RECENT POSTS
- White House Study Looks at Job Creation in Illinois if Gitmo Prisoners Transferred There
- 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
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Inspector General Fired by President Obama Files Lawsuit to Be Reinstated*
July 19, 2009 12:01 PM
Gerald Walpin, the former Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service whom President Obama took the unusual step of firing last month, filed a lawsuit against the CNCS on Friday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
The suit seeks to force "to reinstate Mr. Walpin as the Inspector General and to declare unlawful and ineffective the efforts to date to terminate him from his office." In addition, the suit seeks that Walpin be awarded "costs and legal fees associated with this action" as well as any "further relief as may be appropriate in this matter."
White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest told ABC News that the Obama administration "complied fully with the Inspector General Reform Act. The bipartisan leadership of the Senate committee that oversees IG's agrees. We strongly believe these claims are without merit and will be rejected by the courts."
Earnest was referring to a June 19 letter from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., ranking GOPer Susan Collins, R-Me., and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., saying that based on information the White House provided "we believe you have met the letter and spirit of the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 with respect to congressional notifications of removal or transfer."
Walpin is expected to issue an official statement about the lawsuit on Monday.
The suit alleges that on or about June 10, Walpin "was unlawfully removed and transferred from his position as Inspector General precisely because he had performed his duties in an effective manner, supporting his career staff in their objective findings of wrongdoing, based on their audits and investigations, the truth of which those who sought to remove him did not want published."
The suit takes particular issue with the White House assertion that at one board meeting Walpin "was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve."
The suit, filed by attorneys from Greenburg Traurig LLP, asserts that Walpin suffered and continues to suffer "very real reputational, vocation and economic injuries … from the obvious loss of his post and the associated income and health insurance, to having his mental faculties questioned with not-so-subtle, and completely unfounded, suggestions of senility."
The lawsuit says that "(w)hile not the object of the instant pleading, it is plain that without the relief sought by this complaint the conduct at issue raises serious questions of age discrimination, retaliation against whistleblowers and defamation."
Walpin's lawsuit says the action taken by President Obama not only harmed Walpin personally but also the integrity of the Inspector General system.
**
As we've covered, on June 11 President Obama fired Walpin, who had been criticized 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 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.
But Walpin didn't approve of the settlement, or the way it was handled, and said he was "proud" that he and the Inspector General's office "refused to go along with the U.S. Attorney’s office and the Corporation in bowing to the media and political pressure that resulted in this hasty settlement, contrary to the interests of the United States Government."
In a June 11 letter from President Obama to congressional leaders, the president said he no longer had the fullest confidence in Walpin as Inspector General.
A subsequent letter from White House counsel Greg Craig noted that Walpin’s termination “is fully supported by the Chair of the Corporation (a Democrat) and the Vice-Chair (a Republican)" and said 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.”
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, complaining that "Walpin viewed his role … as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier."
Walpin pleaded for his job when White House attorney Norm Eisen called him to notify him of the decision.
Some in Congress took issue with the way Walpin was fired, which appeared to them to not comply with the rules laid out in the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, which was co-sponsored by then-Sen. Obama.
The author of that bill, key Obama ally Sen. McCaskill initially said that the "White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the [CNCS]. The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give reason for the removal. 'Loss of confidence' is not a sufficient reason." The law requires that 30 days' notice be given to Congress before an Inspector General is fired.
McCaskill later backed off her opposition, though Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, demanded more answers.
Walpin's lawsuit asserts that "no investigation was made into the facts alleged as the basis for Mr. Walpin's termination" and the White House made no attempt to interview him or any of his colleagues in his office. Moreover, the suit asserts, the Integrity Committee of the Counsel of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency was" not provided an opportunity to review the matter before the precipitous termination," contrary to the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008.
The suit also identifies as defendants CNCS acting chief executive officer Nicola Goren, chief human capital officer Raymond Limon, and general counsel Frank Trinity.
- jpt
* This post was updated with the White House response.
July 19, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (77)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Best of luck in your efforts Mr.Walpin.
Hopefully, in 2012 We'll be able to say bye-bye to "delai-bama" and his "alinskyite" agenda of lies and manipulation!
Posted by: Michael | Jul 23, 2009 4:33:50 PM
A senile Bush appointee trying to protect his reputation but all he is doing is showing he has lost it. Bye Bye Grandpa
Posted by: Larry | Jul 20, 2009 5:19:36 PM
You have a mistake in your story. Mr. Johnson payed the $73,000, but it was a LOAN because his corrupt St. HOPE doesn't have any money. He paid with the stipulation that St. HOPE would repay him when they were able. St. HOPE owes $700,000 to SCUSD for services and rent, $93,000 to Ca Dept of Ed- a fine for uncredentialed teachers, and now $400,000 to the feds. He got off easy. Most people don't realize the corruption that happened there. Mr. Walpin knows and is furious Mr. Johnson got away with stealing taxpayer dollars for his own benefit. He knows the govt wanted to settle to get Johnson (Sac's Mayor) off the debarment list so Sac could get its stimulus funds. I'm sure that's why Johnson got himself a sweet deal. Use the city's need for stimulus $ as his bargaining chip and a desperate govt will give anything to get the money flowing- US atty Brown stated that the govt "didn't want to stand in the way of Sacramento getting its stimulus dollars." Compare the punishment of others who had similar wrongdoing. Usually they pay back 2-3 x the amount misused plus a fine.Walpin knows the settlement is a "farce" as he put it before he was fired.
Posted by: sactown | Jul 20, 2009 12:23:49 PM
So this is what Obama and Eric Holder call transparency. Okay I get it. That's what you call your actions when you fire a whistleblower who exposes fraud in a federal program that is being ripped off by one of your friends. Kevin Johnson, I thought I knew you. Guess not.
