The “why” of the DOJ’s firing of seven U.S. attorneys in December will ultimately be more important than the “who, when, what, where, and how.” But the “how” is another fascinating case study in Bush administration incompetence.
Follow me beneath the fold to see what nuggets of information will be mined from Gonzo's botched human relations attempt.
There’s a whole industry that deals with the pitfalls of firing people, and most large organizations have human relations departments to ensure that it gets done properly. It will prove fortunate in the long run that Alberto Gonzales and his deputies at DOJ, and the assorted White House political operatives who masterminded and executed a plan to replace seven U.S. Attorneys in December 2006, screwed this up.
Federal political appointees, it is frequently noted, serve directly or indirectly at the pleasure of the president. In industry parlance, these are “at-will” employees, meaning either the employer or the employee can terminate employment at any time.
On one hand, Alberto seems to get it. He wrote in his infamous USA Today op-ed column
As any employer or manager knows, the handling of personnel matters — especially the termination of employees — is one of the most challenging tasks in any business. Personnel matters in the federal government are no exception.
The USAs could have simply been informed that their services were no longer required. But Alberto seems to have missed the lesson in HR 101 where one learns that you NEVER state a reason for a firing (unless required by law, which would not apply in this case).
Hey Alberto, watch out for that steaming pile of sh… O gawd! What a stinking mess! In one paragraph, you got it all over yourself, Alberto.
To be clear, it was for reasons related to policy, priorities and management — what have been referred to broadly as "performance-related" reasons — that seven U.S. attorneys were asked to resign last December.
So, it was “performance-related,” was it?
Immediately, we are no longer in the realm of “serves at the pleasure of the president” (no reason required) and into a swamp where the administration’s only way out is by reference to a set of “facts.” And this is precisely where House and Senate investigators need to go when they hold hearings on this matter.
First, businesses (Republicans just love to say that government should be run like business) generally maintain standard policies in writing. Whether it's in the form of an official handbook or a loose-leaf binder of memoranda, you should have clear policies in place so that employees know exactly what is and is not expected of them while employed. So, I want to know what policies, if any, were violated by the seven canned USAs. Perhaps they violated one or more DOJ policies—because, please recall, they were fired for “performance-related reasons.”
Second, every successful business knows it is a mistake to not have proper appraisal documentation. If someone is performing poorly or there is any indication that you may need to terminate an employee, you should keep records of warnings or discussions regarding poor performance or failure to abide by company policies. You will want documentation in the event the employee initiates or incites legal action after being terminated.
For example, as noted in The Seattle Times, Fired U.S. Attorney McKay has called for a criminal probe of his and the other firings.
Fired U.S. Attorney John McKay said Thursday he's "extremely disappointed" in the White House and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for failing to protect federal prosecutors from political pressure, and in some cases apparently even piling it on.
McKay stopped short of calling for Gonzales' resignation but said he believes there should be an independent criminal investigation [emphasis added] into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, including himself, either by the Department of Justice's inspector general or by a special prosecutor.
"These are the people who are supposed to be watching our back," McKay said in a telephone interview from Palm Springs, Calif. "They're the ones who are supposed to protect us who make difficult decisions like I did in 2004" when McKay, as the lead federal prosecutor in Western Washington, decided there was insufficient evidence of voter fraud in the state's whisker-thin governor's race. Democrat Christine Gregoire beat Republican Dino Rossi by 129 votes in a third recount.
So, when the congressional hearings convene, I expect Gonzales, et al. to be required to disclose the appraisal documentation that led to the conclusion that the seven USA were performing poorly. What are the critical performance standards that were applied? How were these standards developed? How were they weighted? Where are the evaluation matrices that show the performance of the fired seven was demonstrably inferior to the eighty-some USAs who were not fired? Who exactly did all of this work? Who started the ball rolling? To whom was authority delegated to implement the policy? And who did the delegating? I doubt that any such delegation can be made orally, so I want to see the memo or order from the White House.
Breaking: The White House is not exactly rehabilitating Harriet Miers, but they have at least pulled her mangled body from beneath the bus from whence she was thrown this week. This only whets my appetite for real answers. I hope the impending departure of Gonzo will not remove any incentive to get to the bottom of this.
Just on the technical aspects alone, I expect the hearings to be most revealing. Of course, there are more sinister things going on beyond the botched “how,” namely, the “why.” Let me this take the opportunity to pimp an upcoming diary: The Republican plan to secure a “permanent majority” by suppressing probable Democratic votes, and how it led to the firing of U.S Attorneys who would not support the plan to disenfranchise these millions of voters.