Obama has Inspector General fired..for doing his job. Cronism????

Anonymous
President Obama swept to office on the promise of a new kind of politics, but then how do you explain last week's dismissal of federal Inspector General Gerald Walpin for the crime of trying to protect taxpayer dollars? This is a case that smells of political favoritism and Chicago rules.

A George W. Bush appointee, Mr. Walpin has since 2007 been the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency that oversees such subsidized volunteer programs as AmeriCorps. In April 2008 the Corporation asked Mr. Walpin to investigate reports of irregularities at St. HOPE, a California nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson. St. HOPE had received an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant, which was supposed to go for three purposes: tutoring for Sacramento-area students; the redevelopment of several buildings; and theater and art programs.


Associated Press

Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation For National and Community Service, was fired by President Barack Obama.
Mr. Walpin's investigators discovered that the money had been used instead to pad staff salaries, meddle politically in a school-board election, and have AmeriCorps members perform personal services for Mr. Johnson, including washing his car.

At the end of May, Mr. Walpin's office recommended that Mr. Johnson, an assistant and St. HOPE itself be "suspended" from receiving federal funds. The Corporation's official charged with suspensions agreed, and in September the suspension letters went out. Mr. Walpin's office also sent a civil and/or criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California.

So far, so normal. But that all changed last fall, when Mr. Johnson was elected mayor of Sacramento. News of the suspension had become public, and President Obama began to discuss his federal stimulus spending. A city-hired attorney pronounced in March that Sacramento might be barred from receiving stimulus funds because of Mr. Johnson's suspension.

The news caused a public uproar. The U.S. Attorney's office, which since January has been headed by Lawrence Brown -- a career prosecutor who took over when the Bush-appointed Attorney left -- had already decided not to pursue criminal charges. Media and political pressure then mounted for the office to settle the issue and lift Mr. Johnson's suspension. Mr. Walpin agreed Mr. Johnson should pay back money but objected to lifting the suspension. He noted that Mr. Johnson has never officially responded to the Corporation's findings and that the entire point of suspension is to keep federal funds from individuals shown to have misused them.

Mr. Brown's office responded by cutting off contact with Mr. Walpin's office and began working directly with the Corporation, the board of which is now chaired by one of Mr. Obama's top campaign fundraisers, Alan Solomont. A few days later, Mr. Brown's office produced a settlement draft that significantly watered down any financial repayment and cleared Mr. Johnson. Mr. Walpin told us that in all his time working with U.S. Attorneys on cases he'd referred, he'd never been cut out in such fashion.

Mr. Walpin brought his concerns to the Corporation's board, but some board members were angry over a separate Walpin investigation into the wrongful disbursement of $80 million to the City University of New York. Concerned about the St. HOPE mess, Mr. Walpin wrote a 29-page report, signed by two other senior members of his office, and submitted it in April to Congress. Last Wednesday, he got a phone call from a White House lawyer telling him to resign within an hour or be fired.

We've long disliked the position of inspectors general, on grounds that they are creatures of Congress designed to torment the executive. Yet this case appears to be one in which an IG was fired because he criticized a favorite Congressional and executive project (AmeriCorps), and refused to bend to political pressure to let the Sacramento mayor have his stimulus dollars.

There's also the question of how Mr. Walpin was terminated. He says the phone call came from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, who said the President felt it was time for Mr. Walpin to "move on," and that it was "pure coincidence" he was asked to leave during the St. HOPE controversy. Yet the Administration has already had to walk back that claim.

That's because last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the President to give Congress 30 days notice, plus a reason, before firing an inspector general. A co-sponsor of that bill was none other than Senator Obama. Having failed to pressure Mr. Walpin into resigning (which in itself might violate the law), the Administration was forced to say he'd be terminated in 30 days, and to tell Congress its reasons.

White House Counsel Gregory Craig cited a complaint that had been lodged against Mr. Walpin by Mr. Brown, the U.S. Attorney, accusing Mr. Walpin of misconduct, and of not really having the goods on Mr. Johnson. But this is curious given that Mr. Brown himself settled with St. HOPE, Mr. Johnson and his assistant, an agreement that required St. HOPE (with a financial assist from Mr. Johnson) to repay approximately half of the grant, and also required Mr. Johnson to take an online course about bookkeeping.

Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, a co-sponsor of the IG Reform Act, is now demanding that the Corporation hand over its communications on this mess. He also wants to see any contact with the office of First Lady Michelle Obama, who has taken a particular interest in AmeriCorps, and whose former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, recently arrived at the Corporation as a "senior adviser."

If this seems like small beer, keep in mind that Mr. Obama promised to carefully watch how every stimulus dollar is spent. In this case, the evidence suggests that his White House fired a public official who refused to roll over to protect a Presidential crony.

Anonymous
Politics outpoints principle. I hope there is still a bit of principle left, but time will tell.
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
It would be nice that when you decide to violate copyright laws and illegally republish an AP article, you also at least include a link to the original source. That article does not read like an AP news article, but more like an opinion piece. Notably, it leaves out a number of facts. I suspect knowing more about the author and such would be a bit eye opening. (Humm, quick Googling shows that it in fact is not an AP article, but WSJ opinion article).

But, rather than dispute the article, I'll just add a Washington, DC angle to it. Kevin Johnson is accused of mishandling funds in regards to St. HOPE. DC's broom-wielding schools chancellor, Michelle Rhee, is rumored to have a personal relationship with Johnson (they've been spotted by both City Paper and Washington Post reporters holding hands). Moreover, Rhee sits on the board of St. HOPE. So, it would be interesting to know what, if any, involvement Rhee has with the misused funds.

I will point out one important item that is missing from the WSJ opinion piece. Walpin never conducted an audit of the AmeriCorps funds. Therefore, none of the allegations involving AmeriCorps can really be substantiated. Also, it is very rare for individuals to be suspended from receiving funds in these circumstances. Walpin went quite a bit overboard. On the one hand, this can be described as a Democratic president protecting a supporter. On the other, it looks like a hard-right Republican (Walpin once introduced Mitt Romney by saying he governed a state run by the modern day KKK -- Kennedy-Kerry Klan) on a vendetta against a political opponent.
Anonymous
I believe Johnson already admitted to mishandling the money. As usual the whistleblower gets attacked. No one has accused the former Inspector General of using his office for political gain. Why is not your focus on why someone gets fired who uncovered something wrong? And pushing under the rug as not a big deal that Johnson basically used money for his own personal stuff is sad.
Anonymous
Oh I cut and pasted the article. Should also note Jeff that again..when you don't like something you tend to attack. I am not sure I have seen you make silly copyright infringement issues to liberal cut and paste articles--this is a mom's website not abc news.
Anonymous
jsteele wrote:But, rather than dispute the article, I'll just add a Washington, DC angle to it. Kevin Johnson is accused of mishandling funds in regards to St. HOPE. DC's broom-wielding schools chancellor, Michelle Rhee, is rumored to have a personal relationship with Johnson (they've been spotted by both City Paper and Washington Post reporters holding hands). Moreover, Rhee sits on the board of St. HOPE. So, it would be interesting to know what, if any, involvement Rhee has with the misused funds.


Who cares what involvement Rhee has with the issue? The issue raised by the OP was related to Obama not Rhee.
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:I believe Johnson already admitted to mishandling the money. As usual the whistleblower gets attacked. No one has accused the former Inspector General of using his office for political gain. Why is not your focus on why someone gets fired who uncovered something wrong? And pushing under the rug as not a big deal that Johnson basically used money for his own personal stuff is sad.


1) It is not uncommon for non-profits to run into problems when adhering to what can be complex government regulations. Johnson has not been convicted, or even charged, with any crimes. The punishment didn't fit the allegations and is not in line with similar cases.

2) The "whistleblower" is a hard right political activist. He is not simply an unbiased observer. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration favored his sort for appointments.

3) I don't really have a dog in this fight. I'm no fan of Johnson and, in fact, don't really like that he came to DC to promote Rhee when his relationship was apparently beyond the merely professional (he testified at her Council hearing). I also don't like Bush dead-enders going on political witch hunts. But, most of all, I am dismayed that hack conservatives will try to hype what is really a non-issue as a means of attacking Obama.

4) I don't believe any of the allegations should be pushed under the rug. They should just be treated realistically. Issues of this sort are common, the punishment wasn't. You yourself recently posted here that new Presidents always appoint their own people. So, why are you making this an issue?

