[House Report 112-642]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
House Calendar No. 156
112th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 112-642
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO
REPRESENTATIVE LAURA RICHARDSON
----------
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
August 1, 2012.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
House Calendar No. 156
112th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 112-642
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO
REPRESENTATIVE LAURA RICHARDSON
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
August 1, 2012.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-373 WASHINGTON : 2011
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
JO BONNER, Alabama, LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California,
Chairman Ranking Member
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
REPORT STAFF
Daniel A. Schwager, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
Deborah Sue Mayer, Director of Investigations
Kelle A. Strickland, Counsel to the Chairman
Daniel J. Taylor, Counsel to the Ranking Member
Clifford C. Stoddard, Jr., Senior Counsel
Sheria A. Clarke, Counsel
Christopher R. Tate, Counsel
Brittany M. Bohren, Investigative Clerk
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ethics,
Washington, DC, August 1, 2012.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b) of rule
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, we herewith
transmit the attached Report, ``In the Matter of Allegations
Relating to Representative Laura Richardson.''
Sincerely,
Jo Bonner,
Chairman.
Linda T. Sanchez,
Ranking Member.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
I. INTRODUCTION......................................................1
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY................................................2
III.COMMITTEE ON ETHICS' RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIVE RICHARDSON'S VIEWS3
IV. FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDED
SANCTION.........................................................15
V. STATEMENT UNDER RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(c) OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES..................................................15
APPENDIX A: STATEMENT OF ALLEGED VIOLATION, ADOPTED JULY 18, 2012 16
APPENDIX B: THE INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE'S REPORT.............. 36
APPENDIX C: REPRESENTATIVE RICHARDSON'S VIEWS.................... 394
APPENDIX D: LETTERS OF REPROVAL ISSUED TO SHIRLEY COOKS AND
DAYSHA AUSTIN.................................................. 417
House Calendar No. 156
112th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 112-642
======================================================================
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE LAURA
RICHARDSON
_______
August 1, 2012.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Bonner, from the Committee on Ethics,
submitted the following
R E P O R T\1\
I. INTRODUCTION
The Committee on Ethics (Committee) submits this privileged
Report pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(a)(2) and House Rule
XIII, clause 5(a)(5), which authorize the Committee to
investigate any alleged violation by a Member, officer, or
employee of the House of Representatives, of the Code of
Official Conduct or any law, rule, regulation, or other
standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of such Member,
officer, or employee and to submit to the House a privileged
report recommending action by the House as a result of such
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Before any decisions were made in the 112th Congress regarding
the Rule 18(a) review regarding Representative Richardson that was
initiated in the 111th Congress, Ranking Member Sanchez voluntarily
recused herself from consideration of the matter, to avoid even the
appearance of a conflict of interest, and designated Representative
John Yarmuth to act as Acting Ranking Member for the purposes of this
matter. See Public Statement of the Chairman and Ranking Member, dated
November 4, 2011. At that time, in light of uncertainties in
California's redistricting process, there was a possibility that
Representatives Sanchez and Richardson could have been primary
opponents. Representatives Sanchez and Richardson were not, in fact,
opponents in the primary election on June 5, 2012. Moreover, with the
primary elections over, they cannot be opponents in the 2012 general
election under California's unique election system. Accordingly, after
consultation with the Committee's Staff Director and Chief Counsel,
Representative Sanchez determined on June 7, 2012, that it was
appropriate to end her voluntary recusal regarding the matter of
Representative Richardson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Report: (1) summarizes the Committee's investigation
of Representative Laura Richardson relating to Representative
Richardson's violations of House Rules, the Code of Ethics for
Government Service, federal law and other applicable standards
related to her compelling members of her official staff to work
on her re-election campaign, her use of official resources for
campaign purposes, her use of official resources for personal
purposes, and her obstruction of this Committee's
investigation; (2) addresses the concerns and arguments raised
by Representative Richardson in her July 25, 2012, views
submitted and attached hereto; (3) adopts the attached report
of the Investigative Subcommittee in the Matter of
Representative Richardson, which (a) includes evidence
supporting the Committee's findings, (b) explains the
Committee's reasons for its recommendation to the House that,
pursuant to Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the United States
Constitution, House Rule XI, clause 3(a)(2), and Committee Rule
24(e), Representative Richardson be reprimanded, (c) summarizes
the Committee's inquiry into the role of Representative
Richardson's Chief of Staff Shirley Cooks in this matter, and
(d) summarizes the Committee's inquiry into the role of
Representative Richardson's Deputy District Director Daysha
Austin in this matter; and (4) recommends that the House of
Representatives adopt this Report and, by doing so, reprimand
Representative Laura Richardson.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
During the first week of October 2010, the Committee
received complaints from several members of Representative
Laura Richardson's staff in both the Washington, DC, and Long
Beach, CA, offices indicating Representative Richardson
required her staff to perform campaign work. Based on these
complaints, the Chair and Ranking Republican Member of the
Committee for the 111th Congress authorized Committee staff to
conduct an inquiry into these allegations pursuant to Committee
Rule 18(a). On October 15, 2010, Committee counsel notified
Representative Richardson in writing of the inquiry and
requested she make her staff and documents and records
available to the Committee. Committee staff interviewed 17
witnesses, including members of Representative Richardson's
staff from her offices in Washington, DC (also known as the
``Capitol Hill office''), and Long Beach, CA (also known as the
``district office''), as well as a shared employee, during that
phase of the inquiry.
