RECENT POSTS
- President Obama: Asia Trip Helped Usher in a New Era of American Engagement
- Secretary Sebelius Celebrates the Tenth Anniversary of National Adoption Day
- Organizing for America Targets Sarah Palin
- Obama Administration Starts to Publicly Raise Issue of Detained US Citizen Xue Feng
- President Obama Gives Interview (of Sorts) to Dissident Cuban Blogger
- "You Guys Make a Pretty Good Photo Op," President Obama Jokes to Troops at Osan Air Base
- Did the Chinese Government Crack Down on an Obama Interview?
- Our Trip to the DMZ
- President Obama Greets U.S. Troops in South Korea, Wraps Up Week in Asia
- White House: We’re Not in the “Immediate Gratification Business”
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
More Details Emerge In President Obama's Firing of Inspector General
June 13, 2009 8:37 AM
It was Wednesday evening and Gerald Walpin was pleading for his job.
Just a few hours before, at around 5:20 pm, Walpin -- , Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) -- was driving on a highway when he had received a phone call from Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, informing him that President Obama no longer had confidence in him and wanted him to resign.
Walpin had an hour to make up his mind as to whether he was going to resign or have the president seek his suspension and termination, as indicated in email from Walpin to Eisen obtained by ABC News.
(A White House official tells ABC News that on Wednesday afternoon, "Walpin was informed, as a courtesy, of the president's decision to replace him. Mr. Walpin asked for time to consider resigning. He was told the decision to replace him was final, but for logistical reasons having to do with preparing the Congressional notifications, he could call back within the hour if he chose to resign.")*
In that email, as well as other documents surrounding Walpin's termination obtained by ABC News, a picture emerges of an ambitious and aggressive inspector general whose actions repeatedly offended officials of the US Attorney's office, to the point that the Republican-appointee in the US Attorney's office filed an official complain against the Republican-appointed Inspector General.
Walpin -- appointed to his job under President George W. Bush -- wrote to Eisen that "Congress intended the Inspector General of CNCS to have the utmost independence of judgment in his deliberations respecting the propriety of the agency's conduct and the actions of its officers. That is why the relevant statute provides that the President may remove the IG only if he supplies the Congress with a statement of his reasons--which is quite a different matter than executive branch officials who serve at his pleasure and can therefore be removed for any reason and without notification to Congress."
Walpin told Eisen that he took "this statutorily-mandated independence of my office very seriously, and, under the present circumstances, I simply cannot make a decision to respect or decline what you have said were the President's wishes within an hour or indeed any such short time."
Walpin had just issued two reports that were very critical of the actions taken by the Corporation for National and Community Service.
"It would do a disservice to the independent scheme that Congress has mandated--and could potentially raise questions about my own integrity--if I were to render what would seem to many a very hasty response to your request," Walpin wrote. "I heard your statement that this request that you communicated on behalf of the President and the timing of our reports and disagreement with the CNCS Board and management are 'coincidence,' as you put it on the phone, but I would suggest there is a high likelihood that others may see it otherwise."
Walpin said that he suspected that "when presented with the circumstances I have just discussed, the President will see the propriety of providing me additional time to reflect on his request. If however he believes that my departure is a matter of urgency, then he will have to take the appropriate steps toward ordering my removal, without my agreement."
The latter scenario is the one that played out, with President Obama informing congressional leaders of his decision in a letter stating that “it is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as Inspectors General. That is no longer the case with regard to this Inspector general.”
In a follow-up letter, White House counsel Greg Craig -- responding to a letter of concern about Walpin’s termination from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa -- noted that Lawrence Brown, the “Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, a career prosecutor who was appointed to his post during the Bush Administration, has referred Mr. Walpin’s conduct for review by the Integrity Committee of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.”
Craig said that the White House was “aware of the circumstances leading to that referral and of Mr. Walpin’s conduct throughout his tenure and can assure you that that the president’s decision was carefully considered.” He noted that Walpin’s termination “is fully supported by the Chair of the Corporation (a Democrat) and the Vice-Chair (a Republican).”
As we detailed yesterday, Walpin was criticized by Acting US Attorney Brown for his handling of an investigation into the use of AmeriCorps funds by a community group called St. HOPE Academy, founded by Kevin Johnson, former point guard of the Phoenix Suns, who was elected Mayor of Sacramento last November and is an ally of the president’s.
In that April 29 letter from Brown to Kenneth Kaiser, chair of the Integrity Committee for the Counsel of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, the Acting US Attorney wrote "to express my Office's concerns about the conduct" of Walpin in the handling of the Johnson case.
"In our experience," Brown wrote in the letter obtained by ABC News, "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."
In April of this year, St. HOPE Academy agreed to pay a $423,836.50 settlement -- $72,836.50 of which would be paid personally by Mayor Johnson.
Brown expressed chagrin that US 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." For example, Brown wrote, Walpin's office had not actually done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent.
The next time Brown heard from Walpin's office, Brown wrote, was through the Bee a from a press release in which Walpin advocated to have St. HOPE, Johnson and Gonzales placed on the list of parties suspended from receiving federal funds -- a serious move that Brown suggests his office did not know about until reading it in a press release.
