Source: Harper’s Index for August 2006 coverage of statistics from the Résumé of Congressional Activity (Washington), maintained by the U.S. Senate

In last week’s column, I shared part of Bruce Richardson’s story about his school board in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. To recap: Several weeks ago, they suddenly closed the high school because of warnings of violence. Pressed for time and unsure whether the rumors were true, the school administrators told the media that the cause was a broken water main. When the threat was proved mere rumor and the administrators admitted their deception, significant media outrage arose, including calls for the superintendent’s dismissal.

Here’s the rest of the story. “The superintendent apologized to the media,” Mr. Richardson writes. “The board expressed its continued support for the superintendent, and the whole thing died down within a week.” But his question lingered: “Was there a better way to handle the situation?”

“Ethically,” he continues, “I think we handled it well. My thought process was that yes, ‘truth telling’ is an ethical principle, but the truth was told to those who needed it to make decisions for the greater good. The police and those following up on the rumor were told what was going on. For several reasons (including not tipping off the people who potentially would be involved), the parents and students did not need to know what was going on, and the water main story was a good reason until the truth could be revealed, which it was as soon as the situation was resolved.”

In emails this past week, a number of readers came down strongly on his side. “The deception did not harm the public,” wrote a Boston reader, and it was “not for nefarious gains.” The lie “did not benefit the liar in any way,” wrote another, who noted that in a dangerous world that requires “spies and undercover agents,” the rule should be that “a well-placed lie will serve the public good.” In this case, wrote a reader from Phoenix, the deception was intended to help the police in their investigation and “to separate the wacko copycats from the original culprit.” All in all, wrote another reader, “I would give this [solution] a “Not bad, not bad at all.’ ”

But just as many readers demurred. While they agreed that closing the school was the right action, the sticking point was the choice of deception over candor. “The public trust is eroded when the maxim is ‘lie whenever necessary to avoid panic,’ ” wrote one reader, adding that “it is not at all clear to me how any long-term interest was served by false statements,” since closing the school for whatever reason would have “tipped off” anyone who intended harm. Since “credibility is extremely important in public institutions,” wrote another reader, “I would have come down on the side of telling the truth and then working with the media” so as “not to panic the public.” A reader from Atlanta, worried about excessive efforts to “protect the sensitivities of the parents,” insisted that “honesty is the best policy — seems so simple!”

The power of the arguments on both sides reminds us why this is a tough right-versus-right dilemma. To one group, the notion of the “well-placed lie … for the public good” raises troubling ghosts of Watergate and Clinton-Lewinsky — not to mention current stories of riots in Hungary and political entanglements in Poland, both springing from deception by government officials. To the other group, the assertion that it “seems so simple” appears dangerously close to risking children’s lives for the sake of an abstract principle.

Several readers wanted to turn this dilemma into a “trilemma” by finding a third course — coming clean with the media, for example, and promising full information in return for not initially disclosing the cause of the shutdown. But even that option depends on a prior record of credibility and trust. When administrators have created a strong culture of integrity in the organization, they’ve earned the right to say (if only rarely) to their constituents, “Look, you’ve got to trust me on this one, since I can’t tell you everything yet.”

But the real question here is not what the board should have done. It is what their policy should be for the future. One thing is sure: The policy can’t be “Always say it’s a broken water main.” In St. Louis Park, neither that excuse nor others like it will ever work again. Which raises a larger point: Can the “well-placed lie” ever be the basis of sound policy? Even the intelligence services, which work hard to deceive the enemy, draw a sharp line at deceiving their own citizens. While the line unfortunately may be breached now and again, the policy is clear: Don’t lie to Congress and the public.

Were I on that school board, I’d engage the discussion about policy with the following question. “We’re willing to do whatever it takes for the sake of school safety and security, but not at the expense of X. In St. Louis Park, what is X?”

One such X might be shutting down all schools for the rest of the year — the safest option of all, but not one any board could contemplate. What else wouldn’t we shut down? Our academic class work? Our sports program? Our commitment to freedom of movement? Our respect for one another? Our candor in communications? Classes and sports could be shut down temporarily during a threat. But respect and candor, once closed, aren’t easily reopened.

