Under the old rules, the committee staff was bi-partisan. In January, under the new rules, the new chair brought in his new, partisan staff.
This will be a sticking point.
===============================
http://democraticleader.house.gov/press/releases.cfm?pressReleaseID=949FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 27, 2005
CONTACT:
Brendan Daly/Jennifer Crider
202-226-7616
Pelosi to Hastert: Ethics Committee Staffing Must Remain Bi-partisan
Washington, D.C.-- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi today released the following letter to Speaker Dennis Hastert -- sent two weeks ago -- on Chairman Doc Hastings’ proposal to make the Ethics Committee staff partisan.
Pelosi wrote, “ I cannot imagine a staffing arrangement more damaging to the non-partisan character of the Committee or one more directly contradictory to the letter and the spirit of the carefully crafted, bi-partisan staffing provisions adopted by the House in 1997.”
Speaker Hastert has not responded to the letter.
The full text of the letter follows:
April 12, 2005
The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker, United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Speaker:
As you are aware, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is not able to conduct any significant business because of the stalemate caused by the unilateral changes in ethics procedures enacted by the majority on January 4, 2005. I am writing to again urge that you support a return to the previous rules and to state my serious concern over an equally radical change in the Committee’s staffing that has been proposed by Chairman Hastings.
There can be no legitimate ethics process that commands the respect of our colleagues and the American people if the Committee’s activities are conducted under the current rules. As Ranking Member Mollohan pointed out in his recent “Dear Colleague”, a copy of which is attached, the new rules undermine the ability of the Committee to fulfill its obligations by (1) permitting half of the Committee’s members to dismiss a complaint solely by stalling for 45 days, (2) authorizing a respondent’s attorney to also represent some or all of the witnesses against him, and (3) requiring, if a Member so demands, that the Committee proceed directly to a full-fledged trial without first conducting any investigative activity in instances where the Committee has agreed to conclude a matter with a letter critical of the Member’s conduct.
Equally dismaying is Mr. Hastings staffing proposal about which I have been briefed by Mr. Mollohan. As I understand it, Mr. Hastings proposes to divide the duties of the senior professional staff person by appointing both a Chief Counsel and a Staff Director. He then proposes that his shared employee, who is also his personal office Chief of Staff, fill the Committee Staff Director slot. At the same time, Mr. Hastings has indicated that if Mr. Mollohan so preferred, his shared employee could be designated Minority Staff Director. I cannot imagine a staffing arrangement more damaging to the non-partisan character of the Committee or one more directly contradictory to the letter and the spirit of the carefully crafted, bi-partisan staffing provisions adopted by the House in 1997.
Those provisions were recommended by the Ethics Reform Task Force, of which I was a member, in response to what some perceived as partisan conduct by previous staff directors/chief counsels. The intent was to create a totally non-partisan, professional staff chosen by the Committee, not by the Chairman acting alone as had been the case. At the same time, recognizing the exacting duties of the Chairman and Ranking Member, the position of shared employee was created. This permitted the two leaders of the Committee to designate staff from their personal offices to serve also in a liaison role on the Committee staff. The clear intent was that the shared employees, while fully informed on all Committee activities, were to perform only a communications function and were to have no supervisory authority whatsoever. Mr. Hastings proposal to designate his shared employee, who has been his personal office chief of staff, as the Committee’s staff director is a total repudiation of the intent of the Ethics Reform Task Force and a regrettable indication of an intent to strip the Committee of whatever film of non-partisanship it may still possess.
The House will be served best when a respected, efficient and non-partisan Ethics Committee resumes operations. For that to happen the rules changes must be revisited and the attempt at partisan staffing must end. Therefore, I ask that you immediately discuss the staffing matter with Mr. Hastings and either support reversal of the rules changes or join me in appointing a bi-partisan task force to resolve the issue. It is time to let the Committee and the House get on with their work.
Thank you for your attention to this matter of such importance to the House.
Sincerely,
/s/
NANCY PELOSI
Democratic Leader