On September 26, Brown said, the then-US Attorney McGregor Scott "emphatically informed Mr. Walpin that under no circumstance was he to communicate with the media about a matter under investigation and that his acts "were hindering our investigation and handling of this matter."
Ultimately the US Attorney's office determined that "a significant portion of the AmeriCorps grant funds were appropriately expended." They concluded that Walpin's investigation was wanting. For instance, Walpin's referral of his investigation to the US Attorney's office concluded that St. HOPE AmeriCorps members performed no tutoring," but the principal of an elementary school told the US Attorney's office that wasn't true, that St. HOPE AmeriCorps members had performed tutoring at his school. Upon further investigation, Brown wrote, the US Attorney's office found that Walpin had received a similar statement from the principal "but did not include it in their report or disclose it" to his office.
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," Brown concluded.
In his official response to Brown's complaint against him, Walpin referred to the Inspector General Act of 1978 which asserts that the IG has the duty to "[a]ssume a leadership role in any and all activities which he deems useful to promote economy and efficiency in the administration of programs and operations or prevent and detect...waste in such programs and operations."
"IG offices are not intended to shy away from communication to the public through the media," Walpin wrote.
He disputed that he hadn't informed the US Attorney's office that he was considering asking the Corporation for National and Community Service to have Kevin Johnson and St. HOPE suspended from receiving federal funds. "The only thing that the United States Attorney's Office did not know was whether and when the Corporation would act."
As for the exculpatory testimony of the principal, Walpin said he found it irrelevant since the principal had told them that he had not "physically observed members on a daily basis...conducting tutoring."
-jpt
* This post was updated with the White House official's added context.
June 13, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (96)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I read these comments and I wonder how stupid can people be? Yes, he blocked kevin johnson from getting funds. Because Kevin Johnson was found to be a criminal. He was doing his job.
Americore and the entire chain of command was replaced with progressives loons and they just want to ignore the fact that Kevin Johnson misappropriated 800K of taxpayer dollars.
I find it odd that democraps will chide a "greedy CED" for having a party, but if Kevin Johnson used taxepayer money for illegal campaign contributions it must be the big bad republicans being mean. What a bunch of fools.
Posted by: carl | Jun 16, 2009 5:17:02 PM
Chicago's rules have taken over and have replaced honesty, ethics and fair treatment of all concerned parties. What's next Mr. President? Cement and a five gallon bucket to eliminate your enemies. You, your administration and party are a disgrace to democracies.
God save our country from the worst of the worst.
Posted by: Albert Bulklock | Jun 16, 2009 4:24:06 PM
Uh... The reason why Kevin Johnson paid that $450k was because Walpin used bureaucratic means to prevent the city of Sacramento from receiving stimulus money. There was no admission of guilt, and if you had read Tapper's story you would she that it was an arbitrary amount because there was no audit done to determine how much money was lost; Walpin essentially extorted the city.
Posted by: ES Blofeld | Jun 16, 2009 3:32:20 PM
Apparently Karen only sees what she wants to see. This story is a fantasy. Mr Wolpin is one of the best IGs we have. He went after Obama's buddy, Kevin Johnson.
Posted by: Lewis | Jun 16, 2009 1:48:50 PM
Talk about a hack job. Wolpin was fired because he was going to suspend Obama's buddy Kevin Johnson from receiving funds because he's a crook. Obama protecting he crooked friends, big surprise.
Posted by: Bob | Jun 16, 2009 1:46:39 PM
Wow, is ABC in the tank for Obama or what? Kevin Johnson is a good friend of Obama. Mr Wolpin was doing what Inspector Generals are SUPPOSED to do; protect taxpayers interests. Mr Johnson misused funds, and Obama is using his politic power to squash someone who didn't do what he was told.
No Inspector General has ever been fired for no reason. This is abuse of power. Wolpin has prosecuted Republicans. He is not partisan because he goes after criminals who happen to be Democrats.
Posted by: David | Jun 16, 2009 1:41:36 PM
Obama makes Bush look good.
Posted by: roger | Jun 16, 2009 1:13:26 PM
President said today to find a billion dollars in waste and fraud in the medicare and medicaid programs that would be used to pay for health care. If this is how he intends to find waste and fraud, we are in trouble. Politics are politics and the rule of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." Some things never change regardless of party. I have worked under the Inspector General system in DoD and DoJ and they are in fact independent, or suppose to be. If his facts were faulty, that is what courts are for.
Posted by: Bob HH | Jun 15, 2009 10:54:54 PM
"I did not vote for Obama but i do not think he is that dumb."
Think again! Looks more and more like Obama broke the law. Not that anyone will hold him accountable. Fascism rocks!
Posted by: Stacey | Jun 15, 2009 7:30:36 PM
In 2008, Senator Obama endorsed and signed a bill which stated that Inspector Generals would be given 30 days notice, if they were being terminated. I certainly don't possess Obama or his administration's math skills, as witnessed by their accounting for the budget, however 1 hour's notice of termination certainly doesn't equal a 30 day notice.