Based on the results of the 18(a) investigation, staff
recommended in the 112th Congress that the Committee empanel an
ISC to further investigate the allegations. On November 3,
2011, following an initial inquiry under Committee Rule 18(a),
the Committee empanelled an Investigative Subcommittee to
investigate allegations that Representative Richardson, as well
as two members of her official staff, had (1) engaged in
improper use of House resources for campaign, personal, and
nonofficial purposes; and (2) improperly required or compelled
official staff to perform campaign work.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\The Committee notes that throughout the ISC's Report and
contained in the exhibits are references to a variety of campaign or
political events. There is no allegation that there was anything
improper with any of these events other than Representative
Richardson's compulsion of her staff's attendance or her use of
official resources in connection with such events. Furthermore, mere
attendance at these events by other Members is not rendered improper in
any way by Representative Richardson's misconduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the completion of its investigation, the Investigative
Subcommittee unanimously concluded that there was substantial
reason to believe that Representative Laura Richardson violated
the Purpose Law, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301; House Rule XXIII clauses
1, 2, and 8; and clause 2 of the Code of Ethics for Government
Service, and other standards of conduct, by improperly using
House resources for campaign, personal, and nonofficial
purposes; by requiring or compelling her official staff to
perform campaign work; and by obstructing the investigation of
the Committee and the Investigative Subcommittee through the
alteration or destruction of evidence, the deliberate failure
to produce documents responsive to requests for information and
a subpoena, and attempting to influence the testimony of
witnesses.
On July 18, 2012, after negotiating a resolution to this
matter with Representative Richardson, the Investigative
Subcommittee unanimously voted to adopt a Statement of Alleged
Violation (SAV) against Representative Richardson. As part of
the negotiated resolution, Representative Richardson agreed to
admit to all seven counts in the SAV and waive all further
procedural rights in this matter provided to her by House or
Committee Rule.
On July 26, 2012, the Investigative Subcommittee submitted
a Report to the full Committee unanimously recommending that
the full Committee submit a public report to the House, and
that the adoption of that report by the House serve as a
reprimand of Representative Richardson for her misconduct.
Additionally, the Investigative Subcommittee recommended that
the Committee issue a fine to Representative Richardson in the
amount of $10,000, to be paid no later than December 1, 2012.
The Investigative Subcommittee further strongly discouraged
Representative Richardson from permitting any of her official
staff to perform work on her campaign (either on a paid or
volunteer basis), but recommended to the Committee that, to the
extent any of her official staff do perform work on her
campaign, that said staff be required to sign a waiver
asserting that such work will be provided voluntarily and is
not being compelled by Representative Richardson. As part of
the resolution Representative Richardson negotiated with the
Investigative Subcommittee, Representative Richardson agreed to
admit to all seven counts in the SAV, pay a $10,000 fine by
December 1, 2012, and accept all other terms of the
Investigative Subcommittee's recommendation.
In addition, as a part of its investigation, the
Investigative Subcommittee inquired as to the role of
Representative Richardson's Chief of Staff Shirley Cooks and
Deputy District Director Daysha Austin in this matter.
Following its investigation, Ms. Cooks and Ms. Austin agreed to
waive all further procedural rights in this matter provided to
them by House or Committee Rule. The Investigative Subcommittee
recommended that the Committee issue public letters of reproval
to Ms. Cooks and Ms. Austin for their conduct. On August 1,
2012, the Committee issued public letters of reproval to Ms.
Cooks and Ms. Austin.
III. COMMITTEE ON ETHICS' RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIVE RICHARDSON'S VIEWS
The Investigative Subcommittee, as a part of its negotiated
resolution of this matter, provided to all respondents
(Representative Richardson, Ms. Cooks, and Ms. Austin) the
opportunity to review a draft of the Investigative
Subcommittee's Report and to submit views on that Report for
the Committee's consideration and publication.\3\
Representative Richardson chose to submit 22 pages of her views
on the Investigative Subcommittee's Report and the Committee's
investigation,\4\ while Ms. Cooks and Ms. Austin declined to
respond to the Investigative Subcommittee's Report. In this
section the Committee will address some of Representative
Richardson's concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Respondents agreed to a five-day period in which to review and
respond to the Investigative Subcommittee's Report (ISC Report). As
discussed more fully below, this timeline was not only a part of the
negotiated resolution (from which Representative Richardson herself
benefited significantly), but also an objectively reasonable amount of
time to appropriately and fully respond.
