assimgent 23453

Minicase:

President Obama Fires an IG Gerald Walpin, the IG of AmeriCorps, had been selected by President George W. Bush and carried over into the Obama administration. Walpin had never worked in investigations or auditing and had no prior experience in an IG office. He was not familiar with the norms of IG offices, such as refraining from speaking to the press about an ongoing investigation, nor was he familiar with how a government office operates; for example, at one point he confessed to complete lack of experience or knowledge of procedures for investigating charges of discrimination in employment. Columnists and bloggers suggested that he was an active Republican, donating to Republican candidates and supporting their campaigns, though he had never worked in the White House or on a congressional staff. But even if he had been scrupulously nonpartisan and highly experienced, he would have had a difficult time finding himself in a Democratic administration as the inspector general of a pet program of the president and the president’s wife. Virtually anything the IG criticized would be considered political and antagonistic to the administration. Republicans had long stalked AmeriCorps, attacking it for association with a number of their issues, such as a volunteer who escorted women safely inside an abortion center and a small number of volunteers who helped collect money for ACORN, a community organizing group that earned Republican anger for registering poor voters (who would likely vote for Democratic candidates). Having a Bush appointee as IG in AmeriCorps gave Republicans an opportunity to find violations that could bring down the entire program. Whether or not Walpin intentionally played into the Republican agenda, from the administration’s point of view, Walpin’s reports were potentially lethal. His most controversial findings dealt with abuse of funds by a former basketball star, Kevin Johnson, who ran a charity that received AmeriCorps funding. Johnson was a well-known Obama supporter. Not satisfied with a claim for repayment from the charity Johnson ran, Walpin pushed to assure that Johnson would be prohibited from receiving any future federal grants. When Johnson ran for and won the mayoralty of Sacramento, this prohibition threatened to prevent the city from receiving antirecession funds from the administration. The acting U.S. attorney took over and negotiated a settlement that did not take the whole population of the city of Sacramento hostage. Walpin complained loudly about this arrangement as insufficiently punitive on the one hand and leaving the government open to further abuse on the other. When AmeriCorps board members approached the administration asking for Walpin to be relieved of his duties, the administration responded quickly, asking for Walpin’s resignation. When Walpin refused to resign, the administration put Walpin on administrative leave and responded to congressional complaints about lack of advance notice by describing in detail its list of complaints against Walpin. The administration did not initially but did eventually comply with the requirement for advance notice to Congress. Whether or not the administration was justified in asking for Walpin’s resignation—cases have been made on both sides—the AmeriCorps IG office remained without a permanent head from 2009 until 2012, and its budget was drastically reduced. While these actions certainly suggest the administration was trying to protect a program (Americorps) that had been seriously attacked— the House voted to eliminate AmeriCorps funding completely—one can’t help wondering about the effectiveness of an IG who seemed out to destroy an agency rather than make it work better. Why would the board cooperate with him or implement his recommendations? Where is the line between legitimate investigation and creating a threatening environment? What should an administration do about an IG appointed by a president of the opposite party, known for choosing candidates for political loyalty rather than experience, an IG who seemed to have an agenda to publicly embarrass an administration by helping to bring down a program that symbolized the president’s goals and values? The acting U.S. attorney who arranged the negotiated settlement with Johnson referred Walpin’s case to the IG council for possible disciplinary action, for failure to abide by accepted rules of evidence and for publicizing his cases before they were complete. The integrity committee of the IG council did not discipline Walpin, but their standards for initiating an investigation were high —that is, investigations would occur when the case involved gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or misconduct so serious that it would undermine the integrity or independence expected of an IG or senior IG staff (from the procedure manual, 2009). The charges laid against Walpin were not that serious. The integrity committee argued that Walpin had sufficiently and satisfactorily addressed the matter and further inquiry or investigation was not warranted. Self-policing in this case did not produce a solution or publicly clarify the norms and rules of investigations.

