« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
3000 Pages And The Missing Paper Trail
I yield the floor to TPM Reader JD:
This isn't a comment about what has been found in the document dump of last night, but about what HASN'T been found. (Note: my question/comment is inspired by this 3/16 interview of [U.S. Attorney] Bud Cummins).If the USA's had been forced to resign for performance related reasons, wouldn't you expect to see a huge paper trail of the performance review process itself? Take the case of [U.S. Attorney for Western Michigan Margaret] Chiara. If the problem was office management/morale, I would expect the following in the record:
1) Some document sent to the someone in the AG's office, saying, "Hey, I've been hearing there are some morale/managerial problems in Chiara's office.";
2) A formal letter to Chiara saying, "We would like to review your management of the office. We'll be sending officials out to your district to discuss."
3) A report to the DAG saying, "We went out to her office and, in fact, we believe there are managerial problems. Chiara offered to takes steps A, B & C to correct. Will review in 6 months.";
4) Then, 6 months later, there would be another report saying, "It's been six months since the last review. Nothing's changed. It may be time to consider removing her.";
5) A follow-up from the DAG saying, "Nope, her time is up. We'll recommend her removal and replacement to the AG.";
6) Then a series of letters/emails between offices about "Should we remove her?" and "Yes, we should remove her. Set it up." and "Here's how and why we're removing her.";
7) Finally, a series of documents setting up her formal removal, communicating that to the AG and the WH.
But, there's none of that. You'd think if such documents existed, they'd be definitive and the first set of docs the Justice Department would release. If the attorneys in the AG's office are anything like the private attorneys I know, they wouldn't do anything as significant as forcing the resignation of any single USA, without first creating a paper trail a mile long. Should be 1000 pages of docs for each USA removal, right?
Everybody seems to be looking for a smoking gun, but the real story is that the evidence we've been given is of a gun that's never been fired.
As I wrote yesterday, the Justice Department actually brainstormed on the justifications for the firings after they happened.
Comments (13)
crick02478 wrote on March 21, 2007 9:46 AM:Excellent points. Laying the groundwork to dismiss an employee for cause is typically a painstaking process in the corporate world,, as anyone who has every been involved can tell you.
Primeq wrote on March 21, 2007 10:01 AM:Agreed - excellent points. However, as others have pointed out, the frantic scurrying and Thermopylaean stonewalling at yesterday's press-conference indicate that there is a ***much*** bigger issue than the actual firing. It's the desperate coverup of events/records surrounding the firing that draws attention.
The gap appears to be missing performance-gripe trail, but I think we all suspect that what's in the gap is far, far more interesting
Ron Byers wrote on March 21, 2007 10:10 AM:Wonderful observation. It fits in with the notion that "performance related issues" is just a smokescreen for what really happened.
Ron Byers wrote on March 21, 2007 10:11 AM:Wonderful observation. It fits in with the notion that "performance related issues" is just a smokescreen for what really happened.
profmarcus wrote on March 21, 2007 10:14 AM:i have spent numbers of years supervising others and i know from vast experience that, when an employee is being let go - and it makes no difference whether it's an exempt or non-exempt employee and whether or not they're serving under an employment contract or simply employment-at-will - you ALWAYS document, document, document... ALWAYS... it's called covering your ass against the possibility of a wrongful discharge suit...
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/
Paul Rosenberg wrote on March 21, 2007 10:30 AM:Haven't you read your Sherlock Holmes, JD?
It's the dog that didn't bark, not the gun that's never been fired.
It's not so much mixing metaphors, as knowing when to switch.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 21, 2007 10:40 AM:Re Margaret Chiara - Her case was handled differently in that she was told before the election that she was being fired for no reason.
11/05/06 - USAMIW Margaret Chiara to DAG Paul McNulty
"Paul: On November 3, Michael Elston conveyed professional shocking news....He further informed me that I should expect contact from the White House requesting my resignation as USA shortly after the November 7 elections. He could offer no explanation other than that I erroneously assumed that good service guaranteed longevity because other USAs have been asked for their resignation without cause..."
Anyone have any idea why Karl Rove and the GOP machine has western Michigan in its sights?
Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 21, 2007 10:41 AM:Other postings on other articles have pointed out the need to get copies of the termed Us Attorneys' Human Resources files before the files get doctored . . .
AND someone needs to get a hold of the DoJ Human Resources manual and the corrective action plan regs. While the governmental is not subject to the same labor laws and practices the rest of us are . . . One would expect that someone somewhere might have been doing the job they were paid for.
Anyway most facsist regimes have historically tended towards fanatical recordkeeping to beef up the numbers of paying positions for their political toadies AND while this administration has been quick to shred or 'revise' everything they can get their hands on, they have been no exception in burying the bureaucracy in paperwork in most other departments.
crack wrote on March 21, 2007 10:42 AM:No matter what the reason these people were forced out it shows just how bad of managers the DOJ is. If it was for good reasons the reasons should be documented as mentioned above. If it wasn't then that itself is the proof.
I thought the CEO president was supposed to be good at managing.
Douglas Watts wrote on March 21, 2007 11:17 AM:The paper trail for Chiara, from a Feb. 1, 2007 email, clearly states Chiara was privately told the reason for her dismissal and it was neither performance related or a "loyalty" issue. Chiara then said she would prefer the "real" reason be told so as to make sure the public did not assume the reason was poor performance. To my knowledge, this "real" reason has not been disclosed. cf. Chiara's Feb. 1., 2007 email.
Node of Evil wrote on March 21, 2007 11:36 AM:If you examine DOJ dump 11-5, you'll get an idea for what that trail might look like. This one's for Carol Lam. I don't know if the numbers there are accurate or not, and I'm still reading through to determine if they ever actually raised these concerns with her, but there's a fair amount of discussion regarding her "performance".
Anonymous wrote on March 21, 2007 4:42 PM:crick02478 is absloutely right. Even the lowest level manager is taught to keep a very careful paper trail if you plan to fire someone or you open yourself up to lawsuits. This is especially so with women and minorities as many of the fired USAs are.
This was a botched job from the start carried out by an arrogant bunch of immature people who were used to getting their way their whole lives. Reality has caught up to them. Finally.
Silver Owl wrote on March 21, 2007 5:07 PM:In regards to Chiara. The free press wrote that interim replacement Brian Delaney will only be interim until April. After that the interim will be Charles R. Gross who is currently in Iraq.
"Although Chiara learned she would be dismissed late last year, the Department of Justice allowed her to delay her departure until last Friday. On Monday, a release on the Western District’s Web site announced the appointment of Brian K. Delaney as the interim U.S. attorney until next month, when Charles R. Gross – a first assistant U.S. attorney in the Western District before being recalled to active duty as a colonel in the Marine Corps last year – will take over as the interim U.S. attorney.
Gross will serve until a U.S. attorney is nominated by the president."
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070320/NEWS06/70320024
Which kind of echoes Cummins getting the boot for Griffin.
Western Michigan is where the Indian casino and Abramoff issue was. That's also where another Bush "Ranger" Peter Secchia is that also tried to shut down the casino that Abramoff wanted shut down due to competition.
In Chiara's case I think her removal is about prepping for the primary and the 2008 election. Western Michigan is pretty red.
What's weird is that Stoddard who was responsible for the Abramoff investigation stall in Guam alledgely, winds up in Western Michigan. Where an investigation of Abramoff has not even gotten started.
4 of the USAs fired were also on the board for NIAS.
While the free press talks about DeLaney and then Gross being interim, Stoddard is also reported to be WDMI interim.