The soundest policy is one that gets stronger with every use. It makes each application easier, not harder, than the last. It sets an example you’d like others to follow. It provides clear guidelines. It speaks with one voice, striving to say the same thing to everyone. And it helps you leave the ethical woodpile higher than you found it — a metaphor that the good people of Minnesota, with winter approaching, already understand.

©2006 Institute for Global Ethics

“This is about the future of our country, our kids and grandkids. We the people have to rise up to make sure things get changed.”

WASHINGTON and NEW YORK

• The House Ethics Committee last week appeared to have wrapped up its investigation of the salacious emails sent by former congressman Mark Foley to teenage pages, but lawyers for the committee surprised observers by saying the committee is unlikely to release a report before the November 7 midterm elections. Washington Post reporter Jonathan Weisman writes that many Democrats had expected a quick disposition of the case that might have reignited Democratic charges of a cover-up. But with hours of unexpectedly long and detailed testimony expected to translate into thousands of pages of transcripts, the Post reports that even an interim memo about the case that has become a focus of Washington politics is unlikely before the election.
• An ethics scandal that has dominated New York politics for months revved into high gear last week as governor George Pataki appointed a former federal prosecutor to probe the controversy swirling around state controller Alan Hevesi. Calling it a “sad day for New Yorkers,” Pataki appointed David Kelley to investigate findings by the state Ethics Commission that Hevesi used a staffer on the state payroll to chauffer his wife for several years, according to the New York Daily News. Based on the results of Kelley’s investigation, Pataki will decide whether to order the state Senate to begin impeachment proceedings.
• The White House last week denied that vice president Dick Cheney had condoned an interrogation technique called water boarding when he said during a radio interview that dunking terror suspects, if it saved lives, was a “no-brainer.” CBS News reports that President Bush responded to an outcry by human rights groups by saying, “This country doesn’t torture,” but did not directly respond to specific questions about Cheney’s remarks. White House spokesman Tony Snow would not confirm or deny whether the United States uses water boarding as an interrogation technique.

BOSTON and ST. PAUL, Minn.
Most Americans would be willing to sacrifice some money and freedom of movement to halt the spread of a deadly flu pandemic, but apparently only up to a point, according to a survey released last week.

Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health say more than 90 percent of the 1,900 adults they surveyed said they would comply with government requests to stay home from work for seven to 10 days, according to a report from WebMD and CBS News.

But researchers warn that the public’s willingness likely would erode when confronted with loss of money from employment or when facing food shortages, according to a report from the Reuters news agency. About 25 percent of employed people say they would suffer serious financial problems if they missed more than a week of work.

And according to the CBC, about 20 percent of respondents say they believe their boss would insist they come into work even if they were sick and contagious.

In related news, a study of the practical and ethical implications of a vaccine shortage — a scenario presumed likely by many epidemiologists — produced some surprising results. A state panel of experts in Minnesota recommended that the first flu shots should go to young and healthy health care workers, even if it means little vaccine remains for the sick and elderly.

Rochester, Minnesota, TV station KTTC reports that the panel, the Minnesota Center for Health Care Ethics, also recommends that government leaders be high on the list.

The Minnesota directives differ from federal recommendations, which call for the first doses of the vaccine going to the weakest and most vulnerable, KTTC reports.

LONDON

• A team of surgeons in London has been granted permission to carry out what could be the world’s first full face transplant. The BBC reports that the group was given the green light by the National Health Services ethics board for an operation that could take place within the next few months. The issue has sparked intense debate hinging on several ethical issues, including the ethics of dangerous and highly experimental surgery to correct a cosmetic defect, as well as questions relating to the emotional impact and future implications of providing someone with an entirely new face taken from a dead person.
• A British court ruled last week that medical experts who provide shoddy evidence can lose their licenses and face other discipline. According to the Times of London, the decision by the Court of Appeal reversed a lower court ruling that effectively gave immunity to physicians who provided expert testimony that was, by accident or design, false or incomplete. The original case centered around a pediatrician’s testimony that was instrumental in the jailing of a young couple in the death of their infant. The testimony, according to the Times, was later debunked as statistical rubbish by experts.
• A new code of ethics imposed on U.K. doctors sets up strict new guidelines for behavior, including a warning that it is inappropriate for a doctor to have a sexual relationship with a former patient, regardless of how long that patient has been off a doctor’s books. The U.K. Guardian reports that the rule stems from the General Medical Council’s belief that a patient with mental illness may be vulnerable for a lifetime. The revision of the Council’s code follows a high-profile scandal in which patients were allegedly abused by two psychiatrists in Yorkshire.

