Packwood Vs. Packwood

By Jill Smolowe

First it was just his diaries that were laid open. In recent weeks lawyers for the Senate ethics committee have combed through 5,000 pages of Senator Robert Packwood's private journal. "Are there personal things in there?" Packwood lamented last week. "Sure. Family heartaches. Disappointments. Irritation with the car repairman." There was more than that: word emerged from the committee that the diaries, which of course range far beyond the scope of the sexual-misconduct charges he faces, may in fact contain evidence of unrelated criminal violations. Last Monday Packwood responded to such reports by insisting, "For the life of me I do not understand . . . whatever this other thing may be that may be criminal." But within 24 hours he reversed himself, allowing, "The issue was employment opportunities for my wife and whether there was some quid pro quo on legislation."

And now an equally intimate record of Packwood's life is drawing scrutiny: his divorce papers. The papers, combined with his diaries, address the suggestion that he illegally used his position to get his ex-wife Georgie a job in order to save himself hefty alimony payments.

The Senate, doggedly pursuing the remaining 3,200 pages of Packwood's diaries, voted 94 to 6 last week to authorize the ethics committee to seek a federal court order compelling the Senator to turn over the journals. If the committee gets hold of those pages and finds sufficient evidence, Packwood may soon be in his deepest trouble yet. Although the sexual-harassment charges under investigation by the committee carry no threat of criminal prosecution, - the same cannot be said for the allegations surrounding his possible misuse of office. Last week Packwood denied ever wrongfully soliciting work for his ex- wife, but the six members of the bipartisan committee seem bent on investigating and reaching their own conclusion.

The Packwoods' divorce papers shed light on the Senator's discussions about his wife's employment. The records, filed with the circuit court in the Multnomah County courthouse in Oregon, show that while Georgie did not want the marriage to end, she could not, under state law, contest her husband's petition citing "irreconcilable differences." After the couple separated in January 1990, they wrangled about alimony. Packwood claimed that he was virtually broke and proposed monthly payments of $500. Georgie demanded $4,000. Eventually the court settled on $2,500, based in part on a calculation of Georgie's earning ability. At the time, she was running Plain 'n Fancy, a $12,000-a-year antiques business based in her Washington home.

In the year between the Packwoods' separation and their divorce trial, Georgie received job offers from four of the Senator's friends. "I had not asked any of these people for a job," Georgie told the Washington Post last week. Those offers came from two Washington lobbyists, each of whom had approached Packwood on behalf of clients; an investment banker who had gone to law school with Packwood and raised campaign funds for him; and a businessman who once served on Packwood's staff.

During the divorce trial, Packwood testified that he had no hand in any of the job offers. "In all these cases, they made the initial approach to Georgie or they asked me if it would be O.K. if they approached Georgie," he said. "I didn't initiate the calls myself." According to the divorce documents, Packwood criticized his wife for not accepting any of the offers and charged that she was unwilling to work.

Packwood's former wife told the Post that she had no reason to think that Packwood had offered his friends any political favors in exchange for job offers -- a quid pro quo that could be illegal. She told the Oregonian newspaper, however, that when one of the lobbyists, Steven Saunders, called Packwood to see if his offer of work might present the Senator with a conflict of interest, Packwood's response surprised Saunders. "Bob wanted to know, 'How much money do you think you could pay her? How much money could she earn a year?' " she said. "Bob got coercive and manipulative, and Steve backed off. He was uncomfortable with Bob's ethics."

What has exasperated Packwood's colleagues most is his inept handling of the ethics committee's inquiry. First he concealed the existence of his diaries from the committee. When the committee demanded all 8,200 pages, he tried to intimidate fellow Senators by warning that the release of further pages would expose other legislators' sexual dalliances.

His performance on the Senate floor last week was no better. On Monday, summoned to debate the diaries, Senators listened to Packwood deliver a rambling, ranting soliloquy that basically charged the committee with prying into his private life. Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski countered, "We are not the Senate Select Committee on Voyeurism." When the droning debate tied up Senate business for a second full day, legislators grew impatient. Finally Tuesday evening, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia implored his embattled colleague to sacrifice himself for the larger good: "None of us is without flaws. But when those flaws damage the institution of the Senate, it is time to have the grace to go."

Many other Senators, who are still smarting from Packwood's veiled threat of two weeks ago, privately agree that he should resign. That step not only would bring a rapid end to the ethics committee's sexual-misconduct inquiry, prompted by allegations by at least 26 women, but would also spare the Senate the discomfort of deciding what punitive action to take if the charges prove convincing (although his resignation would not prevent the women from pursuing lawsuits). If he fails to resign, the ethics committee may decide to push forward shortly with open hearings on the sexual-harassment charges. A colleague could also call for Packwood's expulsion from the Senate -- but as yet no Senator has shown such an inclination. Only 15 Senators have been expelled from the Senate, all for treason.

Packwood vows to serve out his fifth term and fight the subpoena for his diaries. Although the federal court is expected to move quickly on the Senate's request, if Packwood is not satisfied with the outcome, he threatens an appeal that "could take years." If he runs out the appeals process and still refuses to comply, Packwood could face civil contempt penalties. Meanwhile, he creates an opportunity for the committee to delve further into the possibility of criminal misconduct. Packwood's unfortunate pattern is that each attempt he makes to preserve his privacy seems to turn up the wattage of scrutiny even further.

With reporting by Julie Johnson/Washington and John Snell/Portland