Waxing on Walpin: Defending the Indefensible
[Hmmm... this software seems to have the most braindead version of "autosave" imaginable. Okay, it saved *THE TITLE*. Thanks. No thanks.]
[Re-posted to set the clock back about 8 hours - i.e. the software declared "posted" when my first version crashed. Re-post includes revising "friend" of the Prez to "supporter"].
Adapted from a blog comment earlier.
TPMMuckraker has done some investigating re: the IG firing.
A couple of interesting items, such as it doesn't seem Walpin went
complaining to The Sacramento Bee, but instead he filed a complaint
with Congress, which possibly the Bee used as its source.
It's
not explained what
effect the false report claiming Walpin had written to The Bee had in
his investigation. Walpin
did admit he got confused at the May 20 meeting in question, when he
said it
appeared someone had mixed up his notes in his absence (and that he
wasn't feeling very well). "One or two-minute pauses where he was
unable to answer questions." Wow. I watched the SEC IG in front of
Congress, and she was unable to answer Alan Grayson's questions for an
hour while he lambasted and ridiculed her, and she still has her job.
And that was over billions of dollars.
The Walpin meeting took place on Wed, May 20. There was a 3-day
Memorial
Day Weekend May 23-25. Walpin was told to quit or be fired on June 10.
That's 14 or 15 work days in there, and presumably the panel
needed some time to carefully craft a letter and physically send it to
the White House, and the White House needed some time to carefully
review
the matter, especially seeing Johnson indeed had been found to have
misused funds and forced to give half of the amount back, just over
$400K (with a sweetheart deal of 10 years to do it). On the night
Walpin received his call, he informed his other side he was about to
release a similar report on CUNY. Did anyone interview Walpin in those
<3 calendar weeks before he was terminated? Did anyone review his
work in progress? The answer appears to be "negatory".
Someone was in an awful hurry to remove a successful IG. People have tried to paint Walpin as a Bush hack, but he was in private practice/New York Attorney's office for the 40 years prior to his 2007 appointment as IG - not the typical partisan flack, whatever his comments about Kerry & Kennedy. Let's try that one again - WALPIN PUBLICLY SUPPORTS SOTOMAYOR. When he got his "Dear John" call, he thought it was another paper calling to ask about the Supreme Court nominee. Disliking Teddy does not a rabid wingnut make.
There's
little doubt that Sacramento was in a tough spot. They elected a guy
who they knew to be disqualified for federal funds. I don't know if
there was a satisfactory compromise - such as Johnson would recuse
himself from all government grants activities, or to promise really
really hard that he wouldn't use any more money to have his car washed.
I can sympathize that Sacramento was looking forward to having a friend
of their mayor be the newly elected President of the US, and just
gushing over the oodles of cash coming their way. But I can't very much
sympathize with a rash firing of an independent overseer, especially
one who had found malfeasance specifically in the case he was fired
for.
Walpin's biggest complaint seems to be that he was locked out of the settlement meetings, a settlement that not only was financially miraculous (estimates are that St. Hope will never be able to pay back the half of the misused funds assessed), but also that the ban on Kevin Johnson and thus Sacramento from receiving federal funds was dropped.
Why specifically was Walpin fired? He agreed that
something went wrong with the meeting on May 20, which was bandied
about as the reason for the rapid fire "investigation" through which
Obama "lost confidence'' in him. A medical check and a follow-up
interview would seem in order there. Then the excuse became "unduly
disruptive" with "trouble and inappropriate conduct". Did that
inappropriate conduct include the unverified rumor he'd gone to The
Bee? Some have made a big deal about St. Hope's "bi-partisan board",
but there are a number of Republicans looking to carefully walk the
line with the new Democratic Administration, especially if that means
their organization can stay alive - how many Democrats have been
co-opted by Republicans to save their pet programs in the past? Didn't
Republican Michael Bloomberg support both Obama and Caroline Kennedy,
rather well-known Democrats?
Overall, the episode is
tone-deaf and unseemly. An Administration that has missed several
deadlines to provide information to Congress, some of which were months
in the making, but can manage to shove an independent IG out the door
in a matter of days, one who just happened to be making life
uncomfortable for a friend supporter of the Prez.
And
perhaps important around here - why isn't TPMMuckraker verifying
whether Walpin was the source of The Bee's article or not? Why isn't
Muckraker getting the exculpatory evidence that Walpin supposedly
didn't turn over to his supervisors? No one can remember what Walpin's
oringal actions were that started the concern before May 20, and the
big complaint about him in an "Equal Employment Opportunity probe" was
that he became "intimidating". Does that mean "angry" or that he
bunched up his fists? Does this start to sound like high school? Here's
another example of someone who becomes "intimidating" and has to be restrained. But if people were making you the object of investigation for doing your job well, how exactly would you respond?
The
reality of this is none of this "reporting" tells us whether Walpin
indeed did his job, and it would be nice to have an interview that asks
him the tough questions, asks the board members the tough questions,
gets the prior infringements and complaints delineated, and perhaps
even talks to Kevin Johnson? I mean, these are public funds we're
talking about - we do have independent oversight for a reason.
Remember all the feeble crap excuses that Alberto Gonzales gave during the DOJ attorney firings scandal? Do feeble excuses sound better coming from a Democrat?
