[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 12. Conduct or Discipline of Members, Officers, or Employees]
[A. Introductory; Particular Kinds of Misconduct]
[Â§ 9. Abuses in Hiring, Employment, and Travel]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1714-1717]
 
                               CHAPTER 12
 
        Conduct or Discipline of Members, Officers, or Employees
 
            A. INTRODUCTORY; PARTICULAR KINDS OF MISCONDUCT
 
Sec. 9. Abuses in Hiring, Employment, and Travel

    The Code of Official Conduct provides that a Member may not retain 
anyone on his clerk-hire allowance who does not perform duties 
commensurate with the compensation he receives.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Rule XLIII clause 8, House Rules and Manual Sec. 939 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By statute, employees of the House may not divide any portion of 
their salaries or compensation with another,(2) nor may they 
sublet part of their duties to another.(3) Violation of 
these provisions is deemed cause for removal from office.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 2 USC Sec. 86.
 3. 2 USC Sec. 87.
 4. 2 USC Sec. 90.
            No employee of either House of Congress shall sublet to or 
        hire another to do or perform any part of the duties or work 
        attached to the position to which he was appointed. 2 USC 
        Sec. 101.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1715]]

    Professional staff members of standing committees may not engage in 
any work other than committee business, and may not be assigned duties 
other than those pertaining to committee business.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Rule XI clause 29 (a)(3)(B), House Rules and Manual Sec. 737(a) 
        (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A statute prohibits the employment, appointment, or advancement by 
a public official of a relative to a civilian position in the agency in 
which the official is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction 
or control.(6) This statute, sometimes called the 
antinepotism law, became effective on Dec. 16, 1967; it has no 
retroactive effect and is inapplicable to those appointed prior 
thereto.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 5 USC Sec. 3110, Pub. L. No. 90-206, 81 Stat. 640 (1967).
            ``Public official'' includes a Member of Congress. 
        ``Relative'' means an individual who is related to the public 
        official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, 
        uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, 
        father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, 
        brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, 
        stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother or half 
        sister. 5 USC Sec. 3110(a).
 7. Pub. L. No. 90-206 Sec. 221(c), 81 Stat. 640 
        (1967).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Campaign Activities and Clerk-hire Guidelines

Sec. 9.1 Guidelines have been issued relative to the use of clerical 
    personnel in the campaign activities of Members.

    In 1973, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct promulgated 
an advisory opinion establishing clerk-hire guidelines. It stated in 
part: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 23691, 23692, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., July 12, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This Committee is of the opinion that the funds appropriated 
    for Members' clerk-hire should result only in payment for personal 
    services of individuals, in accordance with the law relating to the 
    employment of relatives, employed on a regular basis, in places as 
    provided by law, for the purpose of performing the duties a Member 
    requires in carrying out his representational functions.
        The Committee emphasizes that this opinion in no way seeks to 
    encourage the establishment of uniform job descriptions or 
    imposition of any rigid work standards on a Member's clerical 
    staff. It does suggest, however, that it is improper to levy, as a 
    condition of employment, any responsibility on any clerk to incur 
    personal expenditures for the primary benefit of the Member or of 
    the Member's congressional office operations. . . .
        The opinion clearly would prohibit any Member from retaining 
    any person from his clerk-hire allowance under ei

[[Page 1716]]

    ther an express or tacit agreement that the salary to be paid him 
    is in lieu of any present or future indebtedness of the Member, any 
    portion of which may be allocable to . . . campaign obligations, or 
    any other nonrepresentational service.
        In a related regard, the Committee feels a statement it made 
    earlier, in responding to a complaint, may be of interest. It 
    states: ``As to the allegation regarding campaign activity by an 
    individual on the clerk-hire rolls of the House, it should be noted 
    that, due to the irregular time frame in which the Congress 
    operates, it is unrealistic to impose conventional work hours and 
    rules on congressional employees. At some times, these employees 
    may work more than double the usual work week--at others, some 
    less. Thus employees are expected to fulfill the clerical work the 
    Member requires during the hours he requires and generally are free 
    at other periods. If, during the periods he is free, he voluntarily 
    engages in campaign activity, there is no bar to this. There will, 
    of course, be differing views as to whether the spirit of this 
    principle is violated, but this Committee expects Members of the 
    House to abide by the general proposition.''

Misusing Travel Funds

Sec. 9.2 A party caucus removed a Member from his office as chairman of 
    a committee based on a report disclosing certain improprieties 
    concerning his travel expenses as well as an abuse of clerk-hiring 
    practices.

    In 1967, a party caucus removed a Member (9) from his 
position as Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor after a 
subcommittee of the Committee on House Administration had reported 
improprieties in certain of his travel expenses during the 89th 
Congress, and in the clerk-hire status of his wife.(10) 
Subsequent to the report of the subcommittee and prior to the 
organization of the 90th Congress, the Democratic Party Members-elect, 
meeting in caucus, voted to remove him from his office as Chairman of 
the House Committee on Education and Labor.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Adam Clayton Powell (N.Y.).
10. H. Rept. No. 2349, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. H. Rept. No. 27, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.3 In an attempt to curb the misuse of travel funds, the 
    cancellation of all airline credit cards which had been issued to a 
    committee was ordered by the Committee on House Administration.

    In September 1966, as the result of protests made by certain 
Members on the Committee on Education and Labor, the Committee on House 
Administration, acting through its Chairman, directed the cancellation 
of all air

[[Page 1717]]

line credit cards which had been issued to the Committee on Education 
and Labor and notified its Chairman (12) that all future 
travel must be specifically approved by the Committee on House 
Administration prior to undertaking the travel.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Adam Clayton Powell (N.Y.).
13. H. Rept. No. 27, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reason for the action was set forth in a report prepared by a 
select committee in the 90th Congress: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        During the 89th Congress open and widespread criticism 
    developed with respect to the conduct of Representative Adam 
    Clayton Powell, of New York. This criticism emanated both from 
    within the House of Representatives and the public, and related 
    primarily to Representative Powell's alleged contumacious conduct 
    toward the courts of the State of New York and his alleged official 
    misconduct in the management of his congressional office and his 
    office as chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor. There 
    were charges Representative Powell was misusing travel funds and 
    was continuing to employ his wife on his clerk-hire payroll while 
    she was living in San Juan, P.R., in violation of Public Law 89-90, 
    and apparently performing few if any official duties.