WASHINGTON-Commerce Department Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman in June was urged by government investigators to take administrative action against then-Bush telecom advisor Nancy Victory for ethics violations connected with a 2001 party thrown for her by wireless lobbyists in advance of a major regulatory ruling, but it is unclear to what extent Bodman acted on inspector general recommendations before Victory left last month.
“We have concluded that Victory’s acceptance of the party violated [government ethics guidelines], which prohibits employees from accepting gifts from any person or entity whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee’s duties,” said Commerce Department Inspector General Johnnie Frazier in a June 25 memo to Bodman that surfaced Monday.
Victory was not immediately available for comment.
Frazier launched the probe in response to a Jan. 29, 2003, request by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), ranking minority member of the House Government Reform Committee.
Anna Laitin, a spokeswoman for the committee’s minority staff, said Waxman does not intend to issue a statement. Waxman, according to Laitin, said the IG report speaks for itself.
In addition to suggesting that Bodman take steps to address Victory’s three ethics violations, the IG report said the Justice Department’s public integrity section indicated the Commerce Department could take action against Victory even as law enforcement officials investigated the allegations.
Bryan Sierra, a Justice Department spokesman, said today the Victory matter was reviewed and resolved without criminal charges.
Less clear is how the Commerce Department dealt with the Victory ethics controversy after learning of the IG’s findings in late June.
“The Department took appropriate administrative action,” said Commerce Department spokesman Lisa Camooso, without elaborating.
When pressed for details, Camooso replied, “The nature of those actions are to remain non-public.”
Victory made public her decision to leave as head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration the second week of July-two weeks after Bodman received the IG report-but she did not actually depart until mid-August.
Camooso, while noting appropriate administrative action was taken in response to the IG’s conclusions, said the report was not a factor in Victory’s decision-or the timing-to give up her Bush administration job.
“Nancy Victory was not asked and did not resign because of the IG report,” said Camooso. “As she stated at the time, she left for personal reasons following two years of service.”
The IG report raises questions about the information Victory provided to a Commerce Department lawyer-believed to be assistant general counsel Barbara Fredericks-in advance of the party. “It does not appear that Victory made the necessary full disclosure of all relevant circumstances,” the report stated.
The IG report said 60 people attended the catered party for Victory Oct. 14, 2001, at her home in Great Falls, Va. Though it was unclear at the time, the Commerce Department IG confirmed the $3,000 bill was paid not out of pocket by lobbyists but rather from funds of employers like the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, Motorola Inc., SBC Communications Inc., Intelsat Global Corp. and Cingular Wireless L.L.C.
Less than two weeks after the Victory party, the then-NTIA chief asked the Federal Communications Commission to immediately lift the spectrum cap. Instead, the FCC made the repeal of the cap effective Jan. 1, 2003. “We did not find evidence to support the charge that the position Victory espoused was affected by the party given in her honor,” the IG report stated.
