FEMA Audit

[DougTravels]

It will be interesting to see what they find here:

Audit: FEMA failed to follow contracting rules
By EILEEN SULLIVAN, AP
WASHINGTON — The Federal Emergency Management Agency failed to follow some federal contracting rules, making it impossible to know whether the agency got its money's worth during disasters, a government audit found.

In a report released Tuesday, the inspector general for the Homeland Security Department said that auditors looked at 32 disaster contracts from 2007. That year, the president declared 65 major disasters, and FEMA spent $1.5 billion on disaster contracts, including purchasing and delivering ice for hurricane victims.

FEMA was unable to find copies of some contracts. In other cases, information on the contracts was incomplete. None of the contracts was in electronic form, and some contracting officials kept the documents on their desks or filing cabinets, the report said.

FEMA's contract management opens the door to potential waste, fraud and abuse, the auditors said.

FEMA currently is setting up a room in Washington to hold contracts, and 80 percent of the contracts are there. FEMA told the auditors that the agency also is working to resolve many of its contracting problems, according to the report.

The Government Accountability Office, Congress' watchdog, has reported that all homeland security agencies have had challenges managing contracts since the department was created in 2003.

FEMA has been criticized for contract mismanagement and abuse during 2005's Hurricane Katrina. A 2007 report by House Democrats found that the government awarded 70 percent of its contracts for Katrina work without full competition, wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in the process.

"FEMA's contracting system has long been plagued by inefficiencies that hamper service delivery to disaster victims and waste taxpayer money," said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. "As FEMA's new leadership takes charge, they must resolve the problems created by the previous administration."

In February, the inspector general asked FEMA to provide by late May detailed plans about how it will correct its contracting policies. In a letter Tuesday to FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate, Thompson asked whether those plans have been completed. Thompson told The Associated Press the plans are 30 days overdue.

A representative of FEMA could not immediately be reached for comment.

 

[chefdennis]

FEMA is nothing but a giant open hole that money has been poured into for more yrs then anyone cares to think about...When they cintractedto build all of those trailers to go to NO after katrina, they were full if poison, and 80-90% of them never let the manufacturers lot down of I-69 in indiana...they were paid for and then suppose to be destoried, i heard from friend in that are that more then a few were sold to the public but with disclosures...guys were buying them just for winter hunting trips.....

The worse part is that the waste here is typical of most gov agencies...............and that doesn't matter which party is in control at the time....

 

[layoutshooter]

FEMA is nothing but a giant open hole that money has been poured into for more yrs then anyone cares to think about...When they cintractedto build all of those trailers to go to NO after katrina, they were full if poison, and 80-90% of them never let the manufacturers lot down of I-69 in indiana...they were paid for and then suppose to be destoried, i heard from friend in that are that more then a few were sold to the public but with disclosures...guys were buying them just for winter hunting trips.....

The worse part is that the waste here is typical of most gov agencies...............and that doesn't matter which party is in control at the time....

We need an audit of the ENTIRE Federal Government. We need to go bad to around 1925. We need to look at Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicade, everything. We would find fraud and abuse that would make the Mafia look like the good guys. Both parties are involved up to their scummy necks.

FEMA is rotten from the top down. Has been for years. So is EVERY other government feel good, safety net agency.

We had better do something and soon. Start in 2010. VOTE THEM ALL OUT!!! Quit backing these scumbags. If you keep going into that booth and pulling the Dumb-O-Crat or the
Re-Bum-Li-Can lever everytime this is NOT going to change.

Do NOT believe for one second that things will "Change" under Obama. He is just another "Chicago Machine" politition. That machine is one of the most corrupt in the nation.

Nothing is going to be fixed if WE don't fix it NOW!!! It may be too late. The cancer may be too far intrenched. God help us if it is.

 

[Pilgrim]

The auditors better be careful - they might find the wrong stuff and get fired like Gerald Walpin.

From WSJ.com:
"President Obama swept to office on the promise of a new kind of politics, but then how do you explain last week's dismissal of federal Inspector General Gerald Walpin for the crime of trying to protect taxpayer dollars? This is a case that smells of political favoritism and Chicago rules.
A George W. Bush appointee, Mr. Walpin has since 2007 been the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency that oversees such subsidized volunteer programs as AmeriCorps. In April 2008 the Corporation asked Mr. Walpin to investigate reports of irregularities at St. HOPE, a California nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson. St. HOPE had received an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant, which was supposed to go for three purposes: tutoring for Sacramento-area students; the redevelopment of several buildings; and theater and art programs.
Mr. Walpin's investigators discovered that the money had been used instead to pad staff salaries, meddle politically in a school-board election, and have AmeriCorps members perform personal services for Mr. Johnson, including washing his car..."

