WP: Hiring of Commentator Is Called Poor Judgment (not worth the $$$$)

[Pirate Smile]

Hiring of Commentator Is Called Poor Judgment
Report: Education Dept. Broke No Law

By Brian Faler
Special to The Washington Post
Saturday, April 16, 2005; Page A02

Senior education officials showed poor judgment but did nothing illegal or unethical when they hired commentator Armstrong Williams to promote the administration's education policies, according to a government report released yesterday.

Education Department Inspector General John P. Higgins Jr. concluded that then-Education Secretary Roderick R. Paige and many of his top aides exercised poor judgment and bad management when they agreed to pay the conservative pundit $240,000 to promote the administration's No Child Left Behind initiative.

Much of the report's criticism focused on whether the department got its money's worth. It noted, for example, that the agency paid for advertisements that were never made or that were sometimes of poor quality. Investigators did not turn up any evidence that the administration paid Williams to personally promote its policies in his newspaper columns and television appearances. But they did not look into whether the agreement produced covert propaganda, leaving that issue to the Government Accountability Office, which is also investigating.

"The department paid for work that most likely did not reach its intended audience and paid for deliverables that were never received," the report said. "The advertisements (ads) that were produced under the work requests appear to be of poor quality, and the department has no assurance the ads received the airtime for which it paid."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57561-2005Apr15.html

What a joke! :eyes:

I know my main concern was whether or not the Government got its money's worth.:sarcasm:

[rodeodance]

1. I see they are shifting the focus -awey from the ethical-legal issue

of this socalled bad judgement!!!!1

[SpiralHawk]

2. Administration Experts Agree:

Everything is just fine.

So shut up, sit down, turn on Faux News, set yourself up with a double-dose of kool aid, and SWALLOW the whole frikkin elephant. Or else.

And remember, Big BushCo loves you.

[NVMojo]

3. When do us Dems get the scale of measurement for the Repukes'

"morals and values" allowable behavior? It's obvious different then what they made us all believe during the sickening fraud election campaign...

[liveoaktx]

4. CREW-The issue was whether govt violaged anti-propaganda law

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=45951

The following is a statement from Melanie Sloan, executive director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), on the Inspector General's Report on the Department of Education contract with Ketchum Public Relations. CREW filed FOIAs with 22 agencies on Jan. 11, 2005, requesting copies of all contracts with public relation firms, including Ketchum and Fleishman-Hillard. Both firms have contracted with the government resulting in similar controversies, and in violation of the Publicity and Propaganda clause:

"Unfortunately, the Inspector General chose to focus on contract management issues –- whether the Department of Education and Ketchum properly oversaw the work of the Graham Williams Group (GWG) once the contract had been entered into. The IG report fails, however, to address the critical issue: did the Department of Education violate the anti-propaganda law by entering into the contract with GWG in the first place?

"Although the report glosses over this question, the report does note that in addition to creating advertisements, Mr. Williams also agreed that he "would regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts and would work with African-American newspapers to place stories and commentary on NCLB." (IG Report, page 7). Rather than addressing this question, the IG report instead analyzes whether the GWG contract was effective in meeting its stated goal of disseminating information about NCLB to minority and disadvantaged communities. Apparently, it was not.

"This, however, was not the issue that the IG report was supposed to consider. The IG was charged with looking into whether the anti-propaganda law was violated. The report notes that the Department's General Counsel was consulted about the legality of the contract, but apparently, that office did not offer an opinion as to whether the contract violated the anti- propaganda law. Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington stated that "at the very least, the IG report is deficient for failing to criticize the General Counsel's office for neglecting to warn the Department that the GWG contract violated anti-propaganda law."

.......

[DeepModem Mom]

5. NYT: Inquiry Finds White House Knew of Pact With (Armstrong Williams)

Inquiry Finds White House Knew of Pact With Writer
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT

Published: April 16, 2005


WASHINGTON, April 15 - Officials at the Education Department expressed concerns about a contract with the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams last year, even bringing it to the attention of a White House policy adviser when it came up for renewal, according to an internal department report released on Friday.

The report, by the department's inspector general, found no evidence of unlawful or unethical behavior in connection with Mr. Williams's contract but criticized top department officials for "poor management decisions" and lax oversight....

***

The report did not address questions about whether hiring Mr. Williams to promote President Bush's signature education initiative amounted to covert propaganda....

***

The report portrayed former Education Secretary Rod Paige and his top advisers as the driving force behind the $240,000 agreement with Mr. Williams, a commentator who promoted the No Child Left Behind Act.

Mr. Paige, who is black, told department officials that "his main concern was with reaching the minority community."...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/16/politics/16armstrong.html

[DELUSIONAL]

6. Oh damn -- I am Sooooooo surprised.

[MrTriumph]

7. So much for returning dignity & integrity to the White House, Mr. Bush.

edited to include "integrity"- you know how easy it is to forget that word, George

[MO_Dem]

8. Mr. Paige's main concern

was with reaching the minority community? Yes, but WHY? To make them think they shoud vote republican? Didn't work, did it, Mr. Paige?

I think this kind of stuff should be illegal!

[Moderator]

9. kick

[NNN0LHI]

10. Report Cites Blunders in Armstrong Williams Deal

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=716&e=8&u=/ap/20050416/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/education_investigation

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration's hiring of a pundit to tout its education agenda was not illegal or unethical, but it was a poor decision and continued even after concerns were raised to the White House, an internal investigation found.


The report by the Education Department's inspector general cited a pattern of blunders that led to the $240,000 contract with conservative commentator Armstrong Williams.


Senior officials showed poor management, information didn't get to the right people and the agency paid for work that was poorly produced, Inspector General Jack Higgins said.