UPDATE: Obama appointing former head of NRCC as his cyberczar - okay, so what about the impression that "bi-partisan" must mean true? Generally when Rebuplicans and Decromats agree, there are pools and bundles of money to be made. Oodles and oodles.
UPDATE 2: Walpin's response to Brown's complaint is worth reading. Excerpts intentionally not provided - Walpin is methodical and worth considering.
UPDATE 3: Walpin's letter in April to Congress. If this is senility, I'm likely suffering from Alzheimer's. I start to understand how Walpin might have felt bad at the May 20 meeting - with all the board members determined to override Kevin Johnson's suspension to make sure Sacramento could get stimulus funds, I'm sure there wasn't a lot of sympathy to Walpin's interest in referring to the facts of the investigation.
.....Remember all the feeble crap excuses that Alberto Gonzales gave during the DOJ attorney firings scandal? Do feeble excuses sound better coming from a Democrat?
The TPMMuckraker article implies that is was the Americorps board, not the WH that initiated the review of Walpin's performance. The first board member stated in error that Walpin contacted the Sacramento Bee. The second Americorps board member seems to confirm the story given by the first, that the board initiated the action.
The WH stated that the confusion shown at the May meeting was the reason that the review was initiated. That seems to agree with the board members version.
There also appeared to be an issue of Walpin over-personalizing review that he was pursuing. Perhaps there is a question of ageism in having a 78 year old appear confused in a meeting. There is also a possibility that over-personalization, confusion and intimidation point to senility.
On the issue of Sotomayor, Walpin publicly supports her. On the Kerry/Kennedy issue, Walpin apparently used the term "Kerry Kennedy Klan". Kevin Johnson is African-American. We can get into a Moebius strip argument about a racial aspect here, but the truth is that the comment about senility above and the Walpin comment which was more like about about an Irish clan are all a flight of ideas. You can pick what you choose to believe.
I don't think the Obama administration has reached a GW/Gonzales level of feeble excuses on this topic. Let's wait and see where a thorough review ends up and not take off in a flight of frenzy.
June 22, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Kennedy's call themselves the "Kennedy Clan", being from Ireland and all. While you might not like the "Kerry Kennedy Klan" bit, AFAIK it was not made in reference to Kevin Johnson or blacks at all, except perhaps suggesting those famed Massachusetts liberals are white racists (Kerry being an honorary addition to the Kennedy family - perhaps Obama now as well). But mostly I think it was just a joke, equating Irish "Clan" with "Klan" and of course the usage of the letter "K".
The Administration started its way into feeble excuses, and Democrats fall into blind acceptance and "wait for the thorough review". The thorough review already happened somewhere in those 14 days. He has lost the President's trust, he is history.
June 22, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
..........but the truth is that the comment about senility above and the Walpin comment which was more likely about an Irish clan.............
Corrected phrase is above. The Kerry Kennedy Klan comment came from a response found in your TPMMucker link. My first response was of an Irish clan, that's why I said more like (Should have been more likely). The TPMMuckraker commenter felt differently and tied it to race.
The final review of what happened with Walpin will be when journalists or bloggers continue to try to flesh out the story.
If I say I'm not fully convinced that the WH's response to the board was inappropriate, then I'm a Democratic party member "falling into line"? The two board member stories seem to agree for the most part. The board member's statement about Walpin going to the Bee rather than having made a Congressional complaint, may have been because the board member either saw the story in, or was contacted by a Sacramento Bee reporter before the Congressional complaint news got back to him.
We happen to disagree on how to respond to the facts in the Walpin case, sketchy as they are. It is an honest disagreement. Your interpretation of the facts is different then mine. That is your personal belief. I disagree with the Obama administration on several issues. I am not "falling into line". No more than your disagreement on Walpin is being taken from Drudge or Malkin.
We simply disagree.
June 22, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because the Muckraker commenter felt so doesn't make it so. The reference was a joke about Massachusetts being run by the KKK, referring to those liberal Irish guys, not to Kevin Johnson or blacks.
If you defend a rushed dismissal without expecting the facts, then yes, you're probably falling in line. The Inspector Generals are supposed to be independent, and their dismissal is a serious matter, whatever Administration it's in. There can certainly be grounds for it, but not to be done lightly.
June 23, 2009 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I already stated that when I heard Kerry Kennedy Klan, I thought of Irish clans. Can I make that more clear? If you want to convert my referring to another commenter who saw KKK and connected the consonants to race as my calling Kerry and Kennedy racists feel free. It's not fact based, but it is your right.
Walpin did the investigation and found wrongdoing. Walpin was not happy with the fines handed out. The US attorney felt that that Walpin was being overbearing and filed a complaint. The US attorney was a Republican appointee. Now, in a workplace setting were a reviewer has done his job and the independent person handing out the punishment feels that the reviewer is being overzealous, it is likely that you are going to have some doubts about the reviewer. A US attorney filed a complaint about the IG. How frequently does that happen?
As I understand the status, Kevin Johnson is under investigation by the FBI. Money had to be repaid to the government. If Kevin Johnson steal money from the government for personal use,send Johnson to jail. Did government money get spent by the Hope organization for frivolous items? Punish those in the wrong. Did money get spent by the Hope organization for something beneficial, but not directly covered by what the government contract dictated? Give back the money that wasn't spent properly. Access a fine if deemed necessary.