\4\See Views of Representative Richardson (July 25, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a threshold matter, Representative Richardson's
submission attempts to object to a variety of factual,
procedural, and legal conclusions underpinning the result we
reach today. Even if her objections had merit--and they do
not--the time for lodging those objections has passed, because
the conclusion of this matter is one reached through
negotiation with Representative Richardson herself.
Representative Richardson admitted to wrongdoing.
Representative Richardson waived her procedural rights.
Representative Richardson agreed to accept a reprimand and fine
for her misconduct. If Representative Richardson did not wish
to agree to this process and these conclusions, she could have
availed herself of the adjudicatory process provided by House
and Committee rules. Instead, she affirmatively sought out a
resolution with the Investigative Subcommittee, and gained
specific and significant personal benefit from the resolution.
In the end, Representative Richardson's views seem to leave
enough of the SAV un-challenged, and seem to use enough
language of acceptance, however qualified it is, so that her
views do not amount to a withdrawal from the negotiated
resolution. Still, the concerns raised do warrant a response so
that the House of Representatives and the public are not left
with the misimpression that Representative Richardson's views
amount to an accurate recitation of the facts, rules, or law in
this matter. The Committee gave serious consideration to
Representative Richardson's concerns, and ultimately found that
they are without merit.
Even if she had not rendered her own arguments moot by
entering into a negotiated resolution, the Committee would not
find them persuasive. Representative Richardson constructs
three straw men in her submission, towards which she deflects
responsibility in different, and ultimately baseless, respects.
First, Representative Richardson impugns the hard work of the
Committee, Committee staff, and the Investigative Subcommittee,
by accusing them of a variety of procedural errors and
purported violations.\5\ Her arguments in this regard
significantly exaggerate some of her rights, and fabricate
other rights, which simply do not exist. Indeed, rather than
the Committee preventing Representative Richardson from
providing a true and full account of the facts in context, as
she has suggested,\6\ it has been Representative Richardson who
failed to take advantage of the fulsome opportunities provided
through the Investigative Subcommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\See Views of Representative Richardson at 1-8 (July 25, 2012).
\6\See Views of Representative Richardson at 1-2 (July 25, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These multiple missed opportunities began, at the latest,
in November, 2011, when the Investigative Subcommittee sent
Representative Richardson a request for documents.\7\ For
months that request went unanswered, until the Investigative
Subcommittee threatened to serve Representative Richardson with
a subpoena. From that point, documents began to trickle in at a
pace so slow that the Investigative Subcommittee was ultimately
forced to follow through on its threat and compel the
production of documents by subpoena.\8\ As noted in the
Investigative Subcommittee's Report, even the subpoena did not
cause Representative Richardson to make a complete production
of responsive documents.\9\ Then, after the Investigative
Subcommittee delayed its interview of Representative Richardson
for over a month to accommodate her request for more time
because of her primary election schedule, the Investigative
Subcommittee finally held its interview with Representative
Richardson on June 20, 2012. Moreover, during her interview,
Representative Richardson repeatedly made complaints about its
length and ultimately demanded that it end so she could
participate in an annual Congressional softball game.\10\ When
the Investigative Subcommittee Chairman expressed the
Subcommittee's willingness to continue into the evening or
reconvene at a later date, Representative Richardson declined
the offers, stating her preference to finish her interview in
the short time available that day.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\See Letter from Representative Charles Dent and Representative
John Yarmuth to Representative Laura Richardson on November 17, 2011.
\8\See Subpoena duces tecum issued by the Committee on Ethics to
Representative Richardson on June 7, 2012.
\9\See ISC Report at 46.
\10\See ISC Interview of Representative Laura Richardson.
\11\See ISC Interview of Representative Laura Richardson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if Representative Richardson had not acted with utter
disdain for the Committee's process, her arguments demanding
greater or different process are both misleading and baseless.
For example, Representative Richardson argues that at the end
of the 111th Congress, in the phase of the investigation
conducted pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a) (18(a)
investigation), Committee staff made inappropriate remarks to
witnesses in her matter that showed prejudice.\12\ In reality,
Committee staff provided information to witnesses about the
next steps in the investigation and repeatedly informed
witnesses that it was up to the Committee to decide what, if
anything, would happen in this matter. In what became an
obvious pattern in her submission, Representative Richardson
omitted significant qualifying statements of staff that made
clear that they were not making any definitive predictions as
to what the Committee would do. The statements that were made
are typical statements made to witnesses in the course of an
investigation in order to inform the witness of their likely
role in the investigation. These statements violate no rights
even in a criminal process. This process, of course, is by no
means a criminal process. As such, these rights have never been
applied to this context in any form. Even more importantly, any
staff recommendation to the Committee is purely advisory: it
was the Committee that, after an independent review of
evidence, unanimously chose to empanel an Investigative
Subcommittee,\13\ and it was the Investigative Subcommittee
that, after a further investigation and independent review of
all evidence, unanimously chose to adopt a Statement of Alleged
Violation.\14\ Representative Richardson has provided no
evidence tending to show that the outcome of this matter would
have differed in any respect if staff had stayed silent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\See Views of Representative Richardson at 1-3 (July 25, 2012).
