TPMDesiRaker - IG Walpin Fired, Follow the Money: CUNY
The Washington Post has published a number of documents related to the IG firing at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/07/geraldwalpindocuments.html#more
I’ve noted several times that Walpin seems reasonable and addresses many of the issues that keep getting repeated without referencing his response: http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/PCIEResponseReportFINAL52009.pdf and his original report to Congress here: http://www.cncsig.gov/PDF/StHope/StHOPEFIN.pdf
I’m struck by his response in the new batch with one in particular where he discusses the independence of the IG position and how he sees his input in the process of oversight of the Corporation - there is no “my way or the highway” tone, simply an open statement of his legal opinion of the facts to balance internal legal advice. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politicss/documents/walpinmemoeisner_memoranda.pdf
Much of the focus has been on newly elect Johnson, his being an “ally” of Obama’s, and the effect of grant suspension on the ability of Sacramento to receive grants. Of course the Board didn’t like an independent investigator at a time they were looking to cash in on new stimulus money for their organizations, but the issue of Johnson had been effectively taken care of already with the Attorney’s settlement with St. Hope. So why remove Walpin after the fact?
Most important, it looks like the Board from the docs WaPo provided was worried that Walpin would ask City University of New York (CUNY) to return $16 million plus $800K in misused funds, and this would create bigger headaches and bad publicity for Americorps - basically showing that the Corporation itself was not managing its grants well across the board.
Nobody likes an independent overseer, at least when the overseer is acting truly independent. Government IGs are frequently mild and non-controversial and thus completely ineffective. Government funded entities love this - who wouldn’t? Typically serving on the Board of a grantee like this is a plum position - show up, chat about the weather, check off some grants, cash your check, look important. But when there are organizational problems, especially when noted from the outside, then the Board has to do some work, and the free PR for the rich and well-connected of being on the Board of a charitable institution becomes an unwanted black-mark, whether Republican or Democrat.
Follow the money. The Board didn’t care about Johnson or St. Hope or the relative backwater of Sacramento. It cared about the next bigger shoe to fall, CUNY, right in the heart of the Big Apple. Walpin had to go.
Desi has shown us via his previous postings and this load of tripe; when in doubt, move the goalposts.
July 7, 2009 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I take it there's a pigskin comment coming, waiting patiently...
July 7, 2009 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If angry at pig, kill him and eat him."
(from Bloom County, I can't recall the right phrasing of the rest of the comment.)
July 7, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably close enough, but if MiguelH2O shows up, you're on your own - that pig has a mean streak a mile wide.
July 7, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go conflating my excavation activities in the basement with a psychological predisposition for malevolence. Just to show you how wrong you are, why don't you bring your friend Kenga over to the house tomorrow night for some beers and brats? We can continue the discussion of how to properly dispose of pesky IGs.
July 7, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the pig put the "i" in violence.
July 7, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remaining emotionally open to the Wheel of Fortune mentality of 21st century America can turn sex and violence into sax and violins. It can change embezzlement into a loan that requires repayment of only a fraction of the principal at low or no interest. I'd like to buy a vowel, please.
July 7, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
eh?
oh.
you.
why?
July 7, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
A true Canadian from the eastern provinces would have asked: "oh. you. why? eh?".
July 10, 2009 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
i? oh? you?
ehhhhhhhhhhh
July 10, 2009 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just like the MSM we complain about, Desidero is standing by his original story
July 7, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The burden of proof should fall on Obama in this instance. Firing the inspector general of a federal agency is such an extraordinary and suspect manoeuvre that there obviously shouldn't be any ambiguity about the reasons.
The pitiful ditz Obama broke a law he co-sponsored himself, at the same time he was accusing somebody else of incompetence!
Harharharhar!!!
But the suckers for Obama just keep making excuses for their sleazy Messiah!
July 7, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The initial position taken was that the White House had acted to protect former NBA player, now Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson. In fact the wording used in a prior post was.....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..............
.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/desidero/
.
The argument now appears to be....The Board didn’t care about Johnson or St. Hope or the relative backwater of Sacramento. It cared about the next bigger shoe to fall, CUNY, right in the heart of the Big Apple. Walpin had to go.
.
