Ethics Chief Accused of Double Standard

Two senators accused the director of the Office of Government Ethics Wednesday of eroding public faith in government integrity by refusing to treat appearances of conflicts of interest as violations of a 1965 presidential order that banned them.

Sen. William S. Cohen (R-Me.), speaking at a subcommittee hearing, contrasted the position of agency Director David H. Martin with that taken by the federal courts and the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board in rulings that federal workers can be disciplined for such apparent conflicts.

‘Two Systems of Justice’

Martin’s stance amounted to a double standard, contended Cohen, who is chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs subcommittee on oversight of government management, and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the panel’s ranking minority member.

“It’s a hell of a government we’re running--two systems of justice,” Levin declared.

Under an executive order issued by former President Lyndon B. Johnson, federal workers are required to “avoid any action . . . which might result in, or create the appearance of . . . losing complete independence and impartiality.”

But last January, during Senate confirmation hearings for Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III, Martin reversed an initial finding by two of his staff attorneys that Meese had committed an ethical violation by approving government appointments for two persons with whom he had financial ties.

At that time, Martin said he believed the standard for the appearance of conflict of interest was only a goal, not a firm requirement.

But Cohen told Martin Wednesday that such a view “lends itself to generating sloppy conduct” by government employees. “When the heat is off, you tend to relax,” he said.

“I don’t believe the heat is off, senator,” Martin responded. “I really don’t.”

Levin was more blunt, telling the agency director: “You have taken the law into your own hands. I’m very much troubled by the way you have not enforced the executive order. . . . Your interpretation has created a real serious problem.”

But Martin, protesting vigorously, contended that his difference with the senators was largely semantic.

Headlines Feared

“It’s just too easy to use a label that might be turned into a headline saying there was a violation” by a government employee, he said. “What’s important is not what you call it, but what action you take.”

He argued that if his office announced both a serious ethics violation and an appearance of conflict of interest on the same day, “they both would be treated by newspapers the same way.”

“I resent the label ‘violation,’ ” Martin said. “It’s too convenient a shorthand label.”

Martin said he planned to take a “hard look” at the executive order and would consider recommending changes in the appearance standard and other provisions by this summer.