The House Ethics Committee delivered decisions in the cases of four lawmakers Thursday afternoon.
Reps. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) and Phil GingreyJohn (Phil) Phillip GingreyEx-Tea Party lawmakers turn heads on K Street 2017's top health care stories, from ObamaCare to opioids Beating the drum on healthcare MORE (R-Ga.) received public shaming in the form of letters of reproval from House Ethics Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and ranking member Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.).
Meanwhile, the panel concluded that Reps. Tom PetriThomas (Tom) Evert PetriKeep our elections free and fair Break the cycle of partisanship with infant, child health care programs Combine healthcare and tax reform to bring out the best in both MORE (R-Wis.) and Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) did not commit ethics violations.
The House Ethics Committee voted unanimously to issue a letter of reproval to Chu for interfering with the panel's investigation of the allegation that she was requiring office staffers to perform campaign-related work.
In the letter, the Ethics panel said Chu "improperly" communicated with two of her staff members regarding another aide's concerns that sparked the initial issue.
"The Committee did find that you interfered with the Committee's investigation, and that your actions contributed to the length of this investigation," Conaway and Sánchez wrote.
"Now that this letter has issued and the Committee has publicly noted its reproval of your conduct, the Committee has determined that this matter is closed," they concluded.
In the case of Gingrey, the Ethics Committee said it the congressman took official action on behalf of the Bank of Ellijay, where he had “substantial financial interests."
Specifically, Gingrey arranged for bank officials from outside his district to meet with Treasury officials and the ranking member and top staffers at the Financial Services Committee regarding the bank’s application for bailout funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
The panel voted unanimously to issue a public letter of reproval that stated his actions did not reflect well on the House.
The committee also said it would take no further action regarding allegations that Petri had tried to help local companies in which he owned stock, including OshKosh Corp.
The Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics said earlier this year it believed Petri had violated the law. But the full Ethics Committee rejected that conclusion, saying it would be “inequitable” to continue to review the matter.
The committee said Petri repeatedly sought guidance from committee staffers and that he consistently tried to follow that advice.
In Hastings's case, the House Ethics Committee concluded there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he sexually harassed a female staff member on the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission. The Office of Congressional Ethics originally referred the case to the House Ethics Committee with the same finding.
However, the House Ethics Committee did find that Hastings engaged in inappropriate behavior. Hastings acknowledged that he had hugged the complainant "on a number of occasions" and made unprofessional comments.
"Similarly, Representative Hastings admitted to making two comments in the presence of Complainant: one about not being able to sleep after sex, and another about female Members of Congress wearing the same underwear all day," the panel's report says.
The House Ethics Committee considers the matter closed because there isn't enough evidence to prove Hastings engaged in sexual harassment or violated House rules.
"Nevertheless, the Committee finds it concerning that in the year 2014 it has to remind a Member that such comments show poor judgment," the report says.