TORONTO
Canada’s sweeping package of ethics legislation was stalled last week as Liberal senators introduced amendments to the 250-page Federal Accountability Act.

The Conservative sponsors of the bill blasted the amendments as an effort to sabotage the legislation, with Treasury Board president John Baird accusing the Liberal-dominated Senate of “naked political opportunism” that is causing “irreparable damage” to the act, according to the National Post.

But Liberals argue that the amendments will fix problems with what they say is a “deeply flawed” measure, according to the CTV network.

One controversial amendment would protect whistle-blowing spies who expose wrongdoing in Canada’s secretive spy agencies, according to the Toronto-based Globe & Mail. Sponsors of the amendment say they want assurance that counterterrorism operations are being carried out within the law.

Another amendment would double the allowable limits of political donations, allowing $2,000 donations by individuals instead of the $1,000 proposed in the bill. The limit under current Canadian law is $5,400, according to the Toronto Sun.

ZURICH
The ethics committee for soccer’s governing body, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), met for the first time last week and vowed to confront a list of problems facing world soccer.

Among the issues the committee plans to tackle, according to the International Herald Tribune, are corruption, doping, racism, and match-fixing.

“Association football is the most popular sport in the world,” FIFA president Sepp Blatter said, according to a report from CBC. “But its popularity has also attracted some of the dangers and vices of our modern society.”

The ethics panel is headed by former Olympic gold-medal runner Sebastian Coe, who said that soccer needs an “ever-greater transparency and integrity,” the Los Angeles Times reports.

But the Times of London notes that the panel said it would not address the most recent ethical issue involving the sport — the allegation that FIFA vice president Jack Warner sold thousands of World Cup tickets on the black market at inflated prices — because the allegations predate the committee’s founding.

SAN DIEGO
CNN’s decision to air videotape showing snipers attacking U.S. troops in Iraq has been characterized as courageous journalism by some and as a treacherous blow to U.S. morale by others.

The video apparently was obtained from Iraqi insurgents, and shows a sniper’s round felling a U.S. soldier, though the moment of impact is not pictured and the image was photographed from a great distance, UPI reports.

Some in Congress, including House Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), have gone so far as to call for banning CNN reporters from traveling with U.S. units.

In a letter to Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Hunter denounced the footage as a “terrorist snuff film,” the Voice of America reports.

CNN issued a statement saying the decision to air the footage was “a difficult one, but for a news organization, the right one … our responsibility is to report the news,” according to a report from the Associated Press.

AP writer Anne Plummer Flaherty writes that Hunter’s outrage over the video “underscores the tightrope often walked by news media in the war. Critics of the war say Americans see very little of the daily violence in Iraq because of television’s reluctance to show gory footage. Dangerous conditions also keep journalists from reporting independent of military units that provide them protection.”

PHILADELPHIA
Cheating has become so widespread in tests used to monitor school performance under the No Child Left Behind Act that lawmakers are looking to straighten out testing procedures before the act is renewed next year, according to a report from the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Reports of cheating from around the country have focused attention on the validity of the tests, which are used to reward high-scoring schools and punish low-performing institutions, according to Inquirer staff writer Frank Kummer.

Investigators in several regions of the country have flagged suspiciously high test scores, and in some cases teachers have been caught giving answers to students and excluding some students from standardized tests who were expected to perform badly, the Inquirer reports.

Among the lawmakers interviewed in the piece, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who helped pass the law in 2001, told the Inquirer, “We need to take steps to prevent manipulation of results on the federal, state, and local levels.”

