The story that keeps giving: Rhee/Johnson/Huffner (Rhee ex)/White House

New documents: White House scrambled to justify AmeriCorps firing after the fact

By: BYRON YORK
Chief Political Correspondent
November 23, 2009

Just hours after Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa released a report Friday on their investigation into the abrupt firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin, the Obama White House gave the lawmakers a trove of new, previously-withheld documents on the affair. It was a twist on the now-familiar White House late-Friday release of bad news; this time, the new evidence was put out not only at the start of a weekend but also hours too late for inclusion in the report.

The new documents support the Republican investigators' conclusion that the White House's explanation for Walpin's dismissal -- that it came after the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, unanimously decided that Walpin must go -- was in fact a public story cobbled together after Walpin was fired, not before.

Walpin was axed on the evening of June 10, when he received a call from Norman Eisen, the special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, who told Walpin he had one hour either to resign or be fired. The next day, congressional Republicans, led by Grassley, objected, charging that Walpin's dismissal violated a recently-passed law requiring the president to give Congress 30 days' notice before dismissing an inspector general.

Pressed for the reason Walpin was fired, Eisen told House and Senate aides that the White House conducted an "extensive review" of complaints about Walpin’s performance before deciding to dismiss him. According to the new report, Eisen told Congress that "his investigation into the merits of removing Gerald Walpin involved contacting members of the Corporation for National and Community Service [CNCS] board to confirm the existence of a 'consensus' in favor of removal." But Republican investigators later discovered that during that "extensive review," the White House did not even seek the views of the corporation's board -- the very people whose "consensus" purportedly led to Walpin's firing.

Other than board chairman Alan Solomont, the Democratic mega-donor and Obama supporter who originally told the White House of his dissatisfaction with Walpin, "no member of the CNCS board had any substantive input about whether the removal of Gerald Walpin was appropriate," according to the report. Only one other board member, vice-chairman Stephen Goldsmith, was even called by the White House, and that was on June 10, a few hours before Walpin was fired. According to the report, Goldsmith told investigators that "the White House had already decided to remove Walpin and wanted to confirm [Goldsmith's] support for the action."

The new documents show the White House scrambling, in the days after the controversy erupted, to put together a public explanation for the firing. On June 11, less than 24 hours after Walpin received the call from Eisen, the board held a conference call. The next day, Ranit Schmelzer, who is part of the corporation's press office, sent an email to board members giving them talking points to use if contacted by reporters seeking information about the matter.

"Indicate that you support the president's decision to remove IG Walpin," was Schmelzer's first instruction to the board. Then: "If asked why he was removed, indicate that the president lost confidence in Mr. Walpin." And then: "If the reporter continues to press, say that you can't get into details on a personnel matter, but you understand there were some performance-based issues." Finally, Schmelzer advised the board to avoid "getting into any specifics about IG Walpin's performance-based issues. The WH has stayed away from this and has counseled us to do the same."

The next day, June 13, after having instructed board members that the correct answer was to express support for the firing, the White House, for the first time, solicited the members' actual views on the matter. In an email to the board headlined "Time-sensitive request from White House Counsel re IG matter," corporation general counsel Frank Trinity wrote, "I was just contacted by Elana Tyrangiel, Associate Counsel to the President, seeking your assistance in responding to questions from members of Congress about President Obama's removal of Gerald Walpin as inspector general. Specifically, the White House Counsel's office would like to compile statements from board members and CNCS staff who were present at the inspector general's presentation to the board immediately before the public board meeting last month." Trinity said each member would receive a call from White House lawyer Tyrangiel, who "will prepare statements for your review for accuracy."

The mention of Walpin's "presentation to the board" was a reference to a May 20 board meeting that played a key part in the White House's evolving explanations for Walpin's firing. After initially explaining that President Obama no longer had the "fullest confidence" in Walpin, the White House later changed its story to say that Walpin, who was 77 years old at the time, had become "confused, disoriented [and] unable to answer questions" at the May 20 meeting. Later, the White House cited other "performance-based" issues. But Republican investigators concluded that the key motive behind the firing was unhappiness with Walpin's aggressive investigation of misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California who is a prominent political ally of President Obama.

Through it all, the White House and top management of the corporation struggled to keep the story straight. By June 18, a week after the firing, with news coverage dying down -- it had never been very intense in the first place -- they felt they had succeeded. "I understand how much work you are doing to prevent and control damage from the IG matter," Solomont wrote in an email to Eric Tanenblatt, a board member who had talked to the press. "I want you to know how much I personally appreciate all your efforts."

Rhee Ex-Husband "Wins" WAPO Contest

As to why Huffman won the "contest", the following posting at the WaPo website explains:

"The Teach for America twitter feed has been campaigning for him and he has over 6,000 people in just one of the several TFA facebook groups. Google him and you'll see a couple of major politicians tweeting for him including Kevin Johnson Democrat Mayor of Sacramento and some major education blogs. It's clear he's invested a great deal of time in this. One wonders though if his supporters will stick around after he wins."

---

From: nyceducationnews@yahoogroups.com [mailto:nyceducationnews@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Leonie Haimson
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:39 PM
To: nyceducationnews@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [nyceducationnews] New WaPo 'pundit' is Rhee's ex; Hiatt responds

More inside the beltway echo chambers. TFA public affairs officer and Rhee’s ex chosen as new “pundit” for Washington Post.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/1109/New_WaPo_pundit_is_Rhees_Ex.html?showall

New WaPo 'pundit' is Rhee's ex; Hiatt responds

Earlier, I mentioned that the Washington Post named Kevin Huffman the winner of its first-ever "America's Next Great Pundit" contest.

But it should also be noted that Huffman's ex-wife is schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, an editorial page favorite and cover star of the first revamped Post magazine. In that 4,200-word piece on Rhee in September, the author mentioned that she didn't want to discuss aspects of her personal life, including Huffman and their two children.

However, when Time profiled Rhee last year, Huffman spoke on the record about their relationship.

The summer after her second year of teaching, Rhee met Kevin Huffman, a fellow Teach for America member. They married two years later and had two daughters, Starr and Olivia, now 9 and 6. They moved to Colorado to be closer to Rhee's parents, but the marriage faltered. Huffman and Rhee separated, agreeing to joint custody of the kids. And then Rhee got the offer to run Washington's schools. Huffman, now head of public affairs for Teach for America, had no illusions about the challenges Rhee would face. But when he heard about the job offer, he decided to follow her to D.C. "Even though moving didn't sound like a whole lot of fun," he says, "the reality is that I genuinely believed that she had the potential to be the best superintendent in the country. Most people think about their own longevity, about political considerations." He adds, "Very few people genuinely don't care about anything other than the end result for kids. Michelle will compromise with no one when it comes to making sure kids get what they deserve."

With 4,800 contestants, from all 50 states, it's interesting that the winner ends up being someone familiar with the world of D.C. politics, as opposed to someone far outside the Beltway.

However, Fred Hiatt, the Post's editorial page editor, pointed out to POLITICO that Huffman was voted in by viewers and readers across the country. "I don't think his personal life was a factor." Hiatt said he didn't know Huffman before the contest and doesn't know of anyone at the Post who did.

And would Huffman have to disclose that he was married to Rhee?

"As with any columnist, we would expect him not to write about areas in which he has a personal conflict, or to disclose the conflict if he chooses to write about such areas," Hiatt said.

Posted by Michael Calderone 02:01 PM

WTU Loses Court Challenge To Layoffs
A D.C. Superior Court judge has ruled against a bid by the Washington Teachers' Union (WTU) to roll back the Oct. 2 layoffs of 266 DCPS teachers and staff.
In an opinion issued late Tuesday morning, Judge Judith Bartnoff said WTU had failed to prove any of its core arguments against Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee's decision to conduct a RIF (reduction in force) due to a $43.9 million budget shortfall. She said that given the District's financial situation, a reversal of the layoffs would force Rhee and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty to make other cuts in the DCPS, harming the public interest.
"The District asserts, and the plaintiff has not disputed, that in that event, other staff would be subject to a RIF--even further into the school year--or programs that have been deemed essential would have to be cut," Bartnoff wrote. "Such an action would not benefit DCPS, its teachers, students or staff, or the wider District of Columbia community."
No word yet on whether WTU plans to appeal.
The union argued that the RIF was not a budget-driven layoff but an illegal mass firing, and that the shortfall cited by Rhee was a sham and a pretext for dumping older teachers. As a mass firing, WTU contended, the action was subject to arbitration under the District's collective bargaining agreement with the WTU.
The union charged that Rhee, in essence, went on an illegal hiring spree over the spring and summer, bringing more 900 new teachers on board knowing that she would need to make cuts later.
But Bartnoff said the union failed to provide any substantive evidence that DCPS packed the system with teachers it could not pay for until the D.C. Council cut its 2010 budget by $21 million on July 31. In contrast, she singled out Rhee's chief of staff, Lisa Ruda, as "a very credible witness" in her testimony on DCPS' budget problems after the council cut.
Bill Turque