1. What about a case in which there really were serious charges?

2. How did the case come to light, who investigated it, and what did the IG council do?

3. If the IGs are to be independent of politics, shouldn’t they be able to self-police?

ANSWER THIS 3 QUESTIONS TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE

Minicase:

President Obama Fires an IG Gerald Walpin, the IG of AmeriCorps, had been selected by President George W. Bush and carried over into the Obama administration. Walpin had never worked in investigations or auditing and had no prior experience in an IG office. He was not familiar with the norms of IG offices, such as refraining from speaking to the press about an ongoing investigation, nor was he familiar with how a government office operates; for example, at one point he confessed to complete lack of experience or knowledge of procedures for investigating charges of discrimination in employment. Columnists and bloggers suggested that he was an active Republican, donating to Republican candidates and supporting their campaigns, though he had never worked in the White House or on a congressional staff. But even if he had been scrupulously nonpartisan and highly experienced, he would have had a difficult time finding himself in a Democratic administration as the inspector general of a pet program of the president and the president’s wife. Virtually anything the IG criticized would be considered political and antagonistic to the administration. Republicans had long stalked AmeriCorps, attacking it for association with a number of their issues, such as a volunteer who escorted women safely inside an abortion center and a small number of volunteers who helped collect money for ACORN, a community organizing group that earned Republican anger for registering poor voters (who would likely vote for Democratic candidates). Having a Bush appointee as IG in AmeriCorps gave Republicans an opportunity to find violations that could bring down the entire program. Whether or not Walpin intentionally played into the Republican agenda, from the administration’s point of view, Walpin’s reports were potentially lethal. His most controversial findings dealt with abuse of funds by a former basketball star, Kevin Johnson, who ran a charity that received AmeriCorps funding. Johnson was a well-known Obama supporter. Not satisfied with a claim for repayment from the charity Johnson ran, Walpin pushed to assure that Johnson would be prohibited from receiving any future federal grants. When Johnson ran for and won the mayoralty of Sacramento, this prohibition threatened to prevent the city from receiving antirecession funds from the administration. The acting U.S. attorney took over and negotiated a settlement that did not take the whole population of the city of Sacramento hostage. Walpin complained loudly about this arrangement as insufficiently punitive on the one hand and leaving the government open to further abuse on the other. When AmeriCorps board members approached the administration asking for Walpin to be relieved of his duties, the administration responded quickly, asking for Walpin’s resignation. When Walpin refused to resign, the administration put Walpin on administrative leave and responded to congressional complaints about lack of advance notice by describing in detail its list of complaints against Walpin. The administration did not initially but did eventually comply with the requirement for advance notice to Congress. Whether or not the administration was justified in asking for Walpin’s resignation—cases have been made on both sides—the AmeriCorps IG office remained without a permanent head from 2009 until 2012, and its budget was drastically reduced. While these actions certainly suggest the administration was trying to protect a program (Americorps) that had been seriously attacked— the House voted to eliminate AmeriCorps funding completely—one can’t help wondering about the effectiveness of an IG who seemed out to destroy an agency rather than make it work better. Why would the board cooperate with him or implement his recommendations? Where is the line between legitimate investigation and creating a threatening environment? What should an administration do about an IG appointed by a president of the opposite party, known for choosing candidates for political loyalty rather than experience, an IG who seemed to have an agenda to publicly embarrass an administration by helping to bring down a program that symbolized the president’s goals and values? The acting U.S. attorney who arranged the negotiated settlement with Johnson referred Walpin’s case to the IG council for possible disciplinary action, for failure to abide by accepted rules of evidence and for publicizing his cases before they were complete. The integrity committee of the IG council did not discipline Walpin, but their standards for initiating an investigation were high —that is, investigations would occur when the case involved gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or misconduct so serious that it would undermine the integrity or independence expected of an IG or senior IG staff (from the procedure manual, 2009). The charges laid against Walpin were not that serious. The integrity committee argued that Walpin had sufficiently and satisfactorily addressed the matter and further inquiry or investigation was not warranted. Self-policing in this case did not produce a solution or publicly clarify the norms and rules of investigations.

1. What about a case in which there really were serious charges?

2. How did the case come to light, who investigated it, and what did the IG council do?

3. If the IGs are to be independent of politics, shouldn’t they be able to self-police?

ANSWER THIS 3 QUESTIONS TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE