As you know, I serve as the Ranking Minority Member of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, which has jurisdiction over the Office of Government Ethics. I have read the account in today's Wall Street Journal concerning your role in reviewing the ethical conduct of Edwin Meese as part of his nomination process for Attorney General. That article raises several questions which I would like you to answer by the close of business tomorrow. 1) a) Was the review of the Stein Report by OGE staff attorneys undertaken at your direction or was it initiated by the staff? Please provide the names of the staff persons who authored or are responsible for the report. b) Was the review conducted relative to certification of Mr. Meese's nomination for Attorney General? If so, why was no reference made to it in the letter of certification to the Senate Judiciary Committee? If it was done for another purpose, please explain. c) When did the review begin; when was it finished; when did you become aware that it was being conducted? 2) a) Please list all contacts you or OGE had with White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Mr. Meese, and Mr. Meese's attorney, Leonard Garment, about the OGE report. Was each contact in person, over the phone, or by letter? What was the date of each contact? Who was present? Who initiated each contact? Were any other OGE employees present other than yourself? b) If there was any written summary of those meetings or correspondence related to those exchanges, please enclose them with your answers. c) Did you share a copy of the OGE report with either Mr. Fielding, Mr. Meese or Mr. Garment? 3) a) Briefly describe the customary practice of your office in pursuing an allegation of a conflict of interest involving a current federal employee. Does your office discuss such allegations with the Designated Agency Ethics Officer (DAEO), and if so, at what point? b) Do you usually share a copy of a staff report or a draft thereof with the DAOE or the subject employee? c) Is the employee then invited to explain his conduct? d) How is disciplinary or corrective action determined and by whom? How many instances of disciplinary or corrective action have there been in the past three years? e) The article states that upon "reviewing all the facts and meeting with Mr. Meese's lawyers" you decided not to seek corrective action. Please list those factors that affected your decision on this matter. £) Please cite those cases where on previous occasions your staff has made findings of violations of ethics laws or regulations and you did not adopt them. 4) a) You certified to the Judiciary Committee on 1/24/85 that Mr. Meese was not in violation of any conflict of interest laws, yet you did not disclose at that time the OGE report or the developments that had occured as a result of the meetings or conversations with Mr. Fielding and Mr. Garment. What was the basis for your decision to not inform, even on a confidential basis, the Judiciary Committee of the OGE report and subsequent actions? b) Did you have any conversations or written exchanges with Mr. Fielding, Mr. Meese or Mr. Garment about keeping the report confidential? If so, when were those discussions or exchanges, who initiated such discussions or exchanges, who was involved in them, and what was requested of whom? Please provide a summary of any such conversations and any documents pertaining to this issue. 5) a) According to the Wall Street Journal, the OGE report identified two incidents in which violations of ethics laws or regulations may have occured, namely Mr. Meese's involvement in the approval of John McKean to serve on the Postal Board of Governnors and in the approval of Thomas Barrack to serve in the Department of Interior and later, the Department of Commerce. The article states that you were "satisfied" with Mr. Meese's conduct relative to Mr. McKean, because his participation had been "minor" and "(t)here was no basis for concluding, then, that he (Mr. Meese) had lost his impartiality in terms of supporting the guy (for the postal board)". reasoning behind those conclusions. Please explain in full your b) The article further states that you "quickly ruled out any 'appearance' problem on the Barrack matter", because the Stein Report found no evidence showing Mr. Meese knew of "Mr. Barrack's help on the home sale at the time Mr. Barrack got the appointment". However, the Stein Report is very clear that Mr. Meese did know through direct conversation and correspondence that Mr. Barrack had agreed to work to sell Mr. Meese's home in a capacity similar to that of a broker, and that Mr. Barrack was not charging Mr. Meese any brokerage fee or finder's fee. This information was known to Mr. Meese before his approval of Mr. Barrack's appointments. In fact, at a dinner in November, before the approval of the appointments, Mrs. Meese is quoted in the Stein Report as saying, "Oh, we'll recognize him (Mr. Barrack). He'll be the one with the halo around his head, ". This was said in reference, according to the Stein Report, to "his efforts in helping the Meeses sell their house. (Stein Report, page 218.) If you have information that differs from this, or a different interpretation of these events, please provide them. or 6) Please provide me with a copy of the OGE report referred to in the article and any correspondence, memos documents concerning that report in the OGE or your personal files. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Linda Gustitus of my staff at 224-3682. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Carl Swin Carl Levin CC: Senator Strom Thurmond This is in response to your letter of January 28, 1985, requesting that I answer certain questions raised by an article in that day's Wall Street Journal. The article related to an Office of Government Ethics staff review of the Independent Counsel's report concerning Edwin Meese IIL As you know, on January 31, 1985, I appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for five and one-half hours regarding this matter. While most of your questions were addressed and answered during that testimony, I understand your need to carry out the responsibilities of the subcommittee. Consequently, I am most happy to provide answers to your questions. With regards to your questions in the referenced particulars: 1(a). The review of the Independent Counsel's report was undertaken at my sole direction, and was prepared by two staff attorneys, F. Gary Davis and Nancy Feathers. 1(b). The review was undertaken so that I might fully carry out my duties as Director of the Office of Government Ethics, but not specifically with the certification process in mind. Had any matter been raised which I thought proper to reference in the letter of certification, I would have done so. Since the final conclusions of this Office were matters properly within the executive branch, I considered it proper to be handled within the executive branch. 1(c). The review began in mid-December and finished on or about the 14th of January. I was aware that it was being conducted when I directed that it be undertaken. 2(a). I contacted Fred Fielding by telephone regarding this matter on January 16, 1985. When advised of the review, Mr. Fielding inquired if I would meet with Mr. Meese's attorneys. Consequently, on January 17, Messrs. Garment, Peter Morgan and Bob Wallach came to my Office, where Mr. Donald Campbell, our Chief Counsel, and I advised them of the results of the review. The next day, January 18, Messrs. Garment, Wallach and Morgan met with me and Mr. Campbell in my Office, and presented a draft memorandum. On January 22, a messenger delivered Mr. Garment's final memorandum, which I requested Mr. Davis and Ms. Feathers to review. 2(b). The only correspondence was the memorandum from Mr. Garment, which I have enclosed. The meetings were quite brief and there were no written summaries. 2(c). No. 3(a). It is customary to bring the Designated Agency Ethics Official into the discussion at the earliest possible point. However, in most cases, the information flow is opposite to what occurred in this matter. Normally, it is the Designated Agency Ethics Official who develops the information, and upon whom we rely to gather the facts. 3(b). See answer to 3(a). 3(c). Normally, the employee is aware of the investigation or the review, and is most anxious to explain or describe their position. We routinely hear from an employee or their attorney. 3(d). Pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations, disciplinary action can only be undertaken by the head of an agency. Corrective action in the context of the Ethics in Government Act (the Act) generally relates to institutional changes in agency procedures or policy. However, section 402a of the Act directs that I consult with agency ethics counselors regarding the resolutions of conflict of interest problems in individual cases. After meeting with my staff, we decided that the only action required by this Office was to notify Mr. Fielding of the appearance problem. Your inquiry asked how many corrective actions there have been in the past three years. We have, through many of the tools available to us in the Act, taken corrective action to resolve many conflict of interest problems, and do not, as a matter of practice, include them in the certification letter. As you know, my view of the Act's thrust relates to preventing conflicts of interest in the executive branch. 3(e). The final conclusion of this Office was that based upon the facts of the McKean loan arrangement, an appearance problem was created. I already knew that Mr. Meese was aware of the appearance problem, and of the regulations which caution against creating appearance problems, having pointed this out to Messrs. Wallach, Garment and Morgan. We believed that it was unnecessary to do anything further, other than to advise Fred Fielding, the Designated Agency Ethics Official. 3(f). The underlying premise of this question is inaccurate. In this matter, after several meetings with and much discussion among Mr. Campbell, Mr. Davis, Ms. Feathers and myself, we reached a conclusion in which we all concurred. In general, there have been occasions when members of my staff have disagreed on the appropriate resolution of ethics-related questions. 4(a). I did not think that it was proper for me to raise it with the Senate Judiciary Committee. 4(b). No. 5(a). My conclusions were based on the following facts: at the time the loans were made, there was no evidence that Mr. McKean was interested in, or even contemplated receiving, a federal position; |