[House Report 116-359]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
House Calendar No. 65
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 116-359
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS
RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE
CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS
----------
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
December 19, 2019.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered
to be printed
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MCMORRIS
RODGERS
House Calendar No. 65
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 116-359
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS
RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE
CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
December 19, 2019.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered
to be printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-685 WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida, KENNY MARCHANT, Texas,
Chairman Ranking Member
GRACE MENG, New York JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
ANTHONY BROWN, Maryland MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
REPORT STAFF
Thomas A. Rust, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
Brittney Pescatore, Director of Investigations
David Arrojo, Counsel to the Chairman
Christopher Donesa, Counsel to the Ranking Member
Kathryn Lefeber Donahue, Senior Counsel
Michelle Seo, Counsel
Caroline Taylor, Staff Assistant
Letter of Transmittal
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ethics,
Washington, DC, December 19, 2019.
Hon. Cheryl Johnson,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Ms. Johnson: 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 Cathy McMorris
Rodgers.''
Sincerely,
Theodore E. Deutch,
Chairman.
Kenny Marchant,
Ranking Member.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................1
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY...............................................4
III. ALLEGATIONS......................................................5
A. Allegations Relating to Consultant Services............. 5
1. Background.......................................... 5
i. Stan Shore...................................... 5
ii. Speech Consultant.............................. 11
iii. Leadership Consultant......................... 13
2. Relevant House Rules, Laws, and Other Applicable
Standards of Conduct............................... 14
i. Unofficial Office Accounts and Volunteer
Services....................................... 14
ii. Consultant Services............................ 14
iii. Federal Employee Activities in Matters
Affecting U.S. Government Interest............. 15
iv. Official Appropriations........................ 16
v. Additional House Rules, Laws, and Other
Standards of Conduct........................... 16
3. Analysis............................................ 16
i. Representative Rodgers Used Official Funds to
Compensate Consultants for Impermissible
Services and Expenses.......................... 17
ii. Representative Rodgers Received Official
Services from Consultants that were Voluntary
or Compensated from Political Funds............ 22
B. Allegations Relating to Use of Official Resources for
Political and Campaign Activities...................... 23
1. Background.......................................... 23
i. Policies Regarding Political Work by Official
Staff.......................................... 23
ii. Political Communications....................... 27
iii. Debate Preparation............................ 29
iv. Travel for Political Purposes.................. 30
v. Additional campaign and other political
activities by official staff................... 35
vi. Voluntary Nature of Campaign Work.............. 36
2. Relevant House Rules, Laws and Other Applicable
Standards of Conduct............................... 36
i. Use of Official Resources for Political and
Campaign Activities............................ 36
ii. Additional House Rules, Laws, and Other
Standards of Conduct........................... 38
3. Analysis............................................ 39
i. Official Staff Time was Used for Campaign or
Political Activities........................... 40
ii. Congressional Offices and Facilities were Used
for Political Activities....................... 41
iii. MRA Funds Were Used for Campaign and Political
Travel......................................... 42
iv. Additional Improper Campaign and Political
Activities by Official Staff................... 43
v. Representative Rodgers Takes an Overbroad View
of Whether an Activity can be Considered
``Official''................................... 44
vi. Representative Rodgers is Responsible for the
Misuse of Official Resources for Political
Activities in her Office....................... 44
vii. Representative Rodgers did not Compel her
Staff to Assist with Her Campaigns, but Should
Exercise Greater Care to Ensure Staff's
Participation was Voluntary.................... 46
C. Allegations Relating to Use of Official and Campaign
Resources for Leadership Race.......................... 47
1. Background.......................................... 47
2. Relevant House Rules, Laws, and Other Applicable
Standards of Conduct............................... 49
3. Analysis............................................ 49
IV. Remedial Action and Sanctions...................................50
A. Representative Rodgers is Required to Reimburse the
Treasury for her Misuse of Official Resources.......... 50
1. Unauthorized Consultant Expenses.................... 51
2. Official Staff Time................................. 52
3. MRA Funds for Travel Expenses....................... 54
4. Total Recommended Reimbursement..................... 54
B. Representative Rodgers' Conduct Merits Reproval by the
Committee.............................................. 54
V. Conclusion......................................................56
VII. Statement Under House Rule XIII, Clause 3(C)....................56
APPENDIX A: REPRESENTATIVE RODGERS' RESPONSE TO THE COMMITTEE'S
DRAFT REPORT................................................... 57
APPENDIX B: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL
ETHICS (REVIEW NO. 13-0906).................................... 60
APPENDIX C: REPRESENTATIVE RODGERS' RESPONSE TO THE OFFICE OF
CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS REFERRAL.................................. 483
APPENDIX D: EXHIBITS TO COMMITTEE REPORT......................... 505
House Calendar No. 65
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 116-359
======================================================================
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MCMORRIS
RODGERS
_______
December 19, 2019.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Deutch, from the Committee on Ethics,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
In accordance with House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b),
the Committee on Ethics (Committee) hereby submits the
following Report to the House of Representatives:
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 23, 2013, the Office of Congressional Ethics
(OCE) transmitted to the Committee a Report and Findings (OCE's
Referral) relating to Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers.
OCE reviewed allegations that, from 2010 to 2012,
Representative Rodgers paid a consultant for official services
with funds from political committees; used official resources,
including staff, for campaign activities; and combined official
resources and campaign resources in furtherance of her campaign
for a House leadership office. OCE found there was substantial
reason to believe each of the allegations and recommended the
Committee further review the allegations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See Report and Findings of the Office of Congressional Ethics
(Review No. 13-0906) (Appendix B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 24, 2014, the Committee announced it would review
the matter under Committee Rule 18(a). The Committee conducted
a thorough investigation into a more expansive timeframe than
OCE, reviewing alleged misconduct from 2008 through the start
of the OCE investigation in 2013, and continuing on into
2017.\2\ Such a wide-ranging investigation into more than eight
years of activity takes extensive time and consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Committee Rule 18(d) states that ``[a]n inquiry shall not be
undertaken regarding any alleged violation that occurred before the
third previous Congress unless a majority of the Committee determines
that the alleged violation is directly related to an alleged violation
that occurred in a more recent Congress.'' The Committee unanimously
voted to make this determination in this matter with respect to
violations alleged to have occurred from 2008 to 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee's investigation was further prolonged by
difficulty obtaining testimony from a central witness--a
consultant hired by Representative Rodgers around March 2012 to
serve as her speech coach (Speech Consultant)--who was the
subject of an unrelated criminal prosecution. On July 31, 2014,
the Committee received a referral from OCE, unconnected to
Representative Rodgers, concerning allegations that another
Member may have misused official funds to pay Speech Consultant
for work performed for his congressional campaigns.\3\ That
Member did not seek re-election to the House for the 114th
Congress, and the Committee subsequently lost jurisdiction over
the Member (Former Member) before it could complete its review
of the matter. On September 3, 2015, Speech Consultant pled
guilty in federal court to making false statements to OCE, in
an apparent effort to minimize and conceal his role with the
Former Member's campaigns. On March 23, 2016, the Committee
received a separate referral from OCE relating to allegations
that the Former Member's Chief of Staff may have also attempted
to obstruct the same investigation, and persuaded or conspired
with Speech Consultant to make false statements to OCE.\4\ As
the Committee reviewed that OCE referral, the Former Member's
Chief of Staff was federally indicted on April 6, 2016, for
alleged misuse of official funds and false statements and
omissions in connection with OCE's investigation. Speech
Consultant, who was a key witness against the Former Member's
Chief of Staff, refused to provide the Committee with any
testimony in the matter relating to Representative Rodgers
until he concluded his role as a witness in the unrelated
prosecution. The trial of the Former Member's Chief of Staff,
which ultimately resulted in a conviction, was delayed until
2018; accordingly, Speech Consultant's own sentencing was not
completed until August 29, 2018. As a result, the Committee
obtained Speech Consultant's testimony in this matter just
earlier this year.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\OCE Review No. 14-2533; see also Statement of the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the Committee on Ethics Regarding Representative Paul
Broun (Oct. 29, 2014), available at https://ethics.house.gov/press-
release/statement-chairman-and-ranking-member-committee-ethics-
regarding-representative-paul-0.
\4\OCE Review No. 15-0034.
\5\In light of the Speech Consultant's past dishonesty with OCE,
and the resulting concerns with his credibility as a witness, the
Committee did not pursue a grant of immunity for Speech Consultant in
exchange for his testimony. Nor did the Committee rely solely on any of
his testimony, once it was obtained, in making its conclusions in this
matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the course of its detailed investigation, the
Committee found that many of the allegations involved areas of
uncertainty facing the House community, particularly with
respect to the extent certain House rules and laws apply to
leadership offices. The Committee has therefore sought to use
its investigation as an opportunity to provide guidance to the
House with respect to those issues and has devoted additional
time and resources to carefully consider that guidance.
Based on its review, the Committee found that
Representative Rodgers provided inappropriate compensation for
consultant services from 2012 to 2017. Representative Rodgers
defrayed the cost of official services she received from
consultants with either political funds or the consultants'
voluntary provision of services, in violation of House rules
and laws prohibiting unofficial office accounts. She also used
official funds for consultant services in a manner that would
have been contrary to relevant laws and rules restricting
expenditures of the Members' Representational Allowance (MRA);
however, the official funds used to compensate her consultants
were largely appropriated for use by her House leadership
office and were therefore not subject to the same restrictions
applicable to the MRA. The Committee found that the
restrictions in place to safeguard most congressional funds
from misuse are lacking with respect to leadership offices. In
order to address some of those gaps, the Committee voted to
refer certain allegations to the House Inspector General for
review.
The Committee also found that, from at least 2008 through
2013, the congressional offices of Representative Rodgers were
governed by sloppy practices, including inconsistent policies
and poor record-keeping, which led to the misuse of official
resources for campaign or other political purposes. House
employees are free to engage in campaign activities on their
own time, as volunteers or for pay, as long as they do not do
so in congressional offices or facilities, or otherwise use
official House resources, and are not coerced to do campaign
work by their employing Member or senior staff. The Committee
found that while Representative Rodgers' staff was not
compelled to assist with her campaign, her staff used official
resources, including official staff time, congressional office
space, and travel funds, for political activities.
With respect to the allegation that Representative Rodgers
improperly combined official and campaign resources during her
2012 leadership race, the Committee found Representative
Rodgers used official resources in connection with a particular
leadership race activity that was also paid for with campaign
funds (specifically, distribution of an informational packet to
other Members). While Representative Rodgers' staff sought and
received guidance on this issue, her staff's conduct was
inconsistent with that guidance.
Although the Committee determined that Representative
Rodgers likely did not know the full extent of her offices'
misuse of resources, the Committee also determined that she
should have been aware that some of the misuse was occurring.
Certain aspects of this misconduct appear to have continued
past 2013, after OCE launched its investigation; at that time,
Representative Rodgers was clearly on notice regarding the need
to exercise greater caution in ensuring her offices' compliance
with House rules. Much of the misconduct uncovered during the
Committee's investigation was conducted under the supervision
of Representative Rodgers' then-Chief of Staff, Jeremy Deutsch.
Mr. Deutsch was frequently involved in or otherwise had reason
to be aware of the misuse of resources. There is no indication
Mr. Deutsch brought the bulk of the misconduct to
Representative Rodgers' attention; however, the Committee has
long held Members responsible for ensuring their staff follow
House rules, laws and other standards of conduct.\6\ Thus,
Representative Rodgers is ultimately responsible for the
conduct of her staff, including her Chief of Staff. It is the
Member's responsibility to ensure that adequate policies are
put in place and enforced to prevent her staff from acting
contrary to House rules and laws. Representative Rodgers did
not meet that responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\House Ethics Manual (2008) (Ethics Manual) at 124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee notes that Representative Rodgers has
accepted responsibility for the Committee's conclusions and has
taken steps to prevent such conduct from happening in the
future.\7\ The Committee appreciates the full cooperation and
transparency she has shown throughout the investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\See Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the poor record-keeping in the congresswoman's
office, and the diffuse, repeated nature of the misconduct at
issue, the Committee is unable to precisely calculate the cost
of official resources that were misused under Representative
Rodgers' supervision. Based on a conservative analysis of the
record, discussed in this Report, the Committee has estimated
that, at a minimum, the value of the official resources misused
was equal to or greater than $7,575.95.
Based on the totality of the misconduct, the Committee
unanimously voted to issue this Report, which will serve as a
reproval of Representative Rodgers' conduct, and find that
Representative Rodgers is required to reimburse the U.S.
Treasury $7,575.95. Upon issuance of this Report and
Representative Rodgers' reimbursement of the amount described
above, the Committee will consider this matter closed.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
OCE commenced a preliminary review into the allegations
involving Representative Rodgers on August 28, 2013, and
transmitted its Referral to the Committee on December 23, 2013.
On January 17, 2014, counsel for Representative Rodgers
voluntarily submitted a written statement to the Committee
responding to OCE's Referral.
The Committee reviewed materials provided by OCE. In
addition, the Committee sent voluntary requests for information
to Representative Rodgers and two of her consultants. Committee
staff received and reviewed additional documents responsive to
those requests. The Committee also consulted with the office of
the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). In total, the Committee
reviewed over 66,500 pages of materials. The Committee also
conducted 30 witness interviews, including a voluntary
interview of Representative Rodgers, who fully cooperated with
the Committee's investigation.
The Committee's general investigative jurisdiction includes
the current and three previous Congresses. Pursuant to House
Rule XI, clause 3(b)(3) and Committee Rule 18(d), the Committee
may not begin an investigation involving allegations outside
that general jurisdiction unless it votes to determine that the
allegations occurring prior to the third previous Congress are
directly related to alleged violations that occurred within the
Committee's general jurisdiction. In this matter, the Committee
voted to determine that the older allegations involving
Representative Rodgers' improper compensation of consultants
and misuse of official resources for campaign or political
purposes are directly related to the allegations occurring
since the start of the 113th Congress.
Before its final vote on this matter, the Committee
provided Representative Rodgers with a draft of this Report and
invited her to respond in person or in writing. On December 10,
2019, she submitted a written response noting that, while she
disagreed with some of the findings reached by the Committee,
she takes responsibility for its ultimate conclusions. The
Committee considered all of Representative Rodgers' submissions
and statements in resolving the matter. On December 18, 2019,
the Committee unanimously voted to adopt this Report, to serve
as a reproval of Representative Rodgers.
III. ALLEGATIONS
Representative Rodgers has served as the Representative for
the Fifth District of Washington since 2005. She was elected as
Chair of the House Republican Conference (Conference) on
November 14, 2012, and served in that role in the 113th, 114th
and 115th Congresses.
A. ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO CONSULTANT SERVICES
1. Background
i. Stan Shore
In 2012, Stan Shore became a general consultant to
Representative Rodgers' re-election campaign, and continued to
serve in that role each campaign cycle, until at least early
2018.\8\ As general consultant, Mr. Shore provided strategic
advice, worked with vendors, assisted with campaign debate
preparation and speeches, and supervised campaign staff.\9\ Mr.
Shore also provided services to Representative Rodgers'
Leadership PAC and joint fundraising committee from 2012 to
2018. In addition to his political work for Representative
Rodgers, Mr. Shore held a variety of roles related to
Representative Rodgers' congressional work. From 2008 to 2015,
he served as her direct mail vendor. From December 2012 to June
2013, he also worked as a salaried House employee at the
Conference. Mr. Shore also worked on retainer as a consultant
for the Conference from 2013 through 2017.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
\9\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch; 18(a) Interview of Stan
Shore. See also Exhibit 1 (email from Mr. Shore to Mr. Deutsch
summarizing Mr. Shore's work for the Conference in the first quarter of
2013).
\10\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shore held and was compensated for many of these roles
concurrently. The following chart shows the payments that he
received from those various offices from 2012 through 2018:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Mr. Shore also provided services to a Member other than
Representative Rodgers during this time period, but payments for those
services are not included in the chart.
PAYMENTS TO STAN SHORE FROM OFFICES/ORGANIZATIONS CONTROLLED BY REPRESENTATIVE RODGERS (2012-2018)\11\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodgers House Office MRA..................................... $80,233 $46,823.24 $41,752 $10,267.50 -- -- $5,180
House Republican Conference (Consulting Fees)................ -- $64,500 $52,000 $44,000 $48,000 $48,000 --
House Republican Conference (Salary)......................... $5,833 $30,999 -- -- -- -- --
Rodgers Campaign Committee................................... $78,910 $56,130 $232,882 $56,000 $146,764 $36,000 $5,000
Rodgers Other Political Committees........................... -- $15,000 $26,441.72 $65,000 $57,000 $55,000 $71,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Mr. Shore took on responsibilities related to the
Conference, he had several discussions regarding the amount and
source of his compensation with Mr. Deutsch and discussed ways
that a mix of campaign and official sources could be used to
pay for his services and expenses.
a. November 2012 to December 2012
After Representative Rodgers was elected Conference Chair,
but before she officially assumed the role in January 2013, Mr.
Deutsch asked Mr. Shore to assist with the leadership
transition.\12\ Mr. Shore traveled from his home in Washington
State to Washington, D.C. to assist with the transition,
spending several weeks working out of the congressional office
in November and December 2012.\13\ During this time, Mr. Shore
helped hire staff, set the conference budget, and provided
strategic and communications advice.\14\ He considered himself
to be acting in a volunteer capacity during the transition and
initially did not expect to be paid.\15\ However, he said it
later became clear ``more professional-level work'' was
required of him, and he asked to be paid.\16\ Although
Representative Rodgers did not have access to the Conference
budget during the transition period, Mr. Deutsch was able to
make arrangements with the outgoing Conference Chair to provide
a salary to Mr. Shore, who was added to the payroll for the
Conference as a ``Senior Advisor'' and paid $5,833 on December
17, 2012.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
\13\Mr. Shore said that, at the time, he paid the expenses
associated with that travel out of his own pocket. Id. As discussed
further, infra, he later sought to be reimbursed for those expenses.
\14\Id.; 18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch.
\15\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
\16\Id.
\17\Exhibit 2; 18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2012, Mr. Shore discussed with Mr. Deutsch how
he could continue to help with the Conference in 2013 and be
compensated. He told Mr. Deutsch that he believed he could be
paid from the ``technology budget, or out of the salaried
section . . . but let's come up with a number for the year
ahead so I can fly back there and help out without having to be
concerned about it.''\18\ That same day, Mr. Shore proposed to
be paid from the ``technology'' budget through a contract for
communications consulting work, intending to make ``regular
visits'' to D.C.\19\ Mr. Shore also told Mr. Deutsch that he
would like to be reimbursed for his flight, hotel, and meals
from his travel to D.C. in November and December 2012, and
suggested those costs be paid from Representative Rodgers'
Leadership PAC or campaign committee.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\Exhibit 2. The ``technology budget,'' also referred to by
Conference staff as the ``AE1'' budget, is a reference to a House-wide
appropriation for ``Allowances and Expenses,'' which was used by the
Conference for certain ``technology-related expenses.'' See Exhibit 3.
It is separate from the budget allocations for personnel spending. Id;
see also 18(a) Interview of Conference Operations Director (explaining
there was a ``bucket of money'' available to leadership offices for
technology, separate from the ``bucket'' available for staff salaries).
According to the CAO, these funds could be used to satisfy any non-
salary expenses incurred by the Conference office.
\19\Exhibit 4.
