RECENT POSTS
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
- White House State Dinner: The Menu, Entertainment, and Decor
- Dan Pfeiffer, White House Blogger
- Guests Begin to Arrive for White House State Dinner Festivities
- President Obama on Afghanistan Strategy: “It Is My Intention to Finish the Job”
- The Obamas Kick off their First State Visit, Welcome India's Prime Minister to the White House
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Third Inspector General Controversy Emerges
June 19, 2009 8:15 AM
As the Obama administration faces questions about the president's firing of the Corporation for National and Community Service Inspector General last week, and about the Treasury Department challenging the independence of the Special Inspector General dedicated to federal bailout dollars for the financial bailout money, a third inspector general controversy has emerged.
This week Judith Gwynn, the Inspector General for the International Trade Commission, was told that her contract would not be renewed.
The news was delivered to Gwynn within three hours of Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sending the chair of the ITC a letter asking about a March 5 incident when, according to Gwynn's April 2009 Semiannual Report to Congress, "in the course of conducting an investigation regarding contractor activities, certain procurement files were removed forcibly from the possession of the Inspector General by a Commission employee.”
Grassley was outraged to learn that the ITC environment was one where the Inspector General could be treated so disdainfully.
"I was disappointed to learn that, according to the report, despite being notified of this situation the ITC failed to ensure that the files were immediately returned intact and unaltered," Grassley wrote to ITC Chair Shara L. Aranoff, according to a copy of the letter obtained by ABC News. "The ability of Inspectors General to secure agency records subject to audit or investigation is essential to ensure the integrity and reliability of their work on behalf of Congress and the American People."
This Inspector General controversy is quite different from the other two, however, in its apparent lack of connection to President Obama or his administration. The White House does not appoint the inspector general of the ITC. Rather, that power is held by Aranoff, a former Democratic Senate staffer who was appointed to the position by President Bush. And unlike in the other two cases, there is no evidence that the White House or Obama administration had any issue with Gwynn or the work she was doing.
On Tuesday, after Grassley's staff learned of the March 5 incident, the senator wrote to Aranoff. Hours later, Gwynn was told that her six-month contract would not be renewed, and that she would be returned to the ITC general staff.
Grassley also found the notion that the ITC retained its inspectors general on six-month contracts peculiar -- and potentially undermining of Gwynn's authority.
"I am unaware of any other agency Inspector General that serves under such a constraint and am curious to learn what statutory authority gives the ITC the ability to make a limited term appointment," he wrote. Grassley asked Aranoff to answer a number of questions surrounding the March incident as well as the integrity of the inspector general's office.
Aranoff's transfer of Gwynn without giving Congress 30-days notice appears to violate the same law requiring congressional notification that Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., the author of the law, said that President Obama may have violated in his termination of CNCS Inspector General Gerald Walpin last week.
In further developments on the Walpin story, the Washington Examiner's Byron York reports that the White house attorney who fired Walpin, Norm Eisen, told staffers for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, called firing Walpin an act of "political courage," according to House Republican aides.
And Politico's Josh Gerstein looks into the White House allegations that at a May 20 meeting with the CNCS board Walpin appeared “confused, disoriented [and] unable to answer questions."
“It was a very emotionally draining meeting for me and the rest of the board members,” a panel member said. “There were several periods of time where there were one- to two-minute pauses where he clearly was confused and was not able to respond to questions and was just going through his notes…..It was painful.”
Walpin said "they are exaggerating,” and blamed the appearance that he seemed confused on the fact that his "notes had somehow become disorganized. And I was not feeling well.” The 77-year-old said the White House used "code words for senility. It’s a kind of discrimination when directed at someone who is older than most...I’m not senile. I’m not disoriented. It’s an absolute lie.”
-- jpt
June 19, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (50)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Having worked at ITC, I'm not at all surprised by this. Judith Gwynn was appointed in an attempt to oust the prior IG. Guess she disappointed them by actually acting as an IG, and subsequently got the beatdown.