\13\See Statement of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Committee on Ethics regarding Representative Laura Richardson (November
4, 2011) (``The Committee-initiated action follows a discretionary
review of the allegations, pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a) . . . '').
\14\See ISC Report at Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Richardson also restates a complaint she
initially raised in a letter to the Committee on November 30,
2010, that, in interviews conducted during the 18(a)
investigation at the end of the 111th Congress, Committee staff
improperly requested that witnesses not speak to Representative
Richardson's counsel.\15\ However, as the committee has
repeatedly informed her through counsel, Representative
Richardson's complaint omits stark clarifications made in many
of those interviews. In fact Committee counsel informed
witnesses repeatedly that the general confidentiality requests
were limited to the content of the interview itself, and not to
the general facts of the case, and that the final decision of
whether to speak to Representative Richardson's counsel or not
was up to the witnesses, who would suffer no consequences if
they did so. Also omitted are exceptions to the bar rules
cited, as well as relevant distinctions in the case law cited.
In the end, with the disclaimers that were employed by
Committee staff at the time, and with the significant legal
differences between these proceedings and criminal proceedings,
there is no constitutional impediment to the resolution of this
matter before the Committee and the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\See Views of Representative Richardson at 4 (July 25, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Committee notes the disturbing irony in
Representative Richardson's submission when she alleges that
this conduct by Committee staff intimidated and frightened her
employees, given the horrendous picture so many of her own
current and former staff described of their time in her
employment, and her own attempts to intimidate them on a
regular basis.\16\ Given that Representative Richardson is
accepting responsibility for obstructing the Committee's
investigation and compelling her staff to engage in other
improper conduct, the Committee's concerns for the integrity of
the investigation and the interests of the witnesses were well
born out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\See ISC Report at 9-10, 21, 47-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Richardson also argues that by providing her
with a draft of the Investigative Subcommittee's Report on a
Friday, the five-day review period fell on a weekend,
``significantly reducing the ability to use the five agreed
days.''\17\ Representative Richardson's complaint is
contradicted by the facts uncovered during the Investigative
Subcommittee's investigation which demonstrate overwhelmingly
that Representative Richardson forced her staff to perform
campaign work on weekends, demanding that her needs be placed
over those of her staff, their families, their health, their
faith, and their education.\18\ Beyond the contradictory nature
of the complaint, however, the Investigative Subcommittee and
Committee staff made clear on the record of an Investigative
Subcommittee meeting (for which Representative Richardson and
her counsel were present by telephone) that their proposed
timeline contemplated her receiving the draft on Friday and
submitting the views the following Wednesday. Representative
Richardson appears in her submission to insinuate that the
Investigative Subcommittee is lying about the disclosure of the
timeline, where she states that ``the ISC then refused to make
the transcript of the recital of the terms of the settlement
agreement available to Rep. Richardson.''\19\ In fact, after
receiving the written transcript of the meeting, the
Investigative Subcommittee, through staff, confirmed to
Representative Richardson's attorney that the transcript
included the explicit recital of this information as
Representative Richardson herself well knew since she was
present on the call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Views of Representative Richardson at 7 (July 25, 2012).
\18\See ISC Report at 8-9, 15-20; ISC Exhibit 3, 6, 10, 11, 33.
\19\Views of Representative Richardson at 7 (July 25, 2012).
ISC STAFF: Okay. So, Joe, we're on the record. Can
you just state for the court reporter your name and who
is there with you?
MR. SANDLER: Yes. This is Joseph Sandler. I'm counsel
for Congresswoman Richardson, and the Congresswoman is
here with me in her office.
ISC STAFF: And the purpose of this--of conferencing
you in is to review the terms that we've already
reviewed with you on the telephone this morning but to
do it on the record, okay?
MR. SANDLER: Yes, that's fine.
ISC STAFF: So, as we discussed earlier,
Representative Richardson, as part of her resolution of
this matter, has agreed to admit to the allegations in
the SAV that was transmitted to you this morning, with
the one change . . . . That's the first term.
The second is that Ms. Richardson agrees to accept a
reprimand and a public report.
Number three, that Ms. Richardson agrees to waive all
of her procedural rights under committee and House
rules.
