47 Inspector Generals Object to Obama Stonewalling

[FruminousBandersnatch]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[quote=Anonymous]Do you have just one clue who the inspectors general are? You are a low information stooge.

Yeah, I was waiting for that too. I was an SES-4 in the federal government and was reading to see if anyone knew what they were talking about. They don't of course.

NP here. I actually don't know anything about the inspectors general to know how to interpret this story. Can someone provide more information? Thanks!

The IG is a (generally) politically independent position within federal agencies that is responsible for ensuring that the agencies operate efficiently, effectively and legally. They're similar to "internal affairs" departments within police departments. For example, in Oct. 2006 the Interior Department's Office of Inspector General conducted the investigation that determined that DoI employees wasted $2,027,887.68 worth of taxpayer time annually surfing sexually explicit, gambling, and auction websites while at work.

To dismiss them as a PP did by saying,

"Inspectors General" are like district attorneys - political hacks looking for a better job.

is inaccurate and unfair to both IGs and DAs. While there are DAs and IGs who fit the PP's description, the majority are hard working people who are genuinely interested in doing a good job in their position.

In this case, the IGs complained to Congress that the Administration was interpreting laws and regulations in ways that enabled the Administration to deny IGs access to records they had requested in the Justice Department, the Peace Corps and the chemical safety board. It's not like the Administration is just refusing to turn over records on a whim - they are making the argument that other laws passed by Congress apply and supersede the IG law. I'm still disappointed that an Administration that was elected on the promise of being more transparent than the previous Administration is making such arguments to a degree that it requires the IGs to appeal to Congress for help.

Similarly, journalism groups have complained that the Obama Administration has been far less transparent than previous administrations, and the Obama Administration's treatment of whistle-blowers has been severe compared to previous administrations.

The actual letter from the Society of Professional Journalists is available here - http://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1253 Among other things, they point out that "a survey found 40 percent of public affairs officers admitted they blocked certain reporters because they did not like what they wrote."

The letter said:

Some argue that controlling media access is needed to ensure information going out is correct. But when journalists cannot interview agency staff, or can only do so under surveillance, it undermines public understanding of, and trust in, government. This is not a “press vs. government” issue. This is about fostering a strong democracy where people have the information they need to self-govern and trust in its governmental institutions.

It has not always been this way. In prior years, reporters walked the halls of agencies and called staff people at will. Only in the past two administrations have media access controls been tightened at most agencies.

Again, I'm disappointed that a President who ran on transparency is taking this approach. The expectation was that Obama would reverse the anti-democratic, secrecy trends of the Bush Administration, but, instead, the Obama Administration has perpetuated them.

As I said above, I understand how the siege mentality created by Fox News, the conservative blogosphere, and the attention-seeking but consistently futile hearings of Rep. Issa can drive people to hunker down and try and protect themselves, but that's not an excuse. I expect better from the Obama Administration.

[Anonymous]

A dispute about attorney-client privilege pertaining to documents at the Chemical Safety Board will undoubtedly undermine the constitutional foundation of this great Nation.