While some experts quoted in the article deny that cheating is as widespread as depicted in some media accounts, others argue that whenever so much importance is placed on statistics, there is a powerful temptation for data to be manipulated and corrupted.

One testing expert said that failing districts face such ominous penalties under No Child Left Behind that it is “almost inevitable” that they will try to pump up scores, according to the report.

BEIJING
A corruption probe in China continued to widen last week, with many saying — some publicly, but for the most part, privately — that the investigation is political cover for a purge of leaders who are not sufficiently loyal to president Hu Jintao.

The New York Times reports that about 300 Communist Party investigators have been combing through documents and other records and are closing in on suspicious dealings that implicate top party leaders, according to sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing official retribution.

Officials in the cities of Shanghai and Tianjin and provinces including Fujian and Hunan have been removed from office or arrested in the probe, reports UPI, with the most high-profile case involving Shanghai party chief Chen Liangyu, who was detained by security forces in September.

Chen was thought to be a threat to the current leadership because he retained ties to China’s former president, who was at one time a leader in Shanghai.

Party officials insist that the investigation is an effort to promote transparency and keep China competitive in the world economy. A release from the official Chinese news agency Xinhua quotes Wang Zhenchuan, a senior security appointee, as saying more than

67,500 officials have been punished for corruption in the past three years.

He also said that his office had signed 83 anti-graft agreements with 75 law enforcement agencies worldwide, according to Xinhua.

An analysis from Time magazine notes that there appears to be an odd juxtaposition of transparency and secrecy in the massive probe. Beijing correspondent Susan Jakes writes that suspicion that the investigation is politically motivated is fueled by those who ask “why, if the primary goal of Hu’s corruption probe — reported to now include investigation of Beijing officials — is to end corruption, why not make the entire process transparent? “

“Why not allow the Chinese media to investigate Chen’s crimes and write about them? Why not allow a court in Shanghai to try him, instead of conducting the whole process under a cloak of secrecy? Why try to fight corruption using the same opaque apparatus that allows it to flourish in the first place? The secrecy surrounding the whole operation fuels speculation over whether Hu is cleaning his house of graft, or sweeping out political rivals,” Jakes writes.

NEW YORK
Having a chief ethics officer didn’t help Hewlett-Packard, and while ethics and compliance officers have become “trendy” over the years, claims an article in last week’s edition of Forbes, some experts worry that they are merely window dressing and could be counterproductive.

Forbes reporter Hannah Clark writes that some observers wonder if the presence of one person in charge of ethics lets everyone else think they are off the hook.

Clark writes that chief ethics officers “started appearing in corporate hallways in 1991, when the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for corporations went into effect. The guidelines stated that companies with effective compliance and ethics programs could receive preferential treatment during prosecutions for white-collar crimes.”

When the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was implemented, “companies began tripping over themselves to identify potential ethics problems. Even minor lapses are no longer tolerated by hypersensitive boards,” Clark writes.

But Clark maintains that Kevin Hunsaker, the chief ethics officer at HP, showed that the presence of an ethics officer is no guarantee of diligence. In a recently uncovered email exchange, Clark reports, it was revealed that Hunsaker dropped the ball after learning about the questionable tactics used to uncover leaks to the press, telling the executive in charge of investigations that he was “sorry he asked” about the methods employed.

Experts Clark interviewed conclude that the lesson in all of this is that ethics officers may do no good at all if there is no commitment to ethics from top management.

From the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Associated Press:

“They vote — but not always. Compared with Americans who regularly cast ballots, they are less engaged in politics. They are more likely to be bored with the political process and admit they often do not know enough about candidates to cast ballots. But they are crucial to Republican and Democratic fortunes in the Nov. 7 midterm elections.

“They are the intermittent voters: Americans who are registered to vote but do not always make it to the polls. They differ significantly from those who vote regularly. For one thing, they’re less likely to be married than are regular voters. Intermittent voters also are more mistrustful of people compared with those who vote regularly. They also are less angry with government, though no less dissatisfied with President Bush than are regular voters….

