BOSTON — A female lawmaker's allegation that a male House colleague told her, "I could really hurt you if I wanted to," is providing a rare public glimpse into one of the most secretive panels on Beacon Hill.
The House Ethics Committee is investigating the complaint by Rep. Jennifer Callahan, D-Sutton, but members of the panel are prohibited not only from discussing the case publicly but also from disclosing any information about any matters before them.
Nor can they reveal even the most basic details of the committee's operations — such as how many complaints they deal with in any given year.
One thing is known about the Ethics Committee's work, however: It rarely finds anything unethical about the behavior of any member of the House, even when those members admit to, or are convicted of, wrongdoing.
If the committee does recommend disciplinary action against Callahan's colleague, it will be the first time in nearly two decades it has held a lawmaker accountable for violating House ethics rules.
Rep. Michael Costello, D-Newburyport, is the only local lawmaker on the 11-member panel.
He said secrecy protects lawmakers who file complaints and lawmakers who might be the target of politically motivated charges.
"There is real value in having a confidential process until and unless there's an action to substantiate," Costello said.
The chairman of the Ethics Committee, Rep. James Fagan, D-Taunton, politely referred to House rules when he declined to answer questions about the Callahan case, the way the panel hears complaints, the number of cases referred to the committee during this legislative session, the number that resulted in punishment, and whether it ever meets in public.
"The rule exists to protect the integrity of the committee's actions," Fagan said.
Government watchdogs, like Common Cause's Pam Wilmot, said the committee's secrecy is unwarranted.
While siding with lawmakers' concerns about privacy, Wilmot called the unwillingness to discuss how the committee works — even though its procedures for handling allegations are posted on the Legislature's Web site — "a little extreme."
She also said the committee should publicly document its work.
"I think there is a line where some transparency would be helpful, particularly around procedures, general statistics, cases disposed of and if there is a specific action," Wilmot said.
Rep. Linda Dean Campbell, D-Methuen, went even further. She said the House should open up the process entirely, telling the public when a charge has been leveled against a lawmaker.
"We're elected officials," Campbell said. "Given we file our statements of (financial) interest, what funding we receive and from whom, that's all public. So if there's some evidence of wrongdoing in the conduct of public business, that should all be public knowledge."
Nothing since 1991
Because of the House policy, little beyond what happened in public view and was reported in newspapers is known about the confrontation that sparked the investigation.
Callahan, a three-term Democrat, alleged she was threatened late on Friday, May 2, as the House was debating health-care spending in next year's budget. She said she was confronted by a male colleague who was upset over comments Callahan made earlier in the week about the inability to get funding for a hospice care program for severely ill children. She said the male lawmaker told her, "I could make things real difficult for you. I mean, Jen, I could really hurt you if I wanted to."
House Speaker Sal DiMasi then banged his gavel and cut off Callahan before she could go into any more detail. She has refused to identify the male colleague.
The committee does disclose when it has verified a complaint or decided to punish a lawmaker by filing a report with the House clerk.
But the last time that happened was in 1991, when William Weld was governor.
One reason could be that the House rules list just 15 ethical restrictions. Those include using campaign money for personal use, using a legislative position for financial gain, serving on a committee that handles legislation where a conflict of interest would occur, accepting gifts greater than $100, casting a vote for an absent member, discussing an Ethics Committee case or verbally abusing a colleague.
A number of prominent legislators have committed what could be considered ethical breaches and have been punished for them outside the Legislature. Two House speakers have stepped down: Charles Flaherty after pleading guilty to federal tax evasion and Thomas Finneran prior to pleading guilty to obstruction of justice, a felony, in a federal voting rights case.
In 1994, a judge ruled that then-Rep. Kevin Fitzgerald, a Boston Democrat who acted as an attorney for a mentally ill "bag lady," manipulated the woman into leaving him and an aide a $400,000 inheritance.
If the Ethics Committee considered those cases, it took no action.
The ethics of some committee members also have been questioned.
Rep. Eugene O'Flaherty, D-Chelsea, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is also a defense attorney who is among lawmakers blamed for watering down a 2005 law cracking down on drunken drivers.
Another member is Rep. Thomas Petrolati, D-Ludlow, who has accepted campaign contributions from known felons, according to published reports. Petrolati, speaker pro tempore, ranks second only to the speaker.
"The proof is in the action," Wilmot said. "And they haven't done much of anything. That's what the public will be concerned about, and do they think the result is appropriate."