Number four, that although Ms. Richardson has waived
all of her procedural rights under committee and House
rules the subcommittee will give Ms. Richardson 5
days--5 calendar days to review their report and submit
any views. Her views cannot be contrary to the SAV. The
calendar days will start when the ISC report is
transmitted. We expect that that will be on Friday, and
so her response would be due the following Wednesday.
Number five, that Ms. Richardson will pay a $10,000
fine by no later than December 1, 2012.
Number six, that the ISC strongly discourages
Representative Richardson from allowing any of her
official staff to volunteer on her 2012 campaign.
However, to the degree that any of her staff wish to
volunteer, they must sign a written statement
acknowledging that their work is voluntary and not
compelled by Representative Richardson.
And, seven, that the ISC will recommend to the full
committee that the report shall serve as the reprimand
or will include the reprimand language and that there
will be no standalone resolution regarding the
reprimand.
Those are the terms that we discussed on the
telephone this morning and that you told us that you
agreed to, and we just want to get your agreement on
the record.
MR. SANDLER: On point four you said, contrary to the
SAV, but what we discussed on the phone was she would
be able to address allegations--specific factual
assertions in that--as distinct from the counts?
ISC STAFF: That's correct. She will be able--it's not
contrary to the allegations in the SAV, so she will be
able to include in her views any factual recitation of
her view of some of the background evidence. But, as we
also discussed, if she has a recitation that's contrary
to every single paragraph of the SAV, that's
essentially eviscerating her admission to the SAV under
number one of the terms.
MR. SANDLER: Okay.
ISC STAFF: Are those the terms as you understand
them, Mr. Sandler?
MR. SANDLER: Just one second. Okay. This will confirm
that we accept the terms as you described them with the
one caveat we discussed at the end.
ISC STAFF: And when you say ``we,'' Mr. Sandler, just
for the record, you mean yourself and Ms. Richardson.
MR. SANDLER: My client, Congresswoman Richardson,
accepts them.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Transcript of ISC Meeting of July 18, 2012 (emphasis added).
Representative Richardson also contends that the
Investigative Subcommittee should not have relied on attorney
proffers from the other two respondents, Ms. Cooks and Ms.
Austin, and complains that these proffers were not provided to
her.\21\ On the first point, the Committee notes that all
respondents, including Representative Richardson herself,
proffered information to the Investigative Subcommittee after
they received a draft SAV and a copy of all of the evidence.
These proffers were plainly intended to persuade the
Investigative Subcommittee. Ms. Cooks and Ms. Austin, through
their proffers, did indeed convince the Investigative
Subcommittee of some additional facts, or corroborated other
facts already in evidence. Both Ms. Cooks and Ms. Austin, by
the terms of their negotiated resolutions with the
Investigative Subcommittee, agreed to testify in any further
proceedings. If Representative Richardson wanted to attack
their credibility, she would have had her chance to do so at an
adjudicatory hearing. Instead, she waived that right and agreed
to accept the Report of the Investigative Subcommittee.
Further, there is absolutely no basis in the rules, law, or
Constitution upon which Representative Richardson would still
have a right, at this stage, to those proffer statements in
full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\See Views of Representative Richardson at 7-8 (July 25, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having finished her complaints about the Committee, the
Committee staff, and the Investigative Subcommittee,
Representative Richardson pivots to her second line of attack:
the credibility of her own staff. Representative Richardson
takes umbrage at the idea that members of her staff spoke to
each other about the fact that she was under investigation.\22\
She appears to make the leap from this observation to a
contention that these conversations influenced the testimony of
staff to such an extent as to impede her rights and make the
overwhelming evidence in this case unreliable.\23\ Witnesses to
an event speak to each other about the event all the time. They
are human. Neither House Rules nor legal principles mandate a
cessation of this unremarkable activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\See Views of Representative Richardson at 8-9 (July 25, 2012).
\23\See Views of Representative Richardson at 8-9 (July 25, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That being said, this type of conversation is exactly what
the Committee staff was attempting to avoid when they requested
that witnesses not speak to anyone else about the matter.
Amazingly, Representative Richardson criticizes the Committee
staff for trying to prevent exactly what she later complains
about. In the end, just as Committee staff properly made clear
to numerous witnesses that we cannot require them to refrain
from discussing the case, so too, such discussions on their own
do not amount to an automatic deprivation of Representative
Richardson's rights.
Furthermore, as is common throughout her complaints,
Representative Richardson omits starkly contradictory evidence
in the same record she selectively quotes from. For example, in
support of her claim, Representative Richardson notes that
Jeremy Marcus testified that ``amongst the staff . . . there
has been, you know, some interested chatter about, you know,
what's going on.''\24\ What Mr. Marcus actually said in his
testimony is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Views of Representative Richardson at 8 (July 25, 2012).