Link to the entire article:
The White House Fires a Watchdog - WSJ.com

A fine example of Chicago cronyism at its best.

 

[layoutshooter]

The auditors better be careful - they might find the wrong stuff and get fired like Gerald Walpin.

From WSJ.com:
"President Obama swept to office on the promise of a new kind of politics, but then how do you explain last week's dismissal of federal Inspector General Gerald Walpin for the crime of trying to protect taxpayer dollars? This is a case that smells of political favoritism and Chicago rules.
A George W. Bush appointee, Mr. Walpin has since 2007 been the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency that oversees such subsidized volunteer programs as AmeriCorps. In April 2008 the Corporation asked Mr. Walpin to investigate reports of irregularities at St. HOPE, a California nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson. St. HOPE had received an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant, which was supposed to go for three purposes: tutoring for Sacramento-area students; the redevelopment of several buildings; and theater and art programs.
Mr. Walpin's investigators discovered that the money had been used instead to pad staff salaries, meddle politically in a school-board election, and have AmeriCorps members perform personal services for Mr. Johnson, including washing his car..."

Link to the entire article:
The White House Fires a Watchdog - WSJ.com

A fine example of Chicago cronyism at its best.

Nothing new here. This is exactly why we have to vote out EVERY imcumbent, requardless of party.

 

[greg334]

Like FDR and Wilson, Obama is already overstepping his authority and needs to be stopped.

The law is clear, Obama can not fires an IG unless he can justify it within 30 days of the request to fire the IG, which means he has to wait 30 day for an approval of congress. Now this sounds all good and well but it was Obama who co-sponsored the bill that became law that was to prevent firings of IGs in situations like this.

But here is the kicker, expecailly for Doug. The reason this guy was fired in the first place was because of his investigation of an Obama friend - Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson. It seems that in order for Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson to get his part of the stimulas money, the investigation and findings needed to go away.

Now Doug is this right? I mean the laws were passed to prevent this type of Croynism but obviously you will come up with some justification to allow Obama to do that, when will it stop? the end of free speech? Silencing the opposition?

 

[LDB]

Obama is shoe scrapings at it's worst. He has made 2 or 3 correct and appropriate statements so far out of months in office. That's far too little. It's time to wipe the shoe clean and look for a new path. The current path is far too littered with shoe scrapings along it's entire length with too few clean spots to make it usable. It's time for the path to be plowed and all traces of the current path to permanently disappear.

 

[DougTravels]

The auditors better be careful - they might find the wrong stuff and get fired like Gerald Walpin.

From WSJ.com:
"President Obama swept to office on the promise of a new kind of politics, but then how do you explain last week's dismissal of federal Inspector General Gerald Walpin for the crime of trying to protect taxpayer dollars? This is a case that smells of political favoritism and Chicago rules.
A George W. Bush appointee, Mr. Walpin has since 2007 been the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency that oversees such subsidized volunteer programs as AmeriCorps. In April 2008 the Corporation asked Mr. Walpin to investigate reports of irregularities at St. HOPE, a California nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson. St. HOPE had received an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant, which was supposed to go for three purposes: tutoring for Sacramento-area students; the redevelopment of several buildings; and theater and art programs.
Mr. Walpin's investigators discovered that the money had been used instead to pad staff salaries, meddle politically in a school-board election, and have AmeriCorps members perform personal services for Mr. Johnson, including washing his car..."

Link to the entire article:
The White House Fires a Watchdog - WSJ.com

A fine example of Chicago cronyism at its best.

Here is the most "unspun" account of what happened with IG Walpin that I could find. I have read many articles some make it seem that the Obama was out of line, some make the firing seem justified. I am still on the fence on this one folks. This account seems pretty balanced to me.

White House Explains IG Firing -- Will It Be Enough?
By Zachary Roth - June 17, 2009, 12:36PM
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."


Eisen added that the bipartisan board had unanimously requested a review of Walpin's performance, and noted the complaint against Walpin that was filed by the US Attorney in Sacramento, regarding Walpin's probe of the city's mayor, Obama ally and former NBA star Kevin Johnson.

Eisen added:


We further learned that Mr. Walpin had been absent from the Corporation's headquarters, insisting upon 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.