\20\Id. When asked about this request, Mr. Shore told the Committee
that the purpose of the travel in November and December 2012 was to
work on the ``campaign reorganization,'' but acknowledged that his
travel to assist with the Conference transition was not separate from
his travel to assist with the campaign, and that he spent more of his
time working on tasks related to the Conference than the campaign.
18(a) Interview of Stan Shore. Mr. Shore also did not believe he ever
received reimbursement for his travel in November and December. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During this time, Mr. Shore was actively involved in
overseeing the Conference's broader budget planning. In
particular, he worked to establish or renegotiate the
Conference's technology-related vendor relationships that were
paid through the ``technology'' budget, a set of funds
allocated to the Conference pursuant to a separate House-wide
appropriation for ``allowances and expenses,'' which Conference
personnel also referred to as the ``AE1'' budget.\21\ The AE1
budget was used to pay Mr. Shore's consulting firm,
Datagraphics LLC (Datagraphics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore. See also Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. January 2013 to June 2013
When Representative Rodgers took over as Conference Chair
in January 2013, Mr. Shore remained on the payroll as a Senior
Advisor through June 2013. While a Conference employee, Mr.
Shore continued to reside in Washington State, traveling to
D.C. approximately half of the time.\22\ At the same time that
he was a salaried Conference employee, Mr. Shore received
compensation from the Conference through his firm,
Datagraphics.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore. Representative Rodgers told the
Committee she didn't know whether Mr. Shore was living in Washington,
D.C. while he was on the Conference payroll, but stated that he was
``in and out'' of the Conference office during that time period. 18(a)
Interview of Representative Rodgers.
\23\See Exhibit 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a draft contract Mr. Shore prepared,
Datagraphics was engaged to provide vendor services to the
Conference related to overseeing the development and design of
Conference websites and technology.\24\ However, the draft
contract was not signed and Mr. Shore never had a formal
contract in place for Datagraphics' work with the
Conference.\25\ It is not clear why the Conference did not
execute the contract that Mr. Shore had drafted. However, in a
March 2013 email to Mr. Shore, the Conference Operations
Director stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Exhibit 7 (The contract specified that Datagraphics would
``[d]evelop new e-communications initiatives with the Conference
communications team, [c]reate and update interactive web features and
other written and digital content, and [a]ssist the Conference
Communications and Internet operations team with related projects.'').
\25\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
Just spoke to [a CAO employee]. Your two payments of
$15,000 that he had been holding up will be released
tonight. No contract needed. . . . He said if we were a
Member office that this would not be allowed, they like
them to be protected with the contracts, but that we
can be exempt. He still would feel much better if you
signed a contract eventually.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\Exhibit 8.
Mr. Shore never did sign a contract. According to Mr.
Shore, CAO had suggested a contract would need to be signed
because they initially mistakenly believed he was a web service
vendor subject to various technical certification requirements,
and when CAO realized he was not providing the technical
services that web vendors provide, they told him no contract
was needed. CAO confirmed to the Committee that there is no
general requirement that a contract be provided when payments
are disbursed pursuant to a voucher submitted for ``contractual
services,'' as occurred with Datagraphics. More stringent
requirements are in place for services procured through the
CAO-managed acquisitions process, as opposed to vouchered
services.
When asked by the Committee to identify what work he did in
his capacity as a vendor and what work he did as a Senior
Advisor to the Conference, Mr. Shore was unable to answer,
explaining that he did not distinguish between those two
roles.\27\ In an email to Mr. Deutsch at the end of March 2013,
Mr. Shore summarized his contributions to the Conference during
the prior quarter, in which he had been employed dually by the
Conference and by Datagraphics.\28\ In the email, Mr. Shore
recounted that he had assisted the Conference with video
production, provided input on the Conference website redesign,
wrote speeches and op-eds for the Conference chair, helped
organize and attend the Member retreat, and helped hire the
Conference communications staff.\29\ He also noted that he had
helped develop the Conference budget, and had renegotiated the
Conference's contract with a major vendor, which freed up funds
in the AE1 budget.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
\28\Exhibit 1.
\29\Id.
\30\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In early 2013, Mr. Shore played a significant role in
devising the budget allocation for both the personnel and AE1
budgets for the Conference.\31\ He also discussed using the
surpluses from the AE1 account ``to solve some of the
[Conference's] budget and personnel problems.''\32\ His
structuring of the Conference budget extended to his own
compensation, including the funds he received through
Datagraphics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\See Exhibit 5; Exhibit 9; Exhibit 10 .
\32\Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 13, 2013, Mr. Shore emailed Mr. Deutsch,
stating, ``I want to be perfectly frank with you about the
compensation I would like to get,'' and explained that, for
2013, he would like to receive $35,000 salary from the
Conference, $66,000 through Datagraphics' contract with the
Conference, and $20,000 from the campaign.\33\ He noted,
however, that he still had concerns about covering his travel
costs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\Exhibit 11. Mr. Shore also proposed for 2014 he receive $18,000
salary from the Conference, $72,000 from his contract with the
Conference, and $20,000 from the campaign, with additional compensation
for media buying relating to the campaign. Id.
The only issue I'm having is on the reimbursements .
. . not for Nov-Jan, but going forward. I want to feel
that I can fly out there every month or whenever you
want me to lend a hand, but as you know, the flight and
several nights at a hotel cost $1500 to $2000. Maybe
that can just be built into the contract.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\Id.
On January 25, 2013, Mr. Shore emailed Mr. Deutsch again, still
seeking to resolve his compensation and noting that ``things
have shifted a little as we discovered that travel
reimbursements are an issue.''\35\ According to Mr. Shore, he
was told by the Conference Operations Director that the
Conference could not reimburse his official travel.\36\ The
Conference Operations Director told the Committee that the
Conference was informed by the Committee on House
Administration (CHA) that the travel for commuting expenses
from out of state was not reimbursable.\37\ Mr. Shore proposed
a new approach:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\Exhibit 12.
\36\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
\37\18(a) Interview of Conference Operations Director.
1. Conference employee. I would like to continue at
current salary through February; then reduce salary to
$1,500 per month. The big payments in January and
February serve to reimburse me for the Nov-Jan travel .
. .
2. DATAGRAPHICS contract (attached) This is meant to
be the main way I am compensated, with funding through
AE1 account. Because of the `use it or lose it' funds
in that account ending March 31, I have front-loaded
payments of $30,000 in Feb and March.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\Exhibit 12.
With respect to Mr. Shore's Conference salary, this proposal
was similar to what ended up happening: he received large
payments of $8,833 per month for the first few months, and then
his salary was reduced to $1,500 a month. He received the
larger payment amount in March as well as January and February
of 2013.\39\ When asked by the Committee whether the larger
payments were intended to reimburse him for travel costs, as
proposed by his January 25, 2013 email, Mr. Shore said he was
never reimbursed for travel and the larger payments were
because he ``did more work.''\40\ The Conference Operations
Director also told the Committee that she understood the larger
payments to Mr. Shore in early 2013 to reflect his larger
workload and not travel reimbursements.\41\ Representative
Rodgers herself had no involvement in discussions about how or
whether to reimburse Mr. Shore for his travel costs.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\In a March 19, 2013 email to the Conference employee who
managed payroll for the office, Mr. Shore asked her to retain his
salary in March at the same level as January and February ``given the
difficulties we discussed yesterday.'' Exhibit 13. Mr. Shore told the
Committee the ``difficulties'' referenced related to delays in payment
processing and issues with health benefits not working. 18(a) Interview
of Stan Shore.
\40\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
\41\18(a) Interview of Conference Operations Director; see also id.
(``Q: Do you know if Mr. Shore ultimately was reimbursed for his travel
costs? A: I had no dealings with the campaign or leadership PAC, so I
can't speak to that.'').
\42\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 25, 2013, Mr. Shore emailed Mr. Deutsch again
regarding his compensation for Conference work:
I would like to keep coming back to D.C. and helping
out the conference. Looking at the calendar, I can be
in D.C. 14 to 18 days each month . . . The biggest
challenge, as with all of our plans, is to find the
money . . . I'm assuming that I can take a retainer
from the [campaign committee] and Leadership PAC, as
[Political Fundraiser] does, to defray the cost. But as
you know, all the official budgets are squeezed past
the breaking point.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\Exhibit 14. From 2010 to 2014, the Political Fundraiser
received payments from both Representative Rodgers' campaign committee
and her Leadership PAC. The Political Fundraiser told the Committee she
handles fundraising for both committees. 18(a) Interview of Political
Fundraiser.
Mr. Shore did subsequently receive payments from both the
campaign committee and Leadership PAC.\44\ He testified,
however, that his proposal to use such payments to ``defray the
cost'' of his Conference work was never put into place.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\Mr. Shore was often paid for his political work through Polis
Political Services, Inc., a C-corporation owned by him. 18(a) Interview
of Stan Shore (explaining that Polis and Datagraphics are generally
interchangeable). According to FEC records, Mr. Shore received his
first payment from Representative Rodgers' Leadership PAC on July 9,
2013 ($15,000 with ``fundraising consulting'' as the disbursement
description), and he continued to receive payments of between $10,000
and $30,000 from the Leadership PAC every few months through August
2017. He also regularly received $3,000 payments from the campaign
committee for ``campaign management'' from February 2013 through March
2016, and occasionally received additional, much larger payments from
the campaign committee, such as a $9,930 payment on August 27, 2013
(also for ``campaign management''). He also received nearly $100,000
from her joint fundraising committee between June 2014 and October
2018.
\45\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While he was working as a Conference employee and vendor,
Mr. Shore was also working with Representative Rodgers'
personal congressional office and her political committees. He
advised on hiring and budgeting for her personal office,\46\
continued to serve as a consultant for her re-election
campaign,\47\ and was also paid by her Leadership PAC for
consulting services.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant (``For some reason, Mr.
Shore was involved in the [personal office] budget. I have no idea why,
and I made my opinions to [the 2013 Member Office Chief of Staff] clear
that I thought it was very odd, because he wasn't on our payroll.'');
18(a) Interview of Deputy District Director (district staffer testified
that Mr. Shore interviewed a potential press secretary in the district
office in 2013).
\47\Exhibit 15.
\48\Exhibit 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. July 2013 to present
In July 2013, after a reporter called with questions
relating to Mr. Shore's work for the Conference, Mr. Shore
stopped receiving his salary from the Conference and the
Conference stopped making payments to Datagraphics for vendor
services.\49\ According to Mr. Shore, although he and Mr.
Deutsch thought his dual employment with the Conference and
campaign was permissible, they decided to stop the payments
``just to be safe'' and ``to make sure everything was `kosher'
because of the OCE investigation.''\50\ When Mr. Shore
interviewed with OCE on October 23, 2013, he testified that he
was continuing to provide frequent services to the Conference,
without compensation, and traveling to D.C. from Washington
State at his own personal expense to do so.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\OCE Referral, Ex. 38.
\50\Id.
\51\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Mr. Shore, although there was a concern, in or
around September 2013, that his work for the Conference ``may
not be proper,'' a couple of months later he was told that the
issue was resolved, and he could continue to do work for the
Conference.\52\ However, he was never added back onto the
employee payroll. Payments to him from the Conference through
Datagraphics resumed in December 2013, when he received a
$12,000 payment for consulting services from October 1, 2013 to
December 31, 2013.\53\ Representative Rodgers told the
Committee she was ``not sure'' whether Mr. Shore continued to
provide services to the Conference after June 2013.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
\53\Exhibit 17.
\54\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shore continued to receive compensation from the
Conference through Datagraphics until October 2017. The
payments are reported in House disbursement records under the
budget code for a ``technology service contract,'' and were
invoiced by Mr. Shore's firm as fees for ``New Media and Video
Consulting Services.''\55\ Mr. Shore told the Committee that
his work for the Conference since being removed from the
payroll has included consulting on digital strategy, assisting
with personnel hiring, and assisting with messaging in official
documents and speeches.\56\ Mr. Shore has also continued to
serve as a general consultant for Representative Rodgers'
campaign, as well as providing services to her Leadership PAC
and joint fundraising committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\Exhibit 17.
\56\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Speech Consultant
In or around March 2012, Representative Rodgers hired
Speech Consultant to serve as her speech coach.\57\ According
to Speech Consultant, at the time he was hired, he discussed
the services he would provide with the congresswoman, included
helping to raise her profile, improve her performance in media
interviews, assist her official communications staff, and
``make her official functions better.''\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\Exhibit 18; 18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
\58\18(a) Interview of Speech Consultant. See also OCE's Referral,
Ex. 9. As previously noted, on September 3, 2015, Speech Consultant
pled guilty to making false statements to OCE in connection with a
separate investigation; on August 29, 2018, he was sentenced to
probation and a $10,000 fine. He refused to provide testimony to the
Committee until after his sentencing. Given Speech Consultant's past
dishonesty to OCE, the Committee did not rely solely on any of his
testimony in making its conclusions in this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From April 2012 through October 2012, Speech Consultant was
paid for his services from Representative Rodgers' Leadership
PAC. Representative Rodgers said that Speech Consultant was
paid from unofficial funds ``out of an abundance of caution,''
as she anticipated a large part of his work would be political
given that she was very involved in the presidential election
that year.\59\ During that time, Speech Consultant assisted
with both official and unofficial communications.\60\ In
October 2012, he helped Representative Rodgers prepare for
debates against her general election opponent.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
\60\18(a) Interview of Press Secretary; Appendix C at 17.
\61\Exhibit 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November and December 2012, Speech Consultant was paid
from Representative Rodgers' campaign committee funds. The
Communications Director testified that Speech Consultant ``was
kind of a de facto press secretary for the Congresswoman''
during this time.\62\ Documents reviewed by the Committee
showed that, in December 2012, Speech Consultant helped
Representative Rodgers prepare for official media appearances,
edited official press statements, and helped hire official
communications staff.\63\ Representative Rodgers' counsel told
the Committee that Speech Consultant's ``scope of work''
changed in December 2012, but disputed that he became ``the de
facto Press Secretary,'' and said his focus remained on
assisting the congresswoman with her communication skills.\64\
Representative Rodgers' counsel also told the Committee that
Speech Consultant was paid from the campaign committee rather
than the Leadership PAC during this time to ``reflect this
change in scope of work.''\65\ However, Representative Rodgers
later told the Committee that she believed he was paid from the
campaign committee because the Leadership PAC ran out of
money,\66\ which a contemporaneous email also indicates was the
reason.\67\ Speech Consultant told the Committee that his
``scope of work'' did not change at any point from when he was
hired through December 2012, with the exception of the campaign
work he performed in September and October 2012 relating to
Representative Rodgers' campaign debate.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\18(a) Interview of Communications Director.
\63\See Exhibit 20; see also 18(a) Interview of Speech Consultant
(``I would categorize [the work performed in December 2012] as official
work'').
\64\Appendix C at 18.
\65\Id.
\66\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
\67\Exhibit 21(December 12, 2012 email from Mr. Deutsch to campaign
treasurer asking him to pay Speech Consultant's invoice, noting that
Speech Consultant had previously been paid out of the Leadership PAC
``but now there is no money in the account so reelect needs to pay.'').
\68\18(a) Interview of Speech Consultant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2013, Speech Consultant entered into a new
contract with Representative Rodgers (which listed
Representative Rodgers' congressional office as her
address).\69\ The contract provided that Speech Consultant
would render ``consulting services associated with media
preparation and training/Message design and strategy for Cathy
McMorris Rodgers and regular service to the House Republican
Conference'' for $5,000 a month, as well as costs and expenses,
and an additional $300 an hour for instruction to Conference
members.\70\ According to House disbursement records, for the
first several months of 2013, Speech Consultant received half
of his retainer from the congresswoman's MRA and the other half
from the Conference.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\Exhibit 22.
\70\Id.
\71\Representative Rodgers told the Committee that her personal
office compensated Speech Consultant because of his help with her
official speeches and interviews. 18(a) Interview of Representative
Rodgers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later in 2013, Speech Consultant stopped receiving payments
from the MRA altogether. He continued to receive some funds
from the Conference (typically about half of his retainer and
then additional funds for Conference member training) but began
to receive the remainder of his retainer from Representative
Rodgers' Leadership PAC or campaign committee. Representative
Rodgers told the Committee that Speech Consultant did not help
with campaign or political communications in 2013.\72\ Speech
Consultant confirmed this in his interview with the
Committee.\73\ When asked why Speech Consultant was then paid
with unofficial funds for a portion of that year,
Representative Rodgers responded, ``because these [media]
interviews, sometimes they're political and sometimes they're
official. So this is to make sure that when it's political, I
can tell you I paid for it with political funds.''\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\Id.
\73\18(a) Interview of Speech Consultant.
\74\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Rodgers continued to compensate Speech
Consultant from both her campaign committee funds and the
Conference budget until early 2015. She told the Committee she
``wasn't a part of those discussions or decisions'' regarding
Speech Consultant's compensation during that time, and that
those decisions were made by Mr. Deutsch.\75\ Mr. Deutsch told
the Committee he did not recall discussing Speech Consultant's
compensation with Representative Rodgers.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\Id. But see id. (Q: ``Did [Mr. Deutsch] tell you during that
time period how [Speech Consultant] was being paid?'' A: ``I believe we
discussed it.'').
\76\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speech Consultant's compensation history is summarized in
the following chart:
PAYMENTS TO SPEECH CONSULTANT FROM OFFICES/ORGANIZATIONS CONTROLLED BY REPRESENTATIVE RODGERS (2012-2015)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2013 2014 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodgers House Office MRA.................................... -- $10,000 -- --
House Republican Conference................................. -- $30,600 $27,600 $4,500
Rodgers campaign committee.................................. $4,498 $12,500 $30,000 $4,500
Rodgers leadership PAC...................................... $14,000 $7,500 -- --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2014, Speech Consultant's services to another Member were
the subject of an OCE investigation, unrelated to
Representative Rodgers.\77\ The Committee released OCE's Report
and Findings in that matter on October 29, 2014.\78\ On
September 3, 2015, Speech Consultant pled guilty in federal
criminal court to making material false statements to OCE in
that matter.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\See Statement of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Committee on Ethics Regarding Representative Paul Broun (Oct. 29,
2014), available at https://ethics.house.gov/press-release/statement-
chairman-and-ranking-member-committee-ethics-regarding-representative-
paul-0.
\78\Id.
\79\Plea Agreement, United States v. Brett O'Donnell, No. 15-34
(M.D.Ga. Sept. 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Leadership Consultant
During the November 2012 race for the Republican Conference
Chair position, Leadership Consultant offered her advising
services to Representative Rodgers, working with her staff out
of the congressional office.\80\ She continued to assist
Representative Rodgers during the leadership transition and was
added to the payroll for the congresswoman's personal office as
an ``Executive Assistant'' during that time, for which she was
paid $9,250 from the MRA.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\18(a) Interview of Leadership Consultant.
\81\Id.; Exhibit 23 (Fourth Quarter 2012 House Disbursements from
Office of Representative Rodgers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2015, Leadership Consultant told the Committee that she
had been working as a ``consultant with the House Republican
Conference'' since Representative Rodgers was first elected
Conference Chair,\82\ and said that she had received the
``official offer'' to join the Conference staff from Mr.
Deutsch.\83\ She testified that she worked part-time and ``at
best'' would come to the office a couple days a week.\84\
However, she told the Committee later during her interview that
she is ``actually more a consultant for Cathy, more than
anything else, because I do more political consulting stuff. I
don't do very much official stuff.''\85\ She told the Committee
she was paid by Representative Rodgers' Leadership PAC and
campaign committee for that consulting work.\86\ FEC records
show that she was paid by the Leadership PAC from May 2013 to
September 2013, and by Representative Rodgers' campaign
committee from June 2014 to January 2017. Leadership Consultant
has never received any compensation from the Conference.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\18(a) Interview of Leadership Consultant.
