Obama’s transparency goal undermined by opaque acts

The Obama administration’s decision not to publicly reveal the names of visitors to the White House ignores various court rulings that visitor logs are public records. It was the same position taken by President Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, who by every objective standard had one of the most secretive administrations in the history of the country.

Bush argued that such secrecy was justified because America was involved in a war on global terrorism triggered by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the homeland.

However, it is noteworthy that the refusal to make public the White House visitor logs came early in the administration and was prompted by Vice President Dick Cheney’s desire to keep secret the names of oil company executives who helped formulate the Bush administration’s energy policy.

Why noteworthy? Because the Obama administration’s refusal to publicly reveal the names of White House visitors stems from a request for records of visits by top coal executives to the White House. The request was made by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan watchdog group that monitors the activities of special interest. CREW wants to know what role the coal executives played in Obama’s energy policy.

It is instructive that CREW had sought records from the Bush White House with regard to visits by leaders of organizations representing the religious right.

Obama’s willingness to follow in Bush’s footsteps on this issue raises questions about his commitment to government transparency that was one of the planks of his campaign platform last year.

Indeed, there is another controversy brewing that also calls into question Obama’s pledge to open the federal government up to public scrutiny.

It involves the president’s decision to fire the watchdog for the federal AmeriCorps program.

Loss of confidence

Last Thursday, Obama notified Congress that he had lost confidence in Gerald Walpin, the national service agency’s inspector general.

That reason may have been sufficient for Walpin’s termination were it not for the fact that the inspector general had conducted an investigation of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star. Johnson and a nonprofit education academy he founded ultimately agreed to repay half of $847,000 in grants it had received from AmeriCorps.

Walpin was criticized by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento for the way he handled the investigation of Johnson and St. HOPE Academy.

Walpin has insisted that he acted with the “highest integrity” in investigating AmeriCorps and other government funded national service programs.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is now seeking information on any role first lady Michelle Obama’s office may have played in the president’s decision to fire the inspector general.

Mrs. Obama’s former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, is expected to join the national service corporation as a senior adviser.

In light of the concerns raised by Grassley and others, it is essential that the president publicly explain why he felt the need to fire the inspector general. It isn’t enough to say that he had lost confidence in Walpin.

Inspector generals play an important role in keeping government departments, agencies and offices honest. They should not have to worry about the games politicians play.