House Committee urges Snyder to talk

Commanders owner has until Monday to reply to Congress’ bid

The chairwoman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform wrote Friday that she found no “valid reason” for Washington Commanders owner Daniel Snyder’s refusal to testify at next week’s Capitol Hill hearing on the team’s workplace issues and urged him to “reconsider his decision.”

In a six-page letter to Karen Patton Seymour, an attorney for Snyder, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, DN. offered some “additional accommodations” to convince Snyder to agree to testify but characterized other request for special treatment as “highly unusual and inappropriate.” She gave Snyder until Monday morning to reply.

The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is expected to testify remotely.

In a four-page letter Wednesday from Seymour, Snyder declined the committee’s initial invitation to appear at the hearing. Seymour cited issues of “fundamental fairness and due process.” Seymour also wrote that Snyder has a “long-standing Commanders-business conflict” and plans to be out of the country on the June 22 hearing date.

In her reply Friday, Maloney addressed point by point the reasons provided by Seymour on Snyder’s behalf. Maloney characterized some of those reasons as spurious and others as inaccurate, while finding none of them valid.

“Your June 6 and June 15 letters to the Committee contain a number of inaccurate assertions and demands but do not include any valid reason for Mr. Snyder’s refusal to appear at the June 22 hearing,” she wrote.

“The Committee intends to move forward with this hearing and uncover the truth about the toxic workplace culture at the Commanders under Mr. Snyder’s leadership,” Maloney wrote. “I write today to address certain mischaracterizations and demands in your letter and to offer additional accommodations to address concerns that you raised. In light of these accommodations and the importance of Mr. Snyder’s testimony, I urge Mr. Snyder to reconsider his decision to decline public testimony and by doing so refusing to accept accountability for his actions and the culture he has fostered within his team.”

The team did not immediately respond to a request to comment.

Maloney noted that the committee extended invitations to Snyder and Goodell in June 1 letters and asserted that three weeks’ notice was “ample time” to reschedule personal conflicts and exceeds the committee’s customary practice.

As for the business conflict and plan to be out of the country that Seymour cited among the reasons Snyder could not attend, Maloney noted that the committee is allowing Snyder to appear remotely.

Given that Goodell has chosen that option, Maloney wrote, Snyder should be able to both participate in the hearing and “attend an awards ceremony in France.”

Snyder’s refusal to testify, she wrote, would be “inconsistent” with his repeated promises to cooperate with the committee. Moreover, it would “cast doubt on your assertion that the Commanders are now ‘a model of how to make extraordinary improvements in workplace culture.‘”

“Mr. Snyder is no different than any other witness whose testimony the Committee seeks as part of an important investigation,” Maloney wrote. “Any suggestion that the Committee has treated Mr. Snyder unfairly is unfounded, especially given that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has agreed to testify voluntarily at the same hearing.”

The committee has not issued a subpoena to try to compel Snyder to testify.