Rep. Charles Rangel and How to Be Above the Past, Appearances of Impropriety, and Annoying Things Like That
Talk about the appearance of impropriety is, as Congressman Charles B.
Rangel of New York is quoted in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/nyregion/18rangel.html" target="”_blank”">a
recent New York <span>Times</span> article</a>
as saying, “annoying.” Why should there be anything more than a
decision of his peerless peers on the House Ethics Committee, guilty or
not guilty? Appearances of propriety are not for someone of Rep.
Rangel’s ilk.<br>
<br>
A determination in his favor by the House Ethics Committee would,
Rangel feels, require a public apology from the Washington <span>Post </span>for <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/14/AR20080…; target="”_blank”">writing
unfavorably</a> about his use of congressional stationery to solicit
contributions for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at
the City College of New York. The <span>Post</span>
also reported that Rep. Rangel has approached, and obtained large
contributions to the Center, from individuals and businesses with
interests before the House Ways and Means Committee, which he chairs.
He also obtained two grants, totalling $690,500, from HUD to renovate a
building in his district for the Center. It's hard to find more
appearances of impropriety in a single matter than in this one.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/472">Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.</a>
<br>
<br>
More annoying even than talk of an appearance of impropriety is talk
about responsibility for past conduct. The New York <span>Times</span> also caught Rangel having
four rent-stabilized apartments in a luxury apartment building,
reporting that Rep. Rangel did acknowledge having used one of these
apartments as a campaign office, which “presents an issue,” since such
apartments may only be used as a primary residence. “But he said
that his decision to give up that apartment made the issue obsolete.”
History is history after all. A powerful congressman is not responsible
for what he has done in the past. Water over the dam, and all that.
(And those other three apartments? They're okay, he says, because
they're adjacent, so his family does use all three as a primary
residence, just like your average rent-stabilized apartment dweller who
lacks the proper connections and chutzpah. Click <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/nyregion/17rangel.html" target="”_blank”">here</a> for an article about how others in the same development fare.)<br>
<br>
The appearance of impropriety here is annoying because it is so
certain. The past here is obsolete because the congressman’s
conduct was so certainly wrong, that even he had to partially admit
it.<br>
<br>
The bottom line is that Rangel is simply too powerful, and is owed too
much for all the good he has done, to deal responsibly with government
ethics issues. It is unlikely that any slap on the hand by the House
Ethics Committee will change his approach to public service. He is
setting a poor example for the future students at his Center. But don't
worry. This case study won't appear in their curriculum.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>