close X
05/10/2013

Thomas Perez: Justice belabored

Thomas Perez: Justice belabored

By Dan Epstein, executive director, Cause of Action – 05/09/13 06:56 PM ET

On April 12, the Office of Special Counsel announced it was investigating allegations that B. Todd Jones, nominee to lead the DOJ’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), had retaliated against whistle-blowers at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota, where he concurrently served as U.S. Attorney.  But the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota, the DOJ, and concerns about whistle-blower protection are not just appetizers for corruption in Washington – they make up a main course that is about to become the meal ticket for a Cabinet appointee.

According to a recent Congressional report, Thomas Perez, current nominee for Secretary of Labor, struck a deal in early February 2012 with the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, in which St. Paul withdrew a Supreme Court appeal in a case involving the Fair Housing Act (FCA) as the DOJ declined intervention in two legal complaints against St. Paul.

The Congressional report states that Perez, current Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, “sought, facilitated, and consummated this deal” that concerns three cases all involving minorities, housing, and the City of St. Paul.

On May 19, 2009, Frederick Newell, an African-American, brought a False Claims Act (FCA) case against the city of St. Paul for falsely certifying compliance with federal law in order to receive over $50 million in Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds.  On October 4, 2011, DOJ’s commercial litigation branch recommended intervention in the case, U.S. ex rel. Newell v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota, and on October 7, 2011, HUD agreed.  On October 25, 2011, Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Booker signed and forwarded the memo approving the DOJ’s intervention in Newell to Acting Associate Attorney General Tony West for final approval.

During the pendency of Newell, on February 18, 2011, Andrew and Harriet Ellis, providers of affordable housing to low income minorities for over thirty years, filed Ellis, et al. v. City of Minneapolis, et al., an FCA case against Minneapolis and St. Paul for falsely certifying to HUD compliance with community development requirements in order to receive over $150 million in federal fair housing funds.

Then there’s Magner v. Gallagher, where, on September 1, 2010, the Eighth Circuit held that St. Paul violated the FCA because its municipal housing code enforcements disproportionately harmed African-Americans.   According to Congressional investigators, this holding buttressed a theory that Perez had used to “secure multimillion dollar settlements,” and when the Supreme Court agreed to hear St. Paul’s appeal on Gallagher in November 2011, this gravy train was threatened. Hearing the case would ultimately expose Perez’s agenda and shine light on the precedent he was setting through his discriminatory and disparate housing approach.

On November 22, 2011, Thomas Fraser, a lawyer representing St. Paul, exchanged e-mails with Perez concerning both Gallagher and Newell.  Notes obtained by Congressional investigators reveal that on a November 28, 2011 call led by Perez, declining intervention in the FCA case was described as “leverage” for getting St. Paul to drop its Supreme Court petition in Gallagher.  That same day, Perez sought DOJ ethics advice concerning whether his settlement with St. Paul in Gallagher, which he disclosed was predicated on an agreement by the government not to intervene in Newell, created any ethics prohibitions.  He asked HUD General Counsel Helen Kanovsky to reconsider HUD’s support, and by November 30, 2011, HUD “changed its mind” recommending declining intervention in Newell.

On February 3, 2012, Perez struck a deal with St. Paul Mayor Christopher Coleman.  By February 9, 2012, Associate Attorney General Tony West formally declined intervention in Newell.  The following day, St. Paul withdrew its Gallagher petition before the Supreme Court.  And on June 18, 2012, the United States notified the U.S. District Court in Minnesota of its decision not to intervene in Ellis.

Thomas Perez thought the Supreme Court would tarnish his political achievements and induced St. Paul to withdraw its petition by pressuring the government to decline intervention in two FCA suits.  Neither Fredrick Newell nor the American taxpayers who funded St. Paul had any say in the adequacy or fairness of Perez’s deal.  An originally slam dunk FCA case – returning millions of dollars to the taxpayers – is now in jeopardy.

The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division was created through the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, established to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of the most vulnerable members of our society.  But as the Congressional report details, Thomas Perez, who today leads the Civil Rights Division and is likely to soon lead the Labor Department, used his political skill and legal acumen to induce a quid pro quo last year that fundamentally disenfranchised those vulnerable members of society he swore to protect.

 

Dan Epstein is the executive director of Cause of Action, a non-profit, nonpartisan organization advocating for government accountability.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/labor/298931-thomas-perez-justice-belabored#ixzz2SqKzXpTs

Blog Learn More
05/3/2013

Court Grants HARDI Opportunity to Challenge Department of Energy’s Decision-Making

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                   

May 3, 2012

 

Court Grants HARDI Opportunity to Challenge Department of Energy’s Decision-Making

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Referred Heating and Air-conditioning Group’s Claims to a Merits Panel for Further Review

 

WASHINGTON – Cause of Action, the government accountability group fighting against federal agency overreach and abuse, today responded to an order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit regarding its client, Heating, Air-conditioning, and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), and their fight against the Department of Energy (DOE).

