Hat tip to TPM:
The White House's decision to fire the AmeriCorps inspector general was set in motion by a unanimous request it received from the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which asked the White House to review the IG's performance, according to a board member.
The firing "would not have played itself out" were it not for the fact that the board raised concerns about the IG, Gerald Walpin, after the May 20 board meeting, a board member told TPMmuckraker. The board member added that the White House had no role in encouraging the board to make the review request, calling it "completely board-initiated." The White House had cited the request from the board in its letter to Congress explaining the reason for Walpin's firing.
The board member explained that the board had had "serious concerns" about Walpin's judgment, dating to before the May 20 meeting, causing board members to fear the "potential damage [Walpin] could cause to the corporation" through his erratic behavior. But the board member added that "the events of the 20th raised the board's concerns from concerns about his judgment to concerns about his capacity."
The board member also said the board was aware of a formal complaint filed by the US Attorney about Walpin's handling of the probe, and that this too played into its thinking. That complaint -- cited also by the White House -- made several charges. But the board member specifically mentioned the claim that Walpin had withheld from the findings he turned over to the US Attorney's office relevant exculpatory information about Johnson and the St. HOPE program.
The May 20 meeting, said the board member, was called because the board wanted to "extend [Walpin] the courtesy of hearing him out" on the St. HOPE issue. After Walpin spoke for about 20 or 30 minutes, board members expressed the view that he was personalizing things, and asked him to remain focused on the issues. In response, said the board member, Walpin "became forgetful and couldn't remember what he had said twenty minutes ago."
Withheld information of his findings to the U.S. Attorney office? Sounds like Mr. Walpin has some 'splaining to do, if this is true, on why he violated the OIG handbook. If Walpin withheld information on Mayor Kevin Johnson and St. HOPE foundation probe, what other investigations did Walpin withhold if any? This doesn't look good for Sen. Grassley's argument to the White House on why Walpin was fired if Walpin withheld information in the Johnson probe. This does clear up who initated first the firing of Walpin.
Finally, much of the media and talking head again ignored asking tough questions to Walpin on the damning April 29th letter by U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of California Lawrence Brown to Kenneth W. Kaiser, chairman of the Integrity Committee for the Department of Justice’s Counsel of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency concerning Walpin's conduct in the Johnson and St Hope probe.
In Brown’s letter to Kaiser, he wrote:
In our experience, the role of an Inspector General is to conduct an unbiased investigation, and then forward that investigation to my Office for a determination as to whether the facts warrant a criminal prosecution, civil suit or declination. Similarly, I understand that after conducting such an unbiased investigation, the Inspector General is not intended to act as an advocate for suspension or debarment. However, in this case Mr. Walpin viewed his role very differently. He sought to act as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier.
[…]
This matter was referred to our Office on August 7, 2008. However, even before our Office officially received this matter, we learned about it in April and June 2008 through articles in the Sacramento Bee newspaper, including comments from an IG spokesperson. Moreover, we considered the IG referral somewhat unusual in that it was accompanied by a letter from Mr. Walpin (enclosed) explaining that he viewed the conduct in this case as egregious and warranted our pursuing the matter criminally and civilly.
Within a few weeks thereafter, on August 25th, we met with Mr. Walpin and 2 investigators from his office. We expressed our concerns that the conclusions in their report seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all of the information gathered in their investigation. 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.
Despite our expressed concerns and the need for further analysis, the next we learned of this matter was again through the Sacramento Bee newspaper. First, on September 5, 2008, an IG spokesperson informed the newspaper that the matter had been referred to our Office, but also added that a “referral means that it’s out opinion that there is some truth to the initial allegation…”
Second, Mr. Walpin apparently advocated to have St. HOPE, Johnson and Gonzalez immediately placed on a list of parties suspended from receiving federal funds. We learned of that determination through Sacramento Bee articles quoting extensively from a press release issued by Mr. Walpin’s office on September 25, 2008. Not only was it extremely questionable for Mr. Walpin to issue a press release, it contained statements such as: “[i]f we find really egregious stuff and we want to stop the bleeding, we seek immediate suspension…” Moreover, the IG publicly released the findings of his investigation.
[…]
In summary, the IG should be a fact-finding impartial investigative arm of the CNCS agency. Although I recognize that a strong IG is necessary to ensure that allegations of wrongdoing are investigated, I believe that Mr. Walpin overstepped his authority by electing to provide my Office with selective information and withholding other potentially significant information at the expense of determining the truth. I believe that rather than ensuring protection of a respected federal agency, he tarnished its reputation.
No comments:
Post a Comment