So within a heartbeat, Kevin Johnson, a friend of the newly elected President goes from being the reason for Walpin's firing to the mayor of a city that is a relative backwater. Instead of the Obama White House acting for a friend, Walpin was fired because of CUNY. Included in your original Walpin post linked above was the following......... 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 Obama White House was accused of not telling the truth about the timeline of events. The WaPo docs suggests that the WH was telling the truth.
.
So now we have Johnson has been dealt with let's forget the charges against the WH and look into CUNY. Nothing to see in the prior post. If someone in MSM did that type of contortion, one might wonder why that reporter was allowed to continue on the story.
.
Steve Benen reported yesterday that the Conservative fervor for the Walpin story had died down. The Obama White House did not act to support an ally. Benen also points out that Conservatives have sounded a few false alarms about the Obama White House. Remember when conservatives were convinced that the White House was closing car dealerships based on owners' political contributions? Or how about the not-so-scandalous Department of Homeland Security report about potentially violent extremists, which prompted some conservatives to call for Napolitano's resignation? Or about the EPA economist whose bizarre memo on global cooling was "suppressed"?
.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/018947.php
.
Scrutiny of the White House is important. Crying wolf too many times can result in something really important being dismissed.
July 7, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama White House fired an IG. I'm just trying to figure out why. I'd noted the bit about CUNY somewhere around my first post/comment on this topic (when Walpin was informed he was being canned he had made some comment about CUNY).
Is this "contortion"? You must visit pretty tame freak shows.
"Crying wolf"? Kevin Johnson was found to have mismanaged grant funds. The IG who pursued this was subsequently removed from office, though there's been no reversal of the conclusion that Kevin Johnson mismanaged grant funds, including personal favors from staff. Seems like there indeed was a wolf there, I'm just trying to identify the breed, whereas most are just trying to wish it away.
July 7, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one is wishing anything away. Investigate CUNY at will. You proposed that the White House fired Walpin to protect an Obama crony Kevin Johnson. Kevin Johnson was going to pour massive amounts of government cash into Sacramento because he was Obama's good buddy. Now the charge is that Walpin had to go because of an investigation into CUNY. The charge that Obama was acting to protect a friend was a cry of "Wolf". It was all the rage in Conservative circles.
Be passionate about right and wrong, but use some critical analysis. If you charge the White House with acting to support an Obama crony and that charge falls apart, the next post you make concerning Obama will be questioned.
If the timeline supplied by the White House appears to agree with what the WaPo notes, then charges that the White House lied are unfounded.
On other issues, when demanding release of the torture memos and being told that the release (which I agree with) could result in increased attacks on US military, you equate any caution in that situation with the Mullahs demanding suppression of photos from the Iranian revolt.
There is a difference between shots being taken at US troops doing what they have been ordered to do by the United States and the Mullahs getting heat for suppressing freedom in Iraq. If you have an equal lack of empathy for the Mullahs and the US troops, then there is nothing that I can say to you.
Is it possible that both the Maliki government and the CIA are lying about the impact releasing the torture photos may have on US troops? Yes. But if the troops come under increased attack after releasing the photos, I will feel worse than I would about increased attacks against the Mullahs in Iraq.
Again, no one is wishing anything away. Others are just providing perspective.
July 7, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Sacramento will get a lot of stimulus money that it wouldn't have if Johnson were still suspended from grants programs. Are you arguing against that basic fact?
Kevin Johnson is not going to pour money into Sacramento - the Feds will.
Why Walpin needed to go was the issue I couldn't quite fathom until yesterday - after all, the Board and US Attorney had made a deal with Johnson & St. Hope, so despite Walpin grousing, it was water over the dam.
Regarding the White House "supporting a crony", I don't think Obama & Johnson are that close, more allies, aside from my jocularly referring to him as a "friend". I don't know where I contended the White House "lied". I was simply looking for the practical reason why Walpin needed to go when so many Bush cronies are still hanging around in other jobs. And I think the CUNY angle nails it.
Regarding Mullahs and such, security troops and policemen in Iran will receive attacks because of pictures of Neda. Every country can fall back on these same concerns. China is busy showing bloodied Han Chinese at the hands of Uyghurs in Xinjiang protests - not likely that any beat-up Uyghurs will appear on CCTV. In any case, we killed over 100 prisoners, tortured to death in various ways, and yet besides photos the current administration keeps holding back other reports that would get help get to the bottom of the atrocities. Sorry if the troops suffer because of this perverse sea change (or maintaining direction actually), but Obama could have lanced the boil quickly as Petraeus noted, and won kudos for transparency, lessening the likelihood of retaliation against troops compared to a continued coverup. For some reason our troops always seem in the way of democracy - why is that? Obama's administration announced that we couldn't publicize details of civilian bombings in Afghanistan because it would endanger the troops. Well, maybe we should just get out and then we can have our troops safe and democracy + transparency too.