\83\Id.
\84\Id. The Conference Operations Director, who worked full-time in
the Conference from approximately January to August 2013, recalled in a
2019 interview that Leadership Consultant was involved in setting up
the Conference office, but did not recall seeing her in the Conference
offices after the staff had been fully hired, and did not understand
Leadership Consultant to have been a volunteer for the Conference.
18(a) Interview of Conference Operations Director.
\85\18(a) Interview of Leadership Consultant.
\86\Id.
\87\Leadership Consultant appears to have listed her occupation as
``Consultant, House Republican Conference'' on her LinkedIn profile
from January 2013 to January 2017. Leadership Consultant has also been
identified in press reports as an ``outside consultant'' who worked
with Mr. Deutsch on personnel decisions for the Conference. See
Jonathan Strong, ``A Step Back, a Look in the Mirror, a Team
Realignment,'' Mar. 9, 2013, Roll Call, available at http://
www.rollcall.com/news/
a_step_back_a_look_in_the_mirror_a_team_realignment-222977-1.html
(``McMorris Rodgers'' new communications team is roughly twice the size
of the one in place under Rep. Jeb Hensarling, her predecessor. Hard-
charging chief of staff Jeremy Deutsch led a top-to-bottom staff
evaluation with outside consultant [Leadership Consultant] that
resulted in at least one firing.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leadership Consultant's 2014 contract with the campaign
committee listed her ``scope of work'' to include offering
advice on leadership positions, campaign staffing, and
``budgeting.''\88\ When asked what ``budgeting'' she advised
Representative Rodgers on, Leadership Consultant said, ``[t]he
only thing I can think of here is I would . . . give my advice,
you know, the people I think would be best for CMR within the
budget of the Conference.''\89\ Representative Rodgers told the
Committee that she believed Leadership Consultant served as a
consultant for the Conference in 2013, but that she did not
understand her to be volunteering her time.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\Exhibit 24 (agreement signed by Leadership Consultant on August
22, 2014, and effective from July 16, 2014 to December 31, 2014). The
Committee was not provided with any other contracts for Leadership
Consultant's services.
\89\18(a) Interview of Leadership Consultant.
\90\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Relevant House Rules, Laws, and Other Applicable Standards of
Conduct
i. Unofficial Office Accounts and Volunteer Services
House Rule XXIV provides that no Member may maintain an
unofficial office account, or ``defray official expenses for
mail or other communications, compensation for services, office
space, office furniture, office equipment, or any associated
information technology services.''\91\ This restriction is
similarly codified at 2 U.S.C. Sec. 503(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\See also Ethics Manual at 284-85 (citing Comm. on Standards and
Official Conduct, Advisory Op. No. 6 (May 9, 1977)) (prohibition on
unofficial office accounts proscribes the private, in-kind contribution
of goods or services for official purposes, subject to certain
exceptions for services from government agencies or through educational
programs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Consultant Services
Federal law sets forth certain restrictions on the ability
of House offices to retain consultant services. Title 2 of the
U.S. Code provides that House committees are permitted,
contingent on approval from the Committee on House
Administration (CHA), to procure consultant services for not
more than one year.\92\ Under Title 2, certain leadership
offices are also permitted to have consultants on a temporary
or intermittent basis--specifically, the Speaker, Majority
Leader, and Minority Leader may each procure one
consultant.\93\ There is no provision of the law or CHA
regulations that permits other House leadership offices to
procure consultant services.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\2 U.S.C. Sec. 4301(i).
\93\2 U.S.C. Sec. 5102(a).
\94\Title 2 does authorize the procurement of consultant services
by the Senate Majority and Minority Leader, the President Pro Tempore
of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate, the Legislative Counsel of
the Senate, and the Majority and Minority Conference Committees of the
Senate. 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 6501, 6157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 4301, CHA also sets limits on the
extent to which House funds may be used to compensate
individuals or firms providing consulting or contracting
services. The Members' Congressional Handbook (Members'
Handbook) explains, ``only committees are authorized to procure
the temporary services of consultants. Member offices are not
authorized to procure consultant services.''\95\ Rather, Member
offices may only retain ``contractors.'' From at least 2011 to
2016, the Members' Handbook stated that a Member office:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\Exhibit 25 (hereinafter, Members' Handbook (2011)) (citing 2
U.S.C. Sec. 72a).
may contract with firms or individuals only for
general, non-legislative and non-financial, office
services (e.g., equipment maintenance, systems
integration, data entry, staff training, photography,
custodial services, web services) for a specified time
period not to exceed the Member's current term. Such
contracts are reimbursable. Such contractors are not
employees of the House and are ineligible for
government-provided personnel benefits.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\Id. The current version of the Members' Handbook, adopted on
July 25, 2018, includes a revised contractor rule stating that general
office services should be ``outside core office functions.'' See
https://cha.house.gov/sites/democrats.cha.house.gov/files/documents/
116th_Members_Congresional_Handbook_03-26-2019.pdf. It also includes a
revised consultant rule, which explicitly prohibits hiring
speechwriters and communications advisers. See id.
The Members' Handbook also states, ``Members are advised to
consult the Committee on House Administration when entering
into such contracts.''\97\ No House entity has published any
guidance with respect to the use of consultants or contractors
by leadership offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Federal Employee Activities in Matters Affecting U.S.
Government Interest
18 U.S.C. Sec. 203 prohibits federal employees, including a
Member, officer, or employee of the House, from receiving
compensation, other than salary, for providing any
``representational services, agent or attorney or otherwise,''
to others, before any department, agency or officer, in
relation to any contract, claim, or other particular matter in
which the United States has a direct and substantial
interest.18 U.S.C. Sec. 205 prohibits any legislative branch
officer or employee from acting as an agent or attorney for
anyone other than the employee's self before any department,
agency or officer in connection with any contract, claim, or
other particular matter in which the United States has a direct
and substantial interest. An individual is an ``agent'' within
the meaning of Section 205 if he has actual and apparent
authority to act on behalf of the principal.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\See O'Neill v. Dep't of Housing and Urban Dev 220 F.3d 1354,
1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Official Appropriations
Federal law requires that appropriations ``shall be applied
only to the objects for which the appropriations were
made.''\99\ Regulations from CHA implement that requirement and
provide that House funds and resources are to be used for
official House business and may not be used for any unofficial
purposes. The Members' Handbook states that, ``[o]nly expenses
the primary purpose of which [is] official and
representational'' are reimbursable from the MRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. Additional House Rules, Laws, and Other Standards of
Conduct
House Rule XXIII contains the Code of Official Conduct,
which governs the actions of any Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer or employee of the House. Clause 8,
states that ``[a] Member . . . of the House may not retain an
employee who does not perform duties for the offices of the
employing authority commensurate with the compensation such
employee receives.'' Clauses 1 and 2, provide that ``[a] Member
. . . officer, or employee of the House shall behave at all
times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House,''
and ``shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of
the House.''
The Code of Ethics for Government Service sets forth
standards of conduct for all government employees.\100\ Clause
2 of that Code provides that those in government service should
``[u]phold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the
United States and of all governments therein and never be a
party to their evasion.'' Clause 3 instructs every employee to
``[g]ive a full day's labor for a full day's pay.'' Clause 7
provides that employees should ``[e]ngage in no business with
the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is
inconsistent with the conscientious performance of his
governmental duties,'' and Clause 8 prohibits the use of
information an employee receives ``confidentially in the
performance of governmental duties as a means for making
private profit.'' All public servants are charged under the
Code with upholding the principles articulated, ``ever
conscious that public office is a public trust.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\See Ethics Manual at 1, 20-21, 355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Analysis
In both her official and political capacities,
Representative Rodgers frequently relied on the services of
three individuals who considered themselves to be consultants:
Stan Shore, Speech Consultant, and Leadership Consultant. She
compensated each of these individuals from a mix of official
and unofficial resources, without establishing clear boundaries
as to what source of compensation was used for particular
services. As a result, the Committee found Representative
Rodgers (1) used official funds to compensate consultants for
impermissible services and expenses, and (2) received voluntary
services for official work from consultants and/or compensated
consultants for official services in whole or in part from
political funds. As discussed further below, the Committee also
determined that certain conduct relating to Mr. Shore's
consulting firm merits further review by the House Inspector
General.
i. Representative Rodgers Used Official Funds To Compensate
Consultants for Impermissible Services and Expenses
The use of consultant services by congressional offices is
addressed in Title 2 of the U.S. Code, which sets out the laws
relating to the operation of Congress. Title 2 provides that
House committees are permitted, contingent on approval from
CHA, to ``procure the temporary services (not in excess of one
year) or intermittent services of individual consultants, or
organizations thereof, to make studies or advise the
committee.''\101\ The Speaker, Majority Leader, and Minority
Leader of the House are ``each authorized to appoint and fix
the compensation of one consultant, on a temporary or
intermittent basis.''\102\ Title 2 also specifies several other
congressional offices that are permitted to procure consultant
services, including the Conference of the Majority and
Conference of the Minority in the Senate.\103\ There is no
mention, however, of House party caucuses or Member offices
procuring consultant services. Given that the law clearly
identifies the select instances where procurement of consultant
services is permitted for congressional offices, a reasonable
inference is that procurement of consultant services is not
permitted for Member offices, the House Republican Conference,
and the Democratic Caucus.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\2 U.S.C. Sec. 4301(i).
\102\Id. at Sec. 5102(a).
\103\2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 6501, 6155, 6157.
\104\See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002)
(discussing the well-established canon of statutory interpretation
expressio unius est exclusion alterius, or expressing one item of an
associated group excludes another left unmentioned.); see also
Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co., 355 U.S. 373, 376 (1958).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHA, which is charged under section 5505 of Title 2 with
approving all payments from applicable accounts of the
House,\105\ appears to have interpreted the law accordingly, at
least with respect to Member offices. Citing directly to Title
2, CHA makes clear in its regulations that ``only committees
are authorized to procure the temporary services of
consultants. Member offices are not authorized to procure
consultant services.''\106\ Rather, Member offices may only
retain ``contractors'' for general office services.\107\
However, no House entity provides any general guidance on
expenditures by leadership offices.\108\ It is the Committee's
view that the House community would benefit from more guidance
as to the use of official funds by leadership offices.
Nonetheless, the Committee was presented with ample evidence
that the use of official funds to pay Representative Rodgers'
consultants at times ran afoul of applicable House rules, CHA
regulations, federal laws, and other ethical standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\Applicable accounts'' means ``accounts for salaries and
expenses of committees (other than the Committee on Appropriations),
the computer support organization of the House of Representatives, and
allowances and expenses of Members of the House of Representatives,
officers of the House of Representatives, and administrative and
support offices of the House of Representatives.'' 2 U.S.C.
Sec. 5505(b).
\106\Members' Handbook (2011) at 5; Members' Handbook (2019) at 6.
\107\Id. See also Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Representative
Luis Gutierrez, H. Rept. 115-617, 115th Congress, 2d Session 19-20
(2018) (Gutierrez).
\108\The Conference Operations Director noted that CHA would
provide the Conference guidance on specific questions, but said there
was less clarity about the rules as to leadership offices than for
personal member offices. 18(a) Interview of Conference Operations
Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Mr. Shore Was Paid With Official Funds for
Impermissible Services
From 2013 to 2017, Mr. Shore provided consulting services
to the Conference, for which he was paid from an administrative
account separate from salary expenses. During that time, he
assisted the Conference with hiring, worked on campaign
speeches, and helped set Conference and personal office
budgets. From January to June 2013, Mr. Shore was also a House
employee, though he continued to perform many of the same
duties after he was removed from the payroll. Mr. Shore's
duties, including writing official speeches and advising on
official hiring and budgeting, went beyond the services that
outside vendors are intended to provide.
When asked by the Committee, Mr. Shore could not
distinguish between the duties he performed as a salaried
employee and the duties he performed as an outside vendor.
Without any clear definition of his various roles, the
potential for violations of the laws, rules, and regulations
that govern House offices and their appropriated funds was
heightened. Given the blurring of Mr. Shore's positions, his
compensation from each of the separate official sources may not
have been commensurate with the duties he performed.\109\ To
the extent payments from the ``AE1'' account subsidized Mr.
Shore's performance of the regular and normal duties of
official staff, such payments were also inconsistent with the
restrictions on consulting services articulated by CHA.\110\
The need to determine the amount of compensation provided to
Mr. Shore for his duties as a staffer, versus the compensation
for his work as a vendor, is not a merely formalistic exercise.
Pursuant to certain ethics laws and rules, highly compensated
House employees are subject to additional ethics restrictions,
including financial disclosure requirements and restrictions on
outside earned income. Mr. Shore's combined compensation from
House sources in early 2013 would have put him well above the
senior staff threshold that triggers financial disclosure
requirements.\111\ However, his pay was structured so that most
of his compensation from the House during that time went
through his consulting firm, allowing him to bypass those
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\See House Rule XXIII, cl. 8 (providing that a Member ``may not
retain an employee who does not perform duties for the office of the
employing authority commensurate with the compensation such employee
receives.'').
\110\See Committees' Congressional Handbook (2019), available at
https://cha.house.gov/handbooks/committee-handbook (CHA ``will not
approve a contract if the services to be provided by the consultant are
the regular and normal duties of Committee staff.'').
\111\In 2013, House employees whose basic rate of pay was equal to
or greater than $9,962.80 per month for at least 60 days were subject
to the financial disclosure requirements of ``senior staff.'' From
January to March 2013, Mr. Shore received $8,833 each month as a House
employee, but also received $6,500 from the Conference for his
consultant services during January 2013, and $15,000 each month from
February to March 2013. Accordingly, Mr. Shore received compensation
above the senior staff rate. The Committee notes that his total House
compensation for those months was also greater than the maximum salary
authorized under the Speaker's Pay Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 2013 to 2017, Mr. Shore's firm received more than
$250,000 from the House for what was publicly reported to be a
``technology service contract,'' but there was never an actual
written, signed contract in place. Although CAO has informed
the Committee this is permissible under their payment
standards, the Committee finds it concerning that such a vast
sum of official funds was transmitted to an outside firm
without the protections that a signed contract would provide.
Without a written contract in place, or any effort to
articulate the boundaries of the work that Mr. Shore's
compensation was authorized to cover, the potential for misuse
of official funds was particularly high. The Committee's
investigation in this matter focused on the conduct of
Representative Rodgers, and those under her supervision and
control; broader questions about the administrative process
governing the disbursement of funds from the official budget
are beyond the scope of this matter. Further, consideration of
the performance, accountability, and integrity of House
financial, administrative, and technology-based operations is
the stated mission of the House Office of the Inspector General
(OIG).\112\ Accordingly, the Committee has voted to send a copy
of this Report and relevant supporting documents to the OIG
with a recommendation that the OIG: review the institutional
processes, procedures, and controls under which Mr. Shore's
firm was compensated for the provision of vaguely defined
services without a contract for over five years, as well as any
further issues arising out of those processes, procedures, and
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\Inspector General of the House, https://www.house.gov/the-
house-explained/officers-and-organizations/inspector-general
(explaining that the mission of the House Inspector General is ``to
provide recommendations for improving the performance, accountability,
and integrity of House financial, administrative, and technology-based
operations.'') (last visited Nov. 22, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Representative Rodgers reimbursed Mr. Shore for living
and commuting expenses through increased salary
payments
The Committee also found Mr. Shore may have been improperly
compensated through his House salary for his travel expenses.
Although officially-connected travel is generally
reimbursable from official funds, under CHA regulations,
``living and commuting expenses'' are not reimbursable except
in extraordinary circumstances, with written authorization from
CHA.\113\ While CHA does not explicitly provide this guidance
to leadership offices, the Committee found that Representative
Rodgers' Conference staff was generally aware of the
restriction and understood it to apply to the Conference
office. The precept that appropriated funds cannot be used to
pay for the costs of employees commuting to their duty station
is fundamental across the federal government.\114\ If
leadership office employees could use official funds to pay for
their commuting expenses, there would be no basis on which to
restrict Members themselves from using leadership funds for
such expenses--such as lodging in Washington, D.C., which
Members have long acknowledged they are prohibited from paying
with official funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\CHA rules provide that this restriction applies to Member
offices as well as committees and eligible congressional member
organizations. Members' Handbook (2011); Committees' Handbook (2011);
Eligible Congressional Member Organizations Handbook (2011). ``Living
expenses'' is defined to include ``meals, housing, and other personal
expenses incurred at the Member's or employee's residence or duty
station,'' and ``commuting expenses'' is defined to include
``transportation expenses incurred by the Member or employee while
commuting between their residence and duty station.'' Members' Handbook
(2011) at 27.
\114\See, e.g., General Accountability Office, Principles of
Federal Appropriations Law, at 3-33 (4th ed. 2017) (citing 31 U.S.C.
Sec. 1344(a)(1)) (``[E]mployees must bear the costs of commuting to and
from their official duty stations each day.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Official funds may also not be used to reimburse expenses
for travel the primary purpose of which is campaign-
related.\115\ Even where the primary purpose of a trip is
official, additional travel costs incurred for a campaign
purpose, such as additional nights of hotel lodging to attend
campaign meetings or events, must be paid for with campaign
funds.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\Ethics Manual at 131.
\116\Id. at 116 (``Any additional meal, lodging, or other travel
expenses that the Member or staff person incurs in serving a secondary
purpose must be paid by the source associated with that secondary
purpose.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of salary payments to reimburse transportation
expenses also implicates House Rule 23, clause 8, which
provides that employees' compensation must be commensurate with
the duties they perform. The Committee previously found a
violation of this rule where a Member used salary increases to
pay for staff's personal travel expenses.\117\ In The Matter of
Representative Barbara Rose-Collins, the Committee found that
the Member awarded raises to some of her congressional staff to
enable them to accompany her on a trip to Africa. Although the
travel in that matter was personal in nature, the crux of the
violation was that the salary payments were not tied to staff's
performance of their official duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of
Representative Barbara Rose-Collins, H. Rept. 104-876, 104th Cong., 2d
Sess. 87 (1997) (Barbara Rose-Collins).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emails reviewed by the Committee indicate Mr. Shore may
have received payments in January and February 2013 in part to
reimburse him for travel expenses he incurred in November,
December and January.\118\ These substantial travel expenses
accrued in part as a result of Mr. Shore's residence on the
opposite side of the country from his ``duty station'' at the
Conference. To some extent, these expenses also related to Mr.
Shore's travel to Washington, D.C., in his role as
Representative Rodgers' general campaign consultant. Mr. Shore
initially proposed that Representative Rodgers' leadership PAC
or campaign committee reimburse the cost of his flights, hotels
and meals from his travel to Washington, D.C. in November and
December 2012.\119\ Mr. Shore testified that the purpose of
that travel was in part to assist with ``campaign
reorganization,'' and in part to assist with the leadership
transition.\120\ He was never reimbursed from the political
committees for that travel.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\See Exhibit 12; Exhibit 11.
\119\Exhibit 4.
\120\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
\121\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shore proposed in late January 2013 that he ``continue
at current salary through February; then reduce salary to
$1,500 per month. The big payments in January and February
serve to reimburse me for the Nov-Jan travel.''\122\ Mr.
Shore's salary in January and February 2013 was $8,833, and was
later reduced to $1,500 per month in April 2013. Mr. Shore also
received $8,833 in March 2013, although the Committee was
unable to ascertain whether the larger payment that month was
also intended to reimburse travel costs.\123\ For at least
January and February 2013, however, at least some portion of
Mr. Shore's salary was intended to serve as travel cost
reimbursements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\Exhibit 12.
\123\On March 19, 2012, Mr. Shore requested of the Conference
administrative staff, ``given the difficulties we discussed yesterday,
could you please retain my salary in March for payment at end of
March[,] at the same level as January and February? [T]his seems a
certain path and we can make other adjustments later as needed.''
Exhibit 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shore told the Committee he was never reimbursed for
travel after the Conference learned it was not a permissible
use of House funds.\124\ He said he was paid larger amounts in
January and February because he was doing a greater amount of
work, which happened to align with his initial proposal to be
paid a larger salary to reimburse him for travel. The
Conference Operations Director confirmed that he did more work
in the earlier months. However, the Committee did not find Mr.
Shore's assertion that he abandoned his plan for reimbursement
through salary to be credible. Mr. Shore's January 25, 2013
email stated that his current salary was to reimburse him for
travel expenses, not for the duties he performed. The email
makes clear that the plan to use a higher salary to circumvent
the restrictions on reimbursing Mr. Shore's travel funds had
already been implemented. The Committee also found reason to
believe, based on Mr. Shore's own testimony, that at least some
of those travel expenses were incurred in connection with Mr.
Shore's campaign work.\125\ The Committee therefore found that
Mr. Shore was impermissibly reimbursed for his living or
commuting expenses and/or campaign-related travel costs.
However, the Committee did not find evidence that
Representative Rodgers was aware or had reason to be aware of
this plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
\125\See supra note 20 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Mr. Shore Represented his Consulting Firm in
Connection with Government Contracts While a House
Employee
Mr. Shore is the sole owner of his consulting firm,
Datagraphics, and was the firm's agent for purposes of
contracting with the House.\126\ During the six months for
which he was a House employee, Mr. Shore was actively involved
in negotiating the Datagraphics contract with the House
Conference and regularly invoiced the House for the services he
provided to the Conference through Datagraphics.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\See O'Neill, 220 F.3d at 1360-61.
\127\Exhibit 12; Exhibit 11; Exhibit 7; Exhibit 6. During this
time, Mr. Shore also contracted with another Member for services
categorized as ``printing and reproduction'' in House disbursement
records. He was compensated $8,853.60 from that Member's MRA on
February 1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal laws restrict House employees from acting as an
agent or representative of a party in a contract or other
matter in which the federal government is a party.\128\ As the
Ethics Manual cautions, 18 U.S.C. 203 and 205 generally
prohibit House employees from privately representing others
before the federal government.\129\ Although the Department of
Justice has interpreted these statutes to allow an exemption
for an employee's representation of himself before the
government, it is not clear that such an exemption would extend
to the representation of a distinct legal entity owned by that
employee, including an LLC such as Datagraphics.\130\
Furthermore, the Code of Official Conduct provides that House
employees may not permit compensation to accrue to their
beneficial interest ``by virtue of influence improperly exerted
from the position of such individual in Congress.''\131\ House
Members and employees are also charged with adhering to the
``spirit,'' in addition to the ``letter'' of the rules.\132\
Mr. Shore's dual arrangement with the Conference was
unambiguously contrary to the spirit of the House's conflict of
interest rules and laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 203, 205; see also Ethics Manual at 198-
200.
\129\Ethics Manual at 185.
\130\See Office of Gov't Ethics, Informal Adv. Op. 85 x 12 (Aug.
29, 1985).
\131\House Rule XXIII, cl. 3.
\132\House Rule XXIII, cl. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shore is no longer a House employee or contractor and
is not subject to the jurisdiction of this Committee. The
Committee notes, however, that Representative Rodgers could
have done more to prevent these violations from occurring.
Although Members are free to delegate various duties relating
to their office structure and budget to their staffers, they
must do so responsibly and remain accountable for the
consequences. Representative Rodgers' delegation decisions left
the House deprived of the arms-length dealing and fair
competition that the laws and rules discussed above are
intended to preserve.
ii. Representative Rodgers Received Official Services from
Consultants that were Voluntary or Compensated from
Political Funds.
House Rule XXIV provides that Members may not maintain ``an
unofficial office account,'' and may not use unofficial funds
``to defray official expenses for mail or other communications,
compensation for services, office space, office furniture,
office equipment, or any associated information technology
services.'' The Committee has interpreted this rule to provide
that ``outside private donations, funds, or in-kind foods or
services may not be used to support the activities of, or pay
the expenses of, a congressional office.''\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\Ethics Manual at 326; see also House Select Comm. on Ethics,
Advisory Opinion No. 6 (May 9, 1977), reprinted in Final Report of the
Select Committee on Ethics, H. Rep. 95-1837, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. app.
at 65 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has previously relied on the language of Rule
XXIV to support its finding that ``the regular involvement of a
volunteer/political advisor in a congressional office who
performs tasks properly associated with the official
responsibilities of House Members is inappropriate.''\134\
Congressional offices may accept the services of a volunteer
only where there is a clearly defined program to assure that
the volunteer receives a significant education a benefit, and
the volunteer services do not supplant the normal and regular
duties of paid employees.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of
Representative Bud Shuster, H. Rept. 106-979, 106th Cong. 2d Sess. 44
(2000) (Shuster). See also Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct,
Inquiry into Various Complaints Filed Against Representative Newt
Gingrich, H. Rpt. 104-401, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 4 (1995) (Gingrich).
\135\Ethics Manual at 288.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee found that Representative Rodgers likely
accepted official services from all three consultants that were
defrayed with political funds or not compensated at all, in
violation of Rule XXIV.
Mr. Shore testified that he ``volunteered'' for the
Conference first in November 2012, immediately after
Representative Rodgers was elected Conference Chair, and again
from July to September 2013, after he was removed from the
Conference payroll. During that time, he was also receiving
payment from Representative Rodgers' political committees.
Whether Mr. Shore's services to the Conference during that time
were entirely uncompensated, volunteer services, or whether
they were covered by the compensation he received from
political funds, Mr. Shore provided Representative Rodgers'
congressional office with services for approximately three
months that were not paid for with official funds. There is
also some evidence that political funds may have been used to
defray his compensation earlier in 2013, when he was serving as
both an employee and vendor to the Conference.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\Exhibit 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speech Consultant was paid entirely with political funds in
2012, when part of his services to Representative Rodgers
included working with her official communications team on media
relations. While he was paid with official funds for the first
three months of 2013, when he began providing services to the
Conference, he was paid with political funds, despite
Representative Rodgers' acknowledgement that his services were
entirely related to her official duties.
Finally, Leadership Consultant was paid only with political
funds the entire time she served as a consultant to the House
Republican Conference. The services she provided the Conference
were either voluntary or paid for by those political funds. As
discussed above, the Committee found evidence indicating the
latter to be the case: Leadership Consultant's 2014 contract
with Representative Rodgers' campaign includes the provision of
budgeting services, which she told the Committee were services
she provided to the Conference. Accordingly, the expenses for
services provided by Leadership Consultant to the Conference
appear to have been defrayed with political funds.
Because Mr. Shore, Speech Consultant and Leadership
Consultant provided official services that were not compensated
with official funds, the Committee found Representative Rodgers
effectively maintained unofficial office accounts in violation
of House Rule XXIV.
B. ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO USE OF OFFICIAL RESOURCES FOR POLITICAL AND
CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
From at least 2008 through 2013, when OCE began its
investigation, several members of Representative Rodgers'
official staff were heavily involved with her campaigns and
other political endeavors. At least some members of her
official staff, including Mr. Deutsch, continued to have
substantial involvement with her campaign and political efforts
after the start of the OCE investigation in August 2013. As
discussed further below, applicable House rules and laws permit
congressional staff to voluntarily assist with political
activities, provided they do not do so using official
resources. The Committee examined allegations that
Representative Rodgers, and others acting under her supervision
and control, used various types of official resources,
including staff time, congressional office space, travel funds,
and other resources, for campaign and political activities. As
part of that examination, the Committee looked at the policies
and safeguards implemented by the congresswoman relating to the
use of official resources for political work.
1. Background
i. Policies regarding political work by official staff
Representative Rodgers asserted that the policies in her
offices regarding campaign work were clearly communicated to
staff in writing.\137\ When hired, all staff were provided with
an Employee Handbook detailing the office policies, including
policies relating to official staff participating in political
activities.\138\ Staff were required to sign and submit a form
acknowledging they received the Employee Handbook, and had read
and understood its contents.\139\ Representative Rodgers
provided the Committee with only one other document discussing
the office policies on campaign work: a training document dated
July 2009.\140\ The language in the different iterations of the
Employee Handbook used in Representative Rodgers' member and
Conference offices with respect to staff leave and political
work has shifted over time, but at all times her written
policies have included some form of the statement that campaign
work can only be performed by official staff on their ``own
time.''\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\OCE's Referral, Ex. 4 (Memorandum of Interview for
Representative Rodgers); 18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
\138\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
\139\See, e.g., Exhibit 26.
\140\Exhibit 27. Representative Rodgers told the Committee that, to
her knowledge, her policies concerning campaign work by staff were not
in writing anywhere other than the Employee Handbooks and the July 2009
training document. 18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
Representative Rodgers said her policies were also communicated at
annual staff retreats, during presentations lasting for about 30-60
minutes. Id. Her staff were also expected, as are all House staff, to
complete the annual ethics training provided by the Committee.
\141\Exhibit 26 (Employee Handbook for the Office of Representative
Rodgers effective August 17, 2010); Exhibit 28 (Employee Handbook for
the Office of Representative Rodgers effective June 1, 2011); Exhibit
29 (Employee Handbook for ``Team CMR,'' applicable to employees of the
House Republican Conference and the Office of Representative Rodgers,
effective January 28, 2015). No other versions of the Employee Handbook
for Representative Rodgers' offices were provided to the Committee. The
July 2009 training document defined an employee's ``own time'' as
``your lunch hour, after-work hours, and time you are on leave status
as set forth in our Employee Handbook.'' Exhibit 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite these written policies, the Committee was not able
to determine what office rules were actually implemented in
Representative Rodgers' offices. The 2009 training document
stated that official staff working on the campaign ``must keep
a detailed, written, contemporaneous diary recording each
segment of time you spend on official duties and each segment
of time you spend on campaign activities.''\142\ In at least
2010 and 2011, the Employee Handbook provided that
``[e]mployees of the Office may engage in campaign work only on
their own time, and only when their Campaign Work Authorization
Form . . . has been pre-approved by the Chief of Staff in
writing.''\143\ However, the Committee did not find any record
of any official staffer following either of these policies for
work done on Representative Rodgers' campaign.\144\ The staff
interviewed by the Committee said they never maintained these
records, and some who worked for the congresswoman in 2009,
2010 or 2011 were completely unfamiliar with these
policies.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\Exhibit 27.
\143\Exhibit 26; Exhibit 28.
\144\There was one instance where a staffer completed a Campaign
Work Authorization Form to volunteer with a Senate campaign. Exhibit
30. At least some staffers understood this form to only be required
when working on a campaign other than the congresswoman's. 18(a)
Interview of Policy Advisor; 18(a) Interview of New Media Director. But
see 18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers (``Q: [D]oes the
reference to campaign work there include work for your campaign? A: I
believe so.''); OCE's Referral, Ex. 5 (In Mr. Deutsch's OCE interview,
``the witness stated that the form was required to be completed if a
staff member wanted to work on any campaign,'' unless the staff member
filled out a separate ``vacation'' leave form.).
\145\18(a) Interview of 2010 Staffer; 18(a) Interview of 2008-2009
Press Secretary; 18(a) Interview of Policy Advisor; 18(a) Interview of
Deputy District Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the Committee received conflicting evidence
about the actual office policies regarding unofficial work
during office hours. The various iterations of the Employee
Handbook from 2010 through 2015 were largely consistent,
setting office hours from 8:30 a.m. or 8:45 a.m. to between
5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.\146\ Prior to the 2015 Employee
Handbook, which provides that lunch periods are established by
each employee's supervisor, the written policy stated that
employees had one hour for lunch.\147\ The Handbooks also noted
the right of the office to unilaterally change or revise its
policies or practices, and gave Mr. Deutsch and other
supervisors discretion with respect to certain attendance
requirements.\148\ At times, Mr. Deutsch could be strict about
office hours, sometimes penalizing staff for being 15 minutes
late.\149\ He considered a two-hour lunch period to be
inappropriate and on at least one occasion scolded an employee
for taking a longer lunch.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\Exhibit 26; Exhibit 28; Exhibit 29. Prior to the 2015 Employee
Handbook, which provides that lunch periods are established by each
employee's supervisor, the written policy stated that employees had one
hour for lunch.
\147\Id.
\148\Id.
\149\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch; 18(a) Interview of Press
Secretary.
\150\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, staffers testified that there were some instances
in which the office's practices with respect to time and
attendance were flexible. For example, two staffers who
suffered personal family tragedies during their time in the
office indicated that the office was accommodating and flexible
about their work arrangements during their bereavement.\151\
Mr. Deutsch's strict enforcement of office hours also did not
appear to extend to absences for political work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\See 18(a) Interview of Press Secretary; 18(a) Interview of New
Media Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Rodgers and Mr. Deutsch testified that staff
were permitted to make up time spent on unofficial tasks during
office hours by working later at other times.\152\
Representative Rodgers told the Committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch; 18(a) Interview of
Representative Rodgers.
I understood that these are not typical 9 to 5 jobs.
I understood that my staff is working a variety of
hours, depending upon the day, depending upon the week.
My staff works weekdays and weekends. And my
understanding would be that as long as they could
document when they were doing the campaign activities
versus when they were doing the official time, that
there was flexibility involved.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers. When asked if this
was still her understanding, Representative Rodgers said that, since
OCE's investigation, she has been ``under the impression now that
basically 8:30 to 5:30 they shouldn't be doing any campaign work unless
they take leave.'' Id.
Representative Rodgers also said she expected staff were
``doing their 40 hours of congressional time,'' but added, ``I
don't know that I've ever said that out loud to them
though.''\154\ This policy of general flexibility was not
included in Representative Rodgers' written policies.\155\
Several staffers told the Committee they understood the office
hours to be flexible.\156\ However, Representative Rodgers and
Mr. Deutsch also testified that, on at least some occasions,
they believed staff should take leave when they performed
campaign work during office hours.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\Id.
\155\The Employee Handbooks in effect from 2010 to 2014 are
generally based on the Model Handbook produced by CHA and included
standard disclaimers that the policies were subject to modification by
the office supervisors at any time. Exhibit 26; Exhibit 28. Those
handbooks also included a detailed ``discretionary time off'' policy by
which employees who performed more than three hours of official work on
weekends or holidays could receive up to two days per month of time off
during the work week, after filling out specific forms. Id. After OCE's
investigation began, the office adopted a new handbook that explicitly
noted that exceptions to the office hours policy ``may be made at the
discretion of the Congresswoman, the appropriate Senior Manager . . .,
or their designee.'' Exhibit 29.
\156\18(a) Interview of Press Secretary; 18(a) Interview of Policy
Advisor; 18(a) Interview of District Director.
\157\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch; 18(a) Interview of
Representative Rodgers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In several instances in which official staff spent a full
day during the work week participating in campaign or political
activities, those staffers told the Committee they recalled
submitting a request to use annual leave. In nearly all of
those instances, there is no record of staff requesting leave,
or of any leave being deducted from their allotted annual leave
on those days. For example, in August 2012, five members of
Representative Rodgers' official staff attended the Republican
National Convention for several days in Tampa, Florida, and
four of them insisted that they had requested leave for that
trip.\158\ However, there are no records of leave being taken
for any of those staff members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\18(a) Interview of Legislative Director; 18(a) Interview of
Jeremy Deutsch; 18(a) Interview of New Media Director; 18(a) Interview
of Press Secretary. Representative Rodgers' Communications Director
testified that he did not submit a request for leave for that time.
18(a) Interview of Communications Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee was unable to determine whether the leave
records were lost or never filled out. Although Mr. Deutsch and
Representative Rodgers suggested that some leave forms may have
been lost when the congresswoman moved her D.C. office,\159\
leave forms were processed through a staff assistant based in
the district office.\160\ The district office Staff Assistant
told the Committee that the D.C. office frequently failed to
send her leave request forms for staff and as a result, the
leave was not processed and some staff had higher leave
balances than they should have.\161\ The Staff Assistant said
she alerted her supervisor to this issue, but nothing came of
it.\162\ In total, Representative Rodgers provided the
Committee with records of only a small handful of instances of
staff taking leave for a full day that appear to be related to
work for her campaign.\163\ Most of those instances occurred
after OCE's review began.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch; 18(a) Interview of
Representative Rodgers.
\160\Exhibit 28 (Employee Handbook stated that the district office
Staff Assistant is responsible for maintaining time and attendance
records, which the D.C. office is to send on at least a weekly basis);
18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant (confirming that the general
procedure was for her to receive all leave forms in the district
office, which she would input into an electronic system).
\161\18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant.
\162\Id; see also 18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch (Mr. Deutsch
testified that leave forms were not always sent to the district and
acknowledged that he may have failed to submit forms for his own
requested leave at times).
\163\Exhibit 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed further below, the Committee reviewed evidence
indicating that, despite having written policies relating to
staff performance of campaign work that went beyond what the
ethics rules require, staff regularly made use of official
resources for campaign purposes. Several staffers acknowledged
to the Committee that they performed campaign work not on their
``own time,'' but when they were otherwise expected to be
performing their official duties.
Despite the apparent inconsistencies between some of the
written office policies and the actual office practice,
Representative Rodgers said she was never ``suspicious of
anything,'' and thought all of her staff took leave when
appropriate and did not work on campaign activities in the
office.\164\ Representative Rodgers acknowledged that, in
retrospect, her staff was not following the office policies
``to the degree they should have,'' but said that at the time,
she trusted they were doing as the Employee Handbook laid
out.\165\ When asked whether she could think of any instances
where she herself discussed with staffers what they could or
could not do with respect to campaign work while in the office
or while on official time, Representative Rodgers could only
recall one instance, in which she reminded staff how to handle
a campaign check that came into her official office.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
\165\Id.
\166\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Political Communications
From at least 2008 to 2013, the official communications
staff in Representative Rodgers' office performed a substantial
amount of political communications work. The Committee found
that a portion of the staff's political communications work
occurred while on official time, including while in House
office buildings, using House office equipment.
There were several instances where the Communications
Director,\167\ Press Secretary and New Media Director worked on
campaign press communications in the congressional office,
during office hours. These instances went beyond answering
incidental campaign-related questions from reporters and
included hours spent drafting press releases, preparing lengthy
brochures, and arranging interviews on behalf of the
campaign.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\During the Committee's investigation, several staffers
confirmed that there were serious concerns about the Communications
Director's general behavior in the workplace. The Communications
Director's employment was terminated in early 2013, and his separation
from the office was not entirely amicable. Although this does not
nullify the credibility of his testimony, the Committee notes that none
of its conclusions are based solely on representations by the
Communications Director.
\168\See, e.g., Exhibits 32-44. See also 18(a) Interview of 2008-
2009 Press Secretary (testimony by former press secretary that he
handled campaign press inquiries and generally did not differentiate
between campaign and official requests when determining when or where
to work on them).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Rodgers' congressional staff also assisted
in drafting her speeches for campaign and political events. The
staffer who served as Press Secretary from 2008 to 2009 told
the Committee he viewed working on campaign communications as
part of his job, noting that there was no one on campaign staff
doing a parallel job.\169\ Throughout the time he worked for
Representative Rodgers, the Communications Director drafted
speeches for at least a dozen campaign and political events,
including the Republican National Convention, state Republican
Party events, and various fundraisers.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\18(a) Interview of 2008-2009 Press Secretary.