5) Given your new found zeal for following laws, do you feel guilty for breaking federal copyright laws by illegally republishing the article here (and with false attribution at that)?

jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:Who cares what involvement Rhee has with the issue? The issue raised by the OP was related to Obama not Rhee.


If Rhee was involved with mishandling federal funds, i would be interested. Wouldn't you?
Anonymous
jsteele wrote:I will point out one important item that is missing from the WSJ opinion piece. Walpin never conducted an audit of the AmeriCorps funds. Therefore, none of the allegations involving AmeriCorps can really be substantiated. Also, it is very rare for individuals to be suspended from receiving funds in these circumstances. Walpin went quite a bit overboard. On the one hand, this can be described as a Democratic president protecting a supporter. On the other, it looks like a hard-right Republican (Walpin once introduced Mitt Romney by saying he governed a state run by the modern day KKK -- Kennedy-Kerry Klan) on a vendetta against a political opponent.


Before you start spouting off about copyright laws maybe you should spend some time researching the issue before providing your one sided opinions and hoping no one will call bullshit on you.

Here is the link as I do not want to be sent to the copyright police.

http://cncsig.gov/PDF/StHope/StHOPEFIN.pdf

"AUSA Newman and OIG agreed that St. HOPE’s failure to produce documents it was required to maintain provided us no comfort that we could rely on St. HOPE for financial transparency.
On February 4th, AUSA Newman informed OIG Supervisory Special Agent Morales that St. HOPE’s attorney was furnishing additional documents and that OIG auditors should provide their report based on the documents St. HOPE provided. OIG auditors did so, providing their report on March 18th (Ex. 24). The report noted that St. HOPE had failed to provide the following documentation: “Source documentation for costs charged to the grant; complete general ledger (only a partial ledger was produced); reconciliation of costs charged on the Financial Status Report to the general ledger, including match funds; explanation of the methodology for allocating costs between match and Federal share; [and] identification of the accounting system used.” The report’s conclusion was straight forward:
“None of the costs charged to the grant are allowable, primarily because the AmeriCorps members’ service activities were not consistent with the grant
requirements.
“ * * *
“Contrary to . . . grant requirements and prohibitions, we found that St. HOPE AmeriCorps members performed little, if any, of the service agreed to and stipulated under the grant. Instead, they were used for non-authorized and prohibited activities, including service that displaced St. HOPE employees, a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12637 Non duplication and Non displacement. We also found instances where AmeriCorps living allowances and benefits were unlawfully used to supplement the salaries of St. HOPE employees.
“Another grant requirement is that all allowable cost must be adequately documented . . . . We found an almost total lack of documentation to support St. HOPE’s performance of the grant, despite our repeated requests to St. HOPE for grant-related documents.”
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:
Before you start spouting off about copyright laws maybe you should spend some time researching the issue before providing your one sided opinions and hoping no one will call bullshit on you.


Exactly what are you calling "bullshit" on? You are simply quoting from Walpin's report. Exactly what that I have written is contradicted by it?

Talk about one-sided? You quote only from one party -- and a party whose role is disputed at that -- and consider yourself even-handed? I call bullshit on that.

Anonymous
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Before you start spouting off about copyright laws maybe you should spend some time researching the issue before providing your one sided opinions and hoping no one will call bullshit on you.


Exactly what are you calling "bullshit" on? You are simply quoting from Walpin's report. Exactly what that I have written is contradicted by it?

Talk about one-sided? You quote only from one party -- and a party whose role is disputed at that -- and consider yourself even-handed? I call bullshit on that.


If you want me to post all 29 pages I will but thought I would save space by providing the link. You claim no audit was performed according to your source. If you know the first thing about audits you can't perform an audit unless the party you are auditing provides access to the financial records. An audit was attempted but Johnson refused to comply and somehow in your eyes an audit was never performed - talk about one-sided.

Provide me some quotes from Johnson and his people that say they provided all the financial records requested in order to perform the audit. I have not seen any rebuttal from Johnson. Oh and by the way instead of being audited they agreed to repay some of the money.

I say put up or shut-up.
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:
If you want me to post all 29 pages I will but thought I would save space by providing the link. You claim no audit was performed according to your source. If you know the first thing about audits you can't perform an audit unless the party you are auditing provides access to the financial records. An audit was attempted but Johnson refused to comply and somehow in your eyes an audit was never performed - talk about one-sided.

