Controversies Crop Up Around Agriculture Official

Propped up in the corner of Ellen Haas’ spacious office at the Agriculture Department is a broom given to her by her staff--a joke gift designed to make light of her dark reputation on Capitol Hill.

To be sure, Haas’ critics never have called her a witch. But rarely has a presidential appointee below the rank of Cabinet officer stirred as much partisan ire among members of Congress as Haas.

As undersecretary of agriculture for food, nutrition and consumer services, Haas--a well-known former consumer advocate--twice has been summoned before a congressional committee in the last year to answer for her management practices. Recently, Rep. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, demanded her resignation.

Among other things, Haas has been accused of giving lucrative government contracts to friends, traveling in undue luxury for a government official and carelessly managing a high-profile $40-million program designed to improve the eating habits of America’s youth.

True to her reputation as a firebrand, Haas has denied any wrongdoing and portrayed herself as a victim of partisan character assassination. And so far, both President Clinton and Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman are continuing to support her.

But the story of Haas’ battle with Congress is more than just another example of election-year mudslinging.

To Republicans, Haas epitomizes the many high-ranking activists in the Clinton administration--such as Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary and the late Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown--who, the GOP says, have abused the perks and privileges of their offices in the pursuit of liberal ideals and personal success.

By her own admission, Haas wants to be known as “a change agent” who is not afraid to risk criticism to change the way government operates. “I went into government to make a difference . . ,” she said in an interview. “If you are going to be a change agent, you are going to be a lightning rod. You have to expect that going in.”

*

Amazingly, the controversy surrounding Haas stems from her promotion of a cause that is allied with apple pie and motherhood: good nutrition. She is accused of mismanaging a program known as “Team Nutrition,” which recruits public and private schools to participate in nutrition-awareness programs devised by the Agriculture Department.

As benign as good-nutrition efforts may appear, they have long been a source of controversy in Washington. Perhaps the most well-known example of this was the Reagan administration’s much-ridiculed decision to classify catsup as a vegetable in school lunches.

Yet the traditional combatants in this age-old struggle over school nutrition--the commodity lobbies such as the dairy and meat industries--have been surprisingly silent during the current controversy over Team Nutrition. Indeed, Haas claims to have widespread support among food industry groups.

What mainly upsets Republicans in Congress about Team Nutrition, according to Roberts, is not the goals of the program but the glitzy and expensive methods Haas has used to achieve them.

By promoting Team Nutrition with the assistance of high-priced public relations consultants, famous haute cuisine chefs and focus groups conducted by a Democratic pollster, Republicans say, Haas has promoted herself and raised her own profile as much as good nutrition for children.

“From the beginning,” said Roberts, “Team Nutrition has been agenda-driven, and that agenda has been personal, self-aggrandizing, political, and not in keeping with accepted government procurement and ethical conduct.”

Although Haas denied charges of personal self-promotion, her spending practices have been harder to defend. Even if she has done nothing illegal, as she asserted, the evidence suggests that she may have come close.

Republicans have been especially critical of her decision to bestow a $25,000 department grant to her longtime friend, children’s author Susan Shreve, to write a book about nutrition. Roberts contended that Haas violated ethical standards by making the grant to a friend. She insisted that the grant is legal.

Another acquaintance hired by Haas, Maris Segal-Goodis, is under investigation by the Justice Department for allegedly misrepresenting her education and her previous pay scale. Also, independent counsel Donald C. Smaltz, who is investigating former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, has questioned Haas about her decision to award a contract to one of Espy’s friends.

*

In these cases, Haas admitted no wrongdoing. But she acknowledged that she had made some mistakes by using food stamp program funds to hire another friend and political ally, pollster Celinda Lake, to conduct focus groups on welfare reform. The focus groups were convened in Indiana and Kansas, the home states of the chairmen of the House and Senate agriculture committees.

Haas admitted that she did not follow proper procedure for hiring Lake and that the focus groups seemed to have an inappropriately political slant. “For that,” she told the committee last May, “I am sorry.”

Haas has attributed several other questionable contracting decisions to a “maverick” employee who has since left the department.

Shortly after Team Nutrition was initiated in fiscal 1995, Haas’ critics attacked her for spending $200,000 on public relations consultants and additional taxpayer funds on T-shirts and baseball caps to promote the program, which depends on voluntary support from local schools.

In addition, the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of the Congress, recently cited six examples in which Haas stayed in five-star hotels and ran up bills exceeding the usual per diem for government employees.

Haas’ admirers said she is under attack not because she has done anything wrong but because the male-dominated agriculture establishment is not used to a strong woman, because conservatives still remember her past activities as an outspoken consumer advocate and because nearly four years ago she opposed GOP efforts to convert food stamps into a block-grant program.

They portrayed her as a visionary who, because of her passionate commitment to better nutrition, has failed to pay close enough attention to program details. Haas, they said, should be judged primarily by her good intentions.

But Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), a member of the Agriculture Committee, said Haas’ actions have undermined her goal of good nutrition.

“I have no quarrel with that goal,” he said.

“However, the means by which she sought to achieve that goal did not follow federal laws and regulations, much less sound management practices,” he said. “In fact, her actions are a blueprint for how to diminish her goal.”