The House prescribed itself a curious treatment last week to help heal its wounded ethics investigation process.
It ordered more secrecy and less involvement by outsiders.Even more curious is that ethics committee Chairman Jim Hansen, R-Utah, supported it - even though he had called for something almost exactly opposite earlier this year.
Last January, he proposed turning over the process entirely to a panel of outsiders, such as ex-judges and ex-House members.
At that time, Hansen said such a radical move was warranted because "it's not just reality that counts in this business. It's perception. And the perception is that this (House) is a good ol' boys club."
Critics, of course, say that more secrecy and less involvement by outsiders now won't exactly dim that good ol' boy image.
But Hansen spoke in favor of such changes during House debate last week - including an amendment that bans outsiders from directly filing complaints themselves. They first must find another House member to file it on their behalf.
"I do not want this agenda set by outsiders," Hansen told House members.
Gary Ruskin, director of the Congressional Accountability Project, said the problem with that change is most members are afraid to file or forward complaints against powerful leaders.
For example, one member Ruskin's group says should be investigated for ethics violations is Rep. Bud Shuster, R-Pa. But he is chairman of the Transportation Committee - so few would dare cross him for fear of losing highway funds back home.
Under old rules, outsiders like Ruskin could file a complaint directly if they could obtain in writing refusals by three House members to file it on their behalf. He said that took months. But filing such a complaint now under new rules, he says, is "between very difficult and impossible."
So Ruskin said, "Hansen's performance on the floor was disgraceful. When it came to standing up against crooked politicians, he acted like a weak-kneed coward."
Hansen said he isn't too upset by such criticism. "I consider it a badge of honor if it comes from those people" - and said new rules result in large part from what he says is abuse of the system by rivals of incumbents or groups such as Ruskin's.
"Their sole reason for existence is to find nasty stories about politicians, and the vast majority is hearsay," Hansen said.
So the new ethics rules take extra steps to ensure that what Hansen describes as "half-truths and fairy tales" contained in many complaints aren't made public until found to have serious merit after quiet investigation.
For example, new rules allow Hansen and the committee's ranking Democrat, Howard Berman of California, to decide jointly within 14 days to reject any complaint they feel is frivolous.
Also, all roll call votes are secret unless a majority votes to release them; all members and staff must take a confidentiality oath; and only Hansen and Berman are allowed to make statements about the committee - after consulting each other.
Hansen said all that should help weed out politically motivated and false allegations and still catch and punish serious violators - and thus help protect the House.
And he said new rules should help avoid the type of partisan bickering that led to a dissolution of the ethics committee in January after a probe into House Speaker Newt Gingrich led to a $300,000 fine - which was marred by members allegedly leaking a damning tape recording of Gingrich to the press.
The changes may do all that. But they won't change the public perception that the House is still a good ol' boys club.
It is still policing itself. And with more secrecy, it's tougher for the public to know whether the ethics committee is looking the other way for friends, or is truly being fair and tough.
And, as Hansen said, perception is reality in politics.