Violating both congressional intent and long-standing agency practice, the DOE exceeded its statutory authority when it circumvented required procedural protections to issue a direct final rule that imposes new energy efficiency standards.

“Despite the government’s efforts to prevent our client, Heating, Air-conditioning, and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), from making its case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has rightly afforded HARDI the opportunity to be heard,” stated Executive Director Dan Epstein of Cause of Action. “By sending this case to a merits panel for further briefing, the D.C. Circuit has given HARDI a chance to explain how the Department of Energy’s abuse of the Direct Final Rule process has real costs on thousands of HVAC distributors and therefore millions of Americans.”

The D.C. Circuit also granted an emergency motion for a stay of a compliance deadline for regional energy conservation standards for certain furnaces.

“We have long believed that this regulation would have a negative impact on the many small businesses in the HVAC industry. The DOE’s abuse of process in establishing the standard is a classic example of why the small business community is frustrated with Washington,” stated Jon Melchi, Director of Government Affairs of HARDI.  “We are pleased that we will have an additional opportunity to state our case and protect our members.”

The court document can be found here.

 

Press Release Learn More
04/29/2013

Dan Epstein on WFLA 4/26/2013

Executive Director Dan Epstein discusses CPPW report on WFLA

News Audio, News Learn More
04/25/2013

FOIA Freak-Out: DOJ Scrambles to Avoid Fallout Over Swag Purchases

When news of the General Service Administration’s (GSA) Las Vegas blowout broke in April 2012, Cause of Action was as appalled as anyone at the reckless waste of taxpayer dollars.  But instead of focusing on mind readers and ritzy sushi receptions, we zeroed in on the unconscionable amount the GSA spent on baubles and trinkets commemorating the conference.  Knowing that this kind of spending is all-too-common in the federal government, Cause of Action sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to each government agency for all documents related to purchases of commemorative and promotional items over a three-year period.

While some agencies responded relatively quickly, others delayed production for weeks or even months.  The Department of Justice (DOJ), in particular, took so long to produce documents that Cause of Action began to suspect the agency of deliberately dragging its feet.  In November 2012 we sent another FOIA request to DOJ Interpol, this time asking for any communications regarding our original request sent seven months previously.  When we finally received the documents, largely e-mail communications, in late January of this year, they revealed a department in the midst of a FOIA freak-out.

Check out this excerpt from notes taken during a DOJ Executive Officer’s meeting last May:

CoA FOIA 1

We’re flattered that DOJ bigwigs felt compelled to discuss Cause of Action’s request along with such important items as the Department’s budget and new management structure, but all that attention shouldn’t be necessary for a routine FOIA request.  And what did they mean by commanding components to “stand down?”  If they instructed employees already answering requests from FOX News and Bloomberg to stop their work and instead focus their efforts on Cause of Action’s request, that’s a major violation of the agency’s statutory obligations.  FOIA regulations dictate that requests be addressed in the order they are received, not the order of their potential to embarrass the agency.

Then there’s this e-mail from DOJ Interpol’s Executive Office:

CoA FOIA 2

Call us old-fashioned, but Cause of Action believes agencies should follow the plain language of the law.  And the plain language of the Freedom of Information Act states that agencies have 20 business days to respond to a request, even if only on an interim basis.  That’s their “responsibility.”  When a Director worries about “responding prematurely” after the Department has already sat on a request for three months, one has to wonder about that person’s motive.  Is it to ensure that no stone is left unturned in the pursuit of relevant documents?  Or is it to prevent damaging coverage of the department’s wasteful spending until the GSA conference scandal recedes from the public consciousness?

Perhaps the next few e-mails can shed some light on this question:

CoA FOIA 3

So, Justice Management Division (JMD) was tasked with reviewing all components’ responses before sending them on to Cause of Action.  A little unorthodox, perhaps, but not unprecedented in our own experiences with federal FOIA procedures.

By August, DOJ Interpol had completed its document production:

CoA FOIA 4 - Copy

After submitting it’s response to JMD, Interpol waited…and waited…

CoA FOIA 5 - Copy

 

CoA FOIA 6 - Copy

 

CoA FOIA 7 - Copy

More than three months after submitting its production, Interpol finally received the long-awaited go-ahead:

CoA FOIA 8 - Copy

In a stunning coincidence, JMD completed its review just one week after Interpol received our second FOIA request for communications regarding our original request.  Funny how these things work out.

Although Cause of Action is still waiting on answers from a few more components, the documents we’ve received so far indicate that between January 2009 and June 2012, DOJ spent over $1 million on plaques, lapel pins, commemorative coins, and a whole slew of other trinkets for DOJ employees and contractors.  The worst offender by far was JMD itself; in 2009 it spent $80,245 on awards alone for just one event, the Annual Attorney General’s Award Ceremony.  In 2010 and 2011, as the rest of the Department scaled back costs in the face of a budget backlash, spending on swag for the Ceremony actually increased, to $160,137 and $172,845, respectively.  When one DOJ component spends nearly half a million dollars on awards for three events in as many years, it’s clear that the GSA isn’t the only agency struggling with excessive and irresponsible spending practices.

