Obama’s Firing Of IG A Can Of Worms
President Barack Obama’s abrupt firing of the inspector general of AmeriCorps caught my attention only because by comparison his predecessor never seemed to have the gumption to axe anyone. But, then, digging into the details, the canning of IG Gerald Walpin is murky to say the least. It is a story of political intrigue, favoritism to a campaign supporter and two wings of the executive branch in cahoots with each other. Here are the facts in the case the best I can figure:
Walpin, a George W. Bush appointee, investigated alleged misuse of federal grants to a non-profit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and vocal supporter and contributor of Obama. Walpin accused Johnson’s group of using portions of the $850,000 AmeriCorps grant to pay volunteers to campaign for a school board election as well as personal services such as driving Johnson to functions and washing his personal car.
In August 2008 Walpin, whose only punitive power is to withhold grant funds, referred the case to the federal prosecutor. The prosecutor determined the investigation was mishandled and misleading while referring Walpin to an ethics committee that governs the conduct of inspectors general. “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,” Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown said in an April 29 letter to the federal counsel of inspectors general. Yet, the prosecutor’s office negotiated a $424,000 settlement with Johnson and St. HOPE Academy, a nonprofit group receiving the federal grants from the Corporation for National and Community Service, which runs the AmeriCorps program.
It must be noted that Walpin made numerous comments about his investigation during Johnson’s campaign for Sacramento mayor. It led the prosecutor’s office to announce no criminal charges were being contemplated.
Obama on Wednesday tried to force Walpin to resign but he refused. The president in a letter Friday notified House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the senate pro tem, Vice President Joe Biden, of his decision which takes place in 30 days. “It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general,” Obama said in the letter. “That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general.”
The president didn’t offer any more explanation, but White House Counsel Gregory Craig, in a letter to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, cited the U.S. attorney’s criticism of Walpin to an integrity committee for inspectors general.
The problem with Obama’s letter is that it offered no reason for the firing despite the fact that as U.S. senator, Obama endorsed the legislation that reformed rules governing inspectors general from being fired on political grounds.
Walpin defended his work on Friday. “I know that I and my office acted with the highest integrity as an independent inspector general should act,” he said. Walpin said he gave the integrity committee “a full and complete response” that was also signed by several people who worked on the case. “I have no question but that we acted totally properly,” he said.
Alan Solomont, a Democrat and the board chairman of the government-run AmeriCorps, and Stephen Goldsmith, a Republican and the board’s vice chair, said they strongly endorsed Obama’s decision.
I don’t know what to believe. It appears Obama is playing hardball politics while at the same time ignoring whistleblower legislation he co-sponsored two years earlier. On the other hand, how can an inspector general accuse a firm of squandering federal grant money when he doesn’t even conduct an audit?
This story fell below the MSM radar but the conservative blogs are questioning Obama’s lack of transparency and on this occasion for good cause.
Cross posted on The Remmers Report
14 Responses to “Obama’s Firing Of IG A Can Of Worms”
He may be many people's Messiah, but he's not a saint. Don't you recall how he ran at least one earlier campaign in his career, or how ruthlessly he discarded the nut-case Sixties-era-radical Rev'rend when it was obvious the Rev'rend was a liability to his Presidential campaign?
I'm unsure if this is another example of an out-of-touch poor-PR blunder or if this is development of some overconfidence (as the health care premature initiative may be) that they believe they can get away with more than they originally hoped for.
Type your comment here.
As a Senator you co-sponsor the IG Reform Act to strenghten IGs by making them more independent and less political. Then as President your first interaction with IGs is to try and get one to resign and then unsuccessful fire him without giving a clear reason. After the Bush years, I had hope for more transparency and accountability.
If Bush had tried to fire an IG who just found wrongdoing with a major GOP contributor, the left would be screaming for an independent prosecutor.
The recent testimony of the car dealers who were thrown out will focus attention back on the fact that most, if not all, were GOP contributors and that neighboring, under performing dealers that contributed to Obama were spared.
Isn’t it a little early for Obama to be involved in so many crimes?
I haven't really followed this, so let me see if I have this right.
Walpin not only launches an investigation of Johnson, but makes numerous comments about it during an election season – which is the textbook case of attempting to influence an election. Upon review, Walpin's investigation is not only full of crap, but he didn't actually investigate anything he said he was going to.