The department approved $240,000 for Williams, a commentator with newspaper, television and radio audiences, to promote President Bush's No Child Left Behind law. The deal was part of a $1.3 million contract the department had with Ketchum, a public relations firm.

more

[annabanana]

11. "internal investigations" are, ipso facto, bullsh*t..

Why did anyone anywhere EVER accept the concept of "internal investigation"?

[rodeodance]

12. WH curb interviews--See this DU thread--in other words it was not much

much of an investigation when you do not get major players to be included!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1727219

[mbperrin]

24. Wish someone would "blunder" me

into $240,000 worth of cash!

[journalist3072]

13. Lawmaker: White House Impeding Armstrong Williams Payola Probe

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/probe415

Lawmaker: White House Impeding Armstrong Williams Payola Probe
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2005
By: Ben Feller, Associated Press

-snip-

The Bush administration is impeding an investigation into the Education Department's hiring of commentator Armstrong Williams by refusing to allow key White House officials to be interviewed, a Democratic lawmaker briefed on the review said Thursday.

In addition, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said Education Secretary Margaret Spellings is considering invoking a privilege that he said would require information to be deleted when the final version is publicly released, which is expected within days.

Miller called for Jack Higgins, the inspector general at the Education Department, to delay the report until Spellings agrees not to invoke "deliberative process privilege" and the White House grants interviews with current or former officials familiar with the deal.

[NashVegas]

14. Welcome to the USA Circa 2005

The problem is not cheating, the problem is we aren't cheating well enough.

[Moderator]

15. kick to combine

[rainbow4321]

16. Inquiry: Pundit concerns ignored ("White House was warned")

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/041605dnnatwilliams.1566e9e8.html

Senior Bush administration officials showed poor judgment and wasted money in hiring conservative commentator Armstrong Williams to promote the president's agenda, even though they violated no laws or ethics rules, an internal inquiry concluded.

The report released Friday also revealed that two Education Department officials had warned the White House last summer about concerns about the Williams contract, including the "inherent conflict" of paying a pundit to endorse the president's education law.

David Dunn, then-special assistant to the president, agreed with the concerns, yet neither the White House nor the department halted the contract until it was disclosed by the news media in January.

Responding to the report, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings referred to the influence of department leaders. "When the secretary, his/her chief of staff and other senior officers urge, hint, suggest or recommend anything, it can start a chain reaction within the building to carry out the request, such as what occurred beginning in March 2003," she said. "As a result, it is the secretary who must be careful about and is ultimately responsible for the signals that his/her office sends."

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. Yesterday's article in the NY Times

said the investigation resulted in no charges filed. So these folks will just go on about their business and a year from now it will all be forgotten.

It just makes me ill. When I think how many books for schools that quarter of a million could have purchased, I get pretty incensed.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[rainbow4321]

19. Just another "The report, released Friday" moment in shrub's regime. n/t

[Mr Rabble]

18. this is really disgusting

when does something finally stick to these maggots?

[brettdale]

20. National Media list This story

Email this to all on the National media list!

[liveoaktx]

21. CREW says this investigation faulty because it didn't have, as its focus

whether the Dept of Education broke the anti-propaganda law, but whether it worked the contracts properly. The article from the DMN is misleading because it implies no harm, no foul.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=45951

"Unfortunately, the Inspector General chose to focus on contract management issues –- whether the Department of Education and Ketchum properly oversaw the work of the Graham Williams Group (GWG) once the contract had been entered into. The IG report fails, however, to address the critical issue: did the Department of Education violate the anti-propaganda law by entering into the contract with GWG in the first place?

"Although the report glosses over this question, the report does note that in addition to creating advertisements, Mr. Williams also agreed that he "would regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts and would work with African-American newspapers to place stories and commentary on NCLB." (IG Report, page 7). Rather than addressing this question, the IG report instead analyzes whether the GWG contract was effective in meeting its stated goal of disseminating information about NCLB to minority and disadvantaged communities. Apparently, it was not.

"This, however, was not the issue that the IG report was supposed to consider. The IG was charged with looking into whether the anti-propaganda law was violated. The report notes that the Department's General Counsel was consulted about the legality of the contract, but apparently, that office did not offer an opinion as to whether the contract violated the anti- propaganda law. Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington stated that "at the very least, the IG report is deficient for failing to criticize the General Counsel's office for neglecting to warn the Department that the GWG contract violated anti-propaganda law."

"This is hardly a minor oversight. A review of prior Comptroller General decisions makes it perfectly clear that the GWG contract did, in fact, violate the anti-propaganda law. In a 1987 opinion, GAO considered whether the Dept. of State's Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean (S/LPD) utilized deceptive propaganda to influence the media and the public to support the Reagan Administration’s Latin America policies by hiring outside writers to create articles and op-ed pieces in support of the Administration's position. They also arranged for the publication of articles which purportedly had been prepared by and reflected the views of, persons not associated with the government but which, in fact, had been prepared at the request of government officials and partially or wholly paid for with government funds.

[NYC Liberal]

22. It seems Bush, or at least someone at the WH,

is warned before something major happens, yet they never do anything about it.

- This
- Yellowcake docs
- 9/11

What else?

And then maybe next time someone gets word of a terrorist attack, they won't bother warning anyone because, hey, nothing's gonna be done anyway right?

[gratuitous]

23. "No laws were broken"

"And we didn't do anything wrong, but we're not going to do that anymore."

Uh huh. Right. I know that I always quit doing the right thing when someone finds out about it. And if there was nothing wrong about the payola for Armstrong Williams, why wasn't it publicly announced? Why were they trying to do this on the down low?