McKeon Voted His ‘Conscience’ Against Gingrich Ethics Sanction

When it came time to decide, there was no doubt in Buck McKeon’s mind. The question before the House this week was whether to reprimand and fine besmirched House Speaker Newt Gingrich $300,000 for repeated ethical lapses.

The vote was an overwhelming 395 to 28 in favor of meting out the punishment, the first time in U.S. history that a speaker was so formally disgraced.

McKeon, the three-term Santa Clarita Republican, was one of 26 members of his party--including six from California--and the only San Fernando Valley member to cast a negative vote.

He did not agonize over the decision.

“I’ve followed this for several weeks and I’m really unhappy with the whole ethics process,” McKeon said. “It’s just not functioning the way it should be functioning. When they give a reprimand and a $300,000 fine for what Newt did, compared to [other cases in Ethics Committee] history, it’s gone way out of whack and it’s all politics.”

McKeon said Gingrich should not have gone along with the deal his lawyers reached with the committee.

“Frankly, I don’t think Newt should have settled this, but he did--just to get it behind us. I don’t think that was the right thing to do. Now we can’t go to the American public and try to explain that he really didn’t do anything that serious. Now that he’s getting charged $300,000, that just doesn’t jibe.”

McKeon argued that, in past ethics cases, congressmen have actually stolen federal money and paid much smaller fines.

The charges centered on allegations that Gingrich, a Georgia Republican, allowed an improper commingling of political and charitable funds--when he should have known better--and then submitted false information to the committee.

“All that Newt was charged with was giving the committee inappropriate or incomplete information,” McKeon said. “If I thought he had lied, that would be something else.”

The lopsided vote to punish, McKeon said, is a testament to the intense political pressure that bore down on members. At a meeting of Republicans before the vote on the House floor, members were reminded of the peril of voting “no.”

“One member stood up and made it clear that [a no vote] would come back to bite you,” McKeon said. “It is much easier to justify a ‘yes’ vote on this.”

Several weeks ago, the mail and phone calls coming into McKeon’s offices were running against Gingrich. But the sentiment shifted to slightly pro-Gingrich on the eve of the vote. “But I really haven’t had a lot of calls on this,” McKeon said.

Even if the temperament of his district had turned distinctly anti-Gingrich, McKeon said his mind was made up. “For me, this was strictly a conscience vote.”

Furthermore, “I have a lot more information on this than my constituents,” he said.

Just the Fax

Rep. Brad Sherman, the freshman Democrat from Sherman Oaks, also weighed in on the Gingrich vote, predictably from another point of view.

“Our more senior colleagues have served under a number of illustrious Speakers. Sadly, we new members begin our service under the speakership of the $300,000 man. The Republican majority should select as our Speaker a man or woman of unquestioned ethics.”

The terse Sherman media statement inadvertently proclaimed his junior ranking. His fax machine still prints “From Cong. Beilenson” at the top of every page. Former Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson was Sherman’s Democratic predecessor.

All Wet

In case you haven’t noticed, says Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge), it’s been raining a lot.

Which is why, he said Wednesday, he is naming as the recipient of his first Stupid Government Trick Award the state Water Conservation Center, a.k.a. the Drought Information Center, which spends $80,000 a year handing out information on water conservation.

The center was originally set up as a temporary office in the state Department of Water Resources in 1988, at the height of California’s drought.

“I just thought it was wonderful that we had a state agency handing out all sorts of publications telling people not to waste the water that they’re bailing out of their living rooms,” McClintock said.

Information about conservation in areas with hot, dry summers can easily be handed out by the information office at Water Resources, he said.

Boland’s Back

Paula Boland had a lousy year in ’96. First, her Valley secession bill was shot down in the state Legislature, then she was defeated in a run for the state Senate.

But Boland’s not about to throw in the political towel. Indeed, Boland says, she’s going to run for the City Charter Reform Commission in Los Angeles.

In April, L.A. voters will get a chance to decide whether to set up a panel to revamp the city charter and choose the commission’s members at the same time.

Boland said this week that she still had not hired a campaign manager for the race, which will pit her against such community activists as Walter Prince of Chatsworth, a longtime opponent of the Porter Ranch development.

“I don’t take anything for granted, but I’m hoping to be entrenched in new work come April,” Boland said.

Boland was sketchy on specific goals for charter reform, but said she wanted to make certain that the city budget ensured equal funding for Valley and city issues.

Her ultimate goal, she said, remains facilitating the separation of the San Fernando Valley from the rest of Los Angeles but concedes that the charter commission would not be an instrument to achieve it.

*

QUOTABLE: “It’s a fig leaf for the mayor.” Anonymous city official, on the MTA’s decisionto postpone a decision on the future of the Valley subway until after the election