One form of checks and balances is that you do not create an office that is judge, jury and executioner. Walpin wanted that power. Since the FBI is still investigating Kevin Johnson, the WH is not the final arbiter of Johnson's fate.
June 23, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I simply said that if there were any "racism" involved in the remarks, it was Walpin calling Kerry-Kennedy racists, no mention of anyone else. In any case, I think it was just a joke.
Regarding "judge, jury and executioner", Walpin never claimed he should be the one to prosecute cases. He said he passes on recommendations to the US Attorney's office, and they decide whether civil and/or criminal charges not only are justified but can likely brought to success. Walpin also didn't claim he decides whether to suspend people from receiving public funds. He as OIG makes a recommendation and the responsible party for suspension evaluates and acts accordingly. In this case, Johnson and others were suspended, presumably because Walpin's recommendation to the officer in charge was strong enough. That this suspension was rescinded 6 months later doesn't mean the original filing was flawed. There was certainly a lot of political pressure to get suspension off the table, since it no longer meant just Johnson & St. Hope, but as Mayor it meant all of Sacramento.
If you can explain what excessive power Walpin wanted, I'm all ears. I assume you've read Walpin's response to Black and his report to Congress. I don't see anything controversial from his side, and they seem to be better and more completely written than Black's complaints.
Walpin includes explanations of what he considers the duties of the OIG. If you feel he is mistaken, please point out where.
June 23, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
...........I assume you've read Walpin's response to Black and his report to Congress. I don't see anything controversial from his side, and they seem to be better and more completely written than Black's complaints.
Did you mean US attorney Brown? Walpin wanted a more aggressive penalty. If the US attorney did exactly what Walpin wanted, would not the effect have been tha Walpin investigated, judged and determined the penalties to be filed? Walpin does point to the IG having a leadership role in the situation, but is not the US attorney the leader on legal matters?
US attorneys make judgments all the time. Should the community of Sacramento have been penalized? Was anything that US attorney Brown did illegal?
June 23, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should the community of Sacramento be penalized for electing someone who was disqualified from grants? Well, perhaps, maybe, probably. Don't put the burden on the OIG. If New York elects Madoff governor, should Madoff be allowed to receive federal money? Don't like it? Change the suspension requirements, don't smear the OIG. Of course someone who builds a legal case isn't going to like all punishments dismissed because politically it's not so nice. Theoretically we have a legal system of law, not a political system of law. If Sacramento elected a convicted murderer, should we dismiss charges so he/she can serve?
June 23, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lessee, reversing an investigation's outcome to let a person of proven disregard for taxpayer money get to handle even more taxpayer money. Nothing wrong there, move along.
Of course if *ACTING* Attorney General Brown did it to become *PERMANENT* Attorney General, that's also a quid pro quo of questionable legality. Never mind, we're not doing that this year.
June 23, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
...............Should the community of Sacramento be penalized for electing someone who was disqualified from grants? Well, perhaps, maybe, probably.
Here is where we disagree. Prosecuting attorneys have discretion. A nonviolent youth could be charged for drug possession under local or federal statutes. If federal charges are applied, mandatory minimum sentences could kick in rather than possible rehabilitation and community service or lower jail time. The prosecutor has the ability to assess the best way to charge the offender.
Government money is supposed to get paid back. Kevin Johnson is still under FBI investigation. Johnson and Hope are not being let go. I think the penalty for Sacramento would have been too harsh. Sacramento does not have to suffer. Johnson may face further legal penalties.
The Madoff analogy does not apply. Madoff would have been in jail on criminal charges and out of the picture.
June 23, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
- Later that month, Walpin, on behalf of CNCS, released the findings of the federal probe, which it appears he had led. Walpin found that St. HOPE had improperly used hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money, by using AmeriCorps volunteers to run errands for Johnson, wash his car, and do political work relating to a local school board race. Saying he had found "potential criminal violations," Walpin recommended that while the US attorney's office's investigation was ongoing, Johnson and another St. HOPE official be barred from receiving federal money. But as the Bee would later note in an editorial, "Walpin decided to act before any legal body determined whether irregularities in the administration of grants from 2004-2007 reflected inadvertent errors and ignorance of regulations or actual fraud."
- Nonetheless, days later, a "debarment official" at CNCS followed up on Walpin's recommendation, taking the rare step of issuing a letter suspending Johnson and the other official from receiving federal funds. Walpin touted the news in "huge red headlines" on his IG website, according to the Bee.
- The Bee would later find that, since its inception in 1994, the NCSC had suspended only two other organizations and three other people, and that the irregularities at St. HOPE were similar to those found at other nonprofits that were not suspended.
June 23, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
- Later that month, Walpin, on behalf of CNCS, released the findings of the federal probe, which it appears he had led. Walpin found that St. HOPE had improperly used hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money, by using AmeriCorps volunteers to run errands for Johnson, wash his car, and do political work relating to a local school board race. Saying he had found "potential criminal violations," Walpin recommended that while the US attorney's office's investigation was ongoing, Johnson and another St. HOPE official be barred from receiving federal money. But as the Bee would later note in an editorial, "Walpin decided to act before any legal body determined whether irregularities in the administration of grants from 2004-2007 reflected inadvertent errors and ignorance of regulations or actual fraud."