Cause of Action believes that despite the attempts at transparency by some FOIA officers, Department of Justice leadership deliberately delayed our request rather than provide details on the embarrassing amount the agency spent on swag and trinkets.  The high-level meetings, the fear of “responding prematurely,” the delays for a straightforward request; all this points to an agency hypersensitive to any and all reproach, obsessed with protecting its reputation at the expense of accountability and transparency.  Rather than spending time and money shielding itself from criticism, perhaps DOJ should focus its resources on complying with FOIA law and serving the American taxpayer.

Blog Learn More
04/24/2013

5 Ways the DOE Loan Program and Fisker Automative Failed American Taxpayers

The House Oversight Committee is holding a hearing today on “Green Energy Oversight: Examining the Department of Energy’s Bad Bet on Fisker Automotive.”

We’ll be live tweeting beginning at 2pm.

1. According to the DOE Loan Program Office, $34.5 billion of loans have created about 60,000 jobs, which is $575,000 per job.

tumblr_mb6ix3MnPw1rhkyyso1_500

Via Tumblr

2. Cause of Action analysis determined that 95% of those who received a loan gave political contributions, while only 31% of those who were not chosen gave contributions.

LGPV3

3. Fisker Automotive continued to receive money for almost a year after the Obama administration found out it was failing to meet conditions set in the loan.

 In 2010, the Obama administration gave a $529 million loan to Fisker. Fisker would only receive $192 million before it was cut off.

Via Gifrific

4. Fisker never finished construction on its factory or produced any cars backed by the government loan.

 Via togif

5. Taxpayers are looking at a potential loss of $171 million. The largest loan failure since Solyndra.

Via REACTION GIFS

 

 

 

Blog Learn More
04/23/2013

Dan Epstein on Radio America 4/20/2013

Executive Director Dan Epstein on Radio America discusses the CPPW report.

News Learn More
04/16/2013

Cronies Putting Politics to Work

The Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) program is a grant program administered by the CDC for education on tobacco use and obesity prevention.   All grant recipients are notified that it is illegal to use the funds for lobbying, but a CoA investigation has uncovered seven new instances where your federal tax dollars were used to push for higher taxes and new ordinances. Our investigation shows how the CDC failed to conduct proper oversight of the CPPW program. While the CDC was made aware of the Florence County, SC violation, CoA uncovered seven additional communities in risk of violating federal law and HHS guidelines.

Read more in our Press Release or see the full report here. 

Florence County, SC

$6 million for tobacco control

 Illegal Lobbying 

  • The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) and the Smoke Free Florence (SFF) coalition used the grant money to lobby in support of a smoke-free ordinance.
    • This email from a DHEC employee describes lobbying  two members of the county commission (Glynn and Buddy): 

 Cover-up

  • CPPW staff at DHEC attempted to cover-up the lobbying by altering the meeting minutes.
    • “DHEC would like to go through the past meeting minutes to “massage” them and take out the details.”
    • “He said that it is not unethical because they are not looking to “twist” things that were written, just remove the details.”

Pima County, AZ

$15.8 million for obesity prevention 

  • The Pima County Health Department (PCHD) used taxpayer dollars to contract with the University of Arizona to lead policy workshops and develop neighborhood plans in support of zoning codes, regulations, and ordinances.

Out in the Open

  • The sub-contract for the University of Arizona College Of Architecture clearly states that the grantee will be “engaging public officials.”  

Jefferson County, AL

$13.3 million for tobacco control and obesity prevention

  • CPPW funds paid 80% of the salary for a “Director of Advocacy” with the following duties and responsibilities: 

Miami-Dade County, FL

$14.7 million for obesity prevention 

  • The Miami-Dade County Health Department (MDCHD) used taxpayer funds to hire the Health Council of South Florida to provide a legislative agenda for CPPW-funded policy work.

Mobile County, AL

$2.4 million for obesity prevention 

  • CPPW funds paid the salary of an “outreach coordinator” who worked with the TFMC to “educate decision makers about the benefit of 100% percent smoke-free policy, increasing the unit price of tobacco products, and reducing tobacco advertising. 

Los Angeles County, CA

$32.1 million for tobacco control and obesity prevention

  • LA Public Health used CPPW funds to  hire a “Legislated Policy Project Coordinator” who managed teams of policy liaisons, community organizers and community representatives

 Santa Clara County, CA

$6.9 million for tobacco control

  • The Santa Clara County Public Health Department (Santa Clara Health) used tax dollars to hire a tobacco retail license coordinator to lobby for a workplace smoking ordinance and also used CPPW funds to support a state-wide tobacco tax increase.

DeKalb County, GA

$3.2 million for tobacco control and obesity prevention

  • The DeKalb County Board of Health (DCBH) used CPPW funds to support the adoption of a strengthened county CIAO and partnered with the Georgia Alliance for Tobacco Prevention (GA Alliance) to train coalition partners and finance a media campaign in support of state cigarette tax increase.

 

Blog Learn More