Quote :

"WASHINGTON – An inspector general fired by President Barack Obama said Friday he acted "with the highest integrity" in investigating AmeriCorps and other government-funded national service programs. Gerald Walpin said in an interview with The Associated Press that he reported facts and conclusions "in an honest and full way" while serving as inspector general at the Corporation for National and Community Service. Obama's move follows an investigation by Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star. Johnson and a nonprofit education academy he founded ultimately agree to repay half of $847,000 in grants it had received from AmeriCorps. The president didn't offer any more explanation, but White House Counsel Gregory Craig, in a letter late Thursday to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, cited the U.S. attorney's criticism of Walpin to an integrity committee for inspectors general. Grassley said Walpin had identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds that were wasted or misspent and "it appears he has been doing a good job." The inspector general found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car. Brown said at the time of the settlement that prosecutors determined there was no fraud, but rather a culture of "sloppiness" in St. HOPE's record-keeping. Kevin Hiestand, chairman of the board of St. HOPE Academy, said in a statement it was "about time" Walpin was removed. "Mr. Walpin's allegations were meritless and clearly motivated by matters beyond an honest assessment of our program," he said. "

Damn those aggressive Inspectors. How dare they uncover corruption from an Obama man.
We're not corrupt..just sloppy! Thank God our president is purging the gov't of these pesky Inspectors who keep discovering our sloppiness.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090612/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_national_service_inspector_general

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 9:37 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2009 9:36:54 PM

this is a little unsettling. i'd like to see more information about this decision

6/12/2009 9:56:28 PM

Yeah, would be good to see more backstory to this. If I reacted to everything in the way that the spin masters wanted me to react, I'd feel like a sheep.

Definitely seems politically motivated

Quote :

"Walpin, a New York attorney, was appointed by then-President George W. Bush"

However, given that he was appointed by Bush, it also probably isn't a stretch to think he was going after left leaning people and organizations and just generally being a thorn in Democrats side.

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 10:13 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2009 10:07:49 PM

WE'RE GOING TO DRAIN THE SWAMP!

6/12/2009 10:14:06 PM

so Obama fires the guy who finds corruption that is somehow linked to himself? shocking.

6/12/2009 11:11:37 PM

Obama is a fucking tool

6/12/2009 11:22:33 PM

Quote :

"just generally being a thorn in Democrats side."

I've thought that it might be a good idea for the Attorney General to always come from an opposing party. Along with his other duties, he should be tasked with keeping an eye on the president and his people. And who better to watch him than someone who doesn't particularly support him.

6/12/2009 11:34:54 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy

6/12/2009 11:56:51 PM

Clinton fired more than that dude

6/13/2009 12:04:23 AM

i'm just sayin

^^ is about a billion times worse than firing an inspector general

especially without knowing the full story

6/13/2009 12:06:43 AM

This is just an exceptionally poorly timed decision on the administration's part. If a number of media outlets decide to roll with this story they could probably make a nice profit (omf scandal, conflict of interest, rabble rabble it must be illegal), though at the expense of a number of gubmint friends. Disappointing there there aren't simply civilians hired into positions like this that do this job so the government can't appoint people who may or may not do a good job like their predecessor (or who may not do the job at all and will just cook the books and go along with the corruption).

6/13/2009 2:19:09 AM

Quote :

"This is just an exceptionally poorly timed decision on the administration's part."

oh so you DO have faith in something

6/13/2009 2:29:25 AM

whitewater pt 2

6/13/2009 2:38:54 AM

This just in....the US gov't is corrupt

AND

water is wet

Story @ 11.....

[Edited on June 13, 2009 at 3:45 AM. Reason : ...]

6/13/2009 3:43:10 AM

^

6/13/2009 8:19:55 AM

Quote :

"This just in....the US gov't is corrupt "

So you're saying we should just lay back and enjoy it?


What do you say to all the people who voted for Obama thinking he was something special, someting different...an honest politician?

6/13/2009 10:38:59 AM

Quote :

"So you're saying we should just lay back and enjoy it?"

I think that is exactly what he is saying, isn't it obvious?

Quote :

" What do you say to all the people who voted for Obama thinking he was something special, someting different...an honest politician? "

Most normal people wouldn't be able to call this one yet, not enough info. But you're a hack so I'm not so surprised.

