TPMMuckraker
GOP Inquiry Fails To Show Obama's Firing Of AmeriCorps IG Was Politicized
Justin Elliott | November 20, 2009, 6:52PM
Gerald Walpin and Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson
Share
Send to a friend!
A congressional GOP inquiry into the firing of the inspector general for AmeriCorps has been garnering headlines mostly for revealing details of allegations of sexual misconduct by Sacramento Mayor and Obama ally Kevin Johnson. But on the key question of whether the IG, Gerald Walpin, was fired for improper political reasons, the report brings little new to the table.
Prepared by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the report asserts that the White House's "failure to use a transparent process to effectuate Walpin's removal deprived the President of an opportunity to explain his action in an appropriate way."
But in a statement given to TPMmuckraker, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt fired back that Issa and Grassley hadn't shown any kind of substantive wrongdoing. "There is nothing new in today's report, which ignores the multiple bases for Mr. Walpin's removal and doesn't provide a shred of evidence that suggests he was removed for any reason other than performance issues," he said.
Let's take a moment to review the state of thee Walpin case. The Obama Administration fired Walpin in June, citing, among other things, a May AmeriCorps board meeting in which Walpin was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve." A unanimous vote of the bipartisan board originally referred concerns about Walpin to the White House, board members have told TPMmuckraker.
Walpin filed suit to get his job back, alleging political interference, and maintaining he was canned because of his persistence in going after Johnson, who he accused of, among other things, misusing AmeriCorps funds at a Sacramento charter school. Several Republicans have taken up Walpin's cause, and he is now getting PR help from the same firm that represented the Swift Boaters in 2004.
Perhaps the most substantive charge against the administration in the new report is that the investigation into Walpin by White House attorney Norm Eisen was cursory, and that Congress was not notified 30 days in advance of the firing, which, according to the report, is required by law. But Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who was initially critical of the White House on this point, has said its explanation of the firing puts it in compliance of the law.
The report also charges that the White House's handling of the episode "is likely to have a chilling effect on the IG community, which must now operate more cautiously in light of the Administration's swift response to criticisms of agency leadership and allies of the President."
Here is the full report:
Other Stories Featured at TPMMuckraker
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
- Gibbs Mocks Palin And Writes Shopping List On Hand (VIDEO)
- Cheney, Ridge Pioneered Miranda Attack On Obama
- MAY DAY
- Deconstructing Rush Limbaugh
- "Her dad's a Republican...and a hunter."
- Get It Done: Reid Threatens Weekend Session If GOP Filibusters Just-Completed Jobs Bill
- Bachmann: 'If We Reject Israel, Then There Is A Curse That Comes Into Play'
- Scholarly Blog about Narcissistic Personality Disorder
- Democrats: We're Excited To Debate GOP Shadow Budget...Why Aren't Republicans?
- Is Ryan's Social Security Slashing Budget Like Contract With America?
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
lousgirl84
November 20, 2009 6:55 PM
Where's the troll masanf now!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mJJ
November 20, 2009 9:19 PM
And this is a surprise outcome???? My party is getting to the bottom of the barrel in their charges against the Obama Administration. Amazing that we put up with the notorious malfeasance of the Bush Administration and now suddenly Republicans have gotten religion about no more malfeasance. It is terribly embarrassing to note our Republican Party's double standard. But alas, all the dirt of the Bush administration will come out and once again, Republicans will be in the wilderness for years and years. Sadly, the right wing-nut cases have taken over the party and it will be years before we live that muck down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
November 20, 2009 11:48 PM
Wait. They aren't lying and making a huge deal out of nothing? They aren't spinning it to...Wow. I'm wordless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gjdodger
November 21, 2009 4:30 PM
LOL. They probably chatted with Walpin themselves and came away saying, "We're defending this guy?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Desidero
November 21, 2009 5:05 PM
Well Claire McCaskill was initially supportive of the Stupak Amendment ("We can live with it") and then turned around the day and said she was against it. Is this the only real justification we can find for canning Walpin, that McCaskill initially opposed it and then changed her mind?
Has anyone ever figured out why Walpin was fired without talking to him? The new report was the first I knew Michelle's Chief of Staff was involved with CNCS, or realized the White House upped AmeriCorps' positions from 75,000 to 250,000 on April 21 with a new budget of about $1.1 billion, a month before Walpin's famous appearance in front of a CNCS board. Michelle spoke to CNCS on May 11, and on June 5, her Chief of Staff Jackie Norris left to become senior advisor for CNCS, 6 days before Walpin was fired.
Page 38 notes Walpin going home from the meeting with a severe headache and upset stomach, but apparently no discussion of this occurred prior to his dismissal because he wasn't interviewed. Page 39, Chairman Alan Solomont's request and information to the White House was the sole basis for Walpin's dismissal. [The review after the uproar consulted only Solomont, Nicola Goren and Frank Trinity]. Aside from being the highest person Walpin ran into disagreement with, Solomont is also a major fundraiser for Democrats, including Obama.
It's interesting that the White House invoked Executive Privilege in not disclosing how it decided to get rid of Walpin - kind of at odds with the requirement that the White House inform Congress of the justifications for removing an IG.
Anyway, read the report for yourself:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22824710/Issa-Grassley-Report-On-Walpin-Firing-10-20-09
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
November 21, 2009 5:38 PM in reply to Desidero
McCaskill only had initial questions concerning the mechanics of the firing. Specifically the 30 day requirement. Once the administration explained the process leading up to Walpin's dismissal, her questions had been satisfactorily answered. Otherwise, Walpin was a political appointee and served at the pleasure of the president.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Desidero
November 22, 2009 7:24 AM in reply to CityGuy
No, an Inspector General is not a "political appointee", and doesn't "serve at the pleasure of the President". It is an independent oversight position that requires non-partisan protection. I suppose policemen are also now political appointees that serve at the pleasure of someone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
November 21, 2009 8:03 PM
It's really bad. .This propaganda network is really bad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Campesino
November 23, 2009 1:41 PM
Except that now we find the report didn't have all the information on this topic as the White House stonewalled the investigators
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/New-documents-White-House-scrambled-to-justify-AmeriCorps-firing-after-the-fact-71483647.html
Just hours after Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa released a report Friday on their investigation into the abrupt firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin, the Obama White House gave the lawmakers a trove of new, previously-withheld documents on the affair. It was a twist on the now-familiar White House late-Friday release of bad news; this time, the new evidence was put out not only at the start of a weekend but also hours too late for inclusion in the report.
The new documents support the Republican investigators' conclusion that the White House's explanation for Walpin's dismissal -- that it came after the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, unanimously decided that Walpin must go -- was in fact a public story cobbled together after Walpin was fired, not before.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Desidero
November 23, 2009 5:00 PM in reply to Campesino
That was pretty obvious from the beginning. The basic response to "why was he fired" was "none of your damn business, but you've been notified, so we'll start the 30-day clock from now, though Walpin is on leave".
Telecommuting penalties are pretty drastic in DC.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
spamonwry
November 24, 2009 1:42 PM
In the first place, why was Walpin still working for the Gov't? He's 78+ years-old! Don't these "Career" feds retire? Not surprising that he's probably suffering from "senior moments" at that age! I think the federal laws regarding age-discrimination have a cutoff of age 70; after that, I think, employees can be forcibly retired. I suppose he wants to work until AT LEAST age 90+ or something. Geesh! What a tempest in a teapot!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?