As First Act of 2017 House GOP Guts Ethics

[finehoe]

With No Warning, House Republicans Vote to Gut Independent Ethics Office

WASHINGTON — House Republicans, overriding their top leaders, voted on Monday to significantly curtail the power of an independent ethics office set up in 2008 in the aftermath of corruption scandals that sent three members of Congress to jail.

The move to effectively kill the Office of Congressional Ethics was not made public until late Monday, when Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced that the House Republican Conference had approved the change. There was no advance notice or debate on the measure.

The surprising vote came on the eve of the start of a new session of Congress, where emboldened Republicans are ready to push an ambitious agenda on everything from health care to infrastructure, issues that will be the subject of intense lobbying from corporate interests. The House Republicans' move would take away both power and independence from an investigative body, and give lawmakers more control over internal inquiries.

It also came on the eve of a historic shift in power in Washington, where Republicans control both houses of Congress and where a wealthy businessman with myriad potential conflicts of interest is preparing to move into the White House.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/with-no-warning-house-republicans-vote-to-hobble-independent-ethics-office.html

[fsquid]

the plan is now shelved after Trump came out against it.

[pierre]

the plan is now shelved after Trump came out against it.

Trump did not come out against it. He came out against the prioritization of it.

[BridgeTroll]

Sounds pretty bi partisan to me...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/opinion/05thu3.html

Not Too Much Ethics, Please
AUG. 4, 2010


House Republicans are chortling over the Democratic majority's troubles with ethics allegations, but they also are ominously signaling their distaste for the Office of Congressional Ethics — the one new player on Capitol Hill with a clear determination to do something about the morass.

The Republican minority leader, John Boehner, said he wants to "take a look" at the office if his party regains majority power — a reminder that his members fiercely opposed the quasi-independent office when it was created two years ago by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Boehner wondered aloud how effective the office really is, ignoring its considerable record for discreetly investigating alleged misbehavior on both sides of the aisle and letting the chips fall where they may. It was the ethics office that did the initial investigatory work prompting (forcing might be the more apt description) the House ethics committee to order a public hearing into whether Representative Maxine Waters, a Democrat of California, committed a conflict of interest by intervening on behalf of a bailout for a bank in which her husband owned stock.

The ethics case against Representative Charles Rangel, a Democrat of New York, predates the creation of the ethics office, but he ran afoul of its investigators more recently in being admonished by the House committee for leading a group on a Caribbean junket paid by corporate favor-seekers in violation of House rules.

Grumblers on both sides want to gut the ethics office. That is because it has been fulfilling its mission to put life into the lawmakers' own stultified ethics process, to penetrate the murk of misbehavior and keep the public better informed. Republicans would be the ultimate hypocrites to subvert the ethics office while campaigning as the all-new party of reform that, ah, yes, learned its lesson after the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal.

[BridgeTroll]

If both sides are complaining about something... we should probably leave it in place...

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2008895,00.html

Democrats remain determined to undo their party's most significant ethics reform. Representative Marsha Fudge of Ohio has introduced legislation, co-sponsored by 19 fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), to limit the OCE's power. Fudge, who has complained that the OCE "is currently the accuser, judge and jury," wants to keep OCE reports that don't lead to formal House action from being made public, and would prevent the office from acting on anything but a sworn complaint from an individual with personal knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing. Watchdog groups say those changes would effectively neuter the OCE.

But Pelosi apparently hasn't ruled out such changes. The Speaker met with frustrated CBC members in May, according to a leadership source, and privately indicated that she would be willing to review some ethics rules at the beginning of the next Congress. "The Speaker listened to the concerns of members and stated that all House rules are reviewed at the beginning of every Congress," Nadeam Elshami, a Pelosi spokesman, told reporters after the meeting. But there's no assurance that Democrats will get to make the rules in the next Congress — not if, come November, the anger over corruption that helped win Democrats a House majority ends up taking it away.

[icarus]

I love how many people make assumptions based on poorly written and often partisan headlines. 

