Gerald Walpin, the recently fired inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service who claims his firing was politically motivated, was accused by U.S. Attorney Lawrence G. Brown of overstepping his authority, compromising his impartiality, and withholding information from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in regards to Walpin’s investigation of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.

President Obama advised House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of his decision to remove Walpin from his post on June 11. Norman Eisen, Special Counsel to the President for ethics, wrote a letter to the Senate Committee that oversees AmeriCorps and explained that Walpin was dismissed from his post “after unanimous request from the AmeriCorps board of directors.”

Eisen wrote that Walpin had engaged in “troubling and inappropriate conduct,” and had become “disruptive to agency operations.”

Walpin and critics of the President assert that the decision to remove Walpin was related to his investigation of Johnson, a political ally of the White House, and the St. HOPE Academy, a nonprofit education group founded by Johnson which received $847,000 in federal grants between 2004 and 2007.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is leading the charge for an investigation of Walpin’s firing and has even requested that CNCS provide all records of communication with Michelle Obama’s office.

Grassley wrote in a letter to the CNCS: “Inspectors general have a statutory duty to report to Congress. Intimidation or retaliation against those who freely communicate their concerns to members of the House and Senate cannot be tolerated. This is especially true when such concerns are as legitimate and meritorious as Mr. Walpin’s appear to be.”

Just how legitimate are Walpin’s concerns? Sure, it’s within the realm of possibility that Walpin was fired for probing an Obama ally, but it’s more much more likely that he was fired for acting wrongfully and in a partisan manner.

“The Inspector General is not intended to act as an advocate for suspension and debarment,” Brown wrote in a letter to the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency on April 29. “He sought to act as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier.”

On the surface, it appears that there were plenty of reasons for Walpin to be removed. But what’s the standard for removing inspector generals of the CNCS, anyway?

Luise S. Jordan served as the IG at the CNCS from 1994 until 2002, when she was “quietly forced out” by the Bush administration:

According to Luise S. Jordan, the IG at the Corporation for National and Community Service since 1994, she was summoned to a meeting with Ed Moy, an associate director in the presidential personnel office.

“I was told I had done a good job. I was complimented on the achievements of my office, but the second paragraph, after all these compliments and making it clear this was not a dismissal for cause, was that the corporation had decided to get a new IG,” Jordan recalled.

Congressional Republicans have accepted in the recent past that IG’s can be terminated for literally any reason, and now they charge that a Democratic administration is playing politics for firing an IG for entirely substantive reasons. That’s just so not characteristic of the GOP!

UPDATE:

I emailed Sen. Grassley’s Communications Director Jill Kozeny to find out if Grassley approved of the decision to remove Louise Jordan as the IG. She writes back:

The firing of Gerald Walpin is the first termination of any kind under the Inspector General Reform Act enacted in 2008, of which Senator Grassley was a cosponsor.  The law is intended to try to better safeguard the independence of inspectors general.  Senator Grassley’s questions this week are intended to safeguard the new law itself and, in turn, strengthen the ability of inspectors general to serve as watchdogs over the federal bureaucracy.

The Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 requires the president to give Congress 30 days’ notice, plus an explanation of cause, in order to remove an IG.

But there’s a misconception at the heart of this  ‘debate’ that I didn’t catch before. Obama did give 30 days notice. He suspended Walpin with pay and informed him that his termination would be effective 30 days later. Obama gave a thorough explanation as to why he was removing Walpin, which means that he met both requirements of the Inspector General Reform Act.

As such, the only potential complaint Republicans can make is that the firing was politically motivated, which it doesn’t appear to be. Regardless of whether it’s political or not, the Act does not require that Grassley or any member of Congress approve of the president’s rationale, so this really is a non-story.