And, somehow, Obama's decision to fire this clown is a “political” decision and somehow the idea that Obama has lost faith in this guy is not crystal clear? This sort of thing sounds good on FOX News, but otherwise, it doesn't look anything like a “moderate voice.”
“It is a story of political intrigue, favoritism to a campaign supporter and two wings of the executive branch in cahoots with each other.”
No it isn't. Both the Dem chair and the GOP vice-chair agreed it was justified. And the GWB appointed Republican registered US Attorney said “there's no fraud.”
Tempest in teapot. Obama didn't give a reason? How about alleging fraud without even doing an audit. That is incompetence. When the prosecutor, a Bush appointee, agrees there's no case, it's time for the IG to go.
Thurman,
Do you not know of the $400,000+ that was paid back in restitution, or does that not figure into your calculation of whether their was any impropriety?
jwest, lots of government contractors, including highly reputable academic institutions have had to pay back part of their grants, with no fraud involved. I can't recall a single instance in which the IG mouthed off to the press. There's a huge difference between fraud and error, and there are often differences of opinion, such as which expenses can be allocated to a particular grant, which is often the issue with both academic and private companies receiving federal grants.
GD,
I hope that if I ever rob a bank, you are on the jury.
jwest, it wouldn't get to a jury if the prosecutor says “there's no case”
This topic was actually covered here at TMV on Friday , by Mikkel Fishman.
In a comment over there, I quoted the Associated Press article about this story:
The US Attorney's office was at that time run by a Bush appointee named McGregor Scott. He was the person in charge.
His office decided not to prosecute anyone.
His office decided that Walpin's conclusions were overblown.
His office decided to alert the media to these facts.
Georgie, it is clear your defense strategy is to make a big deal out of the fact that McGregor Scott was the head of the US Attorney's office during the fall when all of this originally transpired, however, this citation suggests that your friend Brown was actually handling everything pertaining to this case. Perhaps we should fault Scott for not interceding, however, maybe Brown had the normal course authority to make these decisions himself……….
Brown expressed chagrin that U.S. Attorney's office learned about the investigation into Johnson and St. HOPE through articles in the Sacramento Bee, and he said they found Walpin's comments surrounding the investigation unprofessional. “Moreover, we considered the IG referral somewhat unusual in that it was accompanied by a letter from Mr. Walpin explaining that he viewed the conduct in this case as egregious and warranted our pursuing the matter criminally and civilly,” he wrote. On August 25 Brown's office met with Walpin and two investigators and “expressed our concerns that the conclusions in their report seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all the information gathered in their investigation.”
http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_n24…
CasuaoObserver–
I went to your link and followed the footnote back to its source, from ABC News.
The ABC News story also contained this information:
I added a little extra emphasis to show McGregor Scott's involvement.
PS If you think calling me “Georgie” is enhancing your credibility, you should keep doing it.
Brown was not a “Republican” appointee. He is/was a career bureaucrat – and probably a Democrat – who rose to his present position due to attrition during the previous administration after the the previous AG left.
No money was repaid, and probably won't be, since St.Hope has no funds. However, Kevin Johnson was ordered to repay something like $73,800 out of his own pocket.
Walpin reportedly was on the trail of other improprieties within AmeriCorps involving CUNY and possible double dipping on grant money by taking AmeriCorps cash for kids who already had a free ride. And it certainly looks like there's been some lyin' going on to try to rustle up a case against Walpin. I predict this is going to continue to unravel and become a much bigger scandal.
The solution is very easy. Do a complete audit to determine if the allegations are false or if there is merit to them. If Americorp is “above board” they should welcome the opportunity to demonstrate their integrity. If the audit shows no corruption of any kind, case closed. That will justify the firing of the IG and show the public that President Obama's decision is based on truth and is a wise decision. Then our President's commitment to truth will be transparent to all of our citizens. On the other hand, if an audit shows that the allegations are true, President Obama has to demonstrate to our countrymen and women that he is willing to honor truth and and fire as well as press charges against those involved. To do anything less is an affront to the “transparency” and honesty so gladly professed much less practiced by our current administration and for that matter our free press. Audit to show…Honesty or deceit?