The Diary of a Senator : Packwood case grows more serious with suggestions of criminality

Next week, in the first such action of its kind in Senate history, the upper chamber will consider allowing its Ethics Committee to go to court to force longtime Sen. Bob Packwood to comply with a subpoena for his diaries.

In light of a new and disturbing concern raised by committee Chairman Richard H. Bryan (D-Nev.) regarding possible criminal violations by the Oregon Republican--in addition to existing charges of sexual misconduct--quick and decisive Senate action is essential. That hasn’t been a hallmark of the Senate or the Ethics Committee. And the latter has been criticized in the past for the lackluster quality of its investigations of Sen. Alphonse M. D’Amato (R-N.Y.) and former Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.).

The committee has been allowed to examine about 5,000 of 8,200 diary pages covering Packwood’s public and private life over 20 years starting in 1969. Last week its bipartisan membership voted unanimously to subpoena other diary volumes that include entries from 1989 on.

That subpoena was made necessary by Packwood himself, who has attempted to thwart the investigation through delays and implicit threats. This week Packwood hinted that other senators could be embarrassed by the journals’ contents.

It was Packwood who--in testimony before the committee--revealed the existence of diaries to counter allegations by 26 women that he had made unwanted sexual advances.

Also, it was Packwood and his lawyers who earlier allowed the committee access to the diaries on the condition that information on legal, medical and family issues be deleted.

To their credit, committee members have been mindful of Packwood’s privacy, even to the point of offering to appoint an independent examiner to keep the investigation from turning into a fishing expedition. Such concern for privacy should extend to any subpoenaed documents too. And committee members should continue to take pains to prevent damaging leaks and misinformation concerning not only the senator but others who may be named in the diary but who are essentially immaterial to the core of the investigation.

It is to be remembered that whatever Packwood’s misconduct might have been, either violating Senate ethics or standards of decency, he is entitled to his constitutional rights. Even common criminals get that.