How Do You Reconcile Firing An I.G. Who Blew The Whistle On One Of Your Cronies With Ethics, Let Alone Transparency?
How Do You Reconcile Firing An I.G. Who Blew The Whistle On One Of Your Cronies With Ethics, Let Alone Transparency?
By
Ken Eliasberg
Almost every new Democratic Administration opens with the assertion that this will be the most ethical administration ever — and then proceeds quickly to put the lie to that bit of posturing. The Obama Administration seems to have wasted less time than most in invalidating that assertion. In addition to promising greater attentiveness to ethical concerns, Obama went to some length to assure us that his Administration would produce ethical results by providing greater transparency regarding the operational details of his Administration. In that regard, he also promised that the public would be given a certain amount of time to consider proposed l measures. All this after having recruited the greatest number of tax cheats and assorted other miscreants to serve in various high positions in his Administration. And now comes his firing of an Inspector General in a manner that is violative of the law — a law that he himself had recently sponsored — his dismissal of judgments against the black panthers for their transgressions, support of ACORN (an Organization that specializes in election fraud), and the suppression of an E.P.A. report that casts considerable doubt over the validity of the entire Global Warming argument upon which his Cap and Trade legislative proposal is based. None of these actions are calculated to inspire confidence in Obama’s support of better ethics. Of course, what he does have going for him is the Media’s willingness to bury the details of these transgressions so as not to tarnish Obama’s image of purity (and piety).
Back to Obama and squaring the circle of his firing (without cause) an Inspector General (I.G.), Gerald Walpin with his concern for better ethics to be provided by greater transparency. In a scene right out of the Godfather, which, incidentally, Obama’s presidency is beginning to resemble to a disturbing degree, one of the Godfather’s (oops, Obama’s) staff called Mr. Walpin and advised him that he was to resign or be fired within the hour. No explanation, no nothing — just resign within the hour or be fired. Now it is important to observe, before getting into the details, that Mr.Walpin, a Bush holdover, had to that point performed in a competent, if not exemplary, manner. At least it is fair to assume that such is the case since there were no previous complaints on the record. Walpin, a capable attorney with a distinguished private practice background, came out of retirement at Bush’s call to serve his country, and up to the point of Obama’s making him an offer that he could not (but did) refuse,Walpin was doing just that. Actually, the circle is much harder to square than that. Why? Because the firing was accomplished in a manner that violated a piece of legislation that Obama himself had sponsored.
Here are the pertinent facts: First the firing — what was he fired from and what was that all about? As noted, Walpin, a retired septuagenarian in apparently good mental and physical health, responded to his country’s call to serve. In what capacity? As the Inspector General overseeing Americorps (Bill Clinton’s version of a domestic peace corps), in which capacity he was understandably tasked with keeping track of whether the organization’s dispensed funds were being expended in an appropriate manner. In that capacity, Walpin determined that Americorps funds dispensed to St. HOPE Public Schools had been inappropriately expended — i.e. they had not been expended in a manner compatible with the grant authorizing the release of Americaorps funds to St. Hope. Indeed, it appeared that they had been expended in furtherance of the personal and private interests of the organization’s president, Kevin Johnson (who went on from his position at St..Hope to become Mayor of Sacramento, and who, incidentally, is a friend and supporter of President Obama). Walpin recommendedsuspension for both St. Hope and Johnson, and his recommendation was accepted by the person to whom Walpin’s recommendation was submitted. In short, Walpin was just doing his job, i.e. supervising the manner in which government funds were being expended.
What brought matters to a head, and made the situation uglier than might otherwise have been the case, was that the Organization’s suspension might have rendered not just St. Hope and Johnson ineligible for funds to be released under Obama’s Stimulus program, but the city of Sacramento itself. The matter was referred to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Sacramento, and there matters hit a snag. While it was agreed that monies were to be paid back to Americorps, the U.S. Attorney in charge (apparently an Obama appointed career attorney who replaced his Bush-appointed predecessor) wanted a further concession; in addition to repatriation of funds, he wanted the suspension to be lifted, thereby clearing the path for Sacramento to receive stimulus money. Walpin was opposed to lifting the suspension, and it was his oppositionwhich led to his receiving the Godfather’s abbreviated termination notice.
Now the above is a capsulized version of what happened; the more extensive (and more complete) rendering is, in my opinion, even less favorable to the Obama Administration’s position on this matter (in other words, I have not allowed partisanship to slant my offering).
Moving right along, two further observations are critical: (1) Walpin has performed in this capacity for over 2 years without a single complaint - in other words, there had been no prior indication of any problem with the manner in which he was discharging his duties; and (2) this manner of terminating a man in Walpin’s position is at variance with the law — a law that Obama himself had co-sponsored during his abbreviated term in the U.S. Senate. That law stipulates that a termination is required to have 2 components: (1) a thirty-day notice, and (2) a letter of explanation to be forwarded to Congress, elaborating on the deeds of the employee which justified his termination. As noted, neither of these requirements were even taken into consideration, let alone complied with. As also noted, Walpin was informed by phone that his resignation was to be submitted within the hour or he would be fired.
Again, setting aside the legal requirements that were not followed by Obama’s hit men, what was the rush? Why this Mafia-like communiqu