6/13/2009 2:19:03 PM

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/more-details-emerge-in-president-obamas-firing-of-inspector-general.html

Quote :

"More Details Emerge In President Obama's Firing of Inspector General June 13, 2009 8:37 AM It was Wednesday evening and Gerald Walpin was pleading for his job. Just a few hours before, at around 5:20 pm, Walpin -- , Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) -- was driving on a highway when he had received a phone call from Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, informing him that President Obama no longer had confidence in him and wanted him to resign. Walpin had an hour to make up his mind as to whether he was going to resign or have the president seek his suspension and termination, as indicated in email from Walpin to Eisen obtained by ABC News. In that email, as well as other documents surrounding Walpin's termination obtained by ABC News, a picture emerges of an ambitious and aggressive inspector general whose actions repeatedly offended officials of the US Attorney's office, to the point that the Republican-appointee in the US Attorney's office filed an official complain against the Republican-appointed Inspector General. Walpin -- appointed to his job under President George W. Bush -- wrote to Eisen that "Congress intended the Inspector General of CNCS to have the utmost independence of judgment in his deliberations respecting the propriety of the agency's conduct and the actions of its officers. That is why the relevant statute provides that the President may remove the IG only if he supplies the Congress with a statement of his reasons--which is quite a different matter than executive branch officials who serve at his pleasure and can therefore be removed for any reason and without notification to Congress." Walpin told Eisen that he took "this statutorily-mandated independence of my office very seriously, and, under the present circumstances, I simply cannot make a decision to respect or decline what you have said were the President's wishes within an hour or indeed any such short time." Walpin had just issued two reports that were very critical of the actions taken by the Corporation for National and Community Service. "It would do a disservice to the independent scheme that Congress has mandated--and could potentially raise questions about my own integrity--if I were to render what would seem to many a very hasty response to your request," Walpin wrote. "I heard your statement that this request that you communicated on behalf of the President and the timing of our reports and disagreement with the CNCS Board and management are 'coincidence,' as you put it on the phone, but I would suggest there is a high likelihood that others may see it otherwise." Walpin said that he suspected that "when presented with the circumstances I have just discussed, the President will see the propriety of providing me additional time to reflect on his request. If however he believes that my departure is a matter of urgency, then he will have to take the appropriate steps toward ordering my removal, without my agreement." The latter scenario is the one that played out, with President Obama informing congressional leaders of his decision in a letter stating that “it is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as Inspectors General. That is no longer the case with regard to this Inspector general.” In a follow-up letter, White House counsel Greg Craig -- responding to a letter of concern about Walpin’s termination from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa -- noted 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.” Craig said that the White House was “aware of the circumstances leading to that referral and of Mr. Walpin’s conduct throughout his tenure and can assure you that that the president’s decision was carefully considered.” He noted that Walpin’s termination “is fully supported by the Chair of the Corporation (a Democrat) and the Vice-Chair (a Republican).” As we detailed yesterday, Walpin was criticized by Acting US Attorney Brown 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 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. "In our experience," Brown wrote in the letter obtained by ABC News, "the role of an Inspector General is to conduct an unbiased investigation, and then forward that investigation to my Office for a determination as to whether the facts warrant a criminal prosecution, civil suit or declination. Similarly, I understand that after conducting such an unbiased investigation, the Inspector General is not intended to act as an advocate for suspension or debarment. However, in this case Mr. Walpin viewed his role very differently. He sought to act as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier." Brown expressed chagrin that US Attorney's office learned about the investigation into Johnson and St. HOPE through articles in the Sacramento Bee, and he said they found Walpin's comments surrounding the investigation unprofessional. "Moreover, we considered the IG referral somewhat unusual in that it was accompanied by a letter from Mr. Walpin explaining that he viewed the conduct in this case as egregious and warranted our pursuing the matter criminally and civilly," he wrote. On August 25 Brown's office met with Walpin and two investigators and "expressed our concerns that the conclusions in their report seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all the information gathered in their investigation." For example, Brown wrote, Walpin's office had not actually done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent. The next time Brown heard from Walpin's office, Brown wrote, was through the Bee a from a press release in which Walpin advocated to have St. HOPE, Johnson and Gonzales placed on the list of parties suspended from receiving federal funds -- a serious move that Brown suggests his office did not know about until reading it in a press release. On September 26, Brown said, the then-US Attorney McGregor Scott "emphatically informed Mr. Walpin that under no circumstance was he to communicate with the media about a matter under investigation and that his acts "were hindering our investigation and handling of this matter." Ultimately the US Attorney's office determined that "a significant portion of the AmeriCorps grant funds were appropriately expended." They concluded that Walpin's investigation was wanting. For instance, Walpin's referral of his investigation to the US Attorney's office concluded that St. HOPE AmeriCorps members performed no tutoring," but the principal of an elementary school told the US Attorney's office that wasn't true, that St. HOPE AmeriCorps members had performed tutoring at his school. Upon further investigation, Brown wrote, the US Attorney's office found that Walpin had received a similar statement from the principal "but did not include it in their report or disclose it" to his office. Walpin "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," Brown concluded. In his official response to Brown's complaint against him, Walpin referred to the Inspector General Act of 1978 which asserts that the IG has the duty to "[a]ssume a leadership role in any and all activities which he deems useful to promote economy and efficiency in the administration of programs and operations or prevent and detect...waste in such programs and operations." "IG offices are not intended to shy away from communication to the public through the media," Walpin wrote. He disputed that he hadn't informed the US Attorney's office that he was considering asking the Corporation for National and Community Service to have Kevin Johnson and St. HOPE suspended from receiving federal funds. "The only thing that the United States Attorney's Office did not know was whether and when the Corporation would act." As for the exculpatory testimony of the principal, Walpin said he found it irrelevant since the principal had told them that he had not "physically observed members on a daily basis...conducting tutoring.""