The OCE was put in place by the Democrats.  There is no clear line of oversight for complaints about the OCE themselves.  The OCE was to remain an independent agency but be placed under the standing committee for ethics for oversight purposes.  This made the most sense because the standing committee is evenly staffed by Democrats and Republicans no matter who has the majority.

There was a move tolimit or eliminate the ability of the public to make anonymous tips to cut down on what could be perceived as politically motivated or otherwise harassing complaints.  This is not that unusual and is how most professional boards handle oversight of their members.

As far as I know, there was a bipartisan desire to correct what was seen as deficiencies in the system.

[BridgeTroll]

WTF are you talking about??   I just said... that it looks like a bi partisan effort to gut the OCS... and that I do not support their effort.

[icarus]

I love how many people make assumptions based on poorly written and often partisan headlines. 

The OCE was put in place by the Democrats.  There is no clear line of oversight for complaints about the OCE themselves.  The OCE was to remain an independent agency but be placed under the standing committee for ethics for oversight purposes.  This made the most sense because the standing committee is evenly staffed by Democrats and Republicans no matter who has the majority.

There was a move tolimit or eliminate the ability of the public to make anonymous tips to cut down on what could be perceived as politically motivated or otherwise harassing complaints.  This is not that unusual and is how most professional boards handle oversight of their members.

As far a sI know, there was a bipartisan desire to correct what was seen as deficiencies in the system.

Actually, that is how one would hope it works, but not how it actually does.

The republicans established a practice during the Tom Delay years (the Republican Speaker convicted on ethics violations who preceded Dennis Hastert, the Republican Speaker convicted for child molestation) of only allowing new bills to be handled during Republican leadership Conferences.  Only after the majority of Republicans have already agreed to a bill was it allowed to go to the Floor of the House.

When it went there, it was scheduled only for an up or down vote.  Meaning no Democrat could debate the merits of the bill or offer meaningful amendments on any legislation that came before Congress. They could only vote yes or no.

There is nothing 'bipartisan' about that practice, which the Republicans are reviving, and this is the first bill to emerge from the new Republican Congress.

The vote to move forward was taken in secret at a no democrats allowed conference, during the holidays.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/house-office-congressional-ethics-rules_us_586b00e0e4b0d9a5945c34c6?vepm1jwijg7mpwrk9

WASHINGTON ― As one of their first actions in the new Congress, House Republicans are planning to significantly change the Office of Congressional Ethics, removing the entity's independence, barring it from investigating anonymous complaints and even changing the group's name.

Less than 24 hours before the House convenes and votes on its rules for the 115th Congress, Republicans adopted an amendment Monday night, 119 to 74, from Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) that would fundamentally change the OCE. The independent ethics board investigates complaints against members and issues reports to the Ethics Committee.

Specifically, the amendment would place the OCE under the "oversight" of the lenient Ethics Committee and rename it the Office of Congressional Complaint Review. The new group would no longer be able to release information to the public, employ anyone "for a position involving communications with the public," or directly contact law enforcement without approval. It would also be prohibited from investigating anonymous complaints.

Again, the changes sought comported to standards applied to other professionals.  Investigation of signed and sworn complaints .. its a due process thing .... Keep in mind illegal acts can still be reported directly to DOJ or other appropriate law enforcement by complaintant ...

I think the major mistake here was how the vote was handled. It should have been left for a regular vote to permit debate.  Honestly, I think the Republicans gave the Dems a gift by allowing them an opportunity to throw proverbial mud in the form of sound bites regardless of the merits of the legislation.

I hardly think it equates to gutting the OCE though but hey headlines sell.

[icarus]

On these two points I would agree with you.

But the amendment (offered by a Republican under active investigation by the very same ethics office) foes further than what you've described. It puts the office directly under the management of the same Congress that it was empaneled to investigate independently.

And I would like to ask you, this.  What could possibly go wrong with a contractor or private citizen having to be named as the complainant or whistleblower against one of the Members of Congress?

It seems pretty common sense to me that these kinds of complaints should be anonymous, just sensitively handled by the ethics office.

Im not sure if you are proposing an independent agency with no oversight.  There has to be a check and balance.  OCE was to be independent from the standing committee who would just exercise oversight under the proposed legislation.