- Nonetheless, days later, a "debarment official" at CNCS followed up on Walpin's recommendation, taking the rare step of issuing a letter suspending Johnson and the other official from receiving federal funds. Walpin touted the news in "huge red headlines" on his IG website, according to the Bee.
- The Bee would later find that, since its inception in 1994, the NCSC had suspended only two other organizations and three other people, and that the irregularities at St. HOPE were similar to those found at other nonprofits that were not suspended.
June 23, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Significantly, neither the Suspension and Debarment Official who received my “advocacy” of suspension, nor the Corporation General Counsel, to whom we provided a copy of that “advocacy,” ever objected to it. Indeed, after months of review of the facts and arguments provided, the Suspension and Debarment Official, with the advice of the Corporation’s General Counsel, ordered the suspensions, thereby adopting OIG’s recommendation"
Note that the IG did not "act" - he recommended to the appropriate body, who accepted his recommendation. 6 months later, that action was arbitrarily reversed due to an election.
"On June 30, 2008 -- almost three months before the suspension was ordered --
Supervisory Special Agent Morales discussed the OIG recommendation for suspension with
Assistant U.S. Attorney John Vincent. Agent Morales informed AUSA Vincent that the
Suspension and Debarment Official, who was being advised by the Corporation’s General
Counsel, had asked the United States Attorney’s Office to provide a letter requesting that, if a
suspension were ordered, no fact finding take place in the suspension proceeding until the U.S.
Attorney completed his investigation... On September 9, 2008, then AUSA Brown provided SSA Morales with a letter signed by
U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott, asking that, if a suspension order were issued, there not be any
“fact finding . . .until [the U.S. Attorney’s] office completes review of the referral.” (A copy of that letter is attached as exhibit A)."
So the Attorney General not only knew about the suspension well in advance, he provided written approval for it. The revisionist view is akin to the police finding a burglar walking out of a house with a TV, but not being able to apprehend him until he's been convicted. Suspension for receiving new grants can only happen after a trial? And it's not like Johnson contested what had happened. Point #3 is the "everyone's stealing public funds, why are we being punished?" excuse. Truly convincing.
June 23, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This merely indicates that at one point in time they trusted his judgment. That trust has since been betrayed.
The same people that ok'd his actions, now feel he doesn't have the capacity to fulfill his duties.
June 23, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was no followup event - they approved his remedies for the action, and then later they reversed the remedies, not because of him, but because of the election.
June 23, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
OR IT WAS AN UNJUST ACTION BEING RECTIFIED
June 23, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I had read on this was a recap yesterday or the day before, but even then I had an odd feeling about the story or how it was framed (it certainly seems that something's being left out here). It may just be that the WH, Board and TPMMuckraker are all going out of their way to avoid obvious (but wrong) conclusions, which will be drawn by Drudge, Fox, et al. But it doesn't add up. And really, because the man's 78, was confused at one meeting (where he'd claimed before he had a flu bug and jumbled his notes), and "intimidated" someone- this adds up to senile dementia?
The article I read laid much of the reason for firing him on the fact that he wanted to work from home. What happened to that complaint? There's a new story about how Reagan and other Presidents fire these IGs. Why is TPM going to such lengths to excuse this? Even the story Des links to claiming the board initiated the firing sounds like a weasel-worded stretch: "The firing "would not have played itself out" were it not for the fact that the board raised concerns..."
I expected to find that Muckraker had looked into the St. Hope charges in detail but all I could find was an initial summary of the Bee's take, ending with this:
Note, especially, that last sentence. Anyway, I'd think that Muckraker would at least investigate in detail exactly what way funds were misused before concluding the IG's office went too far. Seems pretty odd to me that Johnson would have to pay back $400,000 just because he ran a "loose" operation. If he did indeed use grant monies to fund political operations among other things, that would seem to be criminal malfeasance to me (I remember when Jim Wright was forced by Newt Gingrich to resign as House Speaker over some loose dealings with his book). It's not out of the question that TPM is letting its support of Obama (or the Left or Democrats) cloud its judgment.
June 22, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between knowing that you are involved in wrongful taking (criminal) and not knowing the constraints covering the funds in question. Yes, there was a misappropriation of funds. Was it criminal taking, no.
Steve Goldsmith is chairman of board at Corporation for National and Community Service (oversees Americorp). He is the former two term mayor of Indianapolis and a Republican of the "true" conservative nature. He also served as Marion County Prosecutor. Goldsmith signed off on Walpin's fate, in my mind that makes it apolitical.
June 22, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a lawyer (perhaps you are) and I repeat that I don’t think everything has come out regarding this. We need the details in context, and it could possibly be a matter of sloppiness in managing government grant monies. But if so, and from what we do know, the negligence is so gross as to be almost ironic to call it “sloppy” or “loose bookkeeping.”
I’m not a fan of Charles Grassly but I doubt anything in his letter here requesting information is overstated. And he repeats these apparent facts:
Who would not see that as serious wrong-doing? Johnson had to immediately pay back $73,000 of the $400,000 (less than half what was misappropriated). That means that he personally misused at least $73,000, some towards political campaigning in school board elections. How can that not to be assumed criminal activity? Mr. Johnson is the mayor of a large city and was overseeing a large government program here. I have little doubt that 9 out of 10 guys stopped on the street would know it's wrong to misuse funds and volunteers this way, so how could he not?