July 7, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
........I don't know where I contended the White House "lied"
from Desidero
...........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..
.
...........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?
.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/desidero/
July 7, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama stated the IG had lost his trust. Is that a lie? Or a feeble excuse?
The Administration can shove and independent IG out the door within 2 weeks, but can't review a 200-page document for release in 5 months - a lie? Or skewed priorities and hurried judgment?
Ever thought about simply looking at the question of whether these people broke the law and misused taxpayer money instead of trying to parse Des to see if there's an undotted İ or uncrossed Ŧ?
July 7, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at what you have written! I state that you called the Obama White House liars. You reply that you did not call them liars. I provide comments from your previous blog about Walpin in which you questioned the veracity of the White House. You now go back to asking if the White House explanation was a lie!
Your initial post was about the relationship between Kevin Johnson and Barack Obama as a factor in Gerald Walpin's firing. In this post, you propose that CUNY was the reason for the firing and Kevin Jackson and backwater Sacramento were not the issue. Then you revert back to Kevin Johnson misconduct and possible lies from the White House.
TPM has looked at the evidence. Steve Benen has looked at the evidence. Both interpret events of as supporting that there was a major difference in point of view between the Americorps board and Walpin. The released documents support the story told by the board and the White House. The DOJ thought Walpin overstepped his bounds.
I get upset about MSM who appear to write stories based on a script that they have in their minds before they put finger to keyboard or microphone to dictation software. Isn't it possible that you had a scenario in which Gerald Walpin was the hero fighting against an evil Americorps board, pushover prosecutor and prevaricating White House?
Can you look at the data that is available and see Walpin as the outlier, or is your script written in stone?
July 7, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said a feeble excuse is not a lie. The White House did not give much of an excuse, just that Obama had lost confidence in Walpin. Feeeble.
I noted that the White House had time to rush this through but not get its work done on Gitmo & detention abuse. In general I think these guys manage their priorities the way they want to. But that's not saying they're lying.
Find where I called them liars over the Walpin episode. Stop reading so much extra meaning into my words. And better, just look at Walpin's statements and see if they seem more straightforward than "waaah, he wanted to telecommute, he was confused, he was intimidating".
And note that there are 2 other people in the OIG's office working this case. The attacks aren't just about Walpin - they're saying all of these folks were improper and overly political. It's possible, but look at the motives, look at the money.
July 7, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Sacramento will get a lot of stimulus money that it wouldn't have if Johnson were still suspended from grants programs.
Why, precisely?
As I understand it, he wasn't suspended, but made ineligible for federal grant funding - or rather any public enterprise he was involved in was thus made ineligible.
By virtue of a suggestion by Walpin that a criminal investigation be undertaken. Which Walpin then made public statements about during an election campaign. And assertions of malfeasance.
When the US Attorney's office found(in the official respect of the word) that no criminal charges were merited, that funding restriction was rescinded.
Would it be reasonable to speculate whether Walpin improperly inserted himself into the campaign by departing from normal practice and speaking to the press before the investigation had been undertaken?
Or had some personal interest in preventing federal funds from reaching Sacramento?
I mean, we're not talking about a situation like unto that of Bunnatine Greenhouse.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/pressclips/archives/2005/08/morning_report_163.php
Inspectors General have a great deal of independence, for good reason, and their removal invites scrutiny, as you've pointed out.
But that same independence permits a great deal of latitude to engage in malfeasance and bad faith which likewise deserve scrutiny.
The discretion with which they are empowered is quite easily abused - not unlike that of a Sheriff's Deputy, or Police patrol officer. Was Johnson engaged in the public sector executive equivalent of DWB?
July 7, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
There doesn't need to be criminal behavior to warrant suspension. Gross mismanagement of funds is enough. As I stated before, me losing $800K or not being able to account for it, even if not malicious and intentional, should preclude me from grants. By "suspension" and "ineligible" we're saying the same thing, just different words.
