NEW YORK TIMES: House ethics panel at work

<p><i>This editorial is from the New York Times</i>:</p><p>A computer gaffe has revealed some of the secretive workings of the House ethics committee, including preliminary inquiries into complaints against 19 members and some of their staff. The accidental disclosure, made by a staffer who was later fired, sent a bipartisan jolt through Congress, which is already wary about new and long overdue mandates for greater ethical transparency.</p><p>It’s important to stress that none of the disclosed inquiries are conclusive or indicate whether any member will be charged with misdeeds.<WC> <WC1>Intended or not, the reported signs of life on the ostensibly moribund ethics committee are an encouraging sign that Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to create a separate, quasi-independent Office of Congressional Ethics has had an effect.</p><p>The office is charged with making discrete preliminary inquiries into complaints and forwarding any recommendations for fuller investigation to the ethics panel. That’s exactly what happened in the ethics committee’s decision <WC>l<WC1><WC>a<WC1><WC>s<WC1><WC>t<WC1> week to look into whether Rep.<WC> <WC1>Maxine Waters of <WC>L<WC1><WC>o<WC1><WC>s<WC1><WC> <WC1><WC>A<WC1><WC>n<WC1><WC>g<WC1><WC>e<WC1><WC>l<WC1><WC>e<WC1><WC>s<WC1> played an unfair role in getting bailout money for a bank where her husband had been a director.</p><p>Waters denies violating ethics, as does Rep. Laura Richardson of <WC>L<WC1><WC>o<WC1><WC>n<WC1><WC>g<WC1><WC> <WC1><WC>B<WC1><WC>e<WC1><WC>a<WC1><WC>c<WC1><WC>h<WC1>, the subject of a separate investigation into whether she failed to disclose loan and foreclosure dealings.</p><p>The data mishap confirmed that two inquiries remain as glaringly unfinished business: the controversial financial dealings of Rep.<WC> <WC1>Charles Rangel, the Ways and Means Committee chairman, and the clique of defense appropriators and their cozy relationship with deep-pocketed and well-rewarded defense contractors.<WC></p><p><WC1>Lawmakers understandably worry about the political chaff from greater transparency. They should use their angst to prod the committee to do its job, promptly and thoroughly, and present the public with credible results.</p>