\170\Exhibits 45-57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 2010 to 2012, the Communications Director said he
prepared campaign and political speeches in the congressional
office, on his government computer. The Communications Director
sent drafts of most of the unofficial speeches he worked on to
Mr. Deutsch during office hours,\171\ and testified that he met
with the congresswoman during his work day about campaign
speeches.\172\ Representative Rodgers told the Committee she
remembered having a conversation with the Communications
Director about a campaign speech in the congressional office on
one occasion.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\See Exhibits 45-46, 48-50, 53-55, and 57. The Communications
Director testified that Mr. Deutsch observed him writing speeches in
the office during office hours, and Mr. Deutsch discussed those
speeches with him in the office. 18(a) Interview of Communications
Director.
\172\18(a) Interview of Communications Director.
\173\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2013, after becoming Conference Chair,
Representative Rodgers gave political speeches at the
Dorchester Conference, a political event in Oregon, and the
Conservative Political Action Conference (known as ``CPAC'') in
Maryland. In the weeks prior to the events, Representative
Rodgers' office scheduled meetings for the congresswoman to
work on the speeches with members of both her official and
campaign staff, in the congressional office.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\At least two one-hour drafting sessions for the Dorchester
speech were scheduled in Representative Rodgers' congressional office.
Exhibit 58. There were also four different speech preparation sessions
scheduled the week prior to CPAC. Exhibit 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The speeches themselves included a substantial amount of
overlapping language. A portion of both speeches included
discussion of her efforts through the Conference to use more
technology for messaging, and the CPAC speech briefly touched
on some policy issues, but both speeches focused on unofficial,
political topics. The Dorchester speech included lines such as,
``Eighteen percent more women voted for Obama than Romney. It
doesn't have to be that way. Let's not forget: In 2010 we won
the women's vote . . . There's no reason we can't win the
women's vote again in 2014, in 2016 and in the years
ahead.''\175\ The CPAC speech included discussion of the
women's vote in the 2012 election, conservative women running
for office, and ways Republicans can ``win elections in the
future.''\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\Exhibit 60.
\176\Exhibit 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Rodgers told the Committee the speech
drafting sessions occurred in the congressional office because
``when you look at the speech itself, it's really about our
work, my work here in the House, and as Chair of the Republican
Conference. And I never thought about [the Dorchester speech]
being a political speech, even though it was a political
event.''\177\ She also said that she ``didn't discuss at the
time whether [CPAC] was a political or official event. I
honestly thought, to a certain degree, I was going there in an
official capacity.''\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
\178\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Rodgers' Press Secretary helped draft the
remarks for the speeches. The Press Secretary told the
Committee that she also understood CPAC to be an official
speech.\179\ However, shortly before the speech, the Press
Secretary appeared to recognize there were restrictions on
using official resources in connection with the speech. She
asked Mr. Shore, to send out a press release after the speech
from the campaign, ``[s]ince we can't send the substance of
CMR's speech out [in] an official capacity (since it has to do
with the election, etc.).''\180\ When asked why she asked the
campaign to send out the release if she thought it was an
official speech, the Press Secretary said, ``I guess I was
simply being careful.''\181\ Representative Rodgers' political
fundraising team was also involved with her CPAC speech,
including assisting with the language of the speech and
discussing online promotion of the speech; the Political
Fundraiser was also directed to help the congresswoman practice
the speech.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\18(a) Interview of Press Secretary.
\180\Exhibit 62; see also Exhibit 63.
\181\18(a) Interview of Press Secretary.
\182\Exhibit 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Debate Preparation
Official staff helped prepare Representative Rodgers to
debate her campaign opponents in 2008, 2010, and 2012.
The congresswoman's 2008-2009 Press Secretary told the
Committee he participated in debate preparation, and
specifically recalled working on an ``extensive'' debate packet
in 2008, which ``took a lot of time,'' at the official
office.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\Interview of 2008-2009 Press Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2010, Representative Rodgers' Press Secretary, New Media
Director, and Communications Director compiled a 50-page packet
with a mix of content created specifically to prepare for the
debate and materials initially created for internal official
use.\184\ Representative Rodgers said she saw this work as
something staff did on their own time.\185\ However, official
staff sent her substantial work product for debate preparation
during office hours.\186\ When asked whether it occurred to her
that staff may have been working on this from the office, she
said it did not.\187\ Representative Rodgers said she expected
staff to take leave to work on these materials, but she never
had any discussions with them about whether they were taking
leave, or any discussions about not using official resources
for the work.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\Exhibits 65-69.
\185\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
\186\Exhibit 67; Exhibit 68.
\187\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
\188\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee found that Representative Rodgers' staff,
including Mr. Deutsch, the Communications Director, the Press
Secretary, the Legislative Director, and the New Media
Director, spent substantial time working on debate preparation
in the fall of 2012. From September 24, 2012 through October
12, 2012, Representative Rodgers scheduled at least five debate
preparation sessions, many of them during office hours.\189\
The congresswoman told the Committee she expected staff to take
leave for 2012 debate preparation, but there is no record of
any of them doing so.\190\ She did not have any discussions
with staff about ensuring official time or other resources were
not used for the debate.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\Exhibit 70.
\190\Id.
\191\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Rodgers has acknowledged one of the debate
preparation sessions, which occurred on Sunday, October 7,
2012, took place in her congressional office.\192\
Representative Rodgers has expressed regret this occurred,\193\
but she and her staffers have also offered contradictory
explanations for why it occurred. The congresswoman told the
Committee and OCE the meeting was intended to occur at her
house, but her home was noisy with children, and so it was
moved to the congressional office.\194\ In her interview with
the Committee, she characterized this as a spur-of-the-moment
decision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\Another debate preparation session may have been held in the
congressional office on Friday, October 5, 2012. Exhibit 70; Exhibit
71. Mr. Deutsch told the Committee he did not recall the session
scheduled to occur in the congressional office that day, and believed
it was moved to Sunday. 18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch. However,
records show that, while it was delayed, the session still happened on
that day. Exhibit 71.
\193\Appendix C at 3.
\194\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers; OCE Referral, Ex.
4.
Q: How far in advance did you plan to hold the debate
prep session in the congressional office?
A: It was just in the moment. Because we came back to
the office after the Sunday show. And we were going
over some other things. There had been a change in the
plan at my house, and so we just decided to stay
there.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
Mr. Deutsch also said they had been planning to do the debate
preparation session at the congresswoman's home, but the plan
changed just prior.\196\ The Legislative Director said the
decision to move the weekend debate session to the office was
made because several staffers were already working in the
office, which led to an impromptu staff meeting the
congresswoman joined, which then ``floated'' to a discussion
about the debates.\197\ In contrast to all of these after-the-
fact explanations, a contemporaneous document indicates the
session was scheduled to occur in the congressional office at
least two days prior to when it took place. On Friday, October
5, 2012, the Communications Director emailed Speech Consultant,
who assisted with debate preparation, stating, ``[o]n Sunday,
we will be in CMR's office (2412 Rayburn) at 3:30 p.m.''\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch.
\197\18(a) Interview of Legislative Director.
\198\Exhibit 72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Rodgers suggested that debate preparation
may have been sufficiently official to permit the use of
official resources, because it involved a review of her
legislative record.\199\ However, Representative Rodgers also
devoted campaign resources to her debate preparation. Mr.
Shore, her general campaign consultant, was included on almost
all communications regarding debate preparation, and the
Political Fundraiser helped arrange at least some of the debate
preparation sessions.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\199\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
\200\See Exhibit 73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Travel for Political Purposes
The Committee also reviewed evidence relating to trips for
which Representative Rodgers and her staff used official
resources. In some instances, the Committee found official
resources were used for trips with a campaign or other
political purpose. Several of the trips reviewed by the
Committee involved both official and political activities; in
those instances, the Committee considered whether the primary
purpose of the trip was official.
a. Official Staff Booked Political Travel
Representative Rodgers' Staff Assistants in both her
Washington, D.C. office and her Spokane district office booked
campaign and other political travel for the congresswoman and
some of the official staff. One D.C.-based Staff Assistant said
she would book travel for Representative Rodgers during her
workday, regardless of whether the trip was campaign or
official.\201\ She relied on Mr. Deutsch to tell her whether
travel should be paid for with the campaign credit card or with
official funds.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\18(a) Interview of D.C. Staff Assistant.
\202\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Deutsch confirmed the D.C. Staff Assistant would also
book political travel, but said he expected the D.C. Staff
Assistant to do so on her lunch break or after work.\203\
However, records reviewed by the Committee indicate he had
reason to suspect she may have been using official resources to
book campaign or political travel, as she would respond to his
requests regarding political travel during office hours, when
she was likely to be in the office.\204\ Another Staff
Assistant for Representative Rodgers also said she booked
campaign travel during her work hours, and noted she thought it
was ``unethical'' for her to do so.\205\ She told the Committee
she objected to her supervisors about being asked to book
campaign travel during congressional hours, and was told she
should instead do it on her own time.\206\ The Staff Assistant
said that she eventually ``won,'' and stopped booking political
travel altogether.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch.
\204\Exhibit 74; Exhibit 75; Exhibit 76.
\205\18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant.
\206\Id.; see also 18(a) Interview of 2013 Member Office Chief of
Staff.
\207\18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant. The Staff Assistant noted
that her successor in that scheduling role told her that she was still
expected to book some campaign flights. Id. The Political Fundraiser
confirmed that the official Staff Assistants sometimes booked campaign
and political travel, until around the time Representative Rodgers
became Conference Chair. 18(a) Interview of Political Fundraiser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Official Staff Made Campaign-Related Trips to the
District
Official staff based in D.C. made several trips to the
district between at least 2008 and 2012, during which time they
engaged in some activities for the congresswoman's campaign.
Representative Rodgers claims the campaign work on all of these
trips was secondary to an official purpose, but the Committee
reviewed evidence demonstrating that was not always the case.
According to one Staff Assistant, who had responsibility
for scheduling and travel, Representative Rodgers' office would
often ``come up with something that they could do
congressionally'' when planning a political trip ``so that they
would pay it on the congressional credit card.''\208\ The Staff
Assistant also said that staff traveled to the district from
Washington, D.C., for the 2012 election using congressional
funds.\209\ She noted she observed staff working on campaign
activities during the trip, not congressional work, and said
she talked with her supervisor about how uncomfortable she was
with it.\210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant.
\209\Id.
\210\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Press Secretary's April and November 2012 Trips to the
District
OCE found substantial reason to believe Representative
Rodgers' congressional staff traveled using official funds
primarily for campaign-related activities.\211\ OCE
specifically considered two trips by the Press Secretary, one
from April 2 to April 6, 2012, and another from November 5 to
November 7, 2012, to be instances where MRA funds were used in
connection with trips that were primarily campaign in
nature.\212\ The April 2012 trip coincided with the
congresswoman's ``campaign kickoff'' fundraising events (called
``Top of the Morning''), and the November 2012 trip coincided
with the general election.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\211\OCE's Referral at 18.
\212\Id. at 18-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of its findings, OCE relied in part on the Press
Secretary's testimony during her interview with OCE, where she
stated the two trips were primarily campaign-related and that
she requested leave for the dates of her travel.\213\ However,
one week after the Press Secretary's testimony to OCE, an
attorney who represented both her and Representative Rodgers
contacted OCE attorneys to inform them the Press Secretary ``no
longer believes that she took leave for this time.''\214\
Counsel also told OCE the Press Secretary worked a full
official schedule during both trips.\215\ In a separate letter
to the Committee on behalf of Representative Rodgers, counsel
asserted that the Press Secretary ``reviewed her calendar and
other records'' for the April and November 2012 travel periods
following her OCE interview, and ``[s]he then recalled that the
primary purpose of the travel had actually been to conduct
official business.''\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\Id. at 19, 22.
\214\Exhibit 77.
\215\Id.
\216\Appendix C at 12, 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In interviews with the Committee, the Press Secretary's
testimony more closely matched her initial testimony to OCE
than counsel's proffer. She recalled filling out a leave form
for the trips and remembered telling OCE the trip was primarily
campaign-related.\217\ She did not remember ever changing that
recollection.\218\ To the contrary, she told the Committee she
did not believe her recollection in her OCE interview was
incorrect, and noted her recollection in 2017 was ``pretty much
the exact same thing'' as in her OCE interview: the trip was a
combination of both official and campaign activities, and she
took leave ``to be safe, because there were campaign
activities.''\219\ She also disagreed with the characterization
attributed to her by counsel:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\18(a) Interview of Press Secretary.
\218\Id.
\219\Id.
Q: Do you think it's correct to say that the primary
purpose of your travel was to conduct official
business?
A: No. I think it was to do these Top of the Morning
[fundraiser] events [in April], which is why I remember
signing a vacation form [in April]. I would not have
done that if I thought the primary reason of my travel
was to conduct official business. But, like I said,
there was certainly both.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\220\Id.
The Press Secretary also told the Committee she understood her
trip to the district in November 2012 to be ``for the
reelection.''\221\ When shown her former counsel's email and
letter stating she had changed her recollection, the Press
Secretary was completely unfamiliar with the documents and said
she was not aware that her counsel had contacted OCE to amend
her testimony.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\Id.
\222\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the Press Secretary's first interview with the
Committee, her counsel (different from the counsel that
represented her in OCE's interview) contacted the Committee to
note the Press Secretary ``now recalls that she sought to
clarify her OCE testimony by providing OCE, through her former
counsel, with her travel calendar for the trips in
question.''\223\ During a second interview with Committee staff
to explain that statement, the Press Secretary said ``there
were more official events than [she] had initially
recalled.''\224\ The Press Secretary did not say her
recollection of the primary purpose of the April and November
2012 trips had changed, but noted she was ``a junior staffer at
the time, and it wasn't [her] decision'' whether a trip was
primarily official.\225\ She did ultimately submit her expenses
for reimbursement to the official office, which she said
someone would have asked her to do.\226\ She noted, ``it
appears that the office determined that it was a full official
trip, and I can't disagree with that determination.''\227\ She
also pointed out that, while she still recalled submitting a
leave request, it was possible the leave request was never
processed because someone in the office determined the trip was
official.\228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\Exhibit 78.
\224\18(a) Interview of Press Secretary.
\225\Id.
\226\Id.; Exhibit 79.
\227\18(a) Interview of Press Secretary.
\228\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents reviewed by the Committee support the Press
Secretary's assertion that she engaged in a mix of official and
campaign work during the April 2012 trip.\229\ With respect to
the Press Secretary's November 2012 trip to the district, the
evidence indicates the trip was primarily campaign-related. The
Press Secretary arrived in the district the day before the
election and left the day after it. She recalled being present
in the campaign office during the daytime.\230\ Representative
Rodgers told the Committee she was unsure about whether the
primary purpose of the Press Secretary's travel in November
2012 was related to the election and said that she ``did not
make that call.''\231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\229\Representative Rodgers' counsel submitted a letter to the
Committee on her behalf, claiming that only three of the sixteen
interviews and other events on the Press Secretary's schedule for her
April 2012 trip to the district were campaign-related. Appendix C at
12-13. However, the Committee found this to be inaccurate; several of
the interviews on the Press Secretary's calendar described as
``official'' were explicitly planned to be about the congresswoman's
campaign. Exhibits 80-82.
\230\18(a) Interview of Press Secretary. Representative Rodgers'
counsel asserted in a letter to the Committee that, of the eleven
events on the Press Secretary's calendar for her November 2012 trip to
the district, only one of them, an evening victory party on election
night, constituted campaign activity. Appendix C. Despite counsel's
claim, contemporaneous records show that seven of the ten remaining
events on the Press Secretary's calendar were interviews that were
explicitly planned to include discussion of campaign or political
topics. Id.; Exhibit 83.
\231\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Political Travel by Mr. Deutsch
The Committee found evidence that Mr. Deutsch took trips
that were primarily political in nature without taking leave,
even after OCE's investigation raised concerns regarding
political travel by Representative Rodgers' official staff. Mr.
Deutsch would regularly accompany Representative Rodgers on
political trips outside D.C. or the congressional district
during the work week.\232\ This was his practice both when he
was Chief of Staff for her personal office and when he moved to
the Conference. Mr. Deutsch indicated in his testimony that he
understood he should take leave when traveling for the
campaign.\233\ On a few occasions in 2014 and 2015, Mr. Deutsch
submitted leave requests in connection with political
travel,\234\ but in the majority of instances from 2008 through
2015, there is no record of Mr. Deutsch requesting leave. The
Committee found more than a dozen examples from 2013 to 2015 in
which Mr. Deutsch traveled to attend campaign or PAC
fundraisers, with no leave record associated with the dates of
those trips.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\232\18(a) Interview of Political Fundraiser.
\233\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch.
\234\Exhibit 84.
\235\Exhibit 85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Rodgers told the Committee she expected
staff to document and account for political trips they took,
and she generally expected staff to take leave when they
accompanied her on a political trip, but that was not the case
for Mr. Deutsch.\236\ She explained that she understood the
rules regarding campaign work to be different for him:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\236\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
[W]ith the Chief of Staff, I feel like, my
expectation is that the Chief of Staff has a little
more flexibility around political activities versus the
rest of the staff; and that there--my understanding is
that there is--that there's an understanding that the
Chief of Staff is going to be involved in both
political and the official activities from, you know,
depending on the day . . . I was not under the
impression that the Chief of Staff would have to
document every moment of every day or every hour or
every trip as detailed as I would expect the rest of
the staff to do.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\237\Id.
Representative Rodgers further explained that she had
previously been under the impression that a Member can
designate a staffer to be ``the political person,'' such as the
Chief of Staff or District Director, and that person has
greater flexibility to do campaign work.\238\ She assumed Mr.
Deutsch was still working a full week's worth of work, making
up the time spent during the day doing campaign work by working
late or on the weekends.\239\ Since OCE's investigation,
Representative Rodgers told the Committee she no longer
believes that the Chief of Staff has more ``flexibility'' to
assist with the campaign than other staff.\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\238\Id. At least one staffer conveyed a similar view. 18(a)
Interview of Staff Assistant (``I don't really know if this is
accurate, but I was told that the District Director had a little bit
more leeway with what he was allowed to do when it came to campaign
work. I do know for a fact that the District Director never did
anything in the office . . . It was the D.C. office that would come and
not follow the rules.'').
\239\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
\240\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Rodgers was not sure whether she'd ever
discussed this concept of ``flexibility'' with Mr. Deutsch and
said she never specifically asked Mr. Deutsch if he was taking
leave for any campaign or political work.\241\ She also never
asked Mr. Deutsch or any other staff if they had enough unused
leave time to help with the campaign.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\241\Id.
\242\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Rodgers also told the Committee that, since
OCE's investigation, ``every hour'' has been documented.\243\
When asked why there are no leave records for several of the
political trips that Mr. Deutsch took after the OCE
investigation concluded, the congresswoman said she believed
they do exist, and could not explain why they had not been
produced.\244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\243\Id.