This is all about the misuse of "AmeriCorp" funds. Inspector General Walpin got the goods on Obama's basketball playing buddy, Mayor Johnson, for which he was quickly punished by his firing. Add this incident to the many lies Americans are being told about transparency in this administration.
Stop drinking the kool-aid and wake up America! Witness the actions, NOT the rhetoric!!
Posted by: thinkin'thing | Jun 15, 2009 7:07:15 PM
I bet that Obama did not discharge the IG. Some bureaucrat fired him. I did not vote for Obama but i do not think he is that dumb.
Cmadams
Posted by: charles Adams | Jun 15, 2009 6:14:49 PM
Tobarefootboy: put on some shoes and get into the real world. Come in from the country and realize that while Obama is not perfect he is better than what we had and has achieved more in a short time than any other president. Remember he did not give out the first tarp...it was President Bush who swore we needed this a all got on board to save America. What he is spending needs to be spent and yes, he will have to put a stop to it soon. As for the automakers mess...he is trying to save thousands of jobs and small companies who rely on these companies for business. How can you say he is unamerican? And to those who criticized him taking a trip to New York...you don't ever mention the fact that he has not taken the allowance to all presidents to fix up the private quarters by saying they will spend their own money and possible keep much of the things that are there. They also refused the money for the white house dishes so let's get real here, folks.
Posted by: talmag | Jun 15, 2009 12:22:23 PM
Whatever happened to "truth seeking" whether it be liberal or conservative infractions? The liberal "good" and "conservative" bad emotional arguments are so very tired. "Where is Obama's birth certificate?" "Bush, Cheney, Carlyle Group" The idea that every appointee is a partisan or idealogue is absurd, but it sure makes it easy to attack someone..these ad hominems are easy to toss out and don't require any critical thinking. Perhaps there were improprieties and his request for removal is political...I just wish that news and media would get back to real investigative reporting rather the 20 second soundbites and articles that lean left or right as found on Fox and MSNBC. Whether it is the Bush Administration or the Obama Administration, Jake seems to be one of the few willing to ask the questions that should be asked. I guess asking the public to use the same reasoning and critical thinking is too much.
Posted by: Steff McKee | Jun 15, 2009 11:40:24 AM
Good riddance to another corrupt "crusader" whose grandiose posturing ("I answer only to Congress" -what a load of crap) and failure to perform (he did not conduct an audit before ####### his "case" in the press) is typical of the kind of appointees of the failed Bush administration.
Desperate to find something on Americorps, he deletes evidence that partially exculpates the subject of the investigation.
That is exactly what corrupt prosecutors do - not independent investigators.
The whining liar should be fired.
Posted by: Peter Wimsey | Jun 15, 2009 11:16:05 AM
Can a man who, at the age of 29, "fondled" a 16-y.o. girl be trusted? That person is Mayor Johnson. He paid off the family $230,000.
Posted by: Independent | Jun 15, 2009 4:08:01 AM
Johnson is an "Obama Wanna-be." He's part of the "hood" protected, corrupt. How is it that Americans have become so mentally lethargic to have elected someone like Obama. Regardless, Walpin your integrity is appreciated.
Posted by: Ed | Jun 15, 2009 3:46:03 AM
The purpose of having an Inspector General is to be independent of political influences. Whether the U.S.Attorney was a Republican appointee, or anyone else involved is a Republican or Democrat is totally irrelevant.
The U.S.Attorney's office concluded "a significant protion" of the funds were appropriately spent. That's nice - a portion was misspent. Who made the determination as to what was "significant." I use to think ALL of these types of funds must be appropriately spent, or is that too much to hope for today.
It is quite apparent the IG did do his job - the settlement proves it. The agreement is to repay $423,836.50. That doesn't seem very insignificant to me.
Left out of the story are the terms of repayment of the $350,000. I think I heard it was over 7 years and was being repaid without interest. That hardly makes the value of the money being repaid equal to $350,000. I wonder what the "present value" of that might be?
Sure glad President Bush didn't fire someone under those circumstances. I wonder what the press would have said. No I don't.
Posted by: Concerned Oner | Jun 14, 2009 8:53:56 PM
Idaho:
Good post but you forgot to mention that wife of stated mouthpiece was all up in his grill about canning good guy because he was blabbing about her involvement in the corruption. That just about sums it up. HopeyChangey09
Posted by: mary | Jun 14, 2009 8:28:41 PM
Well struck, no duh.
Pretty simple. Good guy uncovers corruption, attorney knows bad guy is connected and tries to bury it, good guy says screw it and tells the press. Power hungry mouthpiece over steps his bounds and cans him. Kinda like a GM CEO I know.
Well done, Messiah. Is this the CHANGE you spoke of?...lmao...
Posted by: Idaho Libertarian | Jun 14, 2009 6:33:58 PM
Mr. Walpin went public stating the $400K+ dollar "payback" by Johnson could be refunded to him so it was a SHAM in protecting the taxpayer--it was double dipping embezzlement. It is a major felony when involving almost a half a million dollars.
Posted by: no duh | Jun 14, 2009 6:20:01 PM
Post a comment
