Documents Raise Questions on Gingrich’s House Ethics : Congress: Speaker may have crossed line on using federal staff, supplies. He denies such allegations.

As an aide to Georgia Rep. John J. Flynt Jr., Dolores Adamson was cautioned against doing personal or political tasks for the congressman while working in the home district office.

Adamson and other staff members were told that the rules of the House of Representatives banned any extracurricular activities on government time, she said, and violating them could bring trouble. But that view changed abruptly when Flynt retired and was replaced in 1979 by an audacious history professor named Newt Gingrich, who declared he would one day ascend to be Speaker of the House.

“Newt’s attitude was: The rules don’t apply to me,” recalls Adamson, who served as Gingrich’s district administrator. “He became angry whenever things got in the way of what he wanted to do.”

According to interviews and internal documents, Gingrich and his staff appear to have routinely skirted the spirit--if not the letter--of House rules that separate the government’s resources from the outside pursuits of members as he waged his 16-year quest to overthrow the established political order in Congress and attain his career ambition.

An examination of Gingrich’s eight terms in office reveals numerous examples of questionable use of federal employees, equipment and supplies--suggesting that all were considered readily available to the congressman as needed, regardless of the purpose.

The lawmaker’s staff members, former employees say, were frequently assigned to do campaign work on government time; top aides and Gingrich’s congressional letterhead were used to maintain a college course he taught as a sideline; the Georgia Republican himself pitched partisan and personal projects on the House floor, and his House clerical staff was assigned to help produce a book for which Gingrich and his wife received $24,000 in royalties.

The boundaries separating official government work and personal or political activities are not precise, and members of Congress traditionally are given considerable latitude in setting their staff’s duties. Gingrich has maintained that his behavior is no different from that of most other members.

Yet experts in congressional ethics note that the issues raised by Gingrich’s practices, some of which are cited in four ethics complaints pending against him, are far from frivolous and, when proved in other cases in the past, have posed serious problems for members.

Last year, former Rep. Carroll Hubbard Jr. (D-Ky.), an 18-year lawmaker and banking subcommittee chairman, was sentenced to three years in prison for corruption charges that included misusing staff members to do campaign work. Others members over the years have been jailed and fined for misusing congressional resources.

Gingrich’s supporters discount the new questions as the work of political enemies searching for ways to undercut his power as Speaker before Gingrich and his conservative allies are able to achieve their revolutionary agenda.

Gingrich insists that each of the allegations is “unequivocally false.” He has accused Democratic leaders of “misusing the ethics system in a deliberate, vicious and vindictive way.”

Certainly, Gingrich’s adversaries are fanning the criticism; one of the ethics complaints was lodged by the Democrat whom Gingrich defeated in the November election, and two others were filed by Democratic colleagues.

But an independent review of House documents, as well as interviews with current and former staff associates--who left his staff voluntarily and are not among those now circulating negative information about him--separately raises concerns about the new Speaker’s sensitivity to ethical constraints; together, the record suggests that Gingrich, in shaping the complex web of enterprises his admirers call “Newt World,” sometimes blended private, partisan and government interests in dubious ways.

In addition to the Speaker’s position and his congressional office, the Gingrich empire includes GOPAC, a nationwide political operation that he heads to help elect Republicans; his own reelection campaign committee; a tax-exempt foundation with which he is affiliated; a nationwide television program; various controversial book enterprises and, until recently, his televised college course.

Congressional resources were sometimes used in them.

Besides the pending ethics cases, the new attention to Gingrich’s conduct is heightened by the prominent role he has played in demanding investigations of Democrats accused of self-serving or questionable dealings, particularly former House Speaker Jim Wright. It was Gingrich’s blistering attacks on Wright as a “crook” for misusing his position for personal benefit that helped drive the powerful Texas Democrat from office in 1989.

“This is a man who’s made a career out of criticizing Congress as an institution and members of Congress as individuals for abusing the power of their office to maintain themselves in office,” said David J. Worley, an Atlanta attorney who was defeated by Gingrich in 1988 and 1990. “And he does the same thing himself all the time.”

Not so, says Gingrich, who draws a sharp distinction between the many allegations he fired at Democrats over the past two decades and the ones he faces today.

“When I attack people on ethics charges, they in fact were consistently found to be guilty because I did real research about real ethics problems,” he said in a brief interview this month.

Gingrich launched his crusade on congressional ethics even before taking office.

During his first House race in 1974, he accused the incumbent Democrat, Flynt, a member of the Ethics Committee, of “a total breach of ethical conduct” for employing the manager of his farm as a part-time congressional clerk for 17 years. Gingrich called the arrangement a “rip-off” of taxpayer funds and demanded an investigation. Although he conceded the employment may not be “technically illegal,” Gingrich said it was grounds for censure.

After narrowly losing to Flynt in 1974 and 1976, Gingrich won a House seat in 1978. Soon afterward, questions surfaced about Gingrich’s own use of congressional employees.

Two members of his original staff said in separate interviews that Gingrich assigned employees in his Georgia district offices to do campaign work on government time.