But funding restriction wasn't rescinded based on a finding of no criminal behavior. It was rescinded based on a compromise that pretty explicitly had as one major goal to bring Sacramento back into eligibility. Quite frankly, I support a compromise that allows Sacramento to get money, and can think of ways that would require 3rd party oversight that would make sure Johnson couldn't mismanage. Not a big deal. Except they chose not to have any strings attached except an ethics class.
Again, did you read Walpin's statements such as here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politicss/documents/walpin_memo_eisner_memoranda.pdf
He doesn't come across sounding like he's trying to pick a fight. In his other documents that I reference above, he refers to his press statements and explains the circumstances. Do you not agree with his logic, or do you think it doesn't describe the events as they happened?
July 7, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have read all of the documents carefully. Walpin was absolutely trying to pick fights and acting outside of his purview and the law. He tried to usurp the role of general counsel in trying to convince the Board to ignore the law as written because there was no one to sue them
The Special Report on Johnson he issued to Congress was only given to Republicans. He leaked to the press and issued press releases against the direct instructions of the U.S. Attorney. He handled the Johnson case in a Ken Starr-like manner complete with reporting to both the Congress and the press sex charges against Johnson long after they were discredited and dis-proven. In fact, those sex charges were the original reason he opened the case.
Walpin tried to change the entire tenor of CNCS from a service-oriented agency to an enforcement agency policing petty fraud complete with acquiring the authority for his agents to act as law enforcement officers and carry guns. And to do all of that he attempted to get his funding increased by multiples of the savings of taxpayer dollars he argued that he was saving the agency with his approach.
Walpin was no decent IG.
July 7, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you not agree with his logic, or do you think it doesn't describe the events as they happened?
I've been poring over some of the documents, including that letter.
This:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politicss/documents/memo_to_eisner_service_hour_certification.pdf
... is much as you say Walpin's communique was, in that it doesn't appear to be looking for a fight.
Do read that last paragraph a couple times, as I did.
And the phrase "withheld exculpatory evidence" should give pause.
It is, after all, the reason that former Senator Ted Stevens(R-AK) is not presently awaiting sentencing.
Walpin's response(and that of his office) certainly does suggest a good faith effort to seek the best interests of the government. But I would expect that of any defense, which is what it is.
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/PCIE_Response_Report_FINAL_5_20_09.pdf
July 7, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that organizations *do* rely on advice of IG's in clarifying how they should interpret relevant Congressional acts in practice - I've seen it personally - and many grantee organizations do not have in-house counsel. The organization I worked for accepted the recommendations of the IG and while it may have consulted with the governing body's counsel on some matters, it did not contend that the IG was overstepping his mandate by giving specific changes to procedures. (I'm sure the IG gave much more widespread directives to Finance, but I wasn't privy to those discussions). Where my organization did get its own counsel, it became very politicized. Our IG was restrained though professional and thorough, but I hoped he would take a stronger role in identifying and countermanding some organizational issues.
July 8, 2009 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Note that Walpin explains that he regards incomplete after-the-fact over the phone transcription of completed hours not as "exculpatory" but "unacceptable", especially as he was provided no contact information with these people after numerous requests.
July 8, 2009 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does this describe events as they happened?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politicss/documents/brown_integrity_committee.pdf
The more I look at it, the more I detect a distinct lack of heroes in the entire affair. Maybe the poor sap who had to do the minutes ...
And "suspensions" they were, as you said.
I just remembered, I've meandered from a question I meant to ask.
What the fuck actual involvement in spending federal grant/other funds does the mayor of a major city have?
Sure, sure, he'll sign some shit, but let's be serious - unless all the city staff are involved, the beans will be doled out and counted by wonks.
So - what would be the point of using Johnson and his crony as the excuse to keep stimulus funds from a city of half a million souls, in a state particularly hard hit by recession AND in deep trouble fiscally?
Why does Walpin have a hard-on for Sacramento?
Or is the city just collateral damage?
July 7, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Woah, Walpin didn't pick on Sacramento - he "picked on" (i.e. held accountable) Johnson only as head of St. Hope and in charge of its mismanagement. That the people of Sacramento elected Johnson has nothing to do with St. Hope, or shouldn't.
Regarding grants for Sacramento, I agree in that I think there can easily be a compromise to have an independent official placed to handle grants for Sacramento leaving Johnson somewhat to the side. There are certainly more financial controls in Sacramento city government than there were in the tiny St. Hope.
