THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, July 31, 1994 TAG: 9407290003
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: PERRY MORGAN
LENGTH: Medium: 72 lines
The U.S. Senate confirmed the appointment of Navy Secretary John H. Dalton without dissent or debate, and Sen. John Warner of Virginia continues to accord Dalton high praise. Remembering how Bill Clinton dropped some early nominees when relatively minor blemishes surfaced, one might assume Dalton's record was cleaner than a hound's tooth. Not so, however: If the public had known what Clinton and the Senate Armed Services committee headed by Sam Nunn did know, Dalton would be in another line of work.
His record as a failed savings-and-loan operator accused of misconduct could not have withstood public scrutiny. Once known for insistence on high standards, Nunn's committee finessed the Dalton appointment. Why it did so is a question that deserves an answer from Nunn or Warner who, for the committee, urged Senate confirmation thusly: ``John Dalton has extensive business and managerial experience, so critical to today's modern Navy.''
When Warner said that, he knew that a Texas savings-and-loan run by Dalton had crashed at a cost to taxpayers of at least $100 million; that federal regulators had accused him of violating state and federal laws and committing ``gross negligence,'' and that an insurance company paid $3.8 million to settle claims against Dalton and associates.
Dalton recently has expressed pride in his record, but his savings-and-loan role was omitted from a White House resume and from an Armed Services Committee form that requires nominees to list ``all jobs held'' in the past 10 years.
This information (and more) comes from The New York Times, but it is not enough to explain the performances of Nunn and Warner. It was Nunn, after all, who kept John Tower from being George Bush's secretary of Defense because he thought Tower too fond of whiskey and women. Although of a different party, Warner's an obvious admirer of Nunn and often, as here, a collaborator. It's absurd for him to say now that hindsight shows the committee erred in keeping Dalton's record secret when that conclusion was crystal clear from the outset.
Regarding secrecy, senators seem unable to get the hang of things. For example, Anita Hill's sexual harassment charges against Clarence Thomas cried out for closed hearings. The charges were stale and, even if found wanting, would leave an indelible stain; there were no witnesses, and there was reason to suspect Senate staffers of soliciting Hill's testimony. But the Judiciary Committee couldn't wait to go public with what Thomas would credibly characterize as a ``high-tech lynching.''
When, by contrast, the Armed Services Committee came to the Dalton nomination, it treated as secret matters of public record which bore on the nominee's ethical standards as well as his administrative skills. On the day before his nomination, Dalton dropped a suit seeking a $750,000 finder's fee from a company that had used his access to a federal agency he'd once headed to advance a business deal. Sam Nunn, astonishingly, regarded this as confidential information, and apparently there was not a peep from the Republicans.
What gives? If, as speculated, Clinton nominated Dalton because he was a dedicated fund-raiser for him and the Democratic Party, why did Warner and other Republicans go along? Because they want Democrats to return the favor once the Republicans regain the presidency? Or because both parties are so entangled in the savings-and-loan scandals that they want to avoid raking up memories? Or because, as Warner says, Dalton's splendid abilities were just what the Navy needed?
Speculation really shouldn't be required. The Times having highlighted what the committee sought to obscure, John Warner could now explain the bizarre behavior of what has been regarded as a prestigious Senate committee. MEMO: Mr. Morgan is a former publisher of The Virginian-Pilot and The
Ledger-Star. by CNB