Crisis!

The House ethics committee is currently investigating seven African-American lawmakers — more than 15 percent of the total in the House. And an eighth black member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), would be under investigation if the Justice Department hadn’t asked the committee to stand down. Not a single white lawmaker is currently the subject of a full-scale ethics committee probe.

I mentioned this crisis two weeks ago during my article, Communicating crisis: Lessons learned in conducting field research among Native American populations, discussion. The study reported 10 methodological lessons learned from conducting culturally-sensitive, community-based crisis communication research with underrepresented populations.    I thought this crisis would be appropriate to evaluate how these methods could be implemented.

Information Vacuum

The ethics committee declined to respond to questions about the racial disparity, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are wary of talking about it on the record. But privately, some black members are outraged — and see in the numbers a worrisome trend in the actions of ethics watchdogs on and off Capitol Hill.

The ethics committee decision to remain quiet about the situation allows for key stakeholders and critics to comment and speculate about the committee’s true motives. A short statement outlining the reasons why they are investigating the selected members would justify their actions and would leave less space for speculation. But in this void people are talking.

“Is there concern whether someone is trying to set up [CBC] members? Yeah, there is,” a black House Democrat said. “It looks as if there is somebody out there who understands what the rules [are] and sends names to the ethics committee with the goal of going after the [CBC].”

A document leaked to The Washington Post last week showed that nearly three dozen lawmakers have come under scrutiny this year by either the House ethics committee or the Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog created in 2008 at the insistence of Pelosi. While the list contained a substantial number of white lawmakers, the ethics committee has not yet launched formal investigative subcommittees with respect to any of them — as it has with the seven African-American members. I find it hard to believe that even with this new public development the OCE still refuses to comment on the situation. Their silent tactic is just elongated the crisis life span. If a statement was issued then journalists might be less inclined to pursue any more information.  But the crisis continues as old issues are being intertwined with present ones.

The house ethics committee has also been a particular target of ire for the Congressional Black Caucus. Black lawmakers, including CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), met with OCE officials earlier this year to raise their concerns.

A number of CBC members opposed the resolution establishing the house ethics committee, arguing that it was the wrong response to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, which helped Democrats seize control of the House in 2006.

Setting up the house ethics committee “was a mistake,” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) told The Hill newspaper recently. “Congress has a long and rich history of overreacting to a crisis.”

Understand that Building Relationships Take Time

African-American politicians have long complained that they’re treated unfairly when ethical issues arise. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are still fuming over Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to oust then-Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) from the House Ways and Means Committee in 2006, and some have argued that race plays a role in the ongoing efforts to remove Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) from his chairmanship of that committee.  These recent actions by the House ethics committee are sure to add fuel to the fire and in the absence of an ethics committee statement will continue to grow out of control.

Recognize the Value of Multicultural Research Teams

The article focuses on research teams but I think that this concept can be applied for any group or team evaluating any multicultural demographic, which in America is often. The committee — which has one African-American lawmaker, Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), among its 10 members — considered three referrals from the recently formed Office of Congressional Ethics. It dismissed a case against Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), who is white, but agreed to open full-blown investigations of California Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters and Laura Richardson, both of whom are black.  The committee was already investigating five other African-Americans. Rangel is the subject of two different probes, one involving a host of issues he has put before the committee and another involving allegations that corporate funds may have been used improperly to pay for members’ trips to the Caribbean in 2007-08. Reps. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Donald Payne (D-N.J.) and Del. Donna Christensen (D-U.S. Virgin Islands) are also included in the second of those investigations.

Realize that Perceptions of Risk and Crisis Vary Across Cultures

Another CBC member said black lawmakers are “easy targets” for ethics watchdog groups because they have less money — both personally and in their campaign accounts — to defend themselves than do their white colleagues. Campaign funds can be used to pay members’ legal bills. 

“A lot of that has to do with outside watchdog groups like [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington] that have to have a level of success to justify OCE,” the CBC member said. The good-government groups were strong backers of the OCE’s creation.

But these same groups won’t go after Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), this lawmaker claimed, “because she has plenty of money to defend herself,” and the outside groups don’t want to take a risk. The Democrat said the ethics committee would be going up against Harman’s lawyers and “going up against” the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee if they push the OCE to pressure the ethics committee to act.

Harman was allegedly recorded on a 2005 federal wiretap discussing with an Israeli operative her bid to become Intelligence Committee chairwoman. Harman has denied any wrongdoing, but an attempt by the ethics committee to get a transcript of the taped call was rebuffed by the Justice Department.

What especially galled black lawmakers was that the ethics committee voted to move forward with the Waters and Richardson probes following the OCE referrals, while Graves — who OCE also thought should be investigated by the ethics committee — saw his case dismissed.

Even worse, the ethics committee issued a 541-page document explaining why it wouldn’t look into allegations that Graves invited a witness to testify before the Small Business Committee — on which he sits — without revealing his financial ties to that witness.  The ethics committee is willing to issue an in depth document explaining why it dropped charges against a suspect but won’t issue a statement to defend their current actions. “It is kind of crazy,” said an aide to one senior black Democrat. “How can it be that the ethics committee only investigates African-Americans? It doesn’t make sense.”

White lawmakers have certainly been the subject of ethics committee investigations before. Former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was admonished by the committee for his dealings with corporate lobbyists, while ex-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) was the target of an investigation over his dealings with teenage male House pages in late 2006. Foley resigned after the sex scandal was revealed.

And the document leaked to the Post last week shows that a number of white lawmakers — including senior House Appropriations Committee members John Murtha (D-Pa.), Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) and Jim Moran (D-Va.) — have drawn the attention of the committee and the OCE.

The two congressional ethics watchdogs are looking into these members’ ties to the PMA Group, a now-defunct lobbying firm that won tens of millions of dollars in earmarks from members of the Appropriations Committee. The lawmakers who arranged for the earmarks received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from PMA’s lobbying clients.

But it seems unlikely that the PMA case will become the subject of a full-blown ethics committee investigation. The Justice Department is also looking into the PMA allegations; the FBI raided PMA’s office last year, and Visclosky and his former chief of staff have been served with document subpoenas. And under ethics committee rules, the panel cannot conduct an investigation of any member or staffer already being probed by a law enforcement agency.

The nation’s only black senator, Roland Burris of Illinois, is currently under investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. It’s not clear whether that committee is currently investigating any white members, although Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) is likely to be in its sights if the Justice Department doesn’t pre-empt a committee investigation.

Conclusion

Obviously my main concern with this crisis is the committee’s choice to remain silent on the subject, especially since they have issued statements in the past to justify their actions. This crisis makes me ask several questions.

What does this say about the committee?

How does it make them look?

Do they think they don’t have to issue a statement becasue they are dealing with a minority in the population?

Are they refusing to recognize this crisis? Or are they unaware that this is a crisis? Does answering yes to either one of those questions make them look less out of touch?

With all situations in D.C. this is political. But I think this crisis raises issues that the committee are not ready to address and could silence with an explanation. Don't get me wrong, if these lawmakers are guilty of ethically compromising decisions they should be punished but I think along with others that it appears to be too much of a coincidence to be digested without some type of response.