
at the federal level, there is a lot to be learned from them that is
relevant at the local level.<br>
<br>
Yesterday, Mr. Rangel walked out of a meeting of the adjudicatory
subcommittee of the House ethics committee, insisting that he could not
afford a lawyer and asking for an extension. He has apparently run up
$2 million in legal fees, and his lawyers ended their representation of
him when he could not pay. Pro bono counsel is not allowed because it
is a gift to a congressman. A legal defense fund is allowed, but Rangel
chose not to start one.<br>
<br>
<b>Self-Regulation</b><br>
One thing we can learn from this is that self-regulation, which is what
most elected officials appear to prefer, doesn't work so well. It's
worth noting that, in his press release yesterday, Rangel said, "The
process that the Committee has decided to take against me violates the
most basic rights of due process that is guaranteed to every person
under the Constitution."<br>
<br>
There is a constitutional reason for self-regulation, but even
self-regulation is not guaranteed to make an elected official feel an
ethics proceeding against him is constitutional. In other words, the grass isn't really greener on the self-regulation side.<br>
<br>
In addition, everyone involved in the proceeding has a conflict. They
all know and work with the respondent. They are colleagues and
antagonists. The lawyer charged with arguing the case against Rangel is
a former counsel and senior policy adviser to the subcommittee's chair.
Any determination they make will not be trusted. That's not a good way to run an ethics program.<br>
<br>
Yes, officials, self-regulation is not the paradise everyone seems to
think it is. Even in the bed he's chosen, the pea under the mattress is still too much for Rangel. If congressional representatives would look
out beyond their eyes, they'd notice that, to the public, there's a
pumpkin under the overly plush self-regulatory mattress.<br>
<br>
<b>Character and Reputation</b><br>
According to <a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/rangel-ethics-hearing-begi…; target="”_blank”">a
live blog of the proceedings in the New York <i>Times</i></a>, Rangel told the
subcomittee yesterday, "My reputation of 50 years of public service has
to suffer because this committee has concluded that it has to conclude
this matter before the session ends." According to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/opinion/16tue3.html" target="”_blank”">an
editorial in today's <i>Times</i></a>, "In remarks drenched in self-pity, he
cited his 50 years of public service, his military record, his love of
country." He also talked about clearing his name.<br>
<br>
Rangel, like so many officials, doesn't seem to get it. Ethics programs
are not about reputation. They are, however, about public service.
Public service includes dealing with ethics matters responsibly, which
Rangel admits he failed to do. His focus has been on the thirteen
counts against him and the likely reprimand or censure.<br>
<br>
There is little disagreement about the facts, and Rangel had an
opportunity to settle the matter without a public hearing. He also had
the opportunity to ask for ethics advice at any time, with respect to
any of the matters in dispute. He had the opportunity not to run up big
legal bills and not to make his ethics problems big news for months.
And he chose to act just as irresponsibly with the ethics proceedings
as he acted with the ethics matters that faced him.<br>
<br>
Rangel has not shown a concern about his reputation. He has dragged
that through the mud. He has shown more of a concern about losing. He
wanted to walk out of that room a winner, by accusing the subcommittee
of constitutional unfairness. And once again he lost.<br>
<br>
In this, Rangel is all too typical. Just as coverups are usually worse
than the crimes, the way officials sometimes fight ethics complaints is
worse than anything they've been accused of. When you win too much,
when you feel you've given so much, it seems to be hard to accept even
minor losses or criticism. The losses must somehow be twisted into victories, no matter
how pyrrhic they might be.<br>
<br>
<b>Following the Rules and a Different Sort of Winning</b><br>
Rangel wasn't the only person in the proceedings who didn't get it.
Yesterday, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/nyregion/15chisam.html" target="”_blank”">the
New York <i>Times</i> ran a feature</a> about R. Blake Chisam, the staff
director and chief counsel to the House Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, whose job it was to argue the case against Rangel. He
certainly understands that it's not about character, as can be seen
from this exchange:<ul>
With respect to the charges that Mr. Rangel used congressional staff,
letterhead and workspace to solicit donations to the Charles B. Rangel
Center for Public Service at the City College of New York, Mr. Chisam
said, "I think what's ironic to me is that he could have done this
without seeking permission, without having to come to the committee and
ask permission if he had only followed a few simple rules. He could
have done this right."<br>
<br>Mr. Chisam was asked by a Republican committee member if sloppiness
was a defense for Mr. Rangel's conduct.<br>
<br>"I don't believe that it's a defense at all," Mr. Chisam replied. "I
believe that it's a violation of the rules."</ul>
Rangel felt that because he didn't mean to do what he did, it was
okay. But intent is not a central concern of government ethics. All
that need be shown in an enforcement proceeding is that certain rules
were violated.<br>
<br>
What Mr. Chisam doesn't seem to understand is that his role as
counsel to an ethics committee is not the zealous litigator that he has
been at times. The feature on him ends with him saying, “The goal is to
win. It is, to me, about making the case.” He also quoted, “Theirs not
to reason why, theirs but to do and die.”<br>
<br>As a government lawyer in a government context, it's never about
winning. It's about doing right. If he thought that Rangel was indeed being treated unfairly,
it would have been his job to point this out to the committee. If the
investigatory subcommittee's facts don't add up, it's his job to point
this out, not merely advocate for the investigation's conclusions.<br>
<br>
Here are my earlier blog posts on Rangel's ethics proceedings:<br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/475" target="”_blank”">The Ethics of Naming
Public Buildings, etc. After Serving Officials</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/568" target="”_blank”">Conflicts Do Not Only
Involve the Official's Direct Financial Interests—The Charity Case</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/588" target="”_blank”">Government Officials'
Charities</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/708" target="”_blank”">Congress Teaches Civics
Course in Ethics Self-Regulation</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/very-short-rant-financial-disclosure-…; target="”_blank”">A
Very Short Rant on Financial Disclosure and Self-Regulation</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/ethics-settlements-and-admissions-wro…; target="”_blank”">Ethics
Settlements and Admissions of Wrongdoing</a><br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---