\244\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. Additional Campaign and Other Political Activities by
Official Staff
The Committee also reviewed evidence of additional
instances where Representative Rodgers' staff blurred the line
between campaign and official resources, including evidence of
the following issues:
During Representative Rodgers' 2012
campaign, congressional staff may have shared internal
official materials with the campaign.\245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\245\See Exhibit 86 (New Media Director offered to send a memo
drafted for official use to the campaign for use in donor email);
Exhibits 87 and 88 (indicating an internal official talking points
document was shared with the campaign).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On occasions in 2010 and 2012, campaign
documents were likely printed in the congressional
office.\246\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\246\See Exhibit 54 (Mr. Deutsch asked the Communications Director
to print a campaign document and either hand it to the D.C. Staff
Assistant or ``put on her chair); Exhibit 89 (Mr. Deutsch asked the
Communications Director to print out a campaign document and hand to
Representative Rodgers ``when she is in the office.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 2008 and 2012, three members of
Representative Rodgers' official staff each spent at
least one entire work day on activities relating to
filming campaign advertisements, without taking
leave.\247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\247\18(a) Interview of 2008-2009 Press Secretary (Press Secretary
recalled being present at the shooting of a television ad on a week day
for ``one whole day'' in 2008.); Exhibit 90 (In October 2010, Press
Secretary told congresswoman she and Mr. Deutsch ``were working on a TV
ad all day'' on a Wednesday); Exhibit 91 (In July 2012, District
Director sent Mr. Deutsch a ``partial listing of [26] places that I
will be taking the film person on Tuesday.''); Exhibit 92 (Mr. Deutsch
sent a list of people to contact about appearing in the advertisements,
stating that ``recruiting people will be our top priority Monday.'');
18(a) Interview of District Director (estimated spending approximately
8-10 hours working with film vendor on one of several days he worked on
campaign advertisements.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Official staff worked with the campaign in
both 2010 and 2012 to draft letters to the editor
related to the campaign during office hours\248\ and in
the congressional office.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\248\Exhibit 93; Exhibit 94; Exhibit 95; Exhibit 96. The letters
clearly related to Representative Rodgers' campaign, including
discussions about her campaign opponents and urging voters to support
her. E.g., Exhibit 93 (``On Tuesday night, I was flipping back and
forth between the baseball game and the debate between Cathy McMorris
Rodgers and Daryl Romeyn . . . Did Daryl Romeyn blatantly lie to voters
or does he simply not know what he's talking about? Either answer
should disqualify him from serving in Congress.''); Exhibit 94 (She's
well positioned to deliver results on the priorities of our region.
Contrast that with our state's junior senator . . . take it from this
supporter, [Representative Rodgers] deserves your vote this November.).
\249\18(a) Interview of Communications Director; 18(a) Interview of
New Media Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Rodgers' congressional staff
drove her to political events during office hours,\250\
and at least two staffers said they would sometimes
seek mileage reimbursements from the MRA for those
drives.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\18(a) Interview of District Director; 18(a) Interview of Staff
Assistant; 18(a) Interview of Deputy District Director.
\251\18(a) Interview of District Director; 18(a) Interview of
Deputy District Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From at least 2010 to 2013, Representative
Rodgers and her staff sometimes sent and received
campaign communications from their official House email
accounts.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\252\The majority of campaign emails sent and received by official
staff used personal email addresses for staff. Most of the instances of
House email being used for campaign communications involved
Representative Rodgers. She received campaign-related emails through
her official House account on at least 50 occasions. On at least 20 of
those occasions, she responded to the email from her official account.
On at least 4 occasions, Representative Rodgers herself initiated a
campaign-related email from her official House account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Official staff also made outlays to benefit the
congresswoman's campaign. For example, in September 2012, the
campaign committee reimbursed the Senior Policy Advisor $550
for rebar he purchased with his own funds, to use as stakes for
campaign signs.\253\ The campaign paid the New Media Director
$89 for an ``expense reimbursement'' in 2011.\254\ The New
Media Director could not recall the purpose of the
reimbursement, though he noted that he did purchase bottled
water for the campaign on one occasion.\255\ In 2008, the
campaign committee spent at least $665 to reimburse the then-
Chief of Staff for her phone bill, which she used for campaign
communications.\256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\253\Exhibit 97; 18(a) Interview of Senior Policy Advisor.
\254\Exhibit 98.
\255\18(a) Interview of New Media Director.
\256\Exhibit 99; 18(a) Interview of 2005-2008 Chief of Staff (the
former Chief of Staff also believed she paid for meals and other costs
associated with fundraising events, for which she was later reimbursed
by the campaign).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vi. Voluntary Nature of Campaign Work
The Committee found no evidence that Representative Rodgers
ever compelled her staff to assist with her campaign or other
political efforts. Most of the staffers that the Committee
interviewed were willing volunteers and said they felt they
could have declined to do campaign work without fear of
negative consequences.
A few staffers testified that they had the impression Mr.
Deutsch expected them to do campaign work, even if he never
explicitly said as much to them.\257\ Mr. Deutsch said that he
generally understood staffers who participated in campaign
activities to be volunteering their time.\258\ The Committee
did not find any evidence indicating staffers faced adverse
consequences for declining to assist with the congresswoman's
campaigns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\257\18(a) Interview of 2008-2009 Press Secretary (former press
secretary testified that when Mr. Deutsch became Chief of Staff, the
press secretary felt that he could not decline to do campaign work, for
fear of losing his job); 18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant (former
scheduler testified that she felt Mr. Deutsch expected her to attend
the Pink Flamingo fundraiser each year, and would have disapproved of
her if she did not attend.); 18(a) Interview of Communications Director
(former communications director testified that he never explicitly
volunteered for the campaign and that Mr. Deutsch had told him that all
campaign press was going to be handled by the official staff).
\258\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Relevant House Rules, Laws and Other Applicable Standards of Conduct
i. Use of Official Resources for Political and Campaign
Activities
Federal law requires that appropriations ``shall be applied
only to the objects for which the appropriations were made . .
.''\259\ Regulations from the CHA implement that requirement
and provide that House funds and resources are to be used for
official House business and may not be used for any unofficial
purposes. The Members' Handbook states, ``[o]nly expenses the
primary purpose of which [is] official and representational''
are reimbursable from the MRA, and the MRA may not pay for
campaign expenses or political expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ethics Manual explains the general prohibition against
using official resources for campaign or political purposes:
[F]unds appropriated for Member, committee, and other
House offices are official resources, as are the goods
and services purchased with those funds. Accordingly,
among the resources that generally may not be used for
campaign or political resources are congressional
office equipment (including the computers, telephones
and fax machines), office supplies (including official
stationery and envelopes), and congressional staff
time.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\260\Ethics Manual at 123.
House buildings, rooms and offices are supported with official
funds and are also considered official resources that may not
be used for campaign or political activities.\261\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\261\Id. at 127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are certain limited exceptions to the prohibition on
using official resources for particular campaign-related
activities, including coordination of the Member's schedule
between the congressional office scheduler and the campaign.
The Ethics Manual notes, however, ``the congressional office
scheduler should not make travel arrangements for the Member's
campaign trips either in the congressional office or while on
official time.''\262\ Another notable exception where official
staff time may be used for campaign activities is that the
press secretary in a congressional office may respond to
political questions that are merely incidental to an interview
focused on official activities.\263\ Other than these and
certain other very limited exceptions,\264\ there is no leeway
to use official resources for campaign or political activities.
Unlike the incidental personal use of official resources, there
is no de minimis exception to the prohibition on using official
resources for campaign or political purposes. This prohibition
applies to all House employees equally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\262\Id. at 132.
\263\Id. at 133.
\264\The remaining campaign-related activities that may take place
in congressional office or using official time are (1) referrals to the
campaign office, (2) providing published materials to the campaign, (3)
responding to questionnaires on legislative issues, and (4) providing
nonpartisan voter registration materials. See Ethics Manual at 133-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some activities can be considered either ``official'' or
``political'' at the Member's option, such as town hall
meetings or leadership race activities.\265\ A single event or
activity cannot be treated as both political and official; once
the Member makes a determination, she is bound by it.\266\ The
Committee's guidance recognizes, however, that travel can have
both an official and political purpose.\267\ The Ethics Manual
explains that ``Member and staff travel, including to one's
district, may be paid with official funds only if the primary
purpose of the trip is the conduct of official business.''\268\
However, ``[a]ny additional meal, lodging, or other travel
expenses that the Member or staff person incurs in serving a
secondary purpose must be paid by the source associated with
that secondary purpose.''\269\ In the Members' Handbook, CHA
cautions that, ``[i]f the primary purpose [of travel] is for a
non-official event/purpose, the office cannot schedule official
activities around the non-official event/purpose to make the
travel eligible for congressional offices to be
reimbursed.''\270\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\265\Id. at 178.
\266\Id. at 179 (citing Advisory Opinion No. 6, reprinted at 375-
77).
\267\Id. at 116.
\268\Id. at 131.
\269\Id. at 116.
\270\Members' Handbook at 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ethics Manual notes, ``[w]hat constitutes a staff
member's `own time' is determined by the personnel policies
that are in place in the employing office. Time that is
available to a staff member, under those policies, to engage in
personal or other outside activities may instead be used to do
campaign work, if the individual so chooses.''\271\ As examples
of what may be included in an employee's ``free time,'' the
Committee cites an employee's lunch period, time after the end
of the business day, and annual leave.\272\ The Committee's
guidance recognizes, however, that ``it is unrealistic to
impose conventional work hours and rules on congressional
employees.''\273\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\271\Ethics Manual at 136.
\272\Id.
\273\Id. (quoting House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct,
Advisory Opinion No. 2 (July 11, 1973)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal law makes it a crime for a federal employee to
secure through intimidation any ``valuable thing for any
political purpose'' from another employee.\274\ The Committee
has noted that compelling an employee to do campaign work may
violate that provision.\275\ The Ethics Manual states that, if
a Member or senior staff were to compel a House employee to do
campaign work, it would ``result in an impermissible official
subsidy of the Member's campaign.''\276\ The Committee has
further explained that the prohibition on compelling campaign
work is ``quite broad'' and ``[i]t forbids Members and senior
staff from not only threatening or attempting to intimidate
employees regarding doing campaign work but also from directing
or otherwise pressuring them to do such work.''\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\274\18 U.S.C. Sec. 606.
\275\Ethics Manual at 136 n.17.
\276\Id. at 135-36.
\277\Id. at 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, House employees are prohibited from making
campaign contributions to their employing Members, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Sec. 603. Under FEC regulations, most outlays made on
behalf of a campaign are deemed to be contributions to that
campaign from that individual, even if the outlay is promptly
reimbursed by the campaign.\278\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\278\See 11 C.F.R. Sec. 116.5(b). The major exception to this rule
is for outlays that an individual makes to cover travel expenses
incurred on behalf of the campaign. Outlays for the individual's own
travel will not be deemed a contribution if either (1) the campaign
provides reimbursement within 60 days after the expenses are incurred
if payment was made by a credit card, or within 30 days in all other
cases, id. Sec. 116.5(b)(1)(2), or (2) the individual outlays for
transportation do not exceed $1,000 with respect to a single election,
regardless of whether the campaign reimburses the outlays, id.
Sec. 100.79(a). See also Ethics Manual at 139 n. 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Additional House Rules, Laws, and Other Standards of
Conduct
House Rule XXIII contains the Code of Official Conduct,
which governs the actions of any Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer or employee of the House.
House Rule XXIII, clause 8, states that ``[a] Member . . .
of the House may not retain an employee who does not perform
duties for the offices of the employing authority commensurate
with the compensation such employee receives.'' The Code in
Ethics for Government Service, clause 3, also states that
employees should ``[g]ive a full day's labor for a full day's
pay.''
House Rule XXIII, clauses 1 and 2, provide that ``[a]
Member . . . officer, or employee of the House shall behave at
all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the
House,'' and ``shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the
Rules of the House.''
Finally, House Rule XXIII, clause 19 provides that the term
``officer or employee of the House'' in the Code of Official
Conduct means, an individual whose compensation is disbursed by
the Chief Administrative Officer,'' and that ``[a]n individual
whose services are compensated by the House pursuant to a
consultant contract shall be considered an employee of the
House for purposes of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 13'' of the
Code of Official Conduct.
3. Analysis
CHA regulations implement 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a), which
requires that ``appropriations shall be applied only to the
objects for which the appropriations were made except as
otherwise provided by law,'' and provide that House funds and
resources are to be used for official House business and may
not be used for any unofficial purposes. CHA issues the
Members' Handbook, which states that ``[o]nly expenses the
primary purpose of which [is] official and representational''
are reimbursable from the MRA and the MRA may not pay for
campaign or political expenses. The Ethics Manual has an entire
section devoted to campaign activity. It makes clear that
official resources cannot be used for campaign activities,
except under certain very limited and expressly defined
circumstances.\279\ The Ethics Manual is also clear that
congressional staff are free to voluntarily engage in campaign
activities, so long as they do so on their own time, and
without using House resources.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\279\See Ethics Manual at 132-36 (noting that schedulers may
coordinate with the campaign to schedule campaign appearances, the
press secretary may answer occasional and merely incidental questions
on political activities, the congressional office may refer campaign-
related letters and other inquiries to the campaign office, and the
congressional office may provide the campaign with copies of materials
it has issued publicly).
\280\Id. at 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Code of Official Conduct, found in House Rule XXIII,
also requires Members and employees to behave at all times in a
manner that reflects creditably on the House (clause 1), and
requires them to adhere to the spirit and letter of the Rules
(clause 2). House Rule XXIII, clause 1 ``is the most
comprehensive provision of the Code and was adopted, in part,
so that the Committee, in applying the Code, would retain the
ability to deal with any given act or accumulation of acts
which, in the judgment of the committee, are severe enough to
reflect discredit on the Congress.''\281\ House Rule XXIII,
clause 2, allows the Committee to construe ethical rules
broadly.\282\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\Shuster at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Representative Judy Chu, H. Rept.
113-11, 113th Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (2014) (Chu); Comm. on Ethics, In the
Matter of Representative Laura Richardson, H. Rept. 112-642, 112th
Cong., 2d Sess. (2012) (Richardson).
\282\See Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Representative Ed
Whitfield, H. Rpt. 114-687, 114th Cong., 2d Sess. 45 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has previously found the use of House
resources for campaign-related activity to be a violation of
House Rules, regulations and laws.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\283\See Richardson; Shuster; Barbara Rose-Collins; Comm. on
Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Jim
Bates, H. Rept. 101-293, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this matter, the Committee found that Representative
Rodgers failed to establish and implement consistent policies
to safeguard against the misuse of official resources for
campaign purposes. As a result, she and her staff violated
House rules, regulations and laws relating to the use of
official resources for campaign activities in a number of ways,
including (1) devoting official staff time to campaign and
political activities, (2) using congressional office space for
campaign and political activities, (3) using official funds for
travel that was primarily related to her campaign, and (4)
using additional House resources for political or campaign
purposes.
i. Official Staff Time was Used for Campaign or Political
Activities
The Committee found Representative Rodgers' official staff
devoted official staff time to political activities.
Representative Rodgers generally disputes this allegation and
asserts staff engaged in campaign or other political work only
on their own time.
Many House employees choose to use their personal time to
assist their bosses' campaigns. For many, this means that they
save campaign work for the weekends or after they go home from
work at the end of the day, but staff are free to do campaign
work any time of day, any day of the week, as long as they are
using their own time, and not their official time, to do so.
The Committee anticipates staffers ``own time'' may not
correspond to the hours outside a traditional 9 to 5 work
schedule.\284\ The Committee has also long recognized that it
``is not, and should not be, in the business of micromanaging
personal offices, or disparaging a leadership style.''\285\
Accordingly, the Committee takes a ``flexible view'' on what is
``own time'' and Members have significant discretion about
staffing expectations, ``so long as those expectations respect
the boundaries set up by the rules.''\286\ Those boundaries
include the general expectation of a full day's work for a full
day's pay.\287\ Additionally, the policies set by the office
regarding office hours may not be enforced inconsistently in
order to benefit a Member's campaign.\288\ These boundaries
leave room for Members' offices to adapt to the particular
needs of the office, without compromising their
representational duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\284\Ethics Manual at 135-37.
\285\Richardson at 56.
\286\Id. at 89 90.
\287\Ethics Manual at 279.
\288\For example, the Committee would not permit a Member to set an
office policy that opens the office only when there is no campaign work
to do. Richardson at 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee could not determine what the actual policies
were in Representative Rodgers' office regarding official time
and campaign work by staff. Although she had written policies
in her Employee Handbooks, those policies do not appear to have
been consistently followed. The Handbooks included a
requirement that staff complete a Campaign Work Authorization
form when they volunteered on a campaign, but that form
generally was not used. The Handbooks also provided that forms
tracking staff leave, including leave for campaign-related
reasons, were required to be sent to the district to be
processed, but they were often not sent. And despite the office
hours identified in her Handbooks, Representative Rodgers and
some of her staffers expressed an understanding that the office
had ``flexibility with hours.''\289\ These departures from the
Handbook were not written down anywhere, apart from the
Handbook's general language preserving the managers' authority
to depart from the written policies, nor is there evidence
these departures were clearly communicated to staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\289\See Appendix C at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``flexibility with hours'' appears to have been
primarily applied to campaign or other political activities,
with some exceptions for circumstances such as bereavement and
sick leave.\290\ For example, the Committee found numerous
instances where staff attended morning fundraisers or other
campaign events that would have prevented them from arriving at
the office by 9 a.m. Staff who arrived fifteen minutes late to
the office for other reasons, however, risked being caught in
the so-called ``speed traps'' set up by Mr. Deutsch, where he
would monitor staff arrivals ``to make a point to get here on
time,'' and ``fine'' those who were ``straggling'' by requiring
them to bring in breakfast for the office.\291\ While Members
have discretion over how they manage their staff's work
schedules, they cannot deploy that discretion differently for
campaign-related activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\290\The Committee found at least two examples where staff were
given a reprieve from the general office policies for bereavement
leave. See 18(a) Interview of Press Secretary; 18(a) Interview of New
Media Director. Staff also indicated that there was some flexibility
for absences that would be covered by sick leave, such as doctor's
appointments. See 18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant; 18(a) Interview
of Press Secretary.
\291\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch; see also 18(a) Interview of
Press Secretary (Mr. Deutsch had a ``very strict rule about [staff
arriving] at 8:45. Oftentimes he would lock the door and so anybody who
came in after 8:45 would be publicly chastised and often asked to bring
fresh bagels the next day for the entire team.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were numerous instances where the Committee was not
able to confirm whether employees were on their own time when
performing campaign work, but serious questions were
nonetheless raised. For example, with respect to debate
preparation sessions, several members of Representative
Rodgers' official staff were scheduled to spend over ten hours
during the official work day attending such sessions (with the
congresswoman present) in 2012.\292\ They spent additional
hours preparing background materials for the debates and
attending the debates themselves. However, even setting aside
those instances, there was significant, unambiguous evidence
that official staff time was used for political purposes.
Several staffers explicitly acknowledged to the Committee that
this occurred. In other instances, including entire days of
political travel, such as Mr. Deutsch's out-of-state trips with
the congresswoman and the 2012 Republican National Convention,
staff suggested that they intended to use their own time but
that did not happen, whether due to sloppy office practices or
other reasons. These were not de minimis lapses or the actions
of a single rogue staffer, but part of a regular practice of
engaging in campaign work during official staff time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\292\See Exhibit 70; Exhibit 100; Exhibit 101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Congressional Offices and Facilities Were Used for
Political Activities
The Committee also found that congressional offices and
facilities were used for campaign and political activities.
As a general rule, House buildings and House rooms and
offices may not be used for campaign or political activities.