However I can very much understand Walpin's disagreement with treating the grounds for suspension as a small detail and Johnson as guilty of perhaps a clerical error. St. Hope used this grant to pay for existing employees, directly counter to the grant. Johnson used employees both for personal use and for fund-raising activities, counter to grant rules. There are big questions as to how many tutoring hours actually got taught, not cleared up by ex-post summaries by supervisors, not the tutors themselves at the time of giving lessons.
July 8, 2009 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, Okay, so now it's CUNY that was about to see the sharp end of the Walpin axe. But why fire him? He's senile anyway, I've heard. They could just keep hiding his car keys or something.
July 7, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
LMAO
July 7, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Desidero, at least Rutabaga Ridgepole is in full agreement with you.
July 7, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too! Me too!
July 7, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I.
July 7, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me three! And I'm a CUNY girl.
There is nothing, NOTHING in the information released that seemed to justify getting rid of the agency watchdog so quickly without a thorough review of the facts of the case. The fact that the Obama Admin's original response was so weak (and they acted outside of the law he himself sponsored) says this was not your average termination.
First the Obama Admin was inferring that he was some incompetent and Obama lost confidence in him. The reality (as indicated in the document release) is that he was overcompetent in pursuing the fraud and misappropriation of Americorps grant funds. He ticked off the Americorps Board and the Obama Admin finally admitted that the board recommended he be fired. Well hello, isn't that what any decent IG should be doing rather than playing nicely and sweeping wrongdoing under the rug?
July 7, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still think it was about the initial deal letting St. Hope and Johnson off the hook. It was done behind the IG's back, not SOP, and was at odds with the evidence of misuse of funds he uncovered. So, somebody up the line mad a political decision that would look very bad if made public. I'm wondering how congress will act (if at all) on this. The WH must be exerting a lot of pressure. McCaskill dropped her original questioning of Walpin's firing like a hot potato.
July 7, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think St. Hope and CUNY both clearly demonstrated that he's not going to be pressured by the baord or politics. He's going to be an Independent IG (which is part of the job description IIRC). It's especially embarassing that Obama pledged to vigorously oversee stimulus spending and then fired an IG that had already proven that he'd go after grant fraud.
I worked for a non-profit that has been battered by the recession. I am familiar with the grant management process and proving accurate info about how grant funds are spent. I have no sympathy for non-profits that abuse government or private funds. Every dollar that gets misused doesn't go into the community. I don't get why Walpin is the bad guy here other than he's a Republican.
July 7, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here, Don, I slightly disagree. Everyone knew about the elephant in the room in this case, that it wasn't just about Johnson, it was about Sacramento's eligiblity to receive federal funds. And I have no problem with that being discussed, and a serious effort to find a reasonable workaround.
However, their measure dropped the ball in that this could have been a major teaching moment where people would understand that grant fraud is serious, and that even for a Mayor, there would be some significant logistics to allowing Sacramento grants to grow through under his helm. Instead they chose to withdraw the suspension as unwarranted and attack the IG as overzealous and partisan. Well, I'm sorry, if someone is using tax money for the poor to wash their car, I'll even support an overzealous, partisan Republican in stopping it.
July 8, 2009 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree and that was what I was getting at. I wasn’t separating the deal to pay back the misused funds (a joke) and the removal of disbarment because he was now mayor.
July 8, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know this is futile but.......did the White intervene because of Kevin Johnson or CUNY?
July 7, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
My theory: The White House intervened because they don't want an IG actively investigating and uncovering wrongdoing that might interfere with stimulus funds being spent ASAP. The same reason Elizabeth Warren is being stiffed by Treasury on information despite her role as the Congress-appointed overseer of TARP funds. The message is spend spend spend, we have no time to worry about abuse and misuse. Reminds me of Halliburton and no-bid Pentagon contracts. Just my theory. Makes a hell of a lot more sense than the nonsense the Obama Admin put forward.
And you do realize that your argument is bascially what's the big deal of misusing $800k, $16 million of federal grant money between friends? The Inspector General should just let it slide.
July 7, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
So your argument is that I have to believe the Obama administration is covering up something awful like Kevin Johnson or CUNY. If I don't think that the Obama administration is covering up an investigation, then by default I'm supporting government waste? The Obama administration HAS to be guilty, correct?
