The White House's decision to fire AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin came amid politically-charged tensions inside the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that runs AmeriCorps. Top executives at the Corporation, Walpin explained in an hour-long interview Saturday, were unhappy with his investigation into the misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California and a prominent supporter of President Obama. Walpin's investigation also sparked conflict with the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento amid fears that the probe -- which could have resulted in Johnson being barred from ever winning another federal grant -- might stand in the way of the city receiving its part of billions of dollars in federal stimulus money. After weeks of standoff, Walpin, whose position as inspector general is supposed to be protected from influence by political appointees and the White House, was fired.Read the rest of the story of how forces within AmeriCorps were trying to block Walpin's findings and proposed solution to the misuse of federal funds by a prominent Obama supporter who is now the mayor of Sacramento in order to prevent a situation where Sacramento might be blocked from receiving AmeriCorps stimulus funds because of previous corruption by their mayor.
Walpin learned his fate Wednesday night. He was driving to an event in upstate New York when he received a call from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform. "He said, 'Mr. Walpin, the president wants me to tell you that he really appreciates your service, but it's time to move on,'" Walpin recalls. "Eisen said, 'You can either resign, or I'll tell you that we'll have to terminate you.'"
At that moment, Walpin says, he had finished not only a report on the Sacramento probe but also an investigation into extensive misuse of AmeriCorps money by the City University of New York, which is AmeriCorps' biggest program. Walpin says he told Eisen that, given those two investigations, neither of which was well-received by top Corporation management, the timing of his firing seemed "very interesting." According to Walpin, Eisen said it was "pure coincidence." When Walpin asked for some time to consider what to do, Eisen gave him one hour. "Then he called back in 45 minutes and asked for my response," Walpin recalls.
The method of Walpin's firing could be a violation of the 2008 Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the president to give Congress 30 days' notice, plus an explanation of cause, before firing an inspector general. Then-Sen. Barack Obama was a co-sponsor of that legislation. In the case of Walpin, Eisen's efforts to force Walpin to resign could be seen as an effort to push Walpin out of his job so that the White House would not have to go through the 30-day process or give a reason for its action. When Walpin refused to quit, the White House informed Congress and began the 30-day countdown.
Eisen's phone call came after months of increasing conflict inside the Corporation for National and Community Service. "We issued two reports that the management of the Corporation and the board of directors didn’t like, because they criticized what the board was doing," Walpin recalls. There is no question that Walpin discovered misuse of federal money in Kevin Johnson's program, known as St. HOPE, and at City University of New York. But as a result of those investigations, relations between Walpin and top executives became frosty, and he says they cut him out of Corporation business that should normally include the inspector general.
In these days of billions being spent by the federal government in stimulus funds and new programs it is more important than ever to have oversight of how that money is being spent and penalties inflicted on those who misuse the funds. The last thing we need is a politically tinged firing of an inspector general who was successfully acting against such abuses.
As Glenn Reynolds says,
“Culture of corruption,” anyone?
9 comments:
Chicago Democrat corruption at its best.
Just a reminder that a few months ago Betsy ran an article about the probes of Easley and Edwards, and the decision Obama faced to fire the Bush-appointed US Attorney, or allow him to stay on and finish his investigagion. Obama did the right thing and is allowing him to stay.
As far as Walpin is concerned, there is thus far no proof or corruption (but nice zinger, Skay). Walpin may himself been playing politics and overstepped his boundaries:
From TPM:
Here's the back story, in a nutshell: Walpin, a Bush appointee, had been investigating Johnson's use of federal AmeriCorps funds, dating to when Johnson ran St. HOPE Academy, a Sacramento non-profit. After concluding that Johnson had misused over $800,000, Walpin took the rare step of recommending that Johnson be barred from receiving federal funds, pending a criminal investigation. That ended up jeopardizing the city's ability to get federal stimulus dollars, after Johnson was elected mayor. But the local US attorney, also a Bush appointee, found no criminal wrongdoing in the case, and his successor formally complained to an oversight body for inspectors general about Walpin's work on the St. HOPE probe, charging that Walpin had acted "as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier."