The responsibility of keeping government and political work separate in district offices fell to Adamson, who served as office manager and then district administrator during Gingrich’s first five years in Congress. Adamson said she fought a constant battle to dissuade Gingrich and his top aides from using government-paid congressional employees and office equipment to do political work during regular business hours.

Despite her repeated warnings, Adamson said, Gingrich staffers used government office equipment to produce campaign-related materials and record Gingrich’s political speeches. Adamson said Gingrich once docked $200 from her pay and another staffer’s pay for failing to provide a government recorder to a campaign worker to tape a speech by the congressman at a political event.

When Adamson resigned in 1983, no one was left in the field offices to police the use of congressional resources, said Dorothy Crews, an executive assistant to Gingrich from 1979 to 1984.

“After Dolores left, nobody cared what went on as far as mixing campaign and congressional things together,” Crews said. “I don’t think Newt ever did.”

In 1984, Crews said, a large chart laying out details of Gingrich’s reelection strategy was posted for months in the district office conference room, where campaign meetings were often held. At the same time, Crews said, two top House aides on the congressional payroll openly ran Gingrich’s reelection campaign from the district office.

Similarly, a top congressional aide worked on Gingrich’s 1986 campaign “all the time” out of the district office while on the government payroll, said a former Gingrich House staffer who requested anonymity. There was “no separation” between the administrator’s congressional and campaign duties, the former staffer said.

The House ethics manual states that members of Congress may be prosecuted for fraud against the U.S. government for using public funds to compensate individuals for campaign services. In addition, congressional staffers “may not be required to do political work as a condition of House employment.”

In 1993, a former aide to the late Long Beach congressman Glenn M. Anderson pleaded guilty to felony theft of government funds for participating in the congressional campaign of Anderson’s stepson while on the House payroll.

The House Ethics Committee ruled in the complaint against Speaker Wright, which involved his use of staff and other issues, that congressional employees are paid “to assist a member in official responsibilities or to work on official committee business, but not to perform non-official, personal or campaign duties.”

Gingrich has taken unusual steps, including consulting lawyers at every opportunity and establishing specific procedures, to avoid even minor breaches, said Tony Blankley, Gingrich’s press secretary. “Surely, once in a while there is a technical slip, but I think he has done as much as a person can do to avoid even the mildest of staff shortcomings.”

House staffers are permitted to engage in campaign activity away from the congressional office as volunteers or while on a leave of absence. Gingrich, like many lawmakers, frequently transferred House employees to his political staff during campaigns to assist in his reelection efforts.

But, unlike his fellow lawmakers, Gingrich’s mission from the moment he entered Congress was to direct a GOP takeover of the House--not merely to retain his seat, said Robert Weed, a former Gingrich chief of staff in Washington and reelection campaign manager in Georgia.

Thus, his larger mission with its many elements provided increased opportunity to merge it with his congressional position.

“We did not run Newt’s official campaign out of the congressional office, but changing the country was considered an official function,” Weed said.

Added Blankley: “Because of the larger operations that Gingrich has outside of Congress--as well as his vigorous activities inside of Congress--his staff does have a larger challenge in keeping all of those lines clear. And we have gone to extraordinary lengths to keep them clear.”

Part of Gingrich’s strategy to win control of the House was to rail against the Democrat-led House as a corrupt institution. He held himself up as a “champion” of ethics while accusing other members of Congress of improper conduct.

In 1988, for instance, Gingrich announced that 17 Democrats had ethical problems that warranted investigation. He cited media reports that Rep. Gerry Sikorski (D-Minn.) had misused congressional funds by requiring House staff “to perform numerous personal duties for him as well as requiring them to campaign while on the official payroll.” No official action was taken against Sikorski.

Yet, in his own office Gingrich began relying on congressional workers and resources to do personal work as well. He acknowledged using official staff and equipment in his district office to help produce his 1984 book, “Window of Opportunity.”

“I did not think it was appropriate for us to work on the book,” said Crews, who said she expressed misgivings when Gingrich and a top staffer assigned her to type, copy and mail portions of the manuscript. Even though the congressman and his wife, Marianne, were paid an advance by the publisher, Crews said she was told the book was a “policy statement” and she should continue work on the manuscript.

Adamson, a more senior aide, said that she too objected. “I told (Gingrich) he couldn’t do it. His response was that he didn’t talk to me at all.”

His staff’s work on the book did not prevent Gingrich from assailing Wright in 1989 for assigning a staff member to his own book project. Gingrich called Wright’s actions “clearly wrong.”

The ethics panel ultimately charged Wright with avoiding limits on honorariums by selling his book to lobbyists at speaking engagements. But, noting that House staff tend to work irregular hours, it did not reprimand him for his staff’s involvement with the book.

Gingrich cited the committee’s finding on the latter issue when, three months after Wright’s resignation, allegations surfaced about his own book. “What we did was entirely, precisely appropriate,” he asserted, adding that such staff help was commonplace on Capitol Hill.

The non-congressional work performed by Gingrich’s office went well beyond the book project.

