Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, October 9, 1994 TAG: 9410140012
SECTION: HORIZON PAGE: B1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ELIZABETH SHOGREN AND ALAN C. MILLER LOS ANGELES TIMES
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Long
The decision by the former Mississippi lawmaker, the youngest member of President Clinton's Cabinet and one of four blacks, left friends grasping to explain the undoing of a man who seemed to have almost a limitless political future a year ago. It also left many wondering how someone once regarded as so politically astute could seemingly have been so indifferent to the appearance, if not the reality, of abusing his office for personal gain.
``Clearly there were some lapses of judgment in the administration of his affairs that should have been taken care of with greater sensitivity to the law as well as to the perception,'' said Manley C. Molpus, president of the Grocery Manufacturers of America and a friend of Espy.
Faced with an investigation by an independent counsel into accusations that he improperly accepted travel, sports tickets and lodging from major companies regulated by the Agriculture Department, Espy had doggedly denied any wrongdoing for months. He took pains to repay companies and the government for $7,600 worth of questionable gifts and expenses. But as news accounts continued to raise questions about his conduct, he reluctantly decided that he had no choice but to step down.
Espy, 40, a former Mississippi congressman, announced his resignation at a hastily scheduled news conference, saying: ``I now owe it to myself and my family to turn my full attention to the matter of a defense.''
Insisting that he had not been asked to step down by the president or any other White House official, he added: ``This was my choice.''
``It's seemed as if I was just twisting in the wind,'' Espy said. ``And as these allegations continued, the twisting continued. And the bough finally broke in my mind.''
Espy, who will step down Dec. 31, acknowledged that he had been ``careless with some of the details'' of his personal affairs but insisted he had violated no laws or ethics rules.
Espy may have failed to adapt to the tougher ethical standards that apply to members of the executive branch after facing laxer standards in his three terms in Congress. Lawmakers can accept gifts and travel as long as they publicly report them.
Cabinet secretaries, however, must operate under stricter regulations, which forbid gifts that might influence them in their official duties. Under a 1907 meatpacking law, the agriculture secretary's behavior is even more tightly circumscribed. In that role, according to Donald Smaltz, independent counsel in the case, Espy is prohibited from accepting virtually any kind of gratuity, such as travel accommodations or sports tickets, from regulated companies.
Clearly, though, another key factor contributing to Espy's fall was that the allegations occurred in a political climate far less forgiving to even the appearance of impropriety than that which existed a few years ago.
Espy was, after all, appointed by a president who vowed to sharply curtail the influence of special interests in the nation's capital. This made the allegations against him more nettlesome for Clinton - particularly since the president is bedeviled by his own ethical troubles.
A former congressional colleague and friend offered his own explanation for the secretary's apparent behavior: ``It seems as though he behaved as though he was still a member [of Congress]. This is not a corrupt or venal guy.''
During Espy's first term in the House, for example, he accepted $23,250 for 19 speeches and 22 expense-paid trips, including travel to Israel, Taiwan and the Bahamas. Those trips involved far larger expenditures than the gratuities Espy apparently has accepted as secretary. But they were permitted under congressional rules.
Initially Espy and his allies insisted that stories about alleged wrongdoing were being spread by Republicans and other foes, including entrenched opponents of change within the sprawling department. But now even some of the secretary's supporters acknowledge that he indeed made mistakes.
``He just let what could have been insignificant details of his life get totally out of control,'' said a White House official. ``He missed the signals along the way.''
Some, such as Molpus, suggested that Espy would have been better served by stronger guidance from staff members, who should have steered him away from actions that could prove damaging. But others contended that he was following a long tradition of cozy relationships between the secretary of agriculture and the farmers, ranchers and growers whose high-stakes interests his department regulates.
John Block, who was agriculture secretary under Ronald Reagan, praised Espy's performance on the job. But he said he was astounded by Espy's behavior when it came to perquisites.
Particularly egregious, Block said, was Espy's decision to have the government pay for a vehicle that Espy leased in Mississippi. Espy originally leased the Jeep Cherokee when he was in Congress. He used it for professional and personal business during his 20 taxpayer-funded visits home in his first 20 months as secretary - nearly a quarter of all his trips.
Equally damaging were allegations involving Tyson Foods Inc., the huge Arkansas agribusiness that has been closely linked to Clinton. Espy accepted travel, lodging and sports tickets from Tyson, and his chief of staff allegedly temporarily halted work on proposed regulations to toughen poultry inspection standards.
The final blow for White House officials, sources said, was a disclosure that Patricia Dempsey, a friend of Espy, had accepted a $1,200 scholarship from a foundation run by Tyson.
Of Espy's involvement with Tyson, Thomas E. Mann, director of governmental studies at the Brookings Institution, said: ``Even sympathetic observers, I'm sure, were surprised that he didn't see this one coming and bend over backward'' to avoid any action that could pose any ethical problems.
by CNB