Gee, mark. Thanks for explaining all that. Who even needs a corrobarating link or two when we have mark to set things straight?
equitus,
Both easily verifiable. Just go to your favorite search engine. It should take about a minute (for both). Are you that afraid of having to weigh information and to think for yourself?
Mark@9:39PM ,
Your ability to be snide about the fact that you couldn't do your own homework when making unsupported assertions is duly noted, but does not excuse you for the fact that you are expecting us to take your unsupported word in an instance where you and your fellow libs clearly have a reason to lie.
What's the matter? Are you libs really so afraid of having to weigh information and think for yourselves that you have to accuse others of your own shortcomings? Proof, Mark, proof! Without it what you say will not have any meaning. :P
Skay@1:50PM,
Very true and do not underestimate its power. The patronage jobs that come from this are a very important source of livelihood for many people who are incompetent at anything other than being wardheelers and such people will fight grimly for their undeserved paychecks unto their very last breath (Ask Mayor Daley about his nephew if you doubt me. O wait!, Mayor Shortshanks is apparently still in hiding when last John Kass reported. O well. Doubtless he'll be quite belligerent about it when somebody does finally corner him. Chicago Democrats always run true to form in that regard! ^o^) It is the reason libs are so fervant about campaigning for their party before and after election season rather than merely during it the way normal people would. These are people who put a price on their honor and then allowed it to be purchased. Such is the nature of those who still support Obama.
Kevin Johnson is a big supporter of Obama and we know all about the pay to play Chicago way.
So--if you misuse federal taxpayer money-and you are an Obama friend-then it is OK for you to oversee even more federal taxpayer(stimulus bill) money.
As I said-Chicago Democrat corruption at it's best.
From ABC news article-
"Grassley said Walpin needed to be given 30-days notice, which he said is required by the 2008 Inspector General Reform Act that President Bush signed into law and then-Sen. Obama co-sponsored.
Specifically, Section 3 of the law requires that, “the president shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.”
“No such notice was provided to Congress in this instance,” Grassley wrote in a letter to the president.
“Given that you were a cosponsor of this vital legislation I am deeply troubled to learn of the ultimatum given Inspector General Walpin absent Congressional notification,” Grassley wrote.
Grassley wrote that the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency had not produced any negative findings against Walpin, and “he has identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds either wasted outright or spent in violation of established guidelines. In other words, it appears he has been doing his job.”
Noting recent “massive increases in federal spending of late,” Grassley said that “it is more critical than ever that we have an Inspector General community that is vigorous, independent, and active in rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. I urge you to review the Inspector General Reform Act you cosponsored and to follow the letter of the law should you have cause to remove any Inspector General.”
mark-I took your post seriously but the narrative you describe simply is not available as presented. At least drop the little kid stuff and point out the source or the information behind the charge. Because judging from what the Sacramento Bee has reported and editorialized that is not really an accurate description.
http://tinyurl.comlse26b
Missing e-mails, $400,000 cash settlement offers, child endangerment charges, missed discovery deadlines, etc.
The problem here is that mark is quoting from a narrative that was in itself not sourced. However that version is at odds with the timeline published by the Sacramento Bee. Plus mark left out the other serious charges of destroying evidence and prior charges and out of court settlements by Johnson to child endangerment claims.
http://tinyurl.com/lse26b
I found some good discussion at Volokh - read the comments too
here.
Via that, I found Jake Tapper's report (perhaps the only mainstream journalist I trust to try to be fair and give both sides.)
here.
It's sounding like a he-said/he-said thing with the US Atty Brown. I don't know if Walpin's methods deserved firing or not, but the timing sure looks bad. Furthermore, Obama's legally-required "reason" seems very inadequate and makes it seem like he's hiding something.
On top of that, factor in Obama's history of turning a blind eye to fraud and corruption among his supporters, and it's fair to say there's good reason this should be a prominent story.
If facts emerge that Walpin indeed needed to be removed, then this story should rightfully go away. That hasn't happened yet.
Post a Comment