THE ETHICS CHARGES AGAINST JIM WRIGHT : No Violations Found in Speaker’s Ties to S

The House Ethics Committee ruled Monday that House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) may have been “intemperate” but that he did not violate House rules when he intervened with federal regulators on behalf of beleaguered Texas savings and loans--including an alleged attempt to have one hard-nosed official fired on grounds that he was homosexual.

“While it may well be that Rep. Wright was intemperate in his dealings with representatives of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the committee is not persuaded that there is reason to believe that he exercised undue influence in dealing with that agency,” the committee’s report said.

Asserting that Wright’s actions fell within the realm of representing constituents’ interests, the panel said a finding of “undue influence” must be based on “probative evidence that a reprisal or threat to agency officials was made”--not on “pure inference or circumstance or . . . on (Wright’s) technique and personality.”

On those grounds, the committee rejected the conclusion by special counsel Richard J. Phelan that Wright had violated a House rule on dealing with federal agencies in four instances.

In rejecting all of Phelan’s negative findings on Wright’s savings and loan actions, the committee said generally: “The assertion that the exercise of undue influence can arise based upon a legislator’s expressions of interest jeopardizes the ability of members effectively to represent persons and organizations having concern with the activities of executive agencies.”

The allegation that Wright sought to have a federal regulator removed on grounds that he was homosexual was based on testimony by Edwin J. Gray, former chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Gray said the firing attempt took place in November, 1986, when Wright made one of his numerous calls to complain about the bank board’s treatment of Texas S&Ls.;

“We received no evidence lending any credence to the truth of Wright’s allegations,” Phelan said in his report to the committee. Although a spokesman for Wright has denied that he attempted to have the individual fired, the special counsel said he found Gray’s testimony to be “credible.”

Phelan said the individual’s “sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to his qualification for employment in the Federal Home Loan Bank system.”

The committee also rejected the special counsel’s conclusions that Wright violated the House rule on dealing with federal agencies when he:

--Contacted the home loan bank board on behalf of Craig Hall, a Dallas-based real estate syndicator. Wright’s attempt to influence bank board decisions on Hall represented “a naked attempt to obtain a change in a regulatory decision without permitting any discussion of the merits” and thus “is improper,” Phelan said.

His report said that Wright linked his requests on behalf of Hall with the Speaker’s action temporarily blocking a recapitalization bill for federal savings and loan insurance that the board was seeking desperately in 1986.

--Insisted that Gray meet with Thomas M. Gaubert, an Irving, Tex., S&L; chairman, despite bank board rules barring its chairman from meeting with subjects of a dispute.

--Sought the firing of William Black, a former bank board litigation director, with whom Wright had had a sharp exchange and whom Wright blamed for a critical magazine article on the Speaker.