Still, I await more details and hopefully, the FBI will conduct an impartial investigation. The problem, going back to the ‘80s at least, with political scandals and ethics enforcement is that as one party excuses its own when in power they can hardly complain about the other doing the same (or they fear retaliation).
Is this a big deal in the scheme of things (especially considering the protection from accountability of the last criminal administration)? No, but this is an all or nothing game. Having a little integrity is like being a little bit pregnant. All government servants need to be held to higher standards commensurate with the powers they’re given. It’s time to end the politicization of government.
June 22, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's good to read Brown's accusations and Walpin's response as well - for example Walpin explains The Bee business in some detail, and it's a wonder why Muckraker didn't notice this.
Areas Walpin differentiates are criminal vs. civil charges, and contract fraud vs. grant fraud. Of course proving criminal charges is much harder than the civil side, and part of the referral to the Attorney General is to see what can be successfully prosecuted.
June 23, 2009 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, as you say, the speed of settling and quashing Walpin’s recommendation of “civil and/or criminal prosecution.”
Here’s his report to Congress after the settlement. It looks very thorough and gives the sense that Johnson, in particular, was uncooperative (doesn't seem like a report from a senile Republican hack). I’ve just scanned it but looking at the allegations on page 8, number 5 seems particularly troubling.
On the settlement lifting debarment, from which he was excluded, after Johnson became Mayor:
June 23, 2009 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too big to fail, where have I seen that before?
June 23, 2009 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a lawyer; but, a friend of mine explained it to me. Intent is the key.
There ARE many details missing. Walpin did not have St Hope audited. This would have provided more meaningful info. My attorney friend related to me that many of these not for profit operations are run by "well intentioned" people who have no idea pertaining to how funds can be legitimately or illegitimately used. Quite often it's lack of proper communication and oversight.
He cited the "car washing" example; explaining, that it was possibly just "make-work". Clients on the program may have had idle time and were given various tasks by supervisory staff to fill the requisite hours. Said "make-work" may have not been in compliance with grant guidelines.
I defer to Steve Goldsmith's judgement on this issue. You may not be familiar with Goldsmith; I am, he is as straight as they come and would not have signed off on a settlement or Walpin's dismissal if he felt there were any shenanigans
June 23, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense. Walpin explains: there are guidelines on how money can be used. It was not stolen, but it was not used according to the grant guidelines, so no need to do an audit. Just return the money. A St. Hope employee can't do the same job but be paid by Americorps - it has to be a different job function that fits the grant. Obviously washing Johnson's car is out too.
St. Hope did not even have the paperwork required to document its finances, as required by the grant, so doing an audit would likely be impossible.
June 23, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is beyond your usual rubbish. Are you on the sauce again?
June 23, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, I'm on the sauce. Now which part of my drunken ramblings do you have factual & material disagreement with, or you just don't like accurate renditions by drunkards? Hey, maybe I'm getting too old and becoming confused?
Try tossing out a fact or two, it impresses the girls and makes you look a bit more clever.
June 23, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROFLMAO
June 23, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good, at least we reached some type of catharsis, probably a good place to leave it and continue instead with serious drinking, something that at least provides satisfaction and resolution.
June 23, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
............The article I read laid much of the reason for firing him on the fact that he wanted to work from home
.
Could you provide a link? The WaPo timeline suggests that the first official WH response was related to confusion.
.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/06/the_former_inspector_general_f.html
So far I see a Democratic mayor still being investigated, a Republican appointed US attorney concerned about Walpin's conduct, and a Democratic and a Republican board member supporting the firing of Walpin.
June 23, 2009 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was referring to the first TPM article I read on this a couple of days ago. Walpin's working out of N.Y. is given even further weight being in a block-quote by Eisen adding to the reasons for firing. Explanations that change day to day indicate crafting of a story after the fact and on the fly.
And the US AG Lawrence Brown is being looked at for the initial over-the-top charges he made against Walpin even though he's the one now investigating obstruction (deleting emails) by St. Hope. McCaskill's calling loudest for an investigation. I wouldn't pay too much attention to the R or D after a name. Walpin is the one asking for hearings with everyone under oath, so I'm betting that he thinks the truth will out.
It's small potatoes but should be aired out. All I want is a little, not even a lot, but a little honesty and transparency in government, and I really wouldn't mind if our representatives wanted to represent us for a change.
June 23, 2009 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Walpin is also investigating CUNY, which last I checked is also in New York, so perhaps that was part of the reasoning to "work out of home".
June 23, 2009 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
More rank supposition; this is the basis of your arguemnt?
June 23, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I just happened to know he mentioned his case against CUNY. Know nothing about the "wanted to work from home" charge, unlike the ones I documented.
June 23, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Walpin said he worked full-time in the Washington office for his first two years as inspector general and only began "teleworking" from New York after members of his staff convinced him to withdraw a resignation he tendered in January.
June 23, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, had ignored that one.
June 23, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCaskill has bowed out of this matter; saying she is satisfied with second letter issued by White House.
June 23, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kevin John is a black entrepreneur who believes in rewarding the black (and white) entrepreneurial class, and the black (and white) underclass can go fuck itself.
KJ's outstanding humanitarian accomplishment so far was inspiring Mark Price to give up honky-tonking before KJ stole his job with the Cleveland Cavaliers.
This was an incredible gift to fans all around the NBA, since nobody had ever seen Mark Price play sober before, and KJ sat on the bench until Cleveland traded him to Phoenix, where he was Mr. Everything.
KJ and Obama have bonded because they are both basketballers raised by grandparents, and especially because both of them believe in rewarding the black (and white) entrepreneurial class, and letting the black (and white) underclass go fuck itself.
I should probably be grateful to KJ for providing nothing in the way of after-school opportunities for black teenagers in Sacramento, because that put more or less all of them out on the street after school, and consequently I had a large pool of living, breathing human beings to photograph on the street, on my frequent excursions to the State House in Sacramento.
Otherwise there was nothing but tight-assed honkies everywhere, from dawn to dusk.
June 22, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT, but those are some really remarkable and beautiful photographs. I did a little B & W printing a while back but the last photo store on the So. Tx. coast closed last year. Then there was this retirement today.
June 22, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Don.
I felt a twinge about the end of Kodachrome, even though I never shot a roll of it... Goodbye to another little bit of Americana.
BTW the famous photographer Toni Frissell did some of her best work in south Texas, and it's a lot more spontaneous than the iconic fashion photography which made her famous.
June 22, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't familiar with her but great stuff (I think Avedon did much of his American West in Tx). Here are just some of the WWII era pics from the farm security and war info office (can download from LOC). These are all 4x5 Kodachrome.
June 22, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
De mortuis nil nisi bonum...
But I have to say, the Ektachrome in the first batch looks significantly better than the Kodachrome in the second batch, but maybe that's because I was brainwashed by a childhood with Ektachrome cover to cover in National Geographic, and in spite of all that...
There's a weird solidity about Kodachrome images that I never saw anywhere else, and the airplane engine at the very top of your link looks almost three dimensional... at least to me.
Thanks for the links!
June 23, 2009 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
They were such nice bright colors; it gave us the the gre(hee he)ens of summers. Made me think all the world was a sunny day.
Oh yeah.
Sad to see it go.
June 23, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to the acting U.S. Attorney for the E.D.Cal., Walpin engaged in egregious misconduct, for apparently partisan purposes. The fact that he engaged in misconduct in connection with what was pretty clearly a meritorious investigation didn't make his conduct any less improper.
Are they only allowed to fire people if they engage in misconduct in the course of a frivilous investigation?
And he didn't go to the Bee? What, then, is one to make of that press release Brown attached to his letter of complaint (in the link above) from Walpin's office dated September 25, 2008, followed by an article in the Bee on September 25, 2008?
June 22, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And isn't it a sad day when fucking Glenn Beck makes more sense than the Democrats?
But Beck is off and running with Obama's smear that the 77-year-old Walpin was "confused and disoriented," which are obviously code-words in the granny-bashing Obama White House for senile dementia...
Apple, table, penny!
Obama couldn't do that trick himself, without a teleprompter!
Harharharhar!!!
June 22, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Glen Beck makes more sense than WHOOOOOO?
Hint: Glen Beck never makes sense. Learn it. Don't even listen to the dolt. He is an amoeba.
June 22, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to have to disagree on the US Attorney complaint Steve. Walpin's "egregious conduct" was finding numerous violations of The New Hope Academy and alleging that the US Attorney was too lenient in the settlement. The US Attorney then accused him of being unethical. Where's the due process or hearing of the issues? The IG just gots fired unceremoniously?
And there was no requirement for the GWB Admin to give notice to Congress of the US Attorney firings. They failed to give Congress the 30 day notice and reasoning in advance. That's not very transparent and it certainly sends a chilling message to would be whistleblowers and other IGs not to push too hard when the violations are for people close to the administration.
Mark this down as the one and only time I fully cosign with an editorial in The Washington Times. I work in HR in an at-will state, and I can't imagine firing a "whistle-blower" employee without real substantive proof of poor performance to prevent any liability. The Obama campaign brought this criticism on themselves by not following appropriate process and poor documentation of reasoning at the time of the firing. Obama was not well served by whomever handled this PR disaster.
June 22, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I confess I was prejudiced against the guy the minute I saw the words "Federalist Society" connected to his name. I've hated those people since law school and none of the experiences I've had with them since then has softened my view. If any member of that bunch ever made an argument or fulfilled a duty in good faith on a matter that was even moderately political, I have yet to see it hear of it.
I'm not claiming that his firing was one of the great P.R. coups of all time. I'm just saying that the evidence shows that the guy's pitch to the U.S. attorney for an indictment contained serious material omissions of fact in an effort to gin up an indictment before the election. When that didn't work, he repeatedly communicated with the press about the matter after being "asked" (i.e. "told") not to by the U.S. attorney, which is a really excellent way to get Justice pissed off at you to the max.
He's not a civil service appointee. He doesn't get a hearing or due process--no provision in the law for it. He serves at the pleasure of the president and the president who appointed him was George W. Bush. Obama's shown by his retention of Bush U.S. attorney appointments (the source of considerable pissing and moaning hearabouts), that he doesn't consider that fact alone disqualifying. However, Walpin clearly used a position that's supposed to be strictly nonpartisan to try to gin up political points for the Republicans.
