On Friday we reported that, according to two board members, the impetus for firing the AmeriCorps inspector general, Gerald Walpin, came from the board, not the White House.
Still, just to put a nail in the coffin of any notion that the dismissal represents some sort of unprecedented partisan power play, it's worth considering some historical context. Take a look at this UPI report (via Nexis) from January 21, 1981 -- the second day of the Reagan administration:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (31) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (8)The White House's decision to fire the AmeriCorps inspector general was set in motion by a unanimous request it received from the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which asked the White House to review the IG's performance, according to a board member.
The firing "would not have played itself out" were it not for the fact that the board raised concerns about the IG, Gerald Walpin, after the May 20 board meeting, a board member told TPMmuckraker. The board member added that the White House had no role in encouraging the board to make the review request, calling it "completely board-initiated." The White House had cited the request from the board in its letter to Congress explaining the reason for Walpin's firing.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (23) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (29)Conservatives are starting to smell blood on the IG firing story.
Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch -- the conservative-leaning government watchdog that made life miserable for President Clinton in the '90s -- tells TPMmuckraker that his group is eager to work with the canned IG, Gerald Walpin, to keep the pressure on the White House over the firing. "We have let it be known that we'd like to talk to Mr. Walpin," said Fitton.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (13) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)OK, it sounds like Chuck Grassley isn't satisfied with the White House's explanation for why it fired the AmeriCorps inspector general.
White House ethics lawyer Norm Eisen met personally with the Iowa GOP senator and his staff yesterday morning, to go over the reasons for the firing of the IG, Bush appointee Gerald Walpin. Eisen had first detailed those reasons in a letter to Congress sent Tuesday night.
But in a new letter sent last night to Eisen's boss, White House counsel Greg Craig, Grassley writes that in that meeting, Eisen "refused to answer several direct questions posed to him about the representations made in his letter."
Grassley went on to lay out a new list of questions, essentially asking for a step-by-step walk-through of how the decision to fire Walpin was made. For instance, he wants Craig to tell him in writing:
Specifically, which CNCS Board members came forward with concerns about Mr. Walpin's ability to serve as the Inspector General?
And:
Which witnesses were interviewed in the course of Mr. Eisen's review?
And:
What efforts were made during Mr. Eisen's review to obtain both sides of the story or to afford the Office of Inspector General an opportunity to be heard?
As we noted yesterday, Sen. Claire McCaskill, the Missouri Democrat who had earlier raised concerns that the White House hadn't explained to Congress its reasons for the firing, indicated yesterday that, in light of the White House's letter, she's now largely satisfied.
Grassley, not so much. On to the next round...
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (14) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)We asked earlier today whether Sen. Claire McCaskill would be satisfied with the White House's explanation of its reasons for firing AmeriCorps IG Gerald Walpin. And it looks the answer is yes.
McCaskill said in a statement, reports CNN, that the White House was now in full compliance with the law, and added: "The reasons given in the most recent White House letter are substantial and the decision to remove Walpin appears well founded."
Gerald Walpin, the AmeriCorps inspector general who was recently fired by the White House, has shot back at his former bosses over the dismissal -- but he hasn't done much to undo the impression that he's far from an independent, non-partisan figure.
Last night, the White House sent a letter to Congress explaining why it fired Walpin. Ethics counsel Norm Eisen wrote Walpin, 78, was "confused" and "disoriented" at a recent board meeting, that he had been absent from the office, and that he had shown a "lack of candor" in providing information to decision-makers. That seemed to refer to a formal complaint issued by a local US Attorney regarding Walpin's work on a probe of the Obama ally, Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson. The complaint charged Walpin with, among other things, withholding from the US Attorney's office pertinent information he had obtained.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (7) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)We knew the White House was going to have to offer a fuller explanation for its firing of Gerald Walpin, the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service who had clashed with an Obama ally.
And now it has. In a letter sent last night to Congress, reports Politico, Norm Eisen, the White House ethics counsel, wrote that at a May 20 board meeting, Walpin, 78, had been "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve."
On Friday, we took a look at the White House's firing of Gerald Walpin, the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, who had clashed with an Obama ally, Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson. We concluded that, though the White House should offer a more detailed explanation for the firing, it looks like there was ample reason to get rid of Walpin.
But we're not the only ones asking for more information. ABC News reports that Sen. Charles Grassley, (R-IA) has sent a letter to the chair of CNCS asking for all relevant information and documents pertaining to the firing.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (15) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (4)
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