Q: Did anybody else talk to you about what you were
going to say?
A: I mean, of course amongst the staff, there's
been--but, actually, people have been very resolute
about not discussing any details. But of course----
Q: That's really good.
A: ----but of course there has been, you know, some
interested chatter about, you know, what's going
on.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Marcus (emphasis added).
The removal of Mr. Marcus' clear statement that the staff
was ``resolute about not discussing any details,'' is a crucial
part of his statement and directly contradicts Representative
Richardson's claim of improper collusion.\26\ Representative
Richardson continues to attack the credibility of other current
and former staff of hers with a similar pattern of omission and
deception. The Committee finds these attempts to be as
objectionable as they are meritless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Marcus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Richardson spends the rest of her submission
taking aim at her third and final target: the facts, as proven
by the overwhelming weight of the evidence collected.
Representative Richardson's views weave an elaborate
fabrication out of threads of decontextualized evidence and
outright prevarication, in an absurd attempt to rebut the
majority of the tremendous evidence against her.\27\ For
example, Representative Richardson, when discussing a meeting
where Ms. Cooks stated that if staff failed to volunteer they
risked losing their jobs, stated that ``[n]o staff testified,
however, that Ms. Cooks indicated at the meeting that she was
speaking for or at the direction of the Congresswoman.''\28\
This carefully worded point is highly misleading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\Views of Representative Richardson at 9-21 (July 25, 2012).
\28\Views of Representative Richardson at 9 (July 25, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Miller testified that Ms. Cooks invoked
Representative Richardson directly: ``If you know anything
about [Representative Richardson], you probably will not have a
job, you know, if you don't volunteer.''\29\ Eric Boyd
testified that he took Ms. Cooks' statements ``to be coming not
from Shirley.''\30\ And Candace Yamagawa testified that ``even
prior to Shirley Cooks coming to the district office, I knew it
was the highway or the byway, either adhere to what
[Representative Richardson] wants or you are out.''\31\ And
yet, perhaps hoping that the public would read her submission
and not the Investigative Subcommittee's Report, Representative
Richardson ignores the overwhelming evidence that it was her
own actions, judgments and management, that created the
undeniable message among her staff that if they considered
campaign work to be voluntary, it was at their peril, and
risked her wrath.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ISC Report at 4.
\30\ISC Report at 4-5
\31\ISC Report at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These sorts of misrepresentations continue throughout
Representative Richardson's submission. On certain occasions,
Representative Richardson repeats the strategy she employed
with Mr. Marcus' testimony regarding conversations between
witnesses: she simply cuts off a passage or section where it is
most helpful for her. For example, Representative Richardson
quotes Lucinda Woodward in a way that characterizes her
testimony as exculpatory of Representative Richardson:
Q: Were you ever threatened if you chose not to
participate?
A: No.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\Views of Representative Richardson at 12 (July 25, 2012).
But immediately after the quoted passage, Ms. Woodward
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
continued:
Q: You have volunteered?
A: I never have . . . I feel like my hours in her
office are so long that I barely have the time to spend
with my family. I would not volunteer my time . . . She
gets really angry. I would describe her as a vindictive
person . . . It is not like you get fired for [standing
up to her] necessarily, but it is a very uncomfortable
environment for the person who does.''\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\18(a) Interview of Lucinda Woodward.
Representative Richardson uses this technique again when
attempting to discredit the testimony of her current
Communications Director, Makeda Scott, by saying that Ms. Scott
erroneously assumed that an event to which she was assigned was
a campaign event, and that Ms. Scott based this assumption
solely on the location of the event, outside Representative
Richardson's district. This is incorrect. As Ms. Scott herself
explains, she did not base her conclusion solely on the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
location of the event:
And I said, are you Tim from the division [sic]
office? And he said, no, the Congresswoman called me to
come meet her here, and she had me take pictures on her
camera. And he said, you know, she wanted to get some
more inroads in, you know, the new district. And I
said, in the where? And I said, where am I? And he said
Wilmington. And I said, is this the 37th District? And
he said, no, and he said, you know, I help out on the
campaign.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ISC staff interview of Makeda Scott (emphasis added).
Moreover, Representative Richardson suggests that Ms.
Scott's testimony regarding compulsory campaign work was
limited to this one event. Contrary to this suggestion, Ms.
Scott's testimony identifies interactions she had directly with
Representative Richardson wherein Representative Richardson
pressured her to perform campaign work after Representative
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richardson was fully aware of this Committee's investigation:
. . . And she [Representative Richardson] brought me
in her office and she said, did you bring in your
personal camera? I said no. I said, we have a camera
here in the office. And then she said, I know that. I
wanted you to bring your personal camera in because I
wanted you to take pictures of me and a Member for the
campaign. And I said, here in the building? And she
said, yes. And I said, well, I don't--she said, well,
you can do that, and I said I don't feel--I don't know.