There are certain limited instances where campaign-related
activities may take place in a congressional office, such as
coordination of a Members' schedule, answering occasional press
questions on political matters, and responding to election
questionnaires that are limited to legislative issues.\293\
Those, however, are the exceptions and not the rule. They are
limited to the explicit carve-outs articulated by the Committee
in recognition that it would be impractical and unnecessary to
prohibit those specific activities. In all other instances,
however, campaign-related activities may not take place in
congressional office space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\293\See Ethics Manual at 132-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Rodgers concedes that her campaign debate
was discussed at a meeting in the congressional office on
Sunday, October 7, 2012, but contends that was a regrettable,
one-off occurrence. However, the record demonstrates there were
several other instances where meetings were held in the
congressional office space, with the congresswoman present, to
discuss political matters, including at least six speech
drafting sessions for the Dorchester and CPAC speeches in early
2013.\294\ While Representative Rodgers has characterized the
Dorchester and CPAC speeches as official, that view is
inconsistent with the explicit political themes in the text of
the speeches, her campaign staff's involvement with the
speeches, and her own staff's recognition that the speeches
were not official.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\294\Exhibit 59; Exhibit 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the evidence indicates several members of
Representative Rodgers' official staff worked on political
tasks from their desks in the congressional office. This was a
foreseeable result of staff being asked during office hours to
help with the congresswoman's campaign. Although Representative
Rodgers and Mr. Deutsch may not have witnessed the campaign or
political work staff was doing in the congressional office,
they never explicitly cautioned staff to avoid doing so, and
their own actions sent a contradictory message.
iii. MRA Funds Were Used for Campaign and Political Travel
The Ethics Manual cautions that ``Member and staff travel,
including to one's district, may be paid with official funds
only if the primary purpose of the trip is the conduct of
official business.''\295\ The Ethics Manual adds that ``[t]he
determination of the primary purpose of the trip must be made
in a reasonable manner, and one relevant factor in making that
determination is the number of days devoted to each
purpose.''\296\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\295\Ethics Manual at 131.
\296\Id. at 116
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lack of adequate record-keeping makes it difficult to
determine the amount of time devoted to political purposes for
each trip. The Committee determined, however, that the record
as a whole supports a finding that at least two trips paid for
with MRA funds were primarily for political or campaign
purposes.\297\ For the Press Secretary's April 2012 trip to the
district: while the Committee reviewed evidence indicating that
there were official activities during those trips, the weight
of the evidence indicated that the primary purpose for each of
those trips was to support the congresswoman's fundraising
events. With respect to the Press Secretary's November 2012
trip to the district, the Committee found the evidence to be
particularly clear that the primary reason for that travel was
political--specifically, for the general election.\298\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\297\See Rose-Collins at 13 (Investigative Subcommittee found
travel by district director was primarily for the purpose of attending
a campaign event, despite staff's assertion that his primary reason for
travel was official, noting that the only full day of travel was the
day of the campaign event.).
\298\The Committee also notes its concern about the shifting
accounts provided with respect to the Press Secretary's April 2012 and
November 2012 trips. Counsel purported to correct testimony on the
Press Secretary's behalf, but when the Press Secretary was shown
counsel's communications, she was completely unfamiliar with them and
disputed at least some of the representations made on her behalf,
including whether she had submitted a request for leave in connection
with those trips. It is particularly concerning the same counsel
represented Representative Rodgers at the time that these
representations were made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By using official funds to pay for the Press Secretary's
travel expenses on her April and November 2012 trips,
Representative Rodgers violated House rules and laws.
iv. Additional Improper Campaign and Political Activities
by Official Staff
The Committee also found that Representative Rodgers' staff
made use of internal official materials for campaign purposes,
received mileage reimbursements from the MRA for driving the
congresswoman to campaign events, and made impermissible
outlays to her campaign.
The Ethics Manual lays out the standards of conduct with
respect to each of those issues. While the campaign may receive
materials published by the congressional office, materials that
are prepared for internal office use may not be shared with the
campaign.\299\ This issue can arise in the context of preparing
a Member for debates, which often involves highlighting the
Member's legislative accomplishments. Members' campaigns may
make use of information about Members' accomplishments prepared
for official use, provided that material is publicly available.
However, the Committee found that Representative Rodgers' staff
shared unpublished background materials and talking points with
her campaign that were prepared for internal use in her House
office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\299\Ethics Manual at 128, 133-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of MRA funds for mileage reimbursement is governed
by the same restrictions as the use of MRA funds for other
travel expenses. The Ethics Manual advises that ``Members
should maintain records of the mileage attributable to
official, political, and personal trips to ensure that no
account is subsidizing another and that any crossover use of a
vehicle is indeed incidental.''\300\ Representative Rodgers
provided no such records, and the Committee found, based on the
testimony of several members of her staff, that the MRA was
likely used to reimburse staff for travel to campaign events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\300\Id. at 330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff are also prohibited from making expenditures on
behalf of their employing Member's campaign, as those
expenditures are considered impermissible campaign
contributions.\301\ As the Ethics Manual makes clear, this is
true regardless of whether the staffer making the impermissible
outlay is later reimbursed by the campaign.\302\ Representative
Rodgers' campaign committee appears to have reimbursed her
staff for several hundred dollars in impermissible outlays
since 2008.\303\
v. Representative Rodgers Takes an Overbroad View of
Whether an Activity can be Considered ``Official''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\301\Ethics Manual at 139. There is an exception for travel-related
expenditures. Id.
\302\Id.
\303\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Michael Collins, H. Rept. 112-193, 112th Cong., 1st Sess. (2011)
(finding that the respondent had been ``reimbursed for outlays he made
to the campaign [of his employing Member] with his own funds. Some of
the outlays appear to violate campaign finance laws and House
rules.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Rodgers has repeatedly suggested that
certain activities undertaken for an expressly political or
campaign purpose were actually official activities because they
involved highlighting her legislative accomplishments. The
demarcation between official and political events is not always
simple. The Committee has long recognized some activities may
be considered either ``official'' or ``political'' and, in
those circumstances, leaves it to the Member to make a
determination about which designation applies.\304\ However,
the Committee requires that, once a Member designates an event
as political by using campaign resources, no official resources
may then be used.\305\ Representative Rodgers used both
campaign and official staff to assist her with activities she
now suggests can be considered official. As the Committee has
made clear, ``[a] single event cannot, for purposes of the
House rules, be treated as both political and official.''\306\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\304\Ethics Manual at 178-79.
\305\Id. at 179.
\306\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vi. Representative Rodgers is Responsible for the Misuse Of
Official Resources for Political Activities in her
Office
The Ethics Manual cautions, ``each Member should be aware
that he or she may be held responsible for any improper use of
House resources that occurs in the Member's office.''\307\ The
Committee has long held Members responsible for their staff's
improper use of official resources, even when the Members are
not aware of their staff's actions.\308\ While the Committee
recognizes that staff misconduct is at times the result of
``rogue'' employees acting contrary to their employing Member's
authorization, a staffer is not ``rogue'' simply because that
staffer acts contrary to office policy when such policies were
rarely enforced, and the staffer's supervisor knew or had
reason to know of the misconduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\307\Ethics Manual at 33.
\308\Chu at 6; see also Shuster at 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Rodgers has suggested her Communications
Director was the only member of her congressional staff who
used official resources for her campaign, and asserted she had
``no contemporaneous knowledge whatsoever of [his] improper
conduct.''\309\ The Committee found otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\309\Appendix C at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Communications Director's use of official resources for
campaign work was blatant and obvious. He primarily sent
campaign-related communications while sitting in the
congressional office, during office hours, using his House
computer. He also discussed that campaign work with the
congresswoman in the congressional office. Representative
Rodgers' counsel argues that her admission to discussing
campaign speeches in the congressional office with the
Communications Director does not support the finding that she
had ``any--let alone sufficient--knowledge'' of his improper
conduct.\310\ But of course, that admission does provide
further support for that finding, since discussing campaign
speeches in the congressional office was improper conduct. At
the very least, when the Communications Director brought up the
campaign speech in the office, Representative Rodgers was
presented with an opportunity to impress upon him the need to
do campaign work on his own time, outside the congressional
office. That same opportunity was also presented when he
provided her with copies of campaign speeches in the
congressional office. Representative Rodgers never took any of
these opportunities.\311\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\310\Id. at 8.
\311\The Committee agrees with the congresswoman's argument that
the Communications Director's suggestions to OCE that he was unsure or
confused as to whether campaign work was optional or could be performed
on official time do not hold water. See Appendix C at 9. The
Communications Director received clear advice from the Ethics Committee
on these issues in June of 2010 and demonstrated in contemporaneous
emails that he understood that advice, and yet he continued to act
contrary to that advice. See Exhibit 102. Nonetheless, by failing to
enforce policies against using official resources for campaign work,
Representative Rodgers sent a signal that such misconduct could be
overlooked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee's record also shows that several other
official staffers, including (but not limited to) her Chief of
Staff,\312\ District Director, Press Secretary, Legislative
Director, New Media Director, and Staff Assistant, also used
official resources for her campaign on multiple occasions.
Given the breadth of campaign work performed by her official
staff, often with short turn-around times during the week,
Representative Rodgers had every reason to question whether her
staff was in compliance with ethics requirements when assisting
her campaign. If Representative Rodgers did not see the
implications of the evidence before her, it was because she
failed to exercise the level of supervision and care for the
conduct of her staff that the Committee expects of Members.
Further, she could have curtailed the potential for abuse of
official resources had she established consistent policies
regarding campaign work by staff that were actually
acknowledged and enforced. Not only did Representative Rodgers
miss numerous red flags that should have alerted her to her
staff's noncompliance with rules relating to campaign work, the
Committee found that in some circumstances, such as during the
debate preparation session held in her congressional office,
she had actual knowledge of such noncompliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\312\The Committee notes that Representative Rodgers' previously
held notion that the same rules regarding campaign work on official
time do not apply to the Chief of Staff was incorrect, as she now
recognizes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Rodgers' failure to notice or take action in
response to the lapses of her staff helped contribute to a tone
for the office that further allowed for a pattern of
misconduct. Like many Members, Representative Rodgers delegated
much of the day-to-day running of her office to her Chief of
Staff. The Committee recognizes that Members have a significant
amount of discretion in how they run their offices, but each
Member ultimately remains responsible for their office's
compliance with relevant ethical boundaries. Nonetheless,
senior staff are also expected to adhere to, and encourage
those they supervise to adhere to, all House rules. One member
of Representative Rodgers' congressional staff told the
Committee she found the allegations in OCE's Referral to be
``pretty accurate,'' but noted that she did not believe the
Congresswoman was herself aware of most of the issues:
You know, you don't bring certain things up with the
Congresswoman, because it's just things that, you know,
they didn't want her being stressed about . . . Jeremy
Deutsch was the person who ran the show, and Jeremy
Deutsch made all the decisions, and, you know, I think
he may have informed the Congresswoman on certain
decisions after the fact, but I--I don't believe that
she was aware of these things that were going on,
because--and I'm not trying to say she's oblivious, but
it's just something that she didn't--she wasn't
involved in, because she was involved in other
stuff.\313\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\313\18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant.
The Committee found it particularly concerning that some of
the misuse of official resources appears to have continued
after OCE's investigation began, at which time Representative
Rodgers was on notice that there may be substantial reason to
believe at least some members of her congressional staff were
using official resources for her campaign.
vii. Representative Rodgers did not compel her staff to
assist with her campaigns, but should exercise
greater care to ensure staff's participation was
voluntary
Although official staff are permitted to participate in
campaign work on their own time, without the use of official
resources, their participation must not be compelled. The
Committee has noted that the coercion of congressional
employees to work for a campaign would constitute an
impermissible subsidy of that campaign.\314\ As the Ethics
Manual notes, ``[t]he prohibition against coercing staff or
requiring staff members to do campaign work is quite broad. It
forbids Members and senior staff from not only threatening or
attempting to intimidate employees regarding doing campaign
work, but also from directing or otherwise pressuring them to
do such work.''\315\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\314\Ethics Manual at 136-37; see also id. at 137, n.17
(``Depending on the circumstances, compelling a House employee to do
campaign work may also violate a provision of the federal criminal
code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 606.'').
\315\Id. at 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee found that Representative Rodgers' official
staff volunteered to help with her campaign and most staff felt
they could decline to assist with political activities without
suffering any negative consequences. However, the Committee
notes that staff were frequently asked to assist with the
campaign by their supervisors, including by Mr. Deutsch, and
without assurances to the contrary, such requests can be
perceived as mandatory assignments from staff. Some members of
the congresswoman's staff indicated to the Committee that they
felt the Chief of Staff had an expectation they assist with the
campaign and might view someone as failing to be a ``team
player'' if they declined to assist.\316\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\316\18(a) Interview of New Media Director; 18(a) Interview of
Communications Director; 18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant; 18(a)
Interview of 2008-2009 Press Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Committee did not find that Representative
Rodgers, Mr. Deutsch or anyone acting on Representative
Rodgers' behalf, actually required staff to perform campaign
work, the Committee reminds all Members that they wield
enormous influence over their staff and therefore should take
caution to ensure that when staff assists with their campaigns,
they do not feel any pressure or expectation to do so.
C. ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO USE OF OFFICIAL AND CAMPAIGN RESOURCES FOR
LEADERSHIP RACE
1. Background
As part of her campaign to be elected Chair of the House
Republican Conference, Representative Rodgers prepared and
distributed an informational packet and video in the weeks
leading up to the November 14, 2012 Conference vote.\317\ She
told OCE that the packet and video were a ``combined effort''
of her campaign and congressional staff.\318\ At least five
official staffers were involved in leadership race activities:
the New Media Director, the Legislative Director, the
Communications Director, the Press Secretary, and Mr. Deutsch.
From the unofficial side, the Political Fundraiser, Speech
Consultant, Leadership Consultant and Mr. Shore were involved.
At least some of the unofficial staffers worked out of the
congresswoman's congressional office in the time between the
general election and the Conference election.\319\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\317\OCE Referral, Ex. 4.
\318\Id.
\319\18(a) Interview of Political Fundraiser; 18(a) Interview of
Leadership Consultant. The Political Fundraiser told the Committee
that, although she was working for the campaign during the time of the
leadership race, she was in D.C. ``as a volunteer/friend helping.''
18(a) Interview of Political Fundraiser. The campaign paid for her
accommodations at a hotel while she was in D.C. during the leadership
race. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 2, 2012, Leadership Consultant contacted the
Committee asking whether the MRA could be used to pay the cost
of mailing copies of the packet.\320\ Leadership Consultant's
question was specific to mailing the packet; there is no record
of her or anyone else working for the congresswoman seeking
guidance on whether any other resources could be used in
connection with the packet, such as official staff time or
congressional office space, nor did she ask about any other
aspects of the leadership race, such as the video. Committee
counsel responded to Leadership Consultant: ``Yes. Official
resources are permitted for leadership race purposes.''\321\ A
few minutes later, Committee counsel followed up, noting that
if the information being mailed was ``focused on fundraising
accomplishments or goals,'' that might be an issue.\322\
Leadership Consultant sent a copy of the packet to Committee
counsel, asking her to review to see if it was permissible to
mail the packet, but Committee counsel responded that she was
unable to make that call, and suggested Mr. Deutsch call CHA
for an opinion.\323\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\320\Leadership Consultant contacted Kelle Strickland, who was then
Counsel to the Chairman of the Committee, on November 2, 2012. Exhibit
103 (After being forwarded a draft of the packet by Mr. Deutsch on
November 2, Leadership Consultant asked him ``Should I have Kelly look
for legality and Mra?''); Exhibit 104 (Leadership Consultant emailed
Ms. Strickland asking ``Can you use your mra to FedEx leadership race
material to members of congress?'').
\321\Exhibit 104.
\322\Exhibit 105.
\323\Exhibit 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 5, 2012, Mr. Deutsch contacted CHA and learned
that the mailing of the packet would need to be paid for with
campaign funds,\324\ which is what ultimately happened.\325\
The costs associated with production of the video were also
paid for with campaign funds.\326\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\324\Exhibit 107 (Legislative Director informed Political
Fundraiser, ``Jeremy just finished with admin, it has to be all
campaign funds.''). Representative Rodgers was aware that her staff
sought guidance on what resources could be used for the packet and told
the Committee that she recalled that the advice received was confusing
and not clear. 18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
\325\Exhibit 108.
\326\Exhibit 109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Rodgers' counsel told the Committee that,
after learning from CHA that the packet had to be mailed with
campaign funds, ``[a]ll activity associated with the
Congresswoman's leadership race followed said precedents,'' and
``no official staff time or any other House resources were used
in furtherance of'' the mailing.\327\ Records reviewed by the
Committee, however, indicate that a mix of campaign and
official resources continued to be used. Official staff spent
November 6, 2012 working to print and add labels to deliver the
packets,\328\ and to prepare emails attaching the packet and
video.\329\ At least one of the staffers involved testified
that he did this work from the congressional office.\330\ None
of the official staff took leave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\327\Appendix C at 20.
\328\Exhibit 110.
\329\Exhibit 111.
\330\18(a) Interview of New Media Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Media Director, who Representative Rodgers said was
the point person for the leadership race on the official
staff,\331\ spent a substantial portion the workday stuffing
and labeling the packets for distribution in Washington, D.C.
The New Media Director sent an email timestamped at 10:46 a.m.
to Mr. Deutsch, the Legislative Director, and the Political
Fundraiser with a list of addresses for the labels, noting
``[p]ackets should be ready by 3:00 PM at Kinkos. I'd like to
have the plain manilla [sic] envelopes labeled, stamped
``Member Attention' and ready to stuff by then.''\332\ He
emailed again at 5:23 p.m., confirming that Kinkos had run the
copies, that all envelopes had been stuffed and sorted, and
that he was planning to ``set up shop at the `home office'
around 6:00 PM ET.''\333\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\331\OCE Referral, Ex. 4.
\332\Exhibit 110.
\333\Id. The Legislative Director told the Committee that he worked
to mail about 200 packets from a hotel in Spokane, and that ``the
mailing of the packets was something that happened at like 9 o'clock at
night.'' 18(a) Interview of Legislative Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Media Director told the Committee that he worked on
the packet in the congressional office and did not recall ever
being told that he should not do so.\334\ He said he was told
early on that the leadership race was something that could use
official resources, and that while he recalled that a question
came up late in the process about using campaign resources, he
did not understand the question to involve whether his overall
duties with respect to the leadership race should be considered
official or campaign.\335\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\334\18(a) Interview of New Media Director.
\335\Id. The New Media Director also told the Committee that the
Chief of Staff offered him a $10,000 salary bonus contingent on him
assisting with the leadership race, but that he did not end up getting
the bonus before he left the Congresswoman's office. Id., Exhibit 112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Relevant House Rules, Laws, and Other Applicable Standards of
Conduct
The Committee's public guidance regarding the use of
campaign and official resources in support of a campaign for
House leadership offices provides that, ``[a]s a general
matter, a Member may use campaign funds to pay for activities
in furtherance of a campaign for one of the House leadership
offices.''\336\ The Committee has further stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\336\Ethics Manual at 161.
A Member wishing to use any official House resource
in furtherance of a campaign for a House leadership
office such as official stationery, the Inside Mail, or
official staff time should consult with the Committee
on House Administration or the Franking Commission, as
well as with the [Committee on Ethics], on the extent
to which those resources may be used for this purpose.
However, when a particular activity related to a
leadership race is supported with campaign resources,
no official House resources may be devoted to that
activity except to the extent noted above.\337\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\337\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Analysis
Leadership elections present a unique application of the
rules relating to the use of official and campaign resources.