“Turnout estimates suggest that more Americans than usual for an off-year election will go to the polls next month. Still, even the most optimistic of these models suggest that fewer than half of eligible Americans may vote, well below turnout in the 2004 presidential election. A key for both Republicans and Democrats is convincing the intermittent voters in their respective ranks to vote on Nov. 7.

“These intermittent voters are the most important ’swing’ group in politics -¡ distinguished not by their partisan leanings but by their voting behavior. They swing in and out of the electorate from election to election.

“The Pew analysis identifies basic attitudes and lifestyles that keep these intermittent voters less engaged in politics and the political process. Political knowledge is key: Six-in-ten intermittent voters say they sometimes don’t know enough about candidates to vote compared with 44 percent of regular voters ¡- the single most important attitudinal difference between intermittent and regular voters identified in the survey. Intermittent voters also are characterized by feelings of boredom with politics….

“One other key difference: Regular voters are more likely than intermittent voters to say they have been contacted by a candidate or political group encouraging them to vote, underscoring the value of get-out-to-vote campaigns and other forms of party outreach for encouraging political participation.

“The survey also finds that the demographic factors that distinguish non-voters from voters also differentiate regular from intermittent voters. Intermittent voters are somewhat less well educated and less affluent than are regular voters.

“What keeps them voting, at least occasionally? Intermittent voters share two critical characteristics with those who have the voting habit, the survey found. Unlike those who are not registered to vote, big majorities of regular and intermittent voters acknowledge they feel guilty when they don’t vote. And both of these groups are less likely to accept the assertion that ‘voting doesn’t really change things’ than are those who rarely cast ballots or are not registered.

“The survey also reveals broad differences between those who are not registered to vote and regular or occasional voters. Non-voters are politically estranged: They are the least interested in local politics of the four groups and the most likely to say voting doesn’t change things. They also are five times more likely to say they’re too busy to vote than are regular voters (43 percent versus 8 percent).

“Americans who are not registered to vote also are more socially isolated from other people: They’re less likely to know people in their neighborhood. They also are more likely to be relatively recent arrivals in their current neighborhoods….

“Structural factors stand between some of these Americans and the ballot booth. Three-in-ten adults who are not registered to vote say it is difficult for them to get to the polls; this compares with 19 percent among those who vote rarely, and just 8 percent each among intermittent and regular voters. This suggests even with recent reforms in voter registration laws, barriers to voting still exist for some Americans. Still, 70 percent of those who are not registered say it is not difficult for them to vote….

“Whites continue to be disproportionally represented in the voting booth: 37 percent of whites are regular voters, compared with 29 percent of non-whites, including 31 percent of blacks and 24 percent of all Hispanics. Conversely, 40 percent of Hispanics and considerably smaller proportions of blacks (17 percent) and whites (20 percent) say they are not registered to vote.

“Regular voters also are older than those who are not registered…. Four-in-ten 18-29 year-olds are not registered to vote, double the proportion of 30-49-year-olds and nearly three times greater than those ages 50 or older.

“Other factors distinguish the non-voter. Nearly half (46 percent) of all college graduates are regular voters, compared to 28 percent of adults who are high school graduates or have less education. In addition, 39 percent of those who say they attend religious services once a week or more are regular voters, compared with 31 percent of those who attend church seldom or never. But the survey also finds little gender difference in voting behavior: 36 percent of men and 34 percent of women are regular voters….”

“At every crossing on the road that leads to the future, each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand appointed to guard the past.”

– Maurice Maeterlinck (Belgian playwright and Nobel Prize-winning author, 1862-1949)

Several weeks ago, as the nation anguished over the shootings of Amish children in Pennsylvania, school board member Bruce Richardson shared a gripping dilemma from his district in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Here’s the first part of the story, which he’s given me permission to repeat.

“Last week,” he writes, “we learned of a threat of violence in the high school on a Sunday afternoon. We investigated and found it to be baseless.

“But that evening a second rumor of violence reached the administration. By this time it was 10:30 at night. The high school principal along with the superintendent and the board chair decided to close the school on Monday.

“To get the word out quickly, the superintendent contacted the media and said that the high school would be closed due to a broken water main. The second rumor also turned out to be false. The public was then informed that it had not been a broken water main but a rumor that was investigated. The media got upset, however, and some parents demanded the superintendent’s resignation.”

His note goes on to ask, “Was there a better way to handle the situation?”

Recast, his question is: Did we succumb to a right-versus-wrong temptation, or resolve a right-versus-right dilemma?

For the moment, treat it as right-versus-right — since otherwise there’s no reason for further discussion. On one hand, it’s right to keep sensitive information confidential. On the other hand, it’s right to speak honestly.

As a public entity, a school board regularly has both obligations. It is legally prevented from publicizing some things (like medical records) that, while true, could damage individual students. But it also has a responsibility to voters to speak candidly, particularly on issues of large public moment. One of its highest obligations is to ensure student safety — a task taken very seriously across the United States given trends of school violence for which the Columbine High shootings in 1999 have become the archetype.

In the current case, several facts are salient. First, at the time of the announcement, the latest threat remained genuine, and there was a fear (so Mr. Richardson said) of “tipping off the people who potentially were involved.” Second, the decision was taken by top administrators and the board chair, not by the full board in ways that might have required a vote at a public session. Third, there wasn’t much time: Monday classes were just hours away, and the announcement couldn’t wait until the details were clear. But fourth, there was no broken water main; the public was deliberately misled.

This dilemma might be described as truth versus loyalty (going public versus preserving confidentiality) or as short-term versus long-term (putting everyone immediately on high alert versus gathering intelligence toward a future arrest). Each position has strong moral arguments … and powerful downsides. The moral case for honesty above all else is so clear that it needs no repeating. But there are times when secrets must be kept. In this case, is a community alerted a community prepared or a community panicked?

There’s also a short-term mandate to tell people promptly about things that directly affect their well-being. If a deception about the shutdown raises doubts about the veracity of these public educators, will their future explanations be regarded with suspicion? Will they be comfortable if their students, too, learn to dissemble at key moments? And isn’t it patronizing to assume that you know best and must keep others from being upset?

But if immediate, full communication leaves a real perpetrator undiscovered, might not students be even more significantly endangered in the long term? And if such full communication signals that every threat, real or rumored, can shut down the school and panic the community, might not a spate of copycat threats ensue?

Ends-based, utilitarian thinkers, seeking the greatest good for the greatest number, might say that, in the interests of uncovering the larger truth of the situation, deception is in order. If silently hunting down a perpetrator seems more beneficial than slavishly holding to a principle, then disinformation may be taken to produce the best consequences.

But rule-based, Kantian thinkers, seeking a universal standard that everyone in the world ought to follow in similar situations, would argue that persistent honesty trumps any benefits that might flow from falsehood. Might is crucial word: Since outcomes are so uncertain, the only safe course (Kantians would say) is to hold to truth, trust the public to handle uncomfortable facts, and let the consequentialist chips fall where they may.

Meanwhile the care-based thinkers, asking what you’d want someone else to do to you, could go either way. As a student at risk, I might want the school to use everything including deception to round up my threateners. But as a community member, I might want to know the threats, make my own judgments, and help correct the situation.

What should the good people of St. Louis Park have done? What policy should the school board have for sudden media announcements? Email me, and I’ll share my views (and yours) next week — and tell you how it turned out.

©2006 Institute for Global Ethics

“We have not been given any serious, official support from either the United States or the U.K. or any of the surrounding Arab countries. The only explanation I can come up with is that too many people in positions of power and authority in the new Iraq have been, in one way or another, found with their hands inside the cookie jar. And if they are brought to trial, it will cast a very disparaging light on those people who had supported them and brought them to this position of power and authority.”

MIAMI
The case of former congressman Mark Foley (R-Fla.) continued to dominate ethics-related news last week as a Roman Catholic diocese said it would investigate allegations that a retired priest now living near Malta has admitted fondling Foley in the 1960s.

A syndicated story from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel says that a bishop from the diocese of Gozo, a tiny island near Malta, confirmed that the probe centers on father Anthony Mercieca, 69, formerly of south Florida, who now lives in retirement there.

The Associated Press reports that Mercieca said he fondled Foley and was nude with him in a sauna when the Miami-area Republican was an altar boy.