Yeah, the administration screwed up on the notice to Congress and they deserve to take a lump or two for it. It seems like they were so convinced of their rectitude--probably because they did retain all those Bush appointed U.S.A's, that they didn't pay sufficient attention to appearances and its not the first time that's happened to them.
But acting like firing this guy is a big deal--particularly given that his part of the investigation that's supposedly the cause of his firing is done--reminds me of the liberals who were concerned about Whitewater until they finally realized how thoroughly they'd been had by the right about two years too late.
June 22, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve, the evidence is far less conclusive than your statement implies. An allegation by the U.S. Attorney does not equal evidence. And take a look at Des' update with the specificity of Walpin's response to the Brown's original complaint. Walpin's thorough and detailed response to those claims at least merits a review before he's fired you would think, or if they did review it, why not make those findings public?
IGs serve at the pleasure of the president, put the President must notify Congress and give reasons for the termination because of a bill Obama himself co-sponsored, so pleading ignorance doesn't wash. It's really simple to put an end to the speculation. Come clean with the detailed reasons why he was fired, the evidence it was based on. If that's lacking, well then the Obama Admin has a problem entirely of it's own making.
June 22, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course bringing up "Federalist" and saying he was confused and finding the KKK remark are all just little ways to make Walpin a wingnut.
What are the merits of the actual case?
June 23, 2009 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since we're ignoring many facts in play and deciding guilt or innocents on a would of, could of, should of basis; I'll give it a stab.
The Obama administration rather than embarassing an old and mentally frail man, decided to try and soft-shoe their way thru this situation and have him quietly removed from a position he no longer had the capacity to handle.
DON'T TELL ME I'M SHORT ON FACTS FOR MAKING THIS ASSESSMENT.
TPM has done an outstanding job on reporting this issue....
June 22, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And there you have it!
Even more granpa-bashing from yet another Obamabot, who didn't even notice that Glenn Beck already tested "Granpa" Walpin for senile dementia, and Granpa did better than Obama, who can't even find his shoes without a teleprompter.
But just so the "dazed and confused" johnnienohand doesn't have to look all around this thread, and probably lose his shoes again, I'll repost Glenn Beck's scientific test of "Granpa" Walpin...
Apple, table, penny!!!
Read it and weep, Obamabots!
And now we know why Obama wants to dismember Social Security and MediCare...
Obama hates old folks!
And good luck getting re-elected on that platform, Barry!
Harharharhar!!!
June 22, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well reasoned response.
June 22, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has it ever occurred to you that your reflexive hatred of Obama might have just as deleterious an effect on the quality of your reasoning as you think being an "Obamabot" does on ours?
June 22, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apple, table, penny!
Apple, table, penny!
Apple, table, penny!
And now the White House is looking more "disoriented and confused" than Granpa Walpin!
Harharharhar!!!
Obama can't find his shoes!
June 23, 2009 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
And pigs *might* fly, but that doesn't make it so. Excessive gloating does not mean the gloater isn't right.
June 23, 2009 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
But we must say that TPM has done an excellent job reporting, even though they've done next to nothing. Just as one poster decided that highly praising Josh for blogging a bit on weekends was merited.
June 23, 2009 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent analysis
June 22, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dr Rutabaga, you might not be aware that the full Mini-Mental Status Exam consists of the following:
The MMSE takes only 5 to 10 minutes to complete. Although it might seem like a simple procedure, only trained clinicians -- such as physicians, nurses, and psychologists -- should give and score the MMSE. The MMSE asks questions that assess five areas:
Orientation
The clinician asks the person the following questions: What is the year? What is the season? What is the date? What is the day? What is the month? What state are we in? What county are we in? What town are we in? What (hospital, or other building) are we in? What floor are we on?
Short-Term Memory (Retention)
The clinician names three objects (for example, apple, table, and hat) and asks the person to repeat the three words all at once. If the person can't do this correctly, the clinician can repeat the words until the person learns them (a maximum of six tries is permitted).
Attention
The person is asked to count backwards from 100 by 7s, or to spell the word “world” backwards.
Short-Term Memory (Recall)
The person is asked to repeat the three objects named earlier (apple, table, and hat).
Language
The assessment of language involves six tasks:
* First, the clinician holds up a pencil and a watch (separately) and asks the person to name the objects.
* Second, the person is asked to repeat the phrase, "No ifs, ands, or buts."
* Third, the person is asked to follow a three-stage command (Take this paper in your right hand, fold it in half, and hand it back to me.).
* Fourth, the person is given a piece of paper with the command "Close your eyes" written on it and is asked to do what the paper says.
* Fifth, the person is asked to write a spontaneous sentence.
* Sixth, the person is asked to copy a simple design.
Scoring
The maximum score on the Mini Mental State Exam is 30. In general, scores fall into four categories:
24 – 30: "normal" range
20 – 23: mild cognitive impairment or possible early-stage/mild Alzheimer's disease
10 – 19: middle-stage/moderate Alzheimer's disease
0 – 9: late-stage/severe Alzheimer's disease
Although the Mini Mental State Exam and its scoring guidelines are useful, the MMSE shouldn't be used independently to make a diagnosis, nor should any other singular aspect of the diagnostic process. A diagnosis of Alzheimer's can only be made after a complete diagnostic workup rules out any other possible cause for the person's symptoms.
