The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle wants to see the House Ethics Committee report on the Foley scandal.  They think it's already overdue.  And, they really want to know what the report says about their local member, Tom Reynolds:

For his part, Reynolds ran for re-election, and won, in part on the assertion that he knew little of Foley's advances to pages and that he dutifully reported what he knew to Speaker Dennis Hastert.

The veracity of that contention remains an important matter, one the Ethics Committee must thoroughly investigate and in a timely way pass judgment on.

This page backed Reynolds for re-election with the proviso that, if it were found he had misrepresented the truth in his defense, he should step down.

The Ethics Committee played politics with this from the start. It could have issued an interim report prior to the election. But it didn't.

And it has done enough legwork by now to get its findings before the public. Let's see what it has.

Tough talk.  But, they are right.  We're waiting for the report, too.  And, Tom Reynolds is clearly on notice.  

While we're waiting for the Ethics Committee to wrap up its work on the Foley scandal, the blog at the NY Daily News broke some news yesterday:

Two senior aides to National Republican Campaign Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds participated in “damage control” conference calls concerning correspondence between Congressman Mark Foley and a former congressional page -- two days before the scandal became public, and earlier than previously reported.

NRCC Communications Director Carl Forti and Reynolds then chief-of-staff Kirk Fordham both took part in the first call the evening of Wednesday, September 27, and one call the next day, Forti and other sources familiar with the call confirmed. Forti's involvement and the NRCC's role in the run-up to the Foley scandal add another link between the disgraced former congressman and Reynolds, who has said he knew only indirectly of questionable emails, and that he reported them to his House superiors. They also reflect another moment at which House GOP leadership was aware of concerns about Foley and pages.

We still don't know who knew what when. But this sure makes things more interesting. We'll have to wait to see what the House Ethics Committee has to say.

Busy week for the House Ethics Committee. Today, the panel heard testimony from a central figure in the case -- the chief of staff to Speaker Dennis Hastert:

Scott Palmer, Hastert's chief of staff, has disputed statements that he was told by Foley's top aide in 2002 or 2003 about the Florida Republican's inappropriate computer-message come-ons to male pages.

Hastert, R-Ill., has released an internal report that said his aides first learned about Foley's inappropriate conduct in the fall of 2005. But that report did not mention any role that Palmer played at the time.

Palmer has not spoken publicly, except to say that the story of the 2002-2003 notification to him by ex-Foley chief of staff Kirk Fordham did not happen.

Tomorrow, the committee hears from Congressman Tom Reynolds (R-NY) who serves as the Chair of the House Republican's political operation:

Reynolds learned of the Foley matter last spring from Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., in the wake of media inquiries. Reynolds also discussed it with Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. Boehner told a Cincinnati talk show that he discussed the problem with Hastert and had been assured that it "had been taken care of."

More Hastert staffers will testify this week. The big question is whether the big guy himself, the Speaker, will appear.

We'll continue to monitor the unfolding events.

The Buffalo News covered several aspects of the growing Foley scandal today.  Congressman Tom Reynolds, who chairs the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC), was one of the first members of House Republican leadership to be informed about the Foley emails.  The congressional district that Reynolds represents includes the suburbs and exurbs of Buffalo.

The paper includes an article on the failure of House Republican leadership to respond in a manner appropriate to the situation. That paper interviewed several experts on child safety and sexual predators:

But critics described the lack of response as unacceptable, especially given the possibility that other children could have been endangered.

"This is something that should have been referred to the district attorney's office immediately," said Sharon Sisti, a clinical social worker and assistant professor of human services at Hilbert College. "Our responsibility as a society is to protect all kids, not just one."

Dr. Timothy M. Osberg, a psychologist and professor of psychology at Niagara University, said he viewed the situation as similar to that of reporters who are required by law to report evidence of child abuse.

The e-mail, he said, coupled with the boy's reaction to it, "should send up red flags."

And "there's a call to action" for an adult who becomes aware of the situation, he added.

Although not overtly sexual, the e-mail echoed the manner in which many sexual predators try to gain the confidence and friendship of a targeted victim, child welfare advocates said.

"It's a way for the perpetrator to test the waters," Sisti said. "Even if there isn't enough to warrant any kind of legal steps, certainly it may fall within the realm of ethics violations."

The safety of the children was obviously not the top concern of the House GOP leaders. That's particularly ironic since the House passed a bill on July 25, 2006 dealing with child sexual predators.  Apparently, no one in the House leadership applied any of their knowledge of that legislation to Foley situation.   

CREW's Melanie Sloan, who upon receiving the emails earlier this summer immediately sent them to the FBI, was also interviewed for this article:

But Foley's e-mail last year alone was enough for House leaders to relay the matter to authorities, said Melanie Sloan, a former prosecutor of sex crimes against children and the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

"That nobody thought to go anywhere to protect kids or discipline Foley is shocking," Sloan said. "Anybody who knew should have done something."

Everybody on Capitol Hill who knew should have done something. They did nothing.