(POL) House Ethics Committee releases report on Foley scandal

[SirFozzie]

(replaced the news flash with the barely more information story)

The House ethics committee has concluded that Republican leaders did not break any rules in handling ex-Rep. Mark Foley's improper advances to former male pages but were negligent in protecting the teenagers, a congressional aide said Friday.

The committee was releasing its findings Friday.

The aide, who was not authorized to be quoted by name, was made aware of the committee's findings.

"The Republicans did not break rules but were negligent in protecting the pages," the aide said.



A mixed bag, I guess. They didn't break the rules, but they were negligent in protecting the House Pages from Foley, apparently, which is pretty damming.

[JonInMiddleGA]

News Flash on CNN

The Associated Press reports the House ethics committee has concluded that Republican leaders did not break any rules in handling ex-Rep. Mark Foley's improper advances to former male pages but were negligent in protecting the teenagers, a congressional aide said today.

So does that mean that the rules are not adequate to protect potential victims?
(Trying to figure out how you can be negligent but not violate the rules unless the rules are inadequate)

[Toddzilla]

Kinda like if I see a guy getting mugged, I suppose. I've got a moral responsibility to do...something...but I'm not breaking the law if I don't.

[SirFozzie]

The way that I read it Jon, and maybe you can backstop me on this.

They're saying once things were reported, that they were handled appropriately, but they were negligent in putting somebody who might take advantage of the position of authority in charge of them.

[wade moore]

The way that I read it Jon, and maybe you can backstop me on this.

They're saying once things were reported, that they were handled appropriately, but they were negligent in putting somebody who might take advantage of the position of authority in charge of them.

So they're saying that doing nothing is appropriate?

Man that's scary.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... but they were negligent in putting somebody who might take advantage of the position of authority in charge of them.

So are they saying there was advance knowledge of Foley's ... I dunno, "tendencies"?

I'm searching for the right word here, because (AFAIK) he didn't actually have relations with anyone under age, only that he might have been trying to promote some sort of improper relationship with the interns.

Absent any prior indications, I'm not sure how you could appoint anyone to that sort of position since anyone might take advantage of said position.

[SirFozzie]

*shrugs* Maybe it was him CONTINUING to be in that position after the prior allegations.

Just what I was thinking.

[albionmoonlight]

Negligence--as opposed to doing something intentionally wrong--generally implies "a reasonable person would have known better."

It's kind of like the difference between, on a freezing day, (1) deciding to spray water on my sidewalk hoping to make my neighbor slip versus (2) washing my car and having the runoff freeze on the sidewalk.

In the first case, I was trying to hurt someone. In the second case, I wasn't trying to hurt someone, but I should have known better.

[Shkspr]

Absent any prior indications, I'm not sure how you could appoint anyone to that sort of position since anyone might take advantage of said position.

And that might tie into the negligence part. It might indicate the committee thought that the very structure of the program was set up in such a way that it made these kinds of situations possible, regardless of what person was placed in Foley's position. It might indicate that the page program needs another layer of chaperoning, or less personal involvement on a one-to-one basis, or may mean the committee thinks the whole program needs to be reimagined.

I'd go for just pretty much letting anyone in charge of the program knoqw that the page program isn't a dating pool, but...