August 4, 1994 - Part 12
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(22:40:12)(tape #10097 begins) testified last week before the House Banking Committee, I made the same point, Since then, the nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics issued a report which supports this position. The OGE wrote [on page 20 of its report]: (22:40:28) The impartiality provisions of the standards of conduct may not be relied upon by an employee as the basis for recusing himself from a matter because he simply does not wish to be involved or to exert the effort required. Under the standards of conduct, employees are expected to per-form their duties fully, unless there is a reason that their participation in a matter will result in an actual conflict, including an inability to act impartially or will result in an appearance of conflict significantly detrimental to the public's legitimate perception of the fairness of the governmental processes involved. What the OGE is saying, in simple language, is that a public official has a duty to do his or her duty. And that official has no right to retreat behind ethics rules- when those rules do not apply-to avoid doing his or her job. It would be improper to do so. I want to repeat that. What the OGE is saying in simple language is that a public official has a duty to do his or her duty and that official 472 has no right to retreat behind ethics rules when those rules do not apply to avoid doing his or her job. It would be improper. It would be unethical to do so. The public policy issue raised by what Mr. Altman said regarding a possible recusal was not merely an academic one or matter of some high falutin principle. It was then a matter of immediate concern to the Administration. Just a day before this February 2nd meeting, a nominee for the Chair of the FDIC, Ricki Tigert, had been asked by certain Senators on this Committee to agree to commit in advance to recuse herself on any issues connected to Madison or Whitewater. She was asked to do so for the stated reason that she knew the Clintons and was being nominated by the President. Ms. Tigert had taken the position that, if she were confirmed and asked to address Madison./Whitewater-related questions, she would consult the appropriate agency ethics officer and follow his or her advice. The inquiring Senators indicated that Ms. Tigert's response was not sufficient. They told her if she would not agree to recuse herself in advance, regardless of whether she was legally or ethically required to do so, they would block her nomination. At the time of the February 2 meeting, I and others in the White House believed it was important for the Executive Branch to resist efforts to force nominees to agree in advance to recuse themselves in situations where recusal was not legally or ethically required. We felt that those seeking Ms. Tigert's commitment to recuse herself were tampering with the agency adjudicative process. So when Mr. Altman said, sort of out of the blue without any advance notice, that he was inclined to remove himself from the RTC investigation, without a legal or ethical basis for doing so, I felt he might create an unfortunate precedent for our Administration and future Administrations and would make a shambles of our position in the Tigert nomination. As White House Counsel, as an Executive Branch official, I was concerned about what Mr. Altman was considering doing. But I did not tell him to remain in the matter, This is what I said to him. I said that if he was legally or ethically required to recuse himself, he should do so promptly. That's the first thing I said. Obviously, if Mr. Altman had a disqualifying financial interest, or if he believed that he could not decide the matter impartially, or if his continuing to act created an appearance of favoritism within the meaning of the relevant ethics code, any of which was a ground requiring recusal, it would be necessary for him to remove himself. But he had already told me that he received ethics advice that he did not have a legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself So I went on to say, that if recusal was not legally or ethically required, he should consider-he should consider