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.

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.

Self-Regulation
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."

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.

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.

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.

Character and Reputation
According to a live blog of the proceedings in the New York Times, 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 an editorial in today's Times, "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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Following the Rules and a Different Sort of Winning
Rangel wasn't the only person in the proceedings who didn't get it. Yesterday, the New York Times ran a feature 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:

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."

Mr. Chisam was asked by a Republican committee member if sloppiness was a defense for Mr. Rangel's conduct.

"I don't believe that it's a defense at all," Mr. Chisam replied. "I believe that it's a violation of the rules."

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.

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.”

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.

Here are my earlier blog posts on Rangel's ethics proceedings:
The Ethics of Naming Public Buildings, etc. After Serving Officials
Conflicts Do Not Only Involve the Official's Direct Financial Interests—The Charity Case
Government Officials' Charities
Congress Teaches Civics Course in Ethics Self-Regulation
A Very Short Rant on Financial Disclosure and Self-Regulation
Ethics Settlements and Admissions of Wrongdoing

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---