Ex Parte Communications: a Study in Legislative Reluctance

AuthorRobert S. Getz
Date01 March 1966
DOI10.1177/106591296601900103
Published date01 March 1966
Subject MatterArticles
31
EX
PARTE
COMMUNICATIONS:
A
STUDY
IN
LEGISLATIVE
RELUCTANCE
ROBERT
S.
GETZ
Kent
State
University
NE
OF
THE
MANY
interesting
sidelights
to
come
out
of
the
Senate
investi-
gation
of the
TFX contract award was the
revelation
of
ex
Senate
contacts
gation
of
the
TFX
contract
award
was
the
revelation
of
ex
parte
contacts
between
at
least
twelve
members
of
Congress
and
Secretary
of
the
Air
Force
Eugene
M.
Zuckert.1
An ex
parte
communication
is
an
undisclosed,
extra-mural
contact,
oral
or
written,
to
an
agency
or
department
official,
concerning
the
merits
of
any
matter
upon
which
the
agency
member
is
exercising
a
quasi-judicial
function.
The
contact
may
be
made
by,
or
on
behalf
of,
an
interested
party.
It
receives
its
ex
parte
character
by
virtue
of
its
failure
to
appear
as
part
of
the
public
record
of
the
proceeding.
The
attitude
of
all
the
parties
involved
toward
these
off-the-record
visitations
and
letters
sheds
some
light
upon
the
difficulties
which
attend
any
efforts
to
prohibit
or
minimize
the
effects
of
ex
parte
communications.
In
his
testimony
before
the
Senate
Investigations
Subcommittee,2
Mr.
Zuckert
denied
that
the
legislators
had
made
any
attempts
to
influence
his
decisions.
He
characterized
their
efforts
as
an
expression
of
their
interest
&dquo;in
seeing
that
this
thing
got
proper
consideration.&dquo;
3 The
lawmakers
in
question
all
represented
states
and
districts
having
a
vested
economic
stake
in
the
allocation
of
the
TFX
contract
and
sub-contracts.4
4
A
unanimous
denial
of
any
unethical
activity
echoed
from
the
respective
con-
gressional
offices.
Speaking
in
reference
to
the
Kansas
delegation’s
visit,
Senator
Frank
Carlson
said
that
as
members
of
Congress
from
the
state
where
the
plane
would
be
built
if
Boeing
Aircraft
received
the
contract
&dquo;we
were
not
only
justified,
we
should
do
it.&dquo;
5
Senator
A.
S.
Mike
Monroney
(D,
Okla.)
had
spoken
to
Mr.
Zuckert
on
behalf
of
a
potential
sub-contractor.
He
described
his
session
with
the
Secretary
as
an
effort
&dquo;to
remind
him
of
the
vast
government-owned
plant
in
Tulsa,
Oklahoma,
which
the
Douglas
Aircraft
Company
operates,
and
its
large
unused
machinery
and
manpower
capabilities.&dquo;
6 These
representative
replies
point
to
the
question
that
must
be
asked
before
any
inquiry
can
be
made
into
Congress’
failure
to
enact
ex
parte
prohibitions;
what
is
the
nature
of
the
representative
function?
1
New
York
Times,
August
7,
1963,
p.
14,
and
August
8,
1963,
p.
32.
2
88th
Cong.,
1st
sess.,
1963.
As
these
were
closed
hearings,
accounts
of
the
proceedings
must
be
drawn
from
the
newspapers.
3
New
York
Times,
August
7,
1963,
p.
14.
4
The
list
appeared
in
the
New
York
Times,
August
8,
1963,
p.
32.
The
men
involved
were:
Senators
Frank
Carlson
(R)
and
James
B.
Pearson
(R),
and
Representative
Garner
E.
Shriver
(R),
all
of
Kansas;
Senator
Stuart
Symington
(D)
and
Representative
Clarence
Cannon
(D)
of
Missouri;
Senators
Robert
S.
Kerr
(D)
and
A.
S.
Mike
Monroney
(D),
and
Representative
Carl
Albert
(D)
of
Oklahoma;
Representative
Joseph
M.
Kilgore
(D)
of
Texas;
and
Senators
Henry
M.
Jackson
(D)
and
Warren
G.
Magnuson
(D)
of
Wash-
ington.
5
New
York
Times,
August
8,1963,
p.
32.
6
Ibid.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT