PROFESSIONALISM AND THE CFTC
I am writing in response to your article regarding the reorganization of the regional offices of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("The watchdog who barked at Hillary," News: Analysis & Commentary, Mar. 27). I am disappointed that although I had several conversations with your reporter, the article contained misleading information, distortions, and innuendo.
As a result of an exhaustive, four-month study of the commission's enforcement processes, I decided to recommend to the commission several structural and personnel changes, which included reassigning Dennis A. Klejna, in order to strengthen our enforcement program. (I refer you to BUSINESS WEEK articles on Oct. 3 and 24, 1994, criticizing the program.)
On Feb. 17, 1995, members of my senior staff and I briefed each member of the commission on the study and my decision and asked whether they would support the changes I recommended, including the reassignment of Mr. Klejna. The commission unanimously supported the changes. Because the purpose of my conversation with Commissioner Barbara Holum was to brief her on the reassignment, it is absurd to suggest that the conversation caused the reassignment.
On Feb. 21 (not Mar. 8, as your article states), Mr. Klejna was asked, as a result of the review and the commissioners' unanimous agreement, to assume the newly created position of regional director for the New York regional office. Any suggestion that this reassignment was based on any reason other than improving the efficiency and credibility of the commission is completely unfounded and false.
As you state in your article, "BUSINESS WEEK has no evidence of White House meddling." Unfortunately, this accurate statement is buried several paragraphs into the story. In addition, though the article does not specifically state that the reassignment was politically motivated, the tone of the story, coupled with misleading statements, strongly leads the reader to this conclusion.
Mary L. Schapiro
Commodity Futures Trading