WASHINGTON-The Office of Government Ethics said National Telecommunications and Information Administration chief Nancy Victory should have disclosed costs associated with a private reception wireless lobbyists helped pay for in mid-October 2001, less than two weeks before the Bush administration’s top telecom official took a position on spectrum caps that was in line with the mobile-phone industry and close to the time when the Federal Communications Commission was expected to rule on the matter.
However, Victory is not expected to face punitive action and her job appears to be safe because, according to Commerce Department officials, she relied on advice given to her by an ethics officer in the general counsel’s office and generally went by the book in seeking legal guidance in advance. The Associated Press broke the story on Monday.
Before OGE offered its interpretation late yesterday-at the request of Victory, according to Commerce Department spokeswoman Emily Kertz-the agency’s General Counsel Theodore Kassinger told RCR Wireless News he had no regrets about the advice given Victory and his office would give the same advice today if presented with the same set of facts.
Victory must now amend her financial disclosure form to reflect the money contributed by industry lobbyists-some long-time friends-who co-sponsored the party and work for Cingular Wireless L.L.C., Motorola Inc., the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association and SBC Communications Inc., a co-owner of Cingular, and the law firm here of Wiley Rein & Fielding. Three of the party’s co-sponsors said they paid for the reception with their own money, not company funds.
Wiley Rein, where Victory worked with her husband, communications lawyer Michael Senkowski, before being appointed to NTIA, has close ties to the Bush administration.
The Victory party was held at the NTIA administrator’s home on Oct. 14, 2001. Victory called for the swift removal of spectrum caps on Oct. 24. The FCC took a different tack two weeks later, relaxing the cap and deciding not to completely eliminate it until Jan. 1, 2003.
While much has been made of the chronology of events-particularly the passing of just 10 days between the date of the party and Victory’s spectrum cap pronouncement, a source close to the matter said the date of the party was to have taken place earlier but was rescheduled for a later date in part because of events related to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Kertz said OGE had a different take on the calculation of whether party costs exceeded the $260 limit that triggers a reporting requirement.
“OGE has advised us, [that] in addition to Nancy’s share, the pro-rata shares of the invitees she suggested are attributable to her. We will amend the form based on this interpretation,” said Kertz.