As recently as late 1993, while serving as minority whip of the House, Gingrich used government staff and equipment to help prepare a class he taught on Saturdays at Kennesaw State College in Georgia, course records and interviews show.

At the time, Gingrich called the nationally televised course, “Renewing American Civilization,” perhaps the most important project of his political career. The class focused on the same conservative themes, such as replacing the welfare state, that he was promoting in his Republican agenda. The course was broadcast nationwide and organized by various elements of his larger political network, including GOPAC and the tax-exempt Progress & Freedom Foundation.

Documents obtained through the Georgia Freedom of Information Act indicate that federally paid Gingrich staffers and those of the House GOP leadership had a substantive role.

During early planning stages in March, 1993, Gingrich wrote a memo directing Timothy Mescon, dean of Kennesaw’s Business School, to work with Linda Nave, associate director of the office of then-Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.), to “develop a contract” for the course.

On Sept. 8, 1993, Gingrich sent four letters, all on congressional letterhead, to Kennesaw President Betty Siegel about growing criticism that the course was partisan. The letters were faxed from Gingrich’s House offices in Washington and Marietta.

They included an assessment by his government-paid press secretary, Allan Lipsett, of media reaction to the issue and mentioned a meeting Lipsett attended with Siegel. In an interview, Lipsett said he wrote the analysis on his own time, even though he used the government computer system.

Numerous Gingrich aides assisted in the production of “Renewing American Civilization,” said one Gingrich associate who worked closely on the class. The associate said House staffers participated in everything from strategy meetings to clerical errands.

“Newt made the course a priority,” the associate said. “There were obviously lines crossed . . . but I really believe they were not consciously crossed.”

The documents show that Gingrich was warned specifically about using congressional resources on the course. In a memo to Gingrich, Nave quoted a section of the House ethics manual that said the course is permissible so long as “no official resources, including staff time, are used in connection with the teaching.”

Nevertheless, Lipsett said, Gingrich’s staffers assumed “incorrectly” that they could use government time and materials because Kennesaw is in Gingrich’s district.

“Looking back, perhaps we should have created a few more fire walls,” Lipsett said.

Many lawmakers employ three sets of stationery--official, campaign and personal--to avoid violating House rules or suggesting that their private endeavors are officially sanctioned by Congress, said Stanley Brand, who was House counsel under the Democrats and has since represented both Republicans and Democrats in ethics cases.

James A. Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University and co-author of a congressional management guide, compared Gingrich’s arrangement to using House resources to run a separate business.

“If everybody in the House were doing this, the American people would be rightfully outraged,” he said.

The course was not the first time Gingrich was warned about misusing the congressional letterhead. In 1990, the Ethics Committee found that he improperly used it to promote a private commercial venture. The case involved a letter sent to constituents notifying them of a special cruise being offered by a Florida company, Marathon Travel, to senior citizens on limited incomes. The letter was merely an attempt to boost Gingrich’s popularity among older voters, a former staff member said.

The committee warned Gingrich that “a future recurrence of improper use of mail and resources may result in more severe committee action.”

Gingrich also has used the House floor to promote his college course.

Last April 12, Gingrich delivered one of several long speeches on “Renewing American Civilization” and included a phone number to order audiotapes and videocassettes.

“You can learn more about that by calling 1-800-TORENEW,” Gingrich said. The audiocassettes cost $159.95 and the videocassettes $199.95, with proceeds going to the Progress & Freedom Foundation. Gingrich was not paid for teaching the course.

In all, Gingrich dispensed telephone numbers during House speeches on at least four occasions while touting personal projects. His remarks were broadcast on C-SPAN and published in the taxpayer-supported Congressional Record.

An ethics complaint filed this month by Minority Whip David E. Bonior (D-Mich.) alleges that Gingrich improperly used official resources to seek support for outside organizations. “This isn’t the Home Shopping Network,” Bonior said.

Gingrich responded that the Constitution protects a member’s right “to say virtually anything on the House floor.”

Brand and Thurber said that, while the Constitution’s free speech clause protects members in their official capacity from civil or criminal actions by an outside party, Gingrich’s remarks are still subject to House ethics rules.

Gingrich’s defenders point to two letters that he wrote to the Ethics Committee seeking guidance for his plans to discuss the course in 20 speeches on the House floor. In an Aug. 3, 1993, response, the panel told Gingrich the speeches were “well within your official prerogatives” but cautioned against using any “official resources” for fund raising for tax-deductible projects, such as the course.

Even before Gingrich sent his first letter to the Ethics Committee, the lawmaker’s political associates were raising contributions for the course. In an internal memo, GOPAC fund-raiser Pamela H. Prochnow said she had met with a lobbyist for Corning Inc. to solicit a donation. As part of her pitch, Prochnow gave the lobbyist the Congressional Record transcript containing Gingrich’s floor remarks.

The bipartisan Ethics Committee has begun meeting to determine whether to undertake a full-scale inquiry into various allegations, including two that Gingrich improperly used his official letterhead and the House floor to promote his college course and its products. No timetable on a decision has been set.

Times researchers D’Jamila Salem, Edith Stanley and Murielle Gamache contributed to this story.