The DOJ is also in on this coverup, correct? CUNY will not be investigated, correct?
July 7, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The investigation will be feeble and directed by someone who supports the desired outcome of the Board and the Administration. Isn't the point of an IG not being answerable to the Board or political pressure? What lesson do you think the incoming IG (when they get around to it eventually) will learn from this mess? Don't piss off the Board or they'll recommend you be fired. 800K or 16 million in grant fraud is pennies when it comes to the stimulus. Let's make sure any misuse doesn't come to light or make headlines so as to not cause trouble for the Board or Administration.
July 7, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama fired Walpin to send a message to all IG's that they will be fired if they do their jobs too well? Kevin Johnson was not important. Sacramento was not important. CUNY was not important. Getting to an IG was important. Obama fired an IG to send a message to all IG's?
If I don't believe the above then I agree with misuse of government funds?
July 7, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, help me out here. They just fired the guy, right? They didn't whack him or disappear him into a black site or set a mysterious fire in his office so that his successor won't have access to his files? Right? And, unless I missed something, they didn't eliminate the position or dismiss his staff, right?
I'm just asking, because this whole "he was getting too close to the horrible truth" thing that postulates he was fired to perpetuate a cover-up really doesn't make sense if none of the above are true. He's not Karen Silkwood, for god's sake, he's just another Federalist Society Bush Hack and he's still alive. He has plenty of access to reporters and, yes, even bloggers. If there were some terrible hidden truth what is it?
An at will Bush appointee who comes off a lot like another John Bolton type was canned. A replacement will be appointed. There is no reasoned basis (as opposed to a personal tendency to think the worst of Obama and assess his every action in the worst possible light) for believing that they're going to appoint a replacement who'll cover up whatever nefarious wrongdoing you think Walpin must have uncovered which has yet to be revealed.
And, I'm sorry, but that response of his that you found so pursuasive read to me like a thousand other post-facto CYA efforts--briefs, letters, reports--I've read by lawyers piously portraying clear misfeasance or malfeasance as the right and ethical thing to do. It's possible I've even written one for a client or two myself, in my time.
July 7, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMHO, you’re missing quite a bit here, NC Steve. Walpin did his job, and his recommendations based on hard evidence of wrongdoing were undermined behind his back. When he complained, he was fired. Of course, before he was fired, he was set up, and that involved painting him as angry, loony and incompetent (hmmm, kinda like a John Bolton type).
If not for the fact that some Congress people (Grassly and McCaskill are two along with Obama) supported greater protections for IGs in the last few years (just as whistleblower-type protections have been under attack during the Bush years), Walpin would probably have been fired without spectacle, and the National press would not have taken note.
Transparency, rule of law, equality under the law (no favoritism), oversight independence all play into this. It is not such a minor matter when you foresee the attitudes that will prevail if this goes uninvestigated. Much chilling effect on "oversight," ya think?
Like so many other unitary executive powers from the Bush reign that Obama has put in his pocket instead of reversing, these things become SOP if not challenged. Walpin, insisting on carnying out his duties, was summarily and illegally fired without proper appeal, notice and explanation to Congress. Do you really not see anything wrong with this picture?
July 7, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's just not a very accurate characterization of events IMO. Congress doesn't have the right of refusal - just the right to be informed; Obama certainly informed them that the removal was based on a unanimous complaint from the board and stated that based on board's complaint, the IG had lost the confidence of the administration.
Congress was well within their rights to request more information, and the Obama administration subsequently provided them with the documentation used to reach the decision - including the IG's rebuttal. It is still the Administration's final decision to make, and they made it. Had they refused to provide the documents to congress, I'd perhaps be more concerned.
*IF* Obama appoints someone who subsequently refuses to follow through with investigations, then there is cause to express concern. It's fully speculative to assume that will be the case.
July 7, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Walpin was asked to resign or be fired. He refused. After that, Obama sent a letter stating he had lost confidence in Walpin, which McCaskill said didn’t satisfy the requirements of the IG Reform Act. Then Norm Eisen sent this letter to the Lieberman and Collins:
You can call that what you want, but it sounds like total BS to me and still doesn’t conform to the IGRA excerpted below.