Additionally, higher educated patients tend to score higher on the test, even when they have Alzheimer's. If medicine were easy, Glenn Beck would be an M.D.
June 22, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Experimenter: "Look at this paper."
(Subject reads the sentence and closes his eyes.)
Experimenter: "Now do what the paper says."
Subject: "I can't see it."
Harharharhar!!!
June 23, 2009 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Experimenter: "Please copy this simple design."
(Experimenter shows subject this design.)
Subject: "You call that simple?"
Experimenter: "It's simple if you have an IQ of 700 like Barack Obama!"
Harharharhar!!!
June 23, 2009 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seventh, the person is asked to write a 30-page paper exploring a particular topic of his or her interest.
http://www.cncsig.gov/PDF/StHope/StHOPEFIN.pdf
June 23, 2009 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, after that wave of parody comments...
"Obama can't find his shoes!"
...which went right over the pointy little heads of ludicrously dim Obamabots like NCSteve and "Doctor" rmrd0000, I might as well take this flaming fuck-up from Obama and his minions seriously for just one second...
Or not.
June 23, 2009 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
This always stunk to me too. I haven't heard a convincing excuse for the firing, and obviously KJ was abusing his office, breaking the law.
I don't get the pussyfooting around the fact that they had to pay back about half a million bucks. That is more money than the median person makes in ten years, after taxes.
I don't get this whole, it's no big deal to steal half a million bucks for your own personal benefit. If that is not corruption, what is?
Reminds me of the retaliatory firing of Carol Lam, etc...
June 22, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
READ!
June 23, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Experimenter: "Please copy this simple design."
(Experimenter shows subject this design.)
Subject: "You call that simple?"
Experimenter: "It's simple if you have an IQ of 700 like Barack Obama!"
Harharharhar!!!
June 23, 2009 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although it may seem out of character it is very possible that Obama has a heightened sensitivity to an organization which is about serving communities. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, Obama knows more than most about the workings of community organizations and how they should be run. Upon the recommendation of the board and upon Obama reviewing the board findings it is very possible that Obama's qualifications properly and logically allowed for an expedient disposition of this. As opposed to handing it off for other persons to evaluate who may or may not possess a level of knowledge of the particular topic equal to Obamas.
June 23, 2009 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yes, that's a good paragraph of rationalizations. Super-Obama, he knows more than you do. Never tried a court case, never investigated fraud. "As opposed to handing it off for [the legally responsible Inspector General with 40 years in the field] to evaluate who may or may not possess a level of knowledge of the particular topic equal to Obama's.
Perhaps Obama was reminded of Mike Rezko and felt he needed to step in.
Is this a nation of laws, or a cult of personality?
June 23, 2009 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't specify this was right or wrong. Only that this is what may have occurred and a reason why. Is it a good reason. Maybe not. But, I think, a plausible one. I had thought I had clearly left out any assumption or statement of right, wrong or legal offering only a hypothesis.
June 23, 2009 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look. Walpin is an employee-at-will who works directly for the the Americorps board. An employee at will can be removed from their job for any reason or for no reason at all.
Somehow Walpin got crossed with enough members of the the Americorps board that they decided to dispense with his services. I have no idea what Walpin's personality is like, or his competence, nor do I know if there have been changes in the composition of the Board since Obama was inaugurated, but if Walpin can't ingratiate himself with those people for some reason they have every right to remove him.
As long as the Board are doing what Obama appointed them to do, he should keep his hands off of how they handle internal personal matters.
Most of the excuses in this article are the kinds of cover stories concocted by a frustrated politician (Walpin) who isn't getting his way and wants to appeal to public opinion. I'd say, from reading the above article and the prior TPM posts, that Walpin has himself not wanted to be removed in spite of the fact that he is unable to maintian the confidence of the Board he works for. Walpin seems to have his idea how to do his job and the Board has a different idea. Time for him to go, and he and his supporters should stop whining.
That's all this article really is. It's a support of Walpin's political whine to try to keep his job after he lost the confidence of his employers.
Tough. Walpin should just go. He's not able to deal with the fact that he failed to keep his employer happy with the way he did his job. It's not like he is irreplaceable.
While Walpin would really like to make his removal from office all about politics and Johnson, that's a totally different issue. Walpin wants to conflate the two issues to cover up his personal failure to satisfy the Board and keep their confidence - for whatever reasons (which no one, including the Board of Directors, appears to be being honest to the media about.) As long at the Americorps board is running a competent operation, they should be given a free hand in handling personnel matters within the limits of the law.
June 23, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Walpin works for Americorps? Don't think so. The OIG is an independent oversee assigned to an agency to monitor activities and usage of government funds.
If Americorps' Board decides to take their budget and personally pocket 50%, it's the OIG's job to make sure this doesn't happen.
One good reason the Board might not want to stand in the way of Johnson's reinstatement is that Americorps might simply find Congress has no good need to fund it next year. Stranger things have happened, eh?
Walpin found Johnson and others misusing grants from our tax dollars. Your attitude is "just let it go". Granted it's not $2 trillion, so my next suggestion might be, "okay, let it go and put Walpin in as OIG over the SEC, the Federal Reserve and the DTCC".
June 23, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink