Dave Game 1990
Marietta Bleasdale
June had been unkind to Stewart. After he opened the year by winning his first six starts, the opposition was having a laugh at his expense in recent weeks. Entering his final start of the month, Stewart was 1-4 in five June starts with a 4.58 ERA. He pitched three complete games, including a shutout, but yielded seven runs apiece in the two other starts. The Blue Jays hoped their offense, leading the major leagues in runs scored, combined with an inconsistent Stewart, would be the antidote to a dismal week in which they lost four straight games to Boston at Fenway Park to fall out of first place, 3 games behind the Red Sox in the American League East Division.
Obviously, it would not be easy. Exactly one month before in Oakland, Stewart had pitched a complete game in a 2-1 loss to the Blue Jays, allowing just one earned run. Moreover, the last time Stewart had pitched at SkyDome, eight months ago, he defeated Toronto with eight innings of two-run ball, earning Oakland its second straight AL pennant.
Stewart was in the midst of a four-year stretch (1987-1990) in which he won 20-plus games each season, led the American League in games started three times, in complete games twice, and all major league pitchers in innings pitched twice. He was unquestionably the ace of the dominant Oakland teams that won three straight pennants and the 1989 World Series.
In the bottom of the first, Toronto leadoff man Junior Felix drew a walk, but was erased when he was caught stealing with Tony Fernandez batting. Stewart also walked Fernandez, but dispatched the Blue Jays by striking out Kelly Gruber and getting George Bell to fly out to deep left-center.
After Cerutti held Oakland scoreless in the second inning, Stewart headed to the mound mindful of the 20 pitches he threw in the first and knew he needed to be more efficient. Suddenly, it was as if he flipped a switch and reverted back to being the dominant hurler American League batters had feared for years. Against three left-handed batters, he struck out the side, catching powerful Fred McGriff looking, then John Olerud and Greg Myers swinging.
Stewart went back to work in the bottom half and used just 10 pitches to retire the Jays in order on a weak groundout and two more strikeouts. The fourth inning was more of the same as Stewart threw 10 pitches again to dismiss Toronto in order.
The focus turned back to Stewart in the bottom of the frame, when he was even more efficient, throwing seven pitches in a three-up, three-down inning. Stewart had not even gone to a two-ball count on any of the batters he faced in the third, fourth and fifth innings.
In the seventh the Athletics widened their lead thanks once again to the trio of Weiss, Gallego and Rickey Henderson. Weiss led off with a double and Gallego again sacrificed. With the right-handed Henderson due up, the Blue Jays relieved southpaw Cerutti with right-hander Willie Blair.
The Athletics now had 10 no-hitters in franchise history: five when they were based in Philadelphia and five in Oakland.10 It was the second time the Blue Jays had been no-hit, and the first time a major league no-hitter had been thrown in Toronto.
Background
On September 27, 1988, the Select Committee on Ethics received a complaint from 39 members of the Minnesota Bar alleging financial improprieties by David F. Durenberger (Republican-MN). At the time, the senator was in the midst of his third senatorial campaign.
Statement of the Case
The complaint alleged that a financial agreement between David Durenberger and Piranha Press, which had published his books Neither Madmen Nor Messiahs and Prescription for Change, violated laws and rules within the committee's jurisdiction. In fairness to Durenberger, the committee waited until after the election to look into the charges. Then, based on the initial evidence and a response it received from Durenberger, the committee voted unanimously on March 1, 1989, to proceed with a preliminary inquiry, the first stage of the Ethics Committee's three-stage process. The results of that inquiry led the committee on August 3 to move to the second stage, an initial review, and to retain as special counsel Robert S. Bennett, who had served in that capacity during the 1981 Harrison Williams investigation. In December 1989, during the course of the Piranha Press inquiry, Minnesota newspapers printed a number of allegations about David Durenberger's ownership and use of a Minneapolis condominium, which became the subject of a second inquiry. By May 1990, the committee had found sufficient evidence of misconduct in both instances to proceed to the third stage, a full investigation with trial-like public hearings.