The bottom line is that ITC officials believe that they're above the law and shouldn't be held accountable to anybody. There are so many shady dealings going on in that agency that there should be a full investigation.
This isn't partisan political maneuvering - whichever party is in power would do themselves a favor by cleaning house at ITC.
Posted by: NotASurprise | Sep 10, 2009 12:03:25 PM
"The right isn't strong on reading comprehension I take it:
"
jlw,
READ the LAW. It's right out there in the public domain, and its about as clear as anything ever written in congress!
there is even this from LAST YEAR!
Washington, DC – Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) released a statement today with the news of the nomination of Neil Barofsky, a Federal prosecutor in
New York, to the post of Special Inspector General (IG) of the Troubled Assets Relief Program. Baucus fought to include the Special IG requirement in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to protect taxpayer interests and guard against waste, fraud and abuse in the Treasury’s new financial rescue program. The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing on November 17, 2008, to question Mr. Barofsky about the position.
“I included the provision for an independent oversight authority because every American is depending on us to track, defend, and recoup the dollars spent during this rescue process. Hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money has already been sent
out the door for this financial rescue. This effort urgently needs the stronger oversight and increased accountability that the special Inspector General can provide. I will do everything in my power to thoroughly and quickly vet Mr. Barofsky, and to see a confirmed IG on the job without delay,” said Baucus. “I’ve said before that I don’t like bailouts, and my support for the financial rescue program was conditioned on this strong protection that the special IG can provide for taxpayers.”
The Special Inspector General will be independent from the Treasury Department, with funding and full authority to audit and investigate. Baucus insisted that the office have
adequate resources to meet its goal of identifying and bringing to an end any fraud or abuse of taxpayer funds used by the program. The Inspector General will be required to make his or her first report to Congress within 60 days of confirmation.
what part of "The Special Inspector General will be independent from the Treasury Department" is so difficult for you lefties to grasp?
There is nothing in the TARP LAW which defines the position & its duties or the IG Act of 1978 that would lead one to the conclusions that Treasury made.
This position was created for the SOLE PURPOSE of making sure what happened...would not happen! The only thing was everyone "assumed" it was going to be those who recieved TARP funds who be blocking the process, NOT The Obama administration's Treasury Dept!
Posted by: Mike_C | Jun 19, 2009 4:40:11 PM
XXX,
Typical liberal hash! This story has NOTHING to do with any Republicans!
It has to do with another broken Obama campaign promise. Yeah, that TRANSPARENCY thing can a real ####!
Posted by: Mike_C | Jun 19, 2009 4:30:03 PM
I thought I'd never see a more corrupt, infantile and vengeful administration than Bush II but BO has managed to beat the odds and actually make the Bush-Cheney regime look good. Wonder what's next after the firings, the ABC propaganda machine, the endless television appearances a la all the famous megalomaniacal supreme leaders--I don't think the United States can take much more after 8 years of Bush--we need a real leader and as MLK said in the 60's, "it's not the color of one's skin it's the content of the character." Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Emanuel, Geithner, Axelrod, Michelle and Barry Obama.
Posted by: cathnealon | Jun 19, 2009 4:01:04 PM
The new Republican plan for America, covers all areas of concern:
1) Whine
2) say NO
3) say insane dumb stuff
4) repeat above
Posted by: XXX
Republicans have nothing to do with these firings.
Posted by: Silly Me | Jun 19, 2009 3:33:40 PM
"You all must learn to read all of the facts not the ones you think will demean our president."
Posted by: talmag
So why do you think Walpin is the one out there telling his story to the media (which disputes the reasons given in the letter) and the White House is remaining mum?
Also, why do you think Obama felt compelled to violate the proper firing procedure for an inspector general? He was required to notify Congress of the reasons for the firing in writing prior to firing Walpin. Since Obama co-sponsored the bill that made that requirement law, you'd think he would have fired Walpin correctly.
If Obama has fired Walpin in the correct, legal manner, I might agree that he had good cause, but by-passing the law doesn't reflect well on Obama's motives. No hate here - those are just the facts.
Posted by: What? | Jun 19, 2009 3:29:58 PM
I guess the policy of the administration is that IGs are no longer insulated from politics.
The administration must think very highly of itself to politically sensitize the IGs despite years of laws written with exactly the opposite intent. What other dubious legal precedents is lawyer Obama trying to set?
Posted by: Mike | Jun 19, 2009 3:05:25 PM
Mr. Walpin says he had been working around the clock and was becoming ill at the meeting
Posted by: Ordinary Sadie
when your being hammered with the truth, yeah you can get sick
Posted by: xxx | Jun 19, 2009 2:47:58 PM
The new Republican plan for America, covers all areas of concern:
1) Whine
2) say NO
3) say insane dumb stuff
4) repeat above
Posted by: XXX | Jun 19, 2009 2:44:34 PM
Mr.Walpin was confused because he paused. Obama does that every-time he speaks without a Teleprompter.
Posted by: Ken | Jun 19, 2009 2:36:20 PM
OK, so Walpin lied about his investigation and compared the Democrats to the KKK, SIGTARP is part of a new organization and they asked for oversight clarification, and then there's this "third scandal" that isn't even connected to Obama.
Keep it up, folks. Your crying "wolf" will only make it harder to get attention if you ever do find anything solid against Obama.
In the meantime: back to birth certificates!
Posted by: JM | Jun 19, 2009 2:06:09 PM
Obama and his fellow Democrats (that would die from lack of Oxygen if Obama stopped to quick) are a bunch of idiots. They are destroying America as they strive to have their (yes people replace staff with knowledge and digitny. I hope Wolpin makes them give him a public apology at the very least. America can not survive 4 years of Obama.
Posted by: JoeB | Jun 19, 2009 1:58:01 PM
"He held back facts pertinent to the case in hand..."
___________________________________
And Mr. Walpin has explained his reasons for doing so, as they were not pertinent.
Posted by: Ms Trish | Jun 19, 2009 1:54:19 PM
My apologies Jake on garbling the ITC independence. Please accept my apologies.
The mission of the Commission is to (1) administer U.S. trade remedy laws within its mandate in a fair and objective manner; (2) provide the President, USTR, and Congress with independent analysis, information, and support on matters of tariffs, international trade, and U.S. competitiveness; and (3) maintain the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS).
Posted by: Ordinary Sadie | Jun 19, 2009 1:45:37 PM
Rasputin3.14- Prosecutor for who? The requirement for reasons is congress' own mandate to check the executive. If they want to let the executive power go unchecked, that's their fault. As I posted some time ago, the only direct check the people have on the expansion of the power of the chief executive, absent a strong legislature, is elections.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | Jun 19, 2009 1:42:38 PM
Jake, I am stumped by this paragraph:
"This Inspector General controversy is quite different from the other two, however, in its apparent lack of connection to President Obama or his administration. "
Uh... the ITC is part of the executive branch of the government, so there is a tie to Obama. Which begs the question on which files were confiscated and why... Don'cha thank???
Posted by: Ordinary Sadie | Jun 19, 2009 1:35:42 PM
This certainly calls for a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.
Posted by: Rasputin3.14 | Jun 19, 2009 1:28:36 PM
There are two parallels I think of with the way this appears to be shaping up. The one is the social tactics ill-tempered teenage girls use when they don't get their way. The other is the tendancy of the British bureaucrats to always try to paint their critics as mentally unstable in one way, or another.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | Jun 19, 2009 12:58:50 PM
ABC used to be my favorite news station, loved Charlie Gibson. But ABC has become the Administration's PR Arm. Seems similar to the days of the Kremlin when the news service information originated from within the walls of the Kremlin. ABC is more concerned with ratings than fair and objective reporting of the news. Never a probing question for anyone in the Administration, especially Obama.
Posted by: Francis Updike | Jun 19, 2009 12:50:12 PM
jhw539- Or maybe you think it's OK for a president to name an IG without specifying a good reason, and then for his staff and associates to launch a hunt?
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | Jun 19, 2009 12:46:10 PM
Post a comment


