In yesterday's Wall St. Journal (can't get a link), Richard Perle wrote an op-ed piece about his recent resignation as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. He said he resigned because it would "distract" from the current challenges Defense Deparment faces... Some highlights: "Last week, I resigned my position as chairman of the advisory Defense Policy Board after news stories, rich in innuendo, suggested that I had acted improperly in advising Global Crossing (the New York Times) and in a separate matter, in meeting over lunch with two Saudi businessmen (The New Yorker)..... ...[I resigned because] there was no way I could quickly quell the press criticism of me, even though it was based on factual errors and tendentious reporting.... ...The Times story about my work for Global Crossing gave the impression that I had been retained to use influence stemming from my chairmanship, my "close ties to current officials" to obtain a favoriable ruling the acquistion of Global Crossing by a joint venture including a Hong Kong company. This is incorrect. (When I asked the Times to publish a letter in reply, I was told they would not unless I dropped the word "incorrect." Thus I learned that the Times censors letters to the editor." Ouch...it continues... "In truth I was retianed to advise Global Crossing on how it could meet the government's security concerns about the transaction, not to "help overcome Defense Department resistance" to it. To do this I had to persuade Global Crossing to accept some far-reaching safeguards, which it has now done. My task was to make intelligible to Global Crossing the government's concerns, not to use influence to get the goverment to set those concerns aside -- the precise opposite of the Times' characterization." On the Hersh article... The New Yorker piece by Seymour Hersh is a masterpiece--of falsehood and innuendo...Sprinkled in the article are reference to conflicts of interest, although the incoherence fo the piece reflects Mr. Hersh's Houdini-like twists and turns, intended to question my integrity. Neither piece shows that I departed from the rules of disclosure and recusal. Global Crossing was never a topic [in the Defense Policy Board]. ...Mr. Hersh implies that my involvement in a fund set up to invest in homeland security technologies might itself constitute a conflict of interest. But there is nothing in the rules governing the Board, or in any reasonable ethical judgement, that would preclude my working in such a fund." Finally... Those who serve without any compensation on these boards do so as a civic responsibility. We give time and expertise and we accept the terms of membership, including rules concerning conflict of interest, willingly. But few of us could do so if we were prevented from working in the areas about which we are consulted, and the value of our advice would be sharply diminished if we left our professional pursuits.
Apparently the man doesn't understand business ethics. His impression of the link between the GC deal and the DBP chairmanship are irrelevant -- the simple fact that the relationship exists that makes it unethical. Anyone worth a damn in the business world could have told him that.
You find me any business ethics textbook that says the personal denial of a conflict of interest is evidence enough of no actual conflict, and I'll fly you and a sockpuppet of your choice to New York for dinner.
OK, I went out and found the conflict of interest regs for US Executive Branch employees. There are several that could apply, but let's start with 2635.402 and the following passage... In other words, if the DPB ever took up the GC contract, he's not only in violation of ethics laws, he's in violation of criminal law. Considering the open-ended nature of the DPB work and the several hundred thousand dollar bonus that he would have gotten had the GC merger gone through, there is no way that he could make a blanket statement about his adherence to ethics rules under this statute. And he is also covered by Section 2635.502: Considering that the DPB members are considered federal employees under the law and that Perle never received any prior authorization to continue on the DPB, he was clearly in violation here because any reasonable human being could recognize the potential for conflict of interest. He says that he got clearance from his lawyers. That's not nearly enough under the rules or the law.
So who should be on these non-paid, non-compensated ADVISORY boards, boards that are NOT responsible for formulation and implementing policy?? Those who have NO relationship with ANY organization or business who has interest in Defense Department policy, however tangential?? Academics only?? Think Chomsky would sit in?? Journalists?? How about Peter Arnett?? Should have grabbed him yesteday, when it looked like he would have lots of free time. How about actors?? Thing George Clooney and Jeanine Garofolo are available?? They don't have any "conflicts of interest." The naivete of some on THIS board is truly remarkable
So you're saying that policymakers should be exempt from ethics laws and rules because only ethics violators could possibly want to sit on them -- how convenient. I don't know why the DPB is a non-paying role, but it is irrelevant for this discussion.
This begs the entire question of whether a non-governmental policy board should have any official connection to government, which it clearly does. Is the DPB subject to Congressional oversight, not that the Administration thinks they are either. Personnally, I don't know. But you are naive if you think the Defense Department needs an outside board of advisors in order to conduct the defense of our country. You are naive if you think Global Crossing needs Richard Perle to inform them that a sale of sensitive technology to China might raise an eyebrow or two. The whole set-up stinks of influence-peddling at its finest. And it couldn't be clearer.