I agree the complaints should be handled professionally and sensitively.  I oppose anonymous complaints based on due process.  Everyone should have the right to face their accuser.  I do understand what that might mean to a complainant but I think that speaks to the inequities in our political system rather than due process. Time for term limits and to eliminate the political class.

[spuwho]

The ethics office should stay in place. If they can't police themselves, let someone else look over their shoulder.

They need to worry about the real issues in the US. Not who is going to catch some lobbyist paid junket to a Caribbean island.

Trump is right, way more important things to worry about right now.

[Adam White]

On these two points I would agree with you.

But the amendment (offered by a Republican under active investigation by the very same ethics office) foes further than what you've described. It puts the office directly under the management of the same Congress that it was empaneled to investigate independently.

And I would like to ask you, this.  What could possibly go wrong with a contractor or private citizen having to be named as the complainant or whistleblower against one of the Members of Congress?

It seems pretty common sense to me that these kinds of complaints should be anonymous, just sensitively handled by the ethics office.

Im not sure if you are proposing an independent agency with no oversight.  There has to be a check and balance.  OCE was to be independent from the standing committee who would just exercise oversight under the proposed legislation.

I agree the complaints should be handled professionally and sensitively.  I oppose anonymous complaints based on due process.  Everyone should have the right to face their accuser.  I do understand what that might mean to a complainant but I think that speaks to the inequities in our political system rather than due process. Time for term limits and to eliminate the political class.

Term limits?  So that we can have the same inexperience and ineptitude that characterizes our City Council now?  That used to seem like a good idea to me as well, but it just doesnt ever seem to work out, because experience is very important to any endeavor.

And what does due process have to do with an anonymous tip?  The burden of evidence still has to be acquired by the investigation.  Anonymous tipping is usually the only way that any of this stuff ever gets exposed.  Whistleblowers have to have the protection that they are not destroying their lives by doing something in the public interest.

An independent agency with no oversight is exactly what is called for.  The question is whether or not the agency is given power to do anything other than publish the conclusions and refer them onto the proper investigative and prosecutorial figures.  Which is all the Ethics office is empowered to do.

The move is designed to make sure that no one ever investigates or exposes anything.

I agree - term limits are a bad idea.

As someone who investigates people based (in part) on anonymous tips, I think the issue might be that the OCE needs to tweak its investigations process. It sounds like maybe some small reforms to the way investigations are handled would or should address any of the issues people have complained about while still keeping the OCE and its independence.

[strider]

Apparently, they have gone back on themselves and are keeping the OCE.  Besides, we all should know from local experience that you do not do away with something like the OCE but rather either circumvent it or outright buy it. It was the public outcry (from what I have read) that changed the Republican's minds. But what the public ends up seeing is often not what really happens so keeping it is the smart move regardless of how corrupt you may or may not be.

[icarus]

Term limits?  So that we can have the same inexperience and ineptitude that characterizes our City Council now?  That used to seem like a good idea to me as well, but it just doesnt ever seem to work out, because experience is very important to any endeavor.

And what does due process have to do with an anonymous tip?  The burden of evidence still has to be acquired by the investigation.  Anonymous tipping is usually the only way that any of this stuff ever gets exposed.  Whistleblowers have to have the protection that they are not destroying their lives by doing something in the public interest.

An independent agency with no oversight is exactly what is called for.  The question is whether or not the agency is given power to do anything other than publish the conclusions and refer them onto the proper investigative and prosecutorial figures.  Which is all the Ethics office is empowered to do.

The move is designed to make sure that no one ever investigates or exposes anything.

I really dont think that is the case.  Much like what happened with the FBI this election cycle, anonymous tips have been filed and the investigations made public before their conclusion.  I think what you were seeing was a way to deal with these issues.

How are members staff of OCE appointed/hired?  To me no oversight of an investigative body just raises a host of issues as does publication of complaints/investigations from anonymous sources prior to conclusion or the right to confront by party accused.

The OCE was going to remain independent but the bipartisan ethics committee would have handled complaints about the OCE.

I think it needs reform and to formalize the process but doing it without floor debate and in the sunshine was a bad idea .. no matter if both political parties agreed beforehand.