The IGRA was instituted to take politics out of this (initially, the IRS) and protect IGs from being removed because they’re acting independently of the administration. The administration must lay out valid reasons thirty days before firing the IG. Even if they do that, Congress has a right to investigate, hold hearings on the matter and decide the issue as with anything else (i.e. a whistleblower).
July 8, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
So the White House was covering for mayor Kevin Johnson?
July 8, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is that the board and acting USA Brown wanted to make a deal to undo the disbarment with St. Hope after KJ became mayor (and, in fact said as much- something like Sacramento shouldn't have to suffer for these mistakes). When Walpin began raising hell in congress and the media about it (as well he should), the decision was made to fire him. If anyone looks most responsible for that initial decision, it may be Brown. But, of course, it had to OK'ed at the top. I doubt anyone in the WH thought this would be a big story.
July 8, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the White House lied about why Walpin wwas fired? Again it was the Kevin Johnson deal, not CUNY, not to send a message to all IGs?
July 8, 2009 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not privy to the WH's ultimate motivations on anything. It could be something we're not even aware of, or it could be any of those reasons. That the WH lied about their reasons is evident in their initial attempt to paint Walpin as "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibiting other behaviors" while also implying that he suddenly decided to work from home.
July 8, 2009 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding that May 20 meeting itself,
1) Walpin himself said he wasn't feeling well that day
2) Walpin noted that his papers seemed to have been shuffled while he was out of the room - I claim I can't dismiss or confirm - as part of his confusion
3) After months of back and forth over dropping Johnson's suspension and Walpin being locked out of the final negotiation, it's very likely that Walpin was the main course of that May 20 meeting, much like one of Nurse Ratched's pecking parties. Which could of course contribute to him not feeling well and potentially getting confused under heavy grilling or antagonistic reactions from all the Board members.
My guess is that the Board went into that meeting looking for a reason to get rid of Walpin and came up with one.
July 8, 2009 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think so, Des. According to the notes, Walpin was disoriented at the meeting, but so what? Where are all of the other memos, filings, notes and testimony about his incapacitated mental condition? I think he threatened getting an FBI or Special Investigator to convene a Grand Jury, which must have scared someone.
I hesitate to mention this because the Washington Examiner is obviously a RW paper and I have no estimation of its integrity, but Byron York reports that at least three of the board members claim the board never specifically recommended Walpin’s firing (and was only airing a complaint). York also writes that, according to congressional investigators, the WH, claiming a thorough investigation into the meeting at issue, never even contacted these three members or Walpin about it. York’s other reporting on this looks solid, if slanted, but he only names “congressional investigators” as sources. I’d think this would be big news elsewhere if it were validated, so it’s probably a misrepresentation on some level (if so, disregard).
July 8, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, I'm finding your premise far fetched. Lord knows, I'm not one to cut Obama much slack ... but it just seems in order to keep him around, Obama would have had to overrule the unanimous recommendation of the board. I don't see anything in the record that would justify going against their request, which seems well documented going back more than a year.
We either have to accept that the entire board, the US attorney and White House are all in collusion with what can only be described as petty corruption (with no apparent individual benefit), or that this guy just wasn't really cutting it.
July 7, 2009 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have gone from Obama covering for buddy Kevin Johnson, to Walpin being fired for investigating CUNY because it was in NYC to Walpin being fired to send a message to all IG's. Do these shifting rationales make any sense?
It appears that both the Americorps board and the IG have oversight over Americorps, which has a CEO. Thus the board can point out flaws with the IG and vice versa.
Finally, taking the position that someone who disagrees that the Walpin firing is part of some bigger issue (covering for Kevin Johnson, protecting CUNY and NYC, threatening IGs, etc)is, by default, supporting misuse of government funds makes no sense. It is a position similar to that taken by the Right: "If you disagree with position X, then you don't love America."
July 8, 2009 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Shifting rationales"? Well, yes, I'm a lone blogger who knew nothing about Walpin until a few weeks ago, and yesterday I happened to have a flash that I think makes sense - that CUNY was the bigger issue. Could be wrong, but felt like an ah-ha moment. I didn't get it from a magazine or blog - I came up with it all on me lonesome after reading enough of these documents and realizing that the $16.8 million for CUNY starts to get pretty serious in a major media center.
When Gonzales started the firing-attorneys bit, did you have all the details and reasons sorted out in your mind the first day, or did you go through "shifting rationales" as weeks passed?
July 8, 2009 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink