Meese breached norms, says report

Press, 31 January 1985, Page 10

Meese breached norms, says report

NZPA-NYT Washington Edwin Meese, in confirmation hearings on his nomination to be United States Attorney-General, said yesterday that he had met “ethical as well as legal” standards of conduct , for public officials. But he would do some things differently in the future to avoid creating “the appearance of impropriety,” he said. Mr Meese’s comments were made as the Senate Judiciary Committee reopened hearings that were postponed last year while a court-appointed independent counsel investigated him on charges of helping to arrange Federal jobs for people who had helped him financially. The counsel, Jacob Stein, found that Mr Meese had not committed any criminal actions, but. as a matter of jurisdiction, did not deal with whether his behaviour

was ethical. Referring yesterday to the special counsel’s report, Mr Meese said, “Reading these detailed facts, I believe, supports what I have always known to be the case, which is that I have conducted myself in accordance to the ethical as well as the legal standards of behaviour for public officials.” Mr Meese said that the independent counsel’s inquiry had “left no stone unturned” and had “found no basis for any of the allegations of improper conduct”.

The Judiciary Committee released yesterday a January 14 staff memorandum of the Office of Government Ethics, which found that Mr Meese, who has been President Reagan’s counsellor since January 1981, had committed several violations of ethical standards.

In their memorandum the two staff lawyers, Gary

Davis and Nancy Feathers, said, “There are two situations in which Mr Meese violated the standards of conduct or other applicable statutes.”

First, they said, he had violated “regulations applicable to the Executive Office of the President” by joining in senior staff decisions to approve John McKean, who had helped Mr Meese obtain a SUS4O,OOO loan, for positions on the Postal Board of Governors.

Also, they said, “Mr Meese violated the agency gift standards” by accepting "Mr McKean’s forbearance on the interest due on the loan”, because that was a “gift” as defined in the Ethics in Government Act. They said that “the appearance of impropriety created by his conduct runs counter to the agency’s general standards of In addition, the twojaaff

lawyers said Mr Meese had violated a regulation prohibiting Federal officials from creating an “appearance of preferential treatment” by approving the appointment to a Federal job of Thomas Barrack, who had helped in the sale of Mr Meese’s house in- California.

The Judiciary Committee also released two letters to committee members from David Martin, director of the office, which contained an unexplained contradiction on a key point. In the first letter, dated Monday, Mr Martin said that he had rejected his staff’s conclusions on two issues but concluded that Mr Meese had committed one “violation of the standards of conduct” concerning an appearance of impropriety.

In the second letter, dated yesterday, Mr Martin said that he had decided "there was no substance to the appearance problem" and

thus no violation by Mr Meese. Mr Martin’s first letter accompanied a copy of the report that he furnished to the committee chairman, Senator Strom Thurmond, with the understanding that neither the letter nor the report would be made public.

His second letter came in response to a request from Mr Thurmond, and the ranking Democrat on the committee, Joseph Biden, of Delaware, that Mr Martin make the report public.

Mr Meese’s statement yesterday contrasted with his insistence in the past that the only thing that he would do differently, given the opportunity, would be to remember . to list a 5U515.000 interest-free loan on his financial disclosure forms.

His failure to disclose that L-loan touched off the inveStigation first by the

Justice Department, then by Mr Stein, into 11 allegations against him.

Mr Meese’s statement was made as Mr Biden began to question his fitness, in terms of judgment and ethical standards, to be Attorney-General.

Mr Meese said that he thought nothing he had done would appear improper “to an objective person”, but that in the future “I would seek to avoid any circumstance that could be misunderstood or misconstrued in any way.” The new round of . hearings into Mr Meese’s nomination promised to run longer than initially anticipated. Although Mr Thurmond had said he wanted to limit the hearings to one day, he said yesterday that more witnesses would be called today and that he would seek vote tomorns(. £