Ethics Panel Expands Case Against Sen. Durenberger

The Senate Ethics Committee significantly expanded its case Wednesday against Sen. Dave Durenberger (R-Minn.), finding “substantial credible evidence” of financial wrongdoing, misrepresentations to the Senate and improper administration of his blind trust.

The committee said it had found “substantial cause” to conclude that Durenberger had “misused United States Senate funds through a pattern of improper conduct which has brought discredit upon the United States Senate.”

The latest charges, covering August, 1983, to November, 1989, all are related to transactions involving a Minneapolis condominium that Durenberger partly owned--and for which he received Senate reimbursements.

The allegations will be included in trial-like hearings the committee has scheduled to begin June 12. The committee said Durenberger may have violated the Ethics In Government Act as well as Senate rules. Any decision to start a criminal investigation would be up to the Justice Department.

Committee members will act as a jury to hear evidence and determine whether Durenberger broke the rules. The committee could recommend punishment ranging from a reprimand to expulsion.

Last February, the committee charged Durenberger with six counts of rules violations in connection with a book-promotion deal and his acceptance of free limousine service for personal travel. The alleged violations took place in 1985 and 1986.

The new committee allegations are the first mention in the case of Durenberger’s blind trust, which had been approved by the Ethics Committee in February, 1986.

Durenberger’s chief of staff, Bert McKasy, said the trust held the senator’s interest in the condominium partnership.

The panel said the possible improper conduct included:

--Submitting misleading travel reimbursement vouchers to the Senate.

--Misrepresenting ownership of the condominium, for which he claimed lodging reimbursement.

--Back dating real estate transactions and other documents, also reportedly involving the condominium.

--Violations of the Ethics In Government Act relating to his blind trust.

According to Durenberger’s own account, he purchased the condominium to reduce the expense of separate homes in the Washington area and his home state.

He later transferred the residence to a partnership in which he was a partner, then sold it to a company owned by his former campaign manager. Last January, Durenberger repaid the Senate $11,005 after the Rules Committee decided he was not entitled to expenses incurred when he stayed at the condominium.