Separately, a White House spokesman has told FOXNews.com that Michelle Obama "was not involved in any way in the decision to remove Mr. Walpin." That issue had been raised in a letter sent by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) to CNCS chair Alan Solomont, asking for details about the Frist Lady's role. Grassley's question seemed to be prompted by a report in the youth service newsletter Youth Today, which noted that, according to people in the field, "some decisions about CNCS are being made by First Lady Michelle Obama." And it was recently announced that Michelle Obama's chief of staff, Jackie Norris, would join CNCS as a senior adviser -- suggesting that the First Lady could be moving to increase her control over the agency.

Until now, the White House had said only that it had "lost confidence" in Walpin. That lack of detail provoked Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), a staunch Obama supporter, to issue a statement yesterday contending that the White House had failed to follow the law by not offering Congress a sufficient rationale for the firing -- a position already taken by several congressional Republicans, including Grassley. (McCaskill's statement did not take issue with the decision to fire Walpin, but only with the lack of a full explanation for it.) It also allowed Walpin himself to embark on a tour of conservative media, claiming that he had been canned for going after Johnson.

Walpin responded to the White House in an interview with Politico. He called the letter "absolutely amazing," and added:


Anybody who's heard me speaking more than I'm used to speaking on radio and TV in recent days, obviously under great pressure from what happened would clearly know that I know what I'm saying and what I'm doing and I'm not incoherent. There's nothing confusing about malfeasance and there's nothing confusing about what appears to be the fact that they terminated me because I was doing my job because the White House wanted to protect people who proclaim they are friends of the White House.

Politico added:


Walpin said he did recall a board meeting where he became frustrated over "constant interruption...consistently breaking up my organization."

Asked about the May 20 session, Walpin said, "It's certainly possible at that meeting I had a bug and was tired. I can't remember right now...All I can say is this is a weak reed to now be relying on."

Walpin said he worked full-time in the Washington office for his first two years as inspector general and only began "teleworking" from New York after members of his staff convinced him to withdraw a resignation he tendered in January. He said he ran his plan to telecommute by the corporation's acting CEO and general counsel, who had no objections.

"This is an afterthought," Walpin said. "The problem isn't that I'm not there. The problem is that I'm too much there."


So what does this all amount to? The White House still appears not to have offered details on how exactly the decision to fire Walpin was made, and what specifically prompted it. Did it get complaints from the corporation's board right after the May 20 meeting, then conduct its own review? Who was involved in the decision? And so on.

It's hard to believe that Walpin's performance at that meeting, however unimpressive, was the key factor in his firing -- even in combination with the discovery that he worked from home. It seems more than likely, in fact, that his work on the Johnson case did play a significant role in the decision to fire him, but that in its letter, the White House chose to downplay that fact.

But here's the thing: given what we've learned about Walpin's actions in that case, it's far from clear that there would be anything wrong with that.

A quick re-cap: Walpin was appointed to his job by President Bush in 2007. As part of an investigation into Johnson's use of federal AmeriCorps funds -- dating to when Johnson ran St. HOPE Academy, a Sacramento non-profit -- Walpin found that Johnson had misused over $800,000. He took the rare step of recommending that Johnson be barred from receiving federal funds, pending a criminal investigation -- a move that ended up endangering the city's ability to get federal stimulus money after Johnson took office as mayor early this year. Walpin also publicly announced, during the mayoral campaign, that he was passing his findings on to the US Attorney's office and suggested that Johnson might be guilty of a crime -- an apparent breach of protocol. The local US attorney, also a Bush appointee, found no criminal wrongdoing in the case. And his successor, Lawrence Brown, formally complained to an oversight body for inspectors general about Walpin's work on the St. HOPE probe. Brown charged that Walpin hadn't even conducted an audit to determine how much money had been misspent by St. HOPE, and that he had withheld key exculpatory evidence. Brown accused Walpin of acting "as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier" in the case.

In short, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Walpin overstepped his authority in going after Johnson. And his background hardly suggests that he's the kind of politically independent, non-partisan watchdog the IQ job requires. He's a member of the conservative Federalist society, and once introduced Mitt Romney at a meeting of the group by saying that Romney's state, Massachusetts, is run by "modern-day KKK ... the Kennedy-Kerry Klan."

This isn't like the firing of US Attorneys. In those cases, the evidence suggests that at least some were fired for their unwillingness to do the partisan bidding of the White House. Here, by contrast, Walpin himself appears to have acted in a partisan, or at least an irresponsible, manner in his pursuit of Johnson. The evidence that Walpin performed poorly dwarfs the evidence that any of the fired US Attorneys did.

