Official Tells of Critical Meese Report Reversal

The government’s chief ethics officer testified Thursday that two staff attorneys agreed with him on dropping their initial finding that Atty. Gen.-designate Edwin Meese III had committed ethics violations when he approved government appointments for two persons with whom he had financial ties.

Backed by testimony from the two lawyers, David H. Martin, director of the Office of Government Ethics, told the Senate Judiciary Committee: “There was no pressure from anyone regarding this matter or any other matter.”

The committee, which is considering Meese’s nomination, completed the hearings by working late into the evening to hear witnesses from law enforcement groups favoring Meese and from civil rights organizations opposed to his confirmation.

Two-Week Recess

With an agreement to vote on the nomination Tuesday, there is a chance that the Senate could consider it before Feb. 8, when it begins a two-week recess.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the panel’s ranking minority member, hardened his position on Meese Thursday by saying that he will vote against confirmation unless the nominee comes back before the committee and “does a mea culpa, mea culpa (my fault, my fault).”

Before the hearings reopened this week, Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) had said that he would oppose Meese, and, through questions and comments, several other Democrats on the 17-member committee have hinted that they might vote “no” as well.

The ethics office review of an independent counsel’s investigation of Meese--which had found no basis for criminal charges against him--became an issue Monday when the existence of the report that criticized Meese on ethical grounds was disclosed.

Martin said that the report had been written by F. Gary Davis and Nancy Feathers, staff lawyers of the ethics office, as the first step in “an exhaustive review” of the independent counsel’s investigation to determine whether that probe indicated any ethical problems.

Martin acknowledged that he and the lawyers had found that there was “an appearance problem” caused by Meese’s approval of the appointment to the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors of John R. McKean, a San Francisco accountant who had arranged two loans totaling $60,000 for the financially pressed Meese.

Informed Reagan Lawyer

But Martin said that he had handled this by notifying Fred F. Fielding, President Reagan’s lawyer, of the matter, although he ignored Davis’ proposal that Fielding counsel Meese on the issue.

Davis said that, after lengthy discussions of the report with Martin and Donald Campbell, the office’s chief counsel, he became “completely satisfied in my own mind that there wasn’t any violation” of ethical standards by Meese.

At the same time, Davis said, he “also felt there was an overall pattern” of conduct demonstrated by Meese on the loans arranged by McKean and in McKean’s subsequent government appointment that called for Meese to “be a little more sensitive.”

“You did feel there was a violation--I don’t want to put words in your mouth,” Metzenbaum said.

“That has a stronger connotation,” Davis replied. “You could characterize it as a technical violation. I don’t . . . an area of concern--that’s the way to characterize it.”

Under questioning by Sen. Charles McC. Mathias (R-Md.), Martin said that with “20-20 hindsight and perfect vision,” Meese should not--”for appearances’ sake”--have taken part in the White House meeting that approved McKean’s appointment to a nine-year term on the postal board.

Such characterizations were far milder than the draft memorandum drawn up by Davis and Feathers, which Martin made public at the request of Biden and Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), the committee chairman.

3 Violations Listed

The memo, which Feathers testified was never intended to be “more than a starting point” in evaluating the Meese case, listed “three ethics violations” in the McKean matter. In addition, it found “an appearance problem” in Meese’s approval of the presidential appointment of Thomas J. Barrack--after Barrack had assisted Meese in the sale of his California home--to an Interior Department job.

Martin said that a legal memorandum submitted by Meese attorney Leonard Garment, with whom Martin had discussed the matter, “wasn’t much help.” Garment, in interviews, had indicated that his memo helped persuade the ethics office to scrap its sharp criticism.