Anyway, since we're trying to fire a guy at work who is a total jerk but probably views himself as righteous, I'll wait for more facts to come out. There's no way to judge based on the current info whether this guy did a good job or whether he was being a drama queen/attention whore.

This is probably an approach that is too rational for some faggots up here.


[Edited on June 13, 2009 at 2:42 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2009 2:33:37 PM

yeah i agree. definitely glad to see more information there, but still hard to say that it wasn't politically motivated, even if the guy is a jerk and/or overstepped his bounds.

[Edited on June 13, 2009 at 2:47 PM. Reason : link added. thx.]

6/13/2009 2:46:12 PM

So does the position of Inspector General fall under the authority of the US attorney? If so, then if he breached protocol by going to the media outside the chain of command, then that was the risk he took.

However, if his office is separate, then his decision to go to the media, regardless of whose feathers it ruffles, is irrelevant to whether he does his job right or not, especially if he is correct that his charter says to "[a]ssume a leadership role in any and all activities which he deems useful to promote economy and efficiency in the administration of programs and operations or prevent and detect...waste in such programs and operations."

As far as the testimony of the principal in question, I agree (conditionally) with Walpin, if no one actually observed the tutoring occurring (and one would think that would be easy to find a witness to) then it doesn't matter what the principal says occurred or what their paperwork says, what matters is what actually happened.

6/13/2009 3:19:57 PM

Quote :

""the role of an Inspector General is to conduct an unbiased investigation, and then forward that investigation to my Office (U.S. Attorney) for a determination as to whether the facts warrant a criminal prosecution, civil suit or declination. "

That seems pretty messed up in the first place. If I find corruption coming from a friend of the president..I'm supposed to report it to someone who is working at the pleasure of the president?

We're putting a lot of faith in the hope that the president will do the proper thing and hang his corrupted friends out to dry, aren't we?

This kind of reminds me of when Nixon tried to get rid of the prosecutors who were after him and his people..

Quote :

"Washington Post October 1973: Richardson resigned when Mr. Nixon instructed him to fire Cox and Richardson refused. When the President then asked Ruckelshaus to dismiss Cox, he refused, White House spokesman Ronald L. Ziegler said, and he was fired. Ruckelshaus said he resigned. Finally, the President turned to Solicitor General Robert H. Bork, who by law becomes acting Attorney General when the Attorney General and deputy attorney general are absent, and he carried out the President's order to fire Cox. The letter from the President to Bork also said Ruckelshaus resigned. "

[Edited on June 13, 2009 at 10:53 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2009 10:49:44 PM

Quote :

"That seems pretty messed up in the first place. If I find corruption coming from a friend of the president..I'm supposed to report it to someone who is working at the pleasure of the president? "

If the proper order of events for handling the possible misues of funds is to pass it up to the AG's office for review, than thats what he should have done. If the AG failed to act on it without reason, then the IG should have gone public with that. It would cover the IG's ass cause he followed procedure and put it all on the AG.

Either way we need to wait to see if there was actually misuse of funds or not. If there wasn't, shitcan the dude. If there was, give him a slap on the wrist for breaking the chain of command (this assumes its not in his job to make it public).