Legally, too, the situation is different. Yes, US Attorneys serve, like the CNCS IG, at the pleasure of the president. But because the threat of a politicized system of justice is so grave, there are specific laws and protocol governing when -- aside from at the start of his term -- a president can remove a US Attorney. That's simply not the case to the same extent when it comes to agency IGs. As McCaskill pointed out, the law requires the president to notify Congress about why he's removing one -- and now he has done so -- but it doesn't significantly constrain his ability to fire an IG.

It'll be up to Congress to decide whether the White House's explanation is detailed enough. We've got a call in to McCaskill's office to ask whether she's satisfied with what the White House has put out, and we'll keep you posted...

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Even your article states that Obama didn't follow the rules, came up with a lame excuse (according to the info that's out there) for firing Walpin, and appears to be covering his friend's butt.

If this doesn't get the outrage that the Gonzalez hearings did, it'll be a mockery. At least in the Gonzalez fiasco, there shouldn't have been an investigation at all; but yet, the Dems demanded to know why ppl were fired who were serving at the president's whim.

If, in fact, Walpin is off his rocker, then he should go. However, the post from Politico seems a little bias... maybe rightly so, if they're accurate. But stating Lawrence Brown is a Bush appointee is somewhat irrelevant, and somewhat questionable, in that, his job too, is at the whim of the current president. Nothing would surprise me that a phone call was made threatening his job unless he cooperated. He's hardly an independant source.

 

[greg334]

Obviously Doug doesn't understand how the IGs are supposed to work and some have compared it with the firings of the lawyers in the justice department but the two are sperate.

The IGs do not operate under the behest of the president, they are independent and the laws are clear - the president has to make a case to congress 30 days before the firing of any IG. The problem is that if the guy was incompetent, then they could have relieved him of his duties and followed the procedure to terminate him properly.

The lawyers who the congress wants to inverstigate and waste our tax money over, can be fired at any time, no 30 day waiting period, no congressional approval. That case is politically charged thanks to the people connected to the lawyers who were fired.

But it does matter, and it should to everyone of us when the president oversteps his limits, it happened with Nixon and it happened here. The stupidity of the people who are justifying this is the same stupidity about the Iraq war being illegal.

 

[DougTravels]

The I in IG stands for independent, this guy quite possibly has an agenda (The KKK remark). I said that I am stil on the fence on this one.
Like I said this article seems to show both sides, yes the firing may not be legal. Then again the 30 day suspension then firing may be within the letter of the law.
We will have to see how it plays out and what the real truth is, no one here has all the answers.

Did he overstep his authority with an agenda?

Is he being crushed by Obama do to his politics?

I think the answer may be yes to both.

If Obama's admin messed up, it will hound him.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

If Obama's admin messed up, it will hound him.

Somehow, I think it will be brushed under the rug.

 

[greg334]

The I in IG stands for independent, this guy quite possibly has an agenda (The KKK remark). I said that I am stil on the fence on this one.

Doug, sorry dude, you never dealt with inspectors or auditors. The I in IG is inspector, not independent. There is no agenda, these guys have been really really careful about their jobs and the work they turn out. It is just like the former GAO, they answer to no one and shouldn't have to when doing an investigation.

Like I said this article seems to show both sides, yes the firing may not be legal. Then again the 30 day suspension then firing may be within the letter of the law.

Seeing you don't know about civil service, there are laws and policies that are in place to protect everyone involved. The article is skewed towards Obama's false premise of the guy being incapable of doing his job and then if that was true, it is not Obama that can make the call, there are procederes for this specifically.
We will have to see how it plays out and what the real truth is, no one here has all the answers.

Did he overstep his authority with an agenda?

Obama, YES - the IG, NO

Is he being crushed by Obama do to his politics?

No, it is clear to help one of the medium to large Obama supporters.

I think the answer may be yes to both.

If Obama's admin messed up, it will hound him.

You can think all you want, it is useless until you come to realise that there is a specific purpose for these guys and this one was doing his job and was 'fired' because of chicago politics.

 

[Pilgrim]

Additional enlightenment comes to the subject matter:

Power Line - Walpin Speaks, Obama Administration Clams Up

It's rather lengthy, but be sure to access the link to Byron York's article. This sounds like something from the Nixon administration's second term, and Barack Hussein Obama has only been in office for five months.

 

[greg334]

If this was a quid pro quo, then it may be an impeachable offense.

 

[DougTravels]

Additional enlightenment comes to the subject matter:

Power Line - Walpin Speaks, Obama Administration Clams Up

It's rather lengthy, but be sure to access the link to Byron York's article. This sounds like something from the Nixon administration's second term, and Barack Hussein Obama has only been in office for five months.

No enlightenment there, a totally biased article, nice Rush ad on the page.

LOL enlightenment