Posted by: romanesq | Jul 20, 2009 11:41:16 AM
It is becoming obvious the current political process is soo self motivated none of the news releases can be taken as fact. No one can be taken at face value. Where are the true statesmen?
Posted by: sam peterson | Jul 20, 2009 11:25:00 AM
Hey Mike: They're not "AGs"--they're "United States Attorneys." And the only ones that have been replaced are those whose 4 year terms have expired or where the US Atty voluntarily resigned. There are several US Atty's from the Bush Admin who have not yet resigned (finishing out their terms), as well as a few Bush Appointees who have been re-appointed (for instance, Fitzgerald in IL).
Never quite understand how people can get quite so snarky about things they clearly are not fully informed on...
Posted by: Joe | Jul 20, 2009 10:03:45 AM
Judy...Judy...Judy...
How difficult it must be to actually follow the facts of the news day to day. Mr. Walpin was doing his job and Obama is protecting corruption. When did Bush/Cheney politicize IGs? You must be thinking of Attorney Generals. You remember when Bush was replacing some and it was a BIG scandel. Oh, by the way, Obama has already replaced all the AGs and not a whimper from the MSNM for politicizing that presidential option.
Posted by: mike | Jul 20, 2009 9:10:12 AM
U.S. attorney Brown filed a sharply worded complaint against Walpin with the oversight office for the federal inspectors general that charged him with ethical violations in an overzealous assault on Johnson and St. Hope. The U.S. attorney said that Walpin had "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"
Posted by: Judy | Jul 20, 2009 8:32:02 AM
Another NEO-CON gone. When will my blessings stop. The point of this lawsuit is just to take a parting shot;to denigrate the new administration! Another way to just say "NO", as instructed, by the nightmare that was the Bush adminisration. An effort to bog the country down with more trvial stuff, a distraction,if you will. Where was Mr Walpin's concern for the IG's office and the U S Attorneys' office when Bush/Cheney was politicizing them? That Mr Walpin was allowd to stay in his position then, means that he was playimg their corrupt game- then. But now, he's concerned about integrity? Go away Mr Walpin, and take all the Neo-cons with you! Haven't you done enough damage to this country already?
Posted by: Scribe | Jul 20, 2009 8:28:09 AM
"The Obama administration is continually changing the rules...without...respect for proper procedure"
Proper procedure? The only proper procedure is the ones he learned on the back alley's and streets of Chicago and from Saul Alinski's Rules For Radicals.
Procedure, just like morality and truth, are things to be manipulated to deceive the masses while he destroys this once fine nation.
Winning is the only procedure these Obama types care about. What else did we expect form a man who supports aggressively infanticide; tears and caring?
Posted by: Don L | Jul 20, 2009 8:16:01 AM
This sort of thing does not happen under a Socialist dictator state, perhaps Obama should wait a few months before he start firing folks. (You know, so he can get Socialist state first, then fire people without facing recourse or the court system.
Posted by: Mike Jones | Jul 20, 2009 8:11:19 AM
Joe wasn't much of a Plumber was he and apparently Walpin wasn't much of an IG. If you start stirring up dust early on, what else do you have to look forward to on down the line? Working with a hostile boss or co-worker can make a caustic environment even in the White House.
Posted by: Shaamex | Jul 20, 2009 7:48:11 AM
The Obama administration is continually changing the rules to implement their agenda's, without due diligence or respect for proper procedure. Seems awfully convenient at a time when homeland security has amassed a huge budget.
Regardless of Walprin's alleged mental state, disclosure of current homeland security issues should be brought forth openly before changing administrators.
Posted by: Ma | Jul 20, 2009 3:54:38 AM
Guessing you who have problems w/ this firing before we know the facts, even though it was approved by a bipartisan committee, were angry about W's firings for partisan reasons? Couldn't possibly be the types who defended that, saying they served at his leisure? Disappointed w/ some of what Obama's done (or hasn't), this could be among them, especially the excuse they gave, but some of you seem to support him simply because you don't like Obama.
Posted by: Erik | Jul 20, 2009 3:16:24 AM
Aristotle . . .
Couldn't care less what you think . . . about any of that.
Posted by: danita | Jul 20, 2009 2:48:11 AM
You mean I can sue for losing my job? Sue everybody! The GOP way! $$$Punitive damages$$$
Posted by: Jerome | Jul 20, 2009 2:24:56 AM
How was this guy originally appointed?
Was his predecessor removed appropriately?
Posted by: Robert Nicholson | Jul 19, 2009 11:53:41 PM
Longt, that's as good a spin as anyone put on anything. Don't you thing we should establish a government office where all the presidents' birth certificate are of record? Any found to not meet your standard could require revocation of all legislation and executive orders from that administration. Let's do this right now.
Posted by: gus smith | Jul 19, 2009 11:49:59 PM
"Barack Obama: "end of life" issues swallow up our health care dollars."
Obama didn't take such great care with HIS mother's 'end of life issues'. Maybe he wants to be sure nobody ELSE will be ABLE to.
If one of His immediate family -- the wife and kiddies -- comes down with leukemia or whatever, His survival-of-the-survivors attitude may undergo an adjustment.
Posted by: Bet Noir | Jul 19, 2009 11:28:33 PM
I'm glad Gerald Walpin is filing a lawsuit. Of course, anybody that goes up against BO and his compatriots is likely to get the 'nuts or sluts' treatment, but we all know he was only guilty of doing a good, ethical job.
Posted by: MissButterfly | Jul 19, 2009 11:19:53 PM
Post a comment