The committee held hearings on June 12 and 13, 1990. In his opening statement, Durenberger spoke movingly of his personal history and problems. Then, at the close of the opening statements, the senator waived his due process rights provided by the committee, including the rights to cross-examine witnesses, call and question his own witnesses, and testify on his own behalf. Instead, he asked the committee to rely on the written record in reaching its decision. This action terminated hearings that had been expected to receive extensive media coverage. In the written record, the senator had defended himself by arguing that he had made mistakes but that he had acted in good faith with no intention of violating any rules. The committee, however, rejected this defense, based on the evidence collected by the special counsel.
The committee unanimously agreed on July 18, 1990, that David Durenberger had "abused his United States Senate office and misused United States Senate funds." In its report issued two days later, the committee found that the senator's relationship with Piranha Press had been carefully structured to circumvent the limits on the amount of honoraria income a senator could receive. In 1985, David Durenberger had signed an agreement with the Press to speak to more than one hundred organizations to promote his books. Each group paid a fee to Piranha Press, which then paid Durenberger quarterly stipends for his efforts. At that time, ethics laws contained no limits on income from stipends while there was a limit on the amount of honoraria that could be received from speaking engagements. During a two-year period, the senator received $100,000 in stipend payments for these supposedly promotional appearances. The committee concluded that the purpose of the arrangement was not to sell the books but rather to allow Durenberger to deliver speeches to organizations that invited him because of his position as senator, not as author of the books, and to collect more payment than the law permitted.
Regarding the second part of the inquiry, the report found that, from 1984 to 1989, Durenberger had devised a complex series of transactions to obscure his ownership of the Minneapolis condominium he used on his visits there. The arrangement allowed him improperly to claim government reimbursement for rent paid. He charged the government a sufficiently high rate per day for the one hundred days a year that he used the unit for business that the reimbursements covered all his annual costs for the condominium. According to the committee report, such financial practices violated both Senate rules and governmental ethics. Other violations included: failing to report on his financial disclosure forms reimbursement from 43 organizations for travel costs for Piranha Press and trips to Boston for personal business; converting a $5,000 campaign contribution to personal use through a transfer to Piranha Press; and accepting free limousine services in Boston, thus breaking the Senate rule regulating acceptance of gifts from anyone with a direct interest in legislation before Congress. The committee did note that, at the time of these actions, Durenberger had been under severe personal stress that had impaired his judgment, but that this fact did not excuse his conduct.
The committee submitted to the Senate a resolution stating that Durenberger's conduct "has been reprehensible" and "in violation of statutes, rules and Senate standards and acceptable norms of ethical conduct." It recommended that he be "denounced" and that he be required to reimburse the Senate for the per diem funds and to donate the excess honoraria income to charity. Before the final report was released, David Durenberger wrote to the committee asking that he be "reprimanded" rather than denounced by the full Senate. In support of his request, he cited his lack of malicious intent and the many measures he had taken to comply with ethics legislation and rules. This plea was denied, based on Special Counsel Robert Bennett's recommendation in his report to the committee. In the 1981 case of Harrison Williams, Bennett declared, he had supported expulsion because the New Jersey senator had acted with "criminal intent." Durenberger, he believed, had not. On the other hand, he contended that a reprimand or other sanction not requiring action by the full Senate would be insufficient, because Durenberger had behaved unethically by "knowingly and willfully" violating laws, rules, and Senate standards.
Response of the Senate
On July 25, 1990, the full Senate considered the committee's resolution. Because David Durenberger unexpectedly informed his colleagues at the beginning of the session that he would not contest the resolution of censure, much of the debate addressed concerns about the disciplinary process and the role of the special counsel. Howell Heflin (Democrat-AL), chairman of the Ethics Committee, emphasized the bipartisan nature of the committee's deliberations and outlined the reasons for the panel's recommendations. He did express concern about the committee's role as prosecutor, judge, and jury. For future investigations, he suggested that the Senate might adopt a procedure similar to one that had been recently enacted by the House of Representatives, which divided the investigative and adjudicative functions into two separate subcommittees. One panel could then function as a grand jury and the other as a trial jury.