Meese Says He’s More Sensitive to Ethical Issues

WASHINGTON —  Atty. Gen.-designate Edwin Meese III, declaring that he has developed “a much higher level of sensitivity” to ethical questions than when he came to Washington in 1981, promised Tuesday to “go overboard to avoid any appearance” that could be misinterpreted as improper.

At the same time, Meese--testifying as the Senate Judiciary Committee opened a second round of confirmation hearings on his nomination--said that he interpreted a report by an independent counsel that found no basis for criminal charges against him to have cleared him on ethical grounds as well.

“I have conducted myself in accordance with the ethical as well as the legal standards of behavior for public officials,” Meese asserted.

Character Questioned

But Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio)--the only committee member to state in advance that he will vote against confirmation--said that the facts uncovered by independent counsel Jacob A. Stein show that Meese “lacks the integrity of character, the evenhandedness of purpose and the sensitivity to ethical values required of the attorney general.”

After saying that he did not dispute Stein’s conclusion that Meese had not committed an indictable offense, Metzenbaum asked: “But since when is not being indicted a qualification for a Cabinet post?”

Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), the committee chairman, had said that he hoped to complete the hearings in time for a vote on Meese’s nomination Thursday. But, because committee members filled a two-hour morning session with their opening statements and did not complete even the first round of questioning of Meese in a four-hour afternoon hearing, the prospects for a vote by Thursday seemed remote.

Meese is scheduled to return for more questioning today, followed by David H. Martin, director of the Office of Government Ethics, who reversed a finding by two of his staff attorneys that Meese had violated federal ethics standards in two matters. The attorneys, F. Gary Davis and Nancy Feathers, who Martin contends are satisfied with the reversal, also are expected to testify today.

Persuasion by Attorneys

Meese defended as “normal” the steps taken by Leonard Garment and other of his lawyers to persuade Martin to reverse the conclusion reached by the ethics office attorneys. Martin made no mention of the staff report when he certified to the committee last Thursday that Meese had complied with conflict-of-interest laws and regulations.

Martin made public the staff attorneys’ 17-page report Tuesday at the request of Thurmond and Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the committee’s ranking minority member. Davis and Feathers had concluded that Meese had “an appearance problem” because he took part in a recommendation that Thomas J. Barrack Jr. be named an assistant secretary of commerce after Barrack had helped Meese sell his La Mesa, Calif., home.

“In light of that personal interest, Mr. Meese’s involvement in Mr. Barrack’s appointment gives the appearance of preferential treatment and raises the question whether Mr. Meese could have retained his impartiality,” the two attorneys wrote.

Meese, however, told the hearing that his lawyers had pointed out to Martin “one major factual error” in the ethics office staff report. Meese’s lawyers contended that the report had ignored the independent counsel’s finding that there was no evidence that Meese had known that Barrack had found one buyer for his house and had financed the buyer’s participation.

But the ethics office lawyers concluded that Meese had “an appearance problem” in the Barrack matter because Meese knew Barrack had assisted him in the sale of the house in other ways.

“Because Mr. Meese had received Mr. Barrack’s assistance in the sale of his home, he had a personal interest in the appointment,” they wrote.

The staff lawyers found also that Meese should not have participated in approving the appointment to the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors of John McKean, a San Francisco accountant who arranged loans of $60,000 for Meese.

But Martin rejected that finding by noting that “the loans in question were arms-length transactions and there existed credible explanations for the actions of both Mr. McKean and Mr. Meese independent of their financial relationships.”