I said, that doesn't--you know, I said I didn't want to
do anything on the campaign. And then that is when she,
you know, just went off and said, you can do these
things. You should do these things. You haven't offered
to volunteer on the campaign. And she said, I am not
saying that you have to, she said, but you haven't
offered, and that makes me feel uncomfortable working
with you. And so I said, okay, well, you know, so that
is what I mean. She was trying to, I feel, force me
into working on her campaign.
Q: So I want to go back to one thing that you said,
which is that you said--you said that she objected to
the fact that you haven't offered to volunteer?
A: Volunteer.
Q: And she said that that made her, Representative
Richardson, uncomfortable with working with you.
A: Yes.
Q: What did you take that to mean?
A: As a threat. If you don't volunteer on my campaign
you are not going to continue working here. That is how
I took it.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ISC staff interview of Makeda Scott (emphasis added).
Even in those cases where Representative Richardson does
not do violence to the complete record, she relies on a
selective judgment of credibility which the Investigative
Subcommittee did not share. For example, Representative
Richardson attempts to rebut the testimony of no fewer than
five witnesses with the testimony of a single district staffer,
Henry Rogers, whose testimony was largely exculpatory for
Representative Richardson. The Investigative Subcommittee
reviewed Mr. Rogers' transcript. It also either reviewed the
transcripts or actually heard the testimony of Kenneth Miller,
Eric Boyd, Maria Angel Macias, Moises Romero, and Candace
Yamagawa, which was largely inculpatory of Representative
Richardson.\36\ In the Investigative Subcommittee's judgment,
Mr. Rogers' account simply did not outweigh the credibility of
the accounts of the five other witnesses. If Representative
Richardson wanted to attack five witnesses with her own single
witness, she was free to do so at an adjudicatory hearing, but
there is no reason to conclude from her submission that the
Committee's judgment of credibility would have differed in any
meaningful respect from that of the Investigative Subcommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\See ISC Report at 4-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, Representative Richardson quotes three
Washington, DC staffers--Jakki Dennis, Gregory Berry, and
Jeremy Marcus--who stated that their attendance at her campaign
fundraiser ``Democratic Idol'' was voluntary.\37\ But even if
the Investigative Subcommittee credited their testimony, it
does not answer the ultimate question of whether anyone else
was compelled to attend. Ms. Dennis, Mr. Berry, and Mr. Marcus
could not volunteer on behalf of Ms. Woodward or Mr.
Billington, both of whom stridently testified that their
attendance was not voluntary.\38\ In fact, the staff who had
already decided to attend the event paid very little attention
to Ms. Cooks' email, and for good reason--compulsion only
affects those who would otherwise refuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\Views of Representative Richardson at 16-17 (July 25, 2012).
\38\ISC Report at 28-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Representative Richardson ignores some of the most
damning facts in the Investigative Subcommittee's Report. For
example, in her testimony before the Investigative
Subcommittee, Representative Richardson insisted that she never
intended to require her staff to attend Democratic Idol and
attempted to place blame on Ms. Cooks' email telling staff they
were required to attend.\39\ She attempts to insulate and
exculpate herself by saying that because she was not included
on the email, she was unaware until after the fact that staff
had been told they were required to attend.\40\ As discussed in
the Investigative Subcommittee's Report, Ms. Cooks informed the
Investigative Subcommittee that after speaking directly with
Representative Richardson and at Representative Richardson's
direction, she sent the email to the Washington, DC staff.\41\
In addition to Ms. Cooks' information, Representative
Richardson's own calendar, has the following entry:\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ISC Report at 28-30.
\40\Views of Representative Richardson at 1 (July 25, 2012).
\41\ISC Report at 28-30.
\42\ISC Report at Exhibit 51.