But CBS and CNN report that Mercieca’s account of the incidents has changed several times, with one version attesting that the priest said he had ingested so many pills that he could not recall if something had happened.

The archdiocese of Miami did not immediately confirm that Mercieca had been named as Foley’s alleged abuser, but issued an apology anyway, saying in a statement: “The Archdiocese of Miami is distressed by the revelations disclosed by Father Mercieca regarding former Representative Mark Foley. Such behavior is morally reprehensible, canonically criminal and inexcusable.”

“An apology is due to Mr. Foley for the hurt he has experienced,” the statement says.

Shortly after resigning in the wake of revelations that he sent lewd emails to teenage congressional pages, Foley sparked an ethics firestorm by issuing a statement through his lawyers apparently linking his behavior to his alleged childhood molestation by a priest.

Victims’ advocacy groups immediately called for the identification of the clergyman, saying the revelation was essential in order to protect others from possible abuse.

At the same time, the ethical repercussions of the email incident continued to shake Capitol Hill in the days leading up to the crucial midterm elections. At week’s end, majority leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Jeff Trandahl, the former aide in charge of the page program, concluded testimony in hearings about the House page scandal, according to the Hill, a daily publication covering Congress.

Boehner reiterated to a House ethics subcommittee that he personally told House speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) about the “overly friendly” emails, Time magazine reports. Hastert has said he does not recall the conversation with Boehner.

GARDEN GROVE, Calif.
Ethical controversies centering around the upcoming midterm elections took a truly bizarre twist last week as a California Republican congressional candidate’s letter wrongly warning Hispanic “immigrants” they could be arrested if they tried to vote escalated into a police probe.

Tan Nguyen did not show at a news conference where he had promised to explain the letter, which he admits was distributed by his campaign, the Associated Press reports. Nguyen claimed that the letter was sent out in error by a staffer who later was fired.

On Friday, uniformed California Department of Justice investigators executed a search warrant on Nguyen’s campaign headquarters and left with boxes and bags of evidence.

They subsequently searched the home of his staffer, and neighbors say investigators also searched Nguyen’s home in Santa Ana, reports the Orange County Register.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the letter, which was written in Spanish, was mailed to 14,000 registered voters.

Nguyen, a Republican, is attempting to unseat a popular Hispanic Democrat, U.S. representative Loretta Sanchez.

The head of the Orange County Republican party last week urged Nguyen to withdraw from the race, claiming he had evidence that Nguyen was knowingly involved in the distribution of the letter, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

HOUSTON
Criminal charges against Enron founder Ken Lay, who died suddenly in July, were thrown out last week as a judge vacated Lay’s convictions on the ground that he had not exhausted all his appeals before his death.

The defense’s argument held that the government should not be allowed to punish a dead defendant or his estate, ABC News reports.

According to the Houston Chronicle, legal precedent strongly supported the decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The U.S. Department of Justice had argued unsuccessfully that criminal penalties assessed against Lay should have remained in place in order to recover restitution for those who lost their jobs and savings after Enron imploded under the weight of a gigantic accounting fraud.

But California senator Dianne Feinstein (D) last week urged the Justice Department to appeal the ruling, arguing that the government must protect the rights of Lays’ victims by obtaining restitution, reports Texas TV station WLTV.

In related news, former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling was sentenced on Monday to more than 24 years in prison on his fraud and conspiracy convictions. Analysts predicted that the posthumous reversal of Lay’s conviction and the unexpectedly light sentence given to Andrew Fastow, the firm’s former CFO, would result in a stiffened punishment for Fastow, according to the International Herald Tribune. Skilling’s sentence is one of the harshest ever handed down by a U.S. court for white collar crime, noted USA Today.

“In theory, the death of Ken Lay should have no impact on the sentence that Mr. Skilling receives,” former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz told the Herald Tribune. “But it’s hard to ignore the reality that Jeff Skilling is now standing alone as the figurehead who orchestrated Enron’s demise,” Mintz said. “There will certainly be pressure to make an example of Jeff Skilling and send a message with his sentence.”