6/14/2009 12:24:29 AM

[Edited on June 14, 2009 at 6:21 PM. Reason : hah. posted above. n/m]

6/14/2009 6:20:50 PM

I can't believe how far the Obamasheep will stoop to defend the Dear Leader

6/15/2009 5:40:53 PM

Pres. Obama isn't even obeying the law that he co-sponsored as a senator...

Quote :

"Inspector Generals Reform Act : “If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” "

These Inspectors do not only report to the president but also the congress. That is why they can't be fired by the president without just cause. And "Losing faith" in a inspector is not sufficient grounds.

Byron York summarizes:

Quote :

"The bottom line is that the AmeriCorps Inspector General (Walpin) accused a prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money. After an investigation, the prominent Obama supporter had to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. And Obama fired the AmeriCorps IG."

Where is the friggin MSM on this?

6/16/2009 12:17:54 AM

so am I allowed to be annoyed by this yet without being called a hack or are we waiting on the scientific reports of how "disoriented" the IG was to emerge to vindicate the decision?

6/17/2009 3:25:53 PM

from the white house:

Quote :

""Mr. Walpin was removed after a review was unanimously requested by the bi-partisan Board of the Corporation. The Board's action was precipitated by a May 20, 2009 Board meeting at which Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behaviors that led the Board to question his capacity to serve. Upon our review, we also determined that the Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, a career prosecutor who was appointed to his post during the Bush Administration, had filed a complaint about Mr. Walpin's conduct with the oversight body for Inspectors General, including for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence. We further learned that Mr. Walpin had been absent from the Corporation's headquarters, insisting on working from his home in New York over the objections of the Corporation's Board, that he had exhibited a lack of candor in providing material information to decision makers, and that he had engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct. Mr. Walpin had become unduly disruptive to agency operations, impairing his effectiveness and, for the reasons stated above, losing the confidence of the Board and the agency. It was for these reasons that Mr. Walpin was removed.""

6/17/2009 4:33:49 PM

Quote :

"In a statement, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) says, 'The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service. The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give a reason for the removal. "Loss of confidence" is not a sufficient reason. I'm hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible.'"

http://tinyurl.com/no2wk5

[Edited on June 17, 2009 at 4:42 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2009 4:42:05 PM

see ^^

but yeah. i don't know if he violated the act mentioned in the post above.

[Edited on June 17, 2009 at 4:54 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2009 4:44:51 PM

^ According to Senator McCaskill, "The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General. . . ."

6/17/2009 5:01:22 PM

that article is from yesterday and my quote is from today.

6/17/2009 5:11:36 PM

^ Yeah, I noticed that right off. Does the Obama administration have a time machine in which they can go back and change the fact that they failed to follow "proper procedure"?

6/17/2009 5:22:25 PM

she asked for further justification and it was given.

i don't know the intricacies of what oversight the congress has in this case. do they just have to be provided with justification? do they have to approve it?

oh yeah and i was reading somewhere that walpin accused the sacramento mayor of being a sex offender? is that true? (mind you i think i read this in a comments section so it might be entirely false)

[Edited on June 17, 2009 at 5:26 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on June 17, 2009 at 5:28 PM. Reason : not child molestation]

6/17/2009 5:26:06 PM

Quote :

"so am I allowed to be annoyed by this yet without being called a hack or are we waiting on the scientific reports of how "disoriented" the IG was to emerge to vindicate the decision?"

clearly you didn't watch glenn beck yesterday

6/18/2009 7:18:51 PM

Quote :

"... White House lawyers explained that inspector general Walpin was not working well with the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, and the administration believed that IGs should work well with the leadership of their agencies."

The IG's job is to uncover corruption. I don't care if he "works well" with the scamps he's supposed to be over-seeing. Walpin should get a medal and a promotion.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/White-House-Firing-AmeriCorps-IG-an-act-of-political-courage-48538447.html

And looks like pres. Obama is firing more Watchdogs....

Quote :

"The dispute comes as Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is looking into the abrupt firings within the last week of two other inspectors general - one of whom was fired by the White House and the other by the chair of the International Trade Commission. Both inspectors general had investigated sensitive subjects at the time of their firings. "

Damn pesky inspectors. Obama doesn't need to be watched. He only wants to do good.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-tc-nw-inspectors-0617-0618jun18,0,5718990.story

6/18/2009 11:23:09 PM

transparency is the ultimate goal, you know

6/19/2009 8:14:13 AM

Quote :

"CHANGE WE CAN BEL. . . Ah, fuck it."

6/19/2009 8:21:01 AM

don't break the chain of command.

6/19/2009 4:40:59 PM