As a general matter, the Committee permits Members to use
campaign or official resources to pay for activities in
furtherance of a campaign for one of the House leadership
offices.\338\ However, once a Member uses campaign resources to
support a leadership race activity, no official resources may
be devoted to that activity.\339\ The Committee's public
guidance cautions Members wishing to use official House
resources, including official staff time, in furtherance of a
leadership campaign to consult with CHA and the Committee for
further guidance.\340\ Representative Rodgers' office did that
with respect to one particular activity related to her
leadership race: the mailing of an informational packet. Her
office was ultimately told that the mailing of the packet must
be paid for with campaign resources. She then used campaign
funds to pay for mailing the packet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\338\Id. at 161.
\339\Id.
\340\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once she determined to mail the packet with campaign funds,
Representative Rodgers should have ensured that no official
resources, including official staff time, were used to mail the
packet. This is demonstrated in an example in the Ethics
Manual, which provides the following scenario:
A Member who is sending a mailing on a leadership
race decides to pay the printing and mailing expenses
with campaign funds. No official staff time or any
other House resources may be used in furtherance of the
mailing.\341\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\341\Id.
As discussed, the Committee found evidence that the New Media
Director mailed the packet on official staff time, from the
congressional office, after Representative Rodgers decided to
use campaign funds for the mailing.
The Committee acknowledges Representative Rodgers' office
made the effort to seek guidance from the Committee and CHA,
and accordingly, declined to find a violation of House rules,
laws or other standards of conduct in connection with the
congresswoman's leadership activities prior to seeking
guidance. Representative Rodgers told the Committee she found
the guidance relating to the leadership race to be
``confusing'' and ``not clear.''\342\ While there may have been
some initial ambiguity in her staff's communications with CHA
and the Committee, Representative Rodgers ultimately received a
very clear answer: the packet she sent for her leadership race
should be mailed with campaign funds. Indeed, the printing and
postage costs were paid with campaign funds. However,
Representative Rodgers failed to communicate that guidance
clearly to the point person for the activity.\343\ If she was
confused or unclear about whether other official resources
could be used to mail the packet, she or her staff could have
asked that question just as easily as they asked about what
funds could be used, but they did not do so. The Committee
found that Representative Rodgers violated House rules and
regulations by making use of official resources, including
staff time, to mail her leadership race packet after she
learned that the packet must be paid for with campaign funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\342\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
\343\See 18(a) Interview of Leadership Consultant (Q: Just to be
clear, that issue of whether paid campaign staff and official staff
could work on the same tasks related to the leadership race, that issue
didn't come up to your knowledge? A: Not at all. We didn't bring it up.
It wasn't about comingling of funds or anything like that. We were all
on the same mission of just producing a good product for the boss.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. REMEDIAL ACTION AND SANCTIONS
A. REPRESENTATIVE RODGERS IS REQUIRED TO REIMBURSE THE TREASURY FOR HER
MISUSE OF OFFICIAL RESOURCES
The Members' Handbook states, ``[e]ach Member is personally
responsible for the payments of any official and
representational expenses incurred that exceed the provided MRA
or that are incurred but are not reimbursable under these
regulations.''\344\ Consistent with this guidance, where
Members have used official funds for impermissible purposes,
the Committee has found that they should repay any misspent
funds.\345\ The Committee believes Members should be required
to reimburse the U.S. Treasury for impermissible disbursements
from the MRA even where the exact amount of such disbursements
cannot be determined.\346\ Where Members and those under their
supervision and control have misused funds from other House
accounts, the Committee believes the same remedy is required.
Members are ultimately responsible for authorizing the expenses
of the offices under their control; regardless of whether that
office is a personal congressional office or a leadership
office, the funds entrusted to a Member for those expenses are
not that Member's own, and should be repaid by that Member when
put to improper use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\344\Members' Handbook at 2; see also Ethics Manual at 323
(``Members may be personally liable for misspent funds or expenditures
exceeding the MRA.'').
\345\See, e.g., Gutierrez at 28; Comm. on Standards of Official
Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Charles C. Diggs, H. Rept. 96-
351, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. (1979) (Member was required to repay House
$40,031.66 for the ``personal benefit he received from his misconduct''
in giving his office staff raises and requiring them to pay certain of
his personal expenses out of those raises); Comm. on Standards of
Official Conduct, In the Matter of Adam Clayton Powell, H. Rept. 90-27,
90th Cong. 1st Sess. (1967) (Member was censured and fined $40,000 for
various acts, including misappropriating public funds for personal
travel, and for paying his wife a salary though she performed no
official duties; the Committee noted that the fine would ``offset any
civil liability of Mr. Powell to the United States of America with
respect to'' the allegations.).
\346\Gutierrez at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some cases, the Committee has found that Members made
improper use of official funds, but has not made a finding that
they are required to reimburse the Treasury, particularly where
the misuse occurred without the Member's knowledge or approval,
or was de minimis.\347\ With respect to several of the
allegations reviewed by the Committee in this matter, the
misuse of official funds was not de minimis, and the Committee
found Representative Rodgers had reason to know that some of
the misuse was occurring. Accordingly, the Committee found that
Representative Rodgers should reimburse the Treasury for at
least some of the official resources misused by her offices.
For some of the misused official resources, the Committee found
that it would be inequitable to hold Representative Rodgers
personally liable, but nonetheless believes she holds some
responsibility for the misuse and must take better care to
prevent the underlying conduct in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\347\See, e.g., Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the
Matter of Representative Austin J. Murphy, H. Rept. 100-485, 100th
Cong., 1st Sess. 4 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Committee could not determine the precise
value of all official resources misappropriated to
impermissible uses, the Committee has calculated what it
believes to be a reasonable estimate for the amount
Representative Rodgers should repay, as discussed further
below. For official resources misused to benefit her campaign,
Representative Rodgers may reimburse the Treasury with campaign
funds.
1. Unauthorized Consultant Expenses
Mr. Shore was compensated with official funds for services
and expenses for which House rules and/or laws do not permit
official funds to be used. Mr. Shore is no longer within the
Committee's jurisdiction. However, as discussed above, the
Committee has long found Members to be responsible for their
staff's misconduct, particularly where the Member was aware of,
or directed the impermissible conduct. Representative Rodgers
herself appears to have paid little attention to the
compensation of her consultants and was not even sure whether
Mr. Shore had continued providing services under the contract
after June 2013.\348\ However, the Committee has also found
Members responsible for reimbursing the Treasury where, as
here, the impermissible conduct resulted from the Member's
inadequate supervision.\349\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\348\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
\349\See Gutierrez at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Rodgers is the person in charge of the
office that procured Mr. Shore's services to the tune of more
than a quarter million dollars in House funds over the last
four years, and thus bears responsibility for ensuring those
funds were properly expended. As discussed above, the Committee
found that Mr. Shore likely received improper compensation for
the travel expenses he incurred from November 2012 to January
2013, in the form of excess salary payments in January and
February 2013. The Committee considered whether Representative
Rodgers should be required to reimburse the Treasury for Mr.
Shore's inflated salary payment.\350\ However, the Committee
took note of the fact that the Conference Director of
Operations believed that the larger salary payments reflected
Mr. Shore's heavier workload. The Committee found her to be a
credible witness. Given that she understood those payments to
be valid, there is little reason to think Representative
Rodgers would have reason to question the payments.
Accordingly, the Committee determined it would be inequitable
to require Representative Rodgers to reimburse those funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\350\The Committee has previously noted ``the individual who
authorized the disbursements should be held responsible for such
actions since the recipient is not in a position to set into motion the
administrative process resulting in payment.'' Comm. on Standards of
Official Conduct, Summary of Activities, One Hundredth Congress, H.
Rept. 100-1125, 100th Cong. 2d Sess. 6-7 (1989) (taking no further
action in the matter of Representative Mary Rose Oakar after
Representative Oakar reimbursed the Treasury for disbursements to
compensate an individual who violated House and statutory requirements
governing where employees may perform their duties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee also considered whether to require
Representative Rodgers to reimburse the Treasury for the
payments to Mr. Shore's consulting firm, Datagraphics. While
serving as an employee of the Conference, Mr. Shore was
responsible for overseeing the Conference budget through which
$52,500 was directed to Datagraphics. However, those payments
were approved by the CAO, which is charged by the House with
overseeing the payment of vendor services. For that reason, the
Committee declined to find that Representative Rodgers must
reimburse the Treasury for the disbursements to Datagraphics,
and instead determined that the circumstances of Mr. Shore's
vendor relationship with the House are better reviewed by the
House Inspector General. Nonetheless, the Committee cautions
Representative Rodgers and the whole House community to avoid
even the appearance of a conflict of interest when entering
into relationships with contractors on behalf of the House.
Representative Rodgers' use of consultants also involved a
violation of Rule XXIV's prohibition on unofficial office
accounts. The Committee has not historically found any
reimbursement to be required for unofficial office
accounts.\351\ That is not to say that the Committee views
violations of Rule XXIV as any less serious than violations
involving the misuse of official resources, only that
reimbursement of the Treasury is not an appropriate remedy in
such a situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\351\See, e.g., Gingrich.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Official Staff Time
The exact amount of staff time devoted to Representative
Rodgers' campaign and political activities since 2008 cannot be
precisely determined, at least in part due to the lack of
records kept by the office to track employee time. Given the
imprecise nature of the analysis, the Committee has opted to
take a conservative approach to calculating an appropriate
reimbursement.\352\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\352\See Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative Don Young, H. Rept. 113-487, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. 62
(2014) (Young) (ISC could not determine the precise value of lodging
and hunting services given to a Member because the host ``did not
prepare an invoice for the trip'' and it was unclear what hunting
services the Member took advantage of. Accordingly, the ISC valued the
hunting services based on the least expensive option available).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, Mr. Deutsch frequently accompanied the
congresswoman on political trips without taking leave from 2008
through at least 2015, and the Communications Director worked
on more than a dozen campaign speeches, press releases, and
other documents while on official time from 2008 through at
least 2012. They both also attended the Republican National
Convention in August 2012, and there is no record of their
annual leave balances being charged for those days of
travel.\353\ In sum, these two employees each likely spent more
than five days' worth of official time on political work, but
five days represents a reasonable minimum estimate.
Accordingly, the Committee determined that Mr. Deutsch and the
Communications Director each spent a minimum of five full days'
worth of official time on campaign work during the time they
have been employed in the congresswoman's office, which should
be reimbursed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\353\The Convention trips involved five official workdays, but the
Committee recognizes that staff may have spent some of this time
responding to official emails, or doing other work related to their
official duties. Accordingly, the Committee has declined to find that
Representative Rodgers must reimburse the Treasury for her staff's pay
for all five days of the Convention trip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee also determined that the Press Secretary and
New Media Director each spent at least three full days' worth
of official time over the course of their employment with the
congresswoman doing campaign or political activities. In
addition to devoting substantial time to debate preparation and
other campaign-related assignments, at least some of which
appears to have occurred on official time, both of these
employees attended the five-day long Republican National
Convention in August 2012 and there is no record of their
annual leave balances being charged for those days of travel.
The New Media Director used official staff time to help mail
the leadership race packets after the staff received CHA
guidance that the packets must be paid for with campaign funds.
Documents indicate that the Press Secretary frequently used
official staff time to work on campaign communications tasks,
including spending an entire day working on a television ad for
the campaign with Mr. Deutsch.\354\ As with Mr. Deutsch and the
Communications Director, it is likely that the total official
time the New Media Director and Press Secretary spent on
campaign work exceeded this estimate, but the Committee feels
three days is a reasonable and conservative estimate
considering the uncertainties in the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\354\Exhibit 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee also found the Legislative Director, District
Director and Staff Assistant each spent at least one full day's
worth of work on political activities. The Legislative Director
attended the Republican National Convention without taking
leave.\355\ The Staff Assistant acknowledged she frequently
booked political travel and drove the congresswoman to campaign
events on official time. The District Director spent at least
one entire day assisting with the filming of a campaign
advertisement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\355\The Legislative Director also spent substantial time on debate
preparation and assisted with mailing the leadership packet. The
Committee received conflicting evidence regarding the extent to which
this work was done on his own time; accordingly, the Committee has
adopted a particularly conservative estimate of his use of official
time in this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has calculated the daily rate of pay for each
of these seven employees based on their 2012 salaries, as 2012
is the year when most of the clear violations of the rules and
laws relating to misuse of official resources for campaign
purposes took place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Min.
Average 2012 Estimated Min. Official Pay
Employee Daily Pay Rate Days Campaign Work for Campaign
On Official Time Work
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Deutsch........................................... $458.33 5 $2,291.65
Communications Director.................................. $225.72 5 $1,128.60
Press Secretary.......................................... $139.81 3 $419.43
New Media Director....................................... $250.77 3 $752.31
Legislative Director..................................... $282.93 1 $282.93
District Director........................................ $260.42 1 $260.42
Staff Assistant.......................................... $77.78 1 $77.78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its conservative estimates, the Committee finds that
Representative Rodgers is required to reimburse the Treasury
the sum of the total minimum official pay for campaign work
calculated in the chart above for these seven employees, or
$5,213.12.
This is by necessity an inexact approach. Some of these
employees have spent more official staff time on campaign
activities than others, but the Committee believes that, on
average, this is a fair and reasonable estimate that takes into
account the uncertainty created by a lack of adequate record-
keeping. There are also employees not captured in this chart
who also appear to have performed campaign work on official
time, including individuals who served as the congresswoman's
Chief of Staff, Press Secretary, and Staff Assistant in other
years.
3. MRA Funds for Travel Expenses
According to information provided by Representative
Rodgers, the total cost of flights, hotels and expenses for the
Press Secretary's April 2012 trip to the district was
$1,515.96, and for her November 2012 trip to the district was
$846.87.\356\ Those costs were paid for with official funds. As
discussed above, the Committee found that the weight of the
evidence indicates these trips were primarily campaign-related.
Accordingly, the Committee found that Representative Rodgers
must reimburse the Treasury the sum of the costs associated
with that travel, or $2,362.83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\356\Exhibit 113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Total Recommended Reimbursement
In sum, Representative Rodgers must repay $5,213.12 for the
misuse of official staff time and $2,362.83 for the misuse of
MRA funds for travel expenses. For all of her improper use of
official resources, the Committee found that Representative
Rodgers must reimburse the U.S. Treasury the sum of the above-
recommended amounts, totaling $7,575.95. Because the official
resources were used for the benefit of her campaign, those
funds may be repaid from Representative Rodgers' campaign
account.
B. REPRESENTATIVE RODGERS' CONDUCT MERITS REPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE
The Committee concluded that the sum of all of the
violations discussed previously is sufficient to warrant a
reproval by the Committee. The conduct discussed above
represents a misappropriation of House funds for campaign and
political activities, in violation of federal law and House
rules. Representative Rodgers' inappropriate compensation of
consultants also ran afoul of House rules and regulations. The
pervasive and years-long nature of this misconduct is
particularly alarming. Based on the totality of misconduct, the
Committee also found Representative Rodgers violated House Rule
XXIII, clauses 1 and 2.
The Committee has previously reproved Members for failure
to exercise reasonable care,\357\ including for inattention to
the rules and regulations governing the retention of
contractors, and inadequate supervision of staff's work that
resulted in the misuse of official resources.\358\ In this
case, for more than five years, Representative Rodgers ran
offices that showed indifference at best to the rules governing
how official and unofficial resources can be used by Members
and their staff. Had Representative Rodgers herself regularly
directed staff to misuse official resources or unofficial
office accounts, a more severe sanction may have been
appropriate.\359\ While Representative Rodgers may not have
been aware of the full extent to which her offices were not in
compliance with House rules, laws and other standards of
conduct, she failed to exercise the care that is expected of
Members to ensure such compliance. Her offices were, in a word,
sloppy. As the head of two offices entrusted with sizeable
budgets comprised of public funds, she should have done better.
The Committee therefore has decided to issue this Report
publicly reproving Representative Rodgers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\357\See Young.
\358\See Gutierrez.
\359\See, e.g., Richardson at 15 (recommending 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 obstructing the Committee's
investigation); see also Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Rep. Maxine
Waters, H. Rept. 112-690, 112th Cong. 2d Sess. 498-501 (2012) (letter
of reproval to House employee, noting that ``[a]s the Chief of Staff
for Representative Waters, it was incumbent upon [him] to uphold the
House rules, laws, regulations and other standards of conduct.'');
Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of the
Investigation into Officially Connected Travel of House Members to
Attend the Carib News Foundation Multinational Business Conferences in
2007 and 2008, H. Rept. 111-422, 111th Cong. 2d Sess. 137 (admonishing
staffer for improper influence and unauthorized release of information
in connection with Committee review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has also previously reproved House employees
for their roles in misusing House resources, particularly where
those employees had a role in directing other staff to engage
in misconduct.\360\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\360\See Richardson at 97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case, Mr. Deutsch was a ubiquitous presence in all
aspects of the Committee's review. He had reason to know that
staff was using official resources for campaign and political
work, and was himself directly involved in the use of staff
time, congressional office space, and other official resources
for campaign purposes. He set a tone in the office that enabled
a general disregard for the proper use of official or campaign
resources. He also oversaw Mr. Shore's compensation. Most
significantly, he was a barrier to Representative Rodgers' own
awareness of her staff's noncompliance with ethics
restrictions.
Mr. Shore was also responsible for some of the most
egregious infringements in Representative Rodgers' offices. The
Committee's record demonstrates that he sought to obtain
compensation for his blurred roles as a Conference employee,
Conference consultant, and campaign consultant, from whatever
source had available funds without regard for applicable laws,
rules and regulations, often leading to the impermissible use
of official resources or the impermissible private subsidy of
official work. Furthermore, Mr. Shore acted contrary to the
spirit and letter of the rules and laws intended to prevent
conflicts of interest.
Although Mr. Deutsch and Mr. Shore are no longer House
employees, and thus no longer within the Committee's
jurisdiction, the Committee takes this opportunity to remind
all House employees that their actions while employed in a
congressional office are also subject to the Code of Official
Conduct and other applicable rules and laws.
V. CONCLUSION
The extensive record compiled by the Committee in this
matter demonstrates that the offices of Representative Rodgers
frequently exhibited an indifference to the laws, rules and
regulations relating to the use of official and unofficial
resources. This indifference led to myriad instances of
resources being used inappropriately. While in some of those
instances, the misuse appeared to be a minor deviation from
expected conduct, at other times the impropriety was more
severe. Taken as a whole, the abuses reviewed by the Committee
add up to a concerning pattern over the course of more than
five years.
While the Committee recognized that Representative Rodgers
was not aware of the full extent of misconduct discussed in
this Report, she still bears responsibility for the conduct in
her office, as she herself has recognized. The Committee notes
that Representative Rodgers has fully cooperated with the
Committee's review, accepted its conclusions, and taken steps
to improve her office's compliance with relevant House rules,
laws and other standards of conduct.
Based on her violations of House rules, laws, and other
standards of conduct, the Committee has determined to reprove
Representative Rodgers and finds that she must reimburse the
U.S. Treasury in the amount of $7,575.95 for the misuse of
official resources. The Committee hopes that this Report will
also encourage all Members to evaluate the safeguards they have
in place to discourage the misuse of official and unofficial
resources by their congressional staff.
Upon the publication of this Report and Representative
Rodgers' reimbursement of funds to the U.S. Treasury, the
Committee will consider this matter closed.
VII. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(C)
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.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]