The Investigative Subcommittee's investigation gathered
overwhelming evidence that Representative Richardson checked
her calendar often and it was not uncommon for her to chastise
her staff for an improper entry. For example, in July 2010,
Representative Richardson sent her Chief of Staff and District
Director and email entitled ``Schedules on the calendar,''
wherein she ``stress[ed] how important it is everyday to review
the schedule together and ensure there is proper coverage and
info for staff contact.'' Representative Richardson went on in
the email to (1) direct her staff to add certain events to the
calendar, (2) point out that a certain event did not have a
staffer assigned to cover it, (3) ask which day a particular
staffer was going to be out for their birthday since that entry
was listed on two days, and (4) noted that a staff appointment
had been left off the calendar.\43\ And on July 29, 2010,
Representative Richardson emailed her scheduler and Chief of
Staff saying ``Before you leave EVERY evening you must
completely update the calendar. For ie: my calendar is showing
preside 4-6 not 2-4. Thx.''\44\ Therefore, the Investigative
Subcommittee properly concluded that Representative Richardson
did indeed intend to require her official staff to attend her
campaign fundraiser and whether or not she received Ms. Cooks'
email is of no consequence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\Email from Representative Richardson to Eric Boyd and Shirley
Cooks (July 8, 2010, 4:05 PM)
\44\Email from Representative Richardson to Jakki Dennis and
Shirley Cooks (July 29, 2010, 8:18 AM); see also ISC Report at Exhibit
6 (email entitled ``Schedule today,'' wherein Representative Richardson
points out an event listed on her calendar that does not have a staffer
assigned to it, ``I notice no staff is assigned @ lcdp dinner
tonight.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Richardson's submission launches an attack
on many members of her staff.\45\ Based on the overwhelming
evidence against Representative Richardson, the Committee
wishes to make abundantly clear that, in the credibility
dispute Representative Richardson presents between herself and
those of her own current and former staff whom she continues to
attack, the Committee sides with her staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\See Views of Representative Richardson (July 25, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the same vein, Representative Richardson disputes that
her actions with respect to changing Ms. Austin's status were
intended to obstruct the Committee's investigation, and relies
on Ms. Austin's testimony early in the investigation that she
had discussions with Representative Richardson in September
about moving to part-time status in October.\46\ However, Ms.
Austin has now corrected her testimony and made clear to the
Investigative Subcommittee that these September conversations
never occurred. In addition, Representative Richardson's own
emails and her own plainly inconsistent accounts over time
support the Investigative Subcommittee's rejection of her
claims, and their finding that Representative Richardson's
change to Ms. Austin's status was in fact intended to obstruct
the Committee's investigation.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\Views of Representative Richardson at 17-19 (July 25, 2012).
\47\See ISC Report at 37-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Richardson also stated that her meeting with
staff, in which she suggested answers to the Committee, was not
intended to obstruct, and that ``[w]hen she referenced staff
volunteering, she was referring to attendance at a local
meeting of a political club.''\48\ She therefore admits that
she did tell her staff that they were volunteering, but limits
it to a single event. This is not credible. Because numerous
staffers testified that Representative Richardson had a mock
dialogue with herself, stating some of the questions she
expected the Committee to ask, such as ``did you feel that your
campaign work was mandatory or you were compelled in some
way?'' and then an answer--``no.''\49\ Three staffers testified
that they felt that Representative Richardson was asking them
to answer a certain way that would minimize her culpability
whether or not those answers were true.\50\ Even if
Representative Richardson's explanation was on all fours with
the facts--and it is not--if she told staff how to testify
regarding the voluntary nature of their campaign work, this
would be obstruction, even if she limited such a statement to a
single event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\Views of Representative Richardson at 19 (July 25, 2012).
\49\ISC Report at 45.
\50\ISC Report at 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, Representative Richardson's submission continues
the approach she has taken in this matter from the outset: an
utter absence of true remorse for her misuse of official
resources and, equally as significant, for what she has put her
staff through, as well as a near total deflection of
responsibility for this matter. It is not this Committee, it is
not other Members, it is not either political party, and most
certainly, it is not her staff that is responsible for the
situation Representative Richardson finds herself in. It is
Representative Richardson's own management, Representative
Richardson's own decisions, and Representative Richardson's own
actions that are responsible for the existence of this matter,
the resources they have required, and the damage to the
integrity of her office and this institution that they have
caused. That Representative Richardson still does not seem
willing to accept this simple fact is all the more reason why
this Committee must refer the matter to the whole of the House
of Representatives for their consideration and judgment.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDED
SANCTION
The Committee on Ethics adopts as its findings in this
matter the Report of the Investigative Subcommittee, as
attached.
Prior Committee precedent supports a recommendation of
reprimand for conduct involving compelling official staff
members to perform campaign work, using official resources for
campaign purposes, using official resources for personal
purposes, and obstruction of this Committee's investigation.
This is particularly true in the case of a negotiated
settlement where a public hearing is waived, saving significant
resources and allowing the Committee to continue working
through the many other matters it must address in the interest
of the institution and all Members.
In addition to public reprimand, the Committee recommends
that the House, by adoption of this Report, impose a $10,000
fine on Representative Richardson for her misconduct and that
the fine be payable to the U.S. Treasury no later than December
1, 2012. Towards that end, the Committee recommends that the
House of Representatives adopt a resolution in the following
form and that the adoption of this Report will serve as a
reprimand of Representative Richardson and the imposition of a
$10,000 fine under the conditions outlined herein:
HOUSE RESOLUTION----
Resolved, (1) That the House adopt the report of the
Committee on Ethics dated August 1, 2012, In the Matter
of Representative Laura Richardson.
V. STATEMENT UNDER RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(c) OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
The Committee made no special oversight findings in this
Report. No budget statement is submitted. No funding is
authorized by any measure in this Report. No oversight findings
are considered pertinent.