Provide me some quotes from Johnson and his people that say they provided all the financial records requested in order to perform the audit. I have not seen any rebuttal from Johnson. Oh and by the way instead of being audited they agreed to repay some of the money.

I say put up or shut-up.


Look, I'm not Johnson's lawyer. I don't really care about him. But here is some of the information that you have overlooked:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1904446,00.html

1) the Bush-appointed US Attorney said that Walpin's report (the report to which you linked and partially quoted) "seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all the information gathered in the investigation."

2) The acting US Attorney (a career professional, not a political appointee) said that "We also highlighted numerous questions and further investigation they needed to conduct, including the fact that they had not done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent" (So, while I am not an expert on audits, I'll accept the word of an acting US Attorney over yours.)

3) Johnson agreed to pay back half the money in order to get the suspension on future grants lifted. Obviously, there are multiple possible motives for such an action, not limited to being guilty.

4) "Walpin's office made repeated public comments just before the Sacramento mayoral election, prompting the U.S. attorney's office to inform the media that it did not intend to file any criminal charges." -- so you see the political dimensions to Walpin's activiities.

Here is Johnson's lawyer's view:

http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1267585.html

William Portanova, a lawyer representing Johnson, said the former NBA star plans to appeal the suspension. Portanova characterized the violations at St. HOPE as "relatively minor issues that have long since been resolved."

"With government funding, differences of opinion lead to public pronunciations of sin," Portanova said. "It's very discouraging to people whose hearts are truly set on helping others."



Anonymous
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
2) The acting US Attorney (a career professional, not a political appointee) said that "We also highlighted numerous questions and further investigation they needed to conduct, including the fact that they had not done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent" (So, while I am not an expert on audits, I'll accept the word of an acting US Attorney over yours.)


You have provided one sentence from a letter and therefore it is impossible to understand in what context the statement was made. Someone is twisting the facts here. The IG report clearly states:

"On February 4th, AUSA Newman informed OIG Supervisory Special Agent Morales that St. HOPE’s attorney was furnishing additional documents and that OIG auditors should provide their report based on the documents St. HOPE provided. OIG auditors did so, providing their report on March 18th (Ex. 24)."

I would like to see the entire letter written by Brown and why he claims no report was performed, when in fact the report is an exhibit to a report issued to Congress. Not sure how he can claim an audit was not performed, may be a case of him not agreeing with the findings or lack of findings due to the lack of cooperation.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
2) The acting US Attorney (a career professional, not a political appointee) said that "We also highlighted numerous questions and further investigation they needed to conduct, including the fact that they had not done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent" (So, while I am not an expert on audits, I'll accept the word of an acting US Attorney over yours.)


You have provided one sentence from a letter and therefore it is impossible to understand in what context the statement was made. Someone is twisting the facts here. The IG report clearly states:

"On February 4th, AUSA Newman informed OIG Supervisory Special Agent Morales that St. HOPE’s attorney was furnishing additional documents and that OIG auditors should provide their report based on the documents St. HOPE provided. OIG auditors did so, providing their report on March 18th (Ex. 24)."


I would like to see the entire letter written by Brown and why he claims no report was performed, when in fact the report is an exhibit to a report issued to Congress. Not sure how he can claim an audit was not performed, may be a case of him not agreeing with the findings or lack of findings due to the lack of cooperation.

Perhaps the audit of St. Hope (done with incomplete financial records) and an audit of AmeriCorp are two different things?

I don't have a dog in this fight, but clearly the White House overstepped when they didn't follow the procedure to dismiss an Inspector General - a procedure that Obama voted for as a Senator. Claire McCaskill is even questioning the procedure. We are only hearing Newman's side for motive, so I will wait for the "rest of the story" before making judgment. If the White House really cannot provide Congress with a reason other than "loss of confidence" THEN we have a story.
Anonymous
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/06/white_house_explains_firing_of.html

So he was fired because he was confused and disoriented.

I have to say, I have seen two interviews with Walpin this week on TV - he was anything but confused or disoriented.

Page 5 of this document makes interesting reading:
http://www.cncsig.gov/PDF/AuditReports/fy09/09-11A.pdf

Walpin vs. the White House is definitely David vs. Goliath - and I don't think the Almighty is going to intervene, but from what I have seen here the whole thing stinks.
Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: