Amtrak officials pushed the agency's longtime inspector general to resign — without telling Congress — after the watchdog official exposed wrongdoing, mismanagement and criminal activity inside the taxpayer-funded rail service, a congressional probe has found.

The finding is among the key disclosures in a joint staff report by ranking Republicans of the Senate Finance and House Oversight and Government Reform committees into the sudden departure last year of Amtrak Inspector General Fred Weiderhold.

"Because of his expertise, the [Amtrak] Board viewed Weiderhold as a threat," concluded a draft copy of the report, which was reviewed by The Washington Times.

The probe also found that Amtrak's law department, while under scrutiny by the inspector general for paying excessive fees to outside law firms, undertook a "systematic campaign" to control the inspector general by insisting that he sign off on "unusual" protocol concerning access to documents and information.

"Amtrak failed to comply with the Inspector General Act for way too long," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and ranking minority member of the Senate Finance Committee. "Forcing its inspector general out of office without notice or consultation with Congress is only the latest example."

Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said that "Amtrak interfered with and ultimately decided to get rid of its inspector general for the worst reason: to stop an investigation."

Amtrak officials did not respond to questions by The Times about the findings, saying they had not been provided a copy of the report. Officials addressed Mr. Weiderhold's departure in a statement issued last year after learning that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was investigating.

"The Amtrak Board is committed to having an [Office of the Inspector General] that operates under best practices consistent with the Inspector General Act," the company stated in a news release last year. "The board has been concerned for some time about whether best practices are currently in use in the OIG."

In the same statement, Amtrak management said officials were cooperating fully with the congressional committee's investigation into "what has been characterized as conflicts between Amtrak management and the inspector general within Amtrak."

"These issues and others prompted the Amtrak chairman's decision, with the board's concurrence, to seek a change of leadership with the former inspector general retired," Amtrak management said.

Mr. Weiderhold departed in June 2009 after more than two decades as inspector general. His office had issued several findings that raised questions about practices inside Amtrak's law department, including its role in the restructuring of lease deals that cost Amtrak nearly $100 million and the "excessive use" of outside attorneys, the report found.

The congressional inquiry also concluded that:

• Amtrak Chairman Thomas Carper didn't know how much the company was spending on outside attorneys and wasn't aware whether Amtrak had any procedures to limit the legal fees.
• Amtrak interfered with the inspector general by denying the office money made available through the federal economic stimulus package.
• Amtrak delayed Mr. Weiderhold's plans to hire a chief investigator and later rescinded the position, with similar problems when he sought to hire an assistant inspector general to oversee Amtrak's use of stimulus funding.
  

The report also provides details about Mr. Weiderhold's exit that were not included in Amtrak's official announcement of his departure, in which officials lauded his "35 years of loyal service" at the company, including more than two decades as inspector general.

According to the report, two months before he was told to resign or be fired during a meeting with Amtrak's board of directors, Mr. Weiderhold found out he was under investigation over an anonymous complaint that he failed to report vacation time and submit approved travel-expense requests.

The federal Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) investigated, telling Mr. Weiderhold on June 12 last year that "the facts, as set forth in the complaint, lacked the substantial likelihood of a violation of a law, rule or regulation, or gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds or abuse of authority," the report stated.

Six days later, Mr. Weiderhold showed up at an Amtrak board meeting prepared to talk about a report his office had recently completed. But, he later recalled, he sensed something else afoot after spotting an outside attorney hired by Amtrak's law department to provide advice on dealings with the inspector general, according to the report.

When Mr. Weiderhold distributed folders to board members at the meeting, nobody looked at them and instead Mr. Carper told him "that they had another matter to discuss with him," presenting Mr. Weiderhold with a severance package and choice to retire or be removed "for cause," the report stated.

Mr. Weiderhold was paid a severance of $244,573 and given a lump-sum payment of $38,090 "in consideration, in part, for his agreement not to publicly or privately disparage Amtrak or make any statements regarding his resignation without first clearing those statements with Amtrak management," the report stated.

The deal also did not allow Mr. Weiderhold to talk to Congress, but that was amended in July 2009 after a request from committee staff looking into his departure from the rail agency, according to documents. In addition, agencies are supposed to notify Congress when removing an inspector general, but the report said Congress wasn't consulted before Mr. Weiderhold's departure.

Mr. Grassley and Mr. Issa later questioned the CIGIE about whether such a nondisclosure agreement should apply to Congress and whether any other former inspectors general have received severance payments.

"CIGIE … noted that it was unaware of any other examples of gag agreements or large severance payments and affirmed its support for [inspectors general] to be able to communicate freely with Congress," the report said.

The report also concluded that facts contradicted Amtrak management's statements that Mr. Weiderhold had resigned: "It was not a truly voluntary resignation as Amtrak management had suggested in public statements."

One of Mr. Weiderhold's key investigations involved a probe into Amtrak's hiring in early 2008 of a consulting firm, Babcock & Brown, for advice on a series of lease deals brokered a decade earlier that threatened to collapse with the subprime mortgage meltdown.

Under the leasing arrangements, Amtrak had sold hundreds of rail cars to various investors, who in turn leased them back to Amtrak while taking tax breaks on their depreciation value.

Transit agencies across the nation were engaged in similar deals as a way to raise cash, but the arrangements ran into trouble in 2008 when insurers backing the deals, such as American International Group Inc. (AIG), saw their credit ratings downgraded, which in turn put Amtrak at risk of default.

Amtrak hired Babcock & Brown for advice on how to resolve the lease deals. But that hiring later came under scrutiny by the inspector general when officials learned the firm had previously been retained by two of the same banks involved in Amtrak lease deals.

A copy of the inspector general's report into Babcock & Brown's hiring was obtained by The Times through the Freedom of Information Act. The Times reported earlier this month that top Amtrak executives initially declined to participate in the investigation until they were provided outside attorneys at Amtrak's expense to represent them in talks with the inspector general, though the officials were told they were not targets in the probe.

Steve Kulm, an Amtrak spokesman, told The Times that such practices were standard corporate practice and defended the hiring of Babcock & Brown, calling it "appropriate" and saying it "did not constitute a conflict of interest."

By Jim McElhatton-The Washington Times

View Article on Originating Site

return to top of page

Amtrak Hiring of Outside Lawyers called 'Wasteful'
Letter Switches Gears on Practice

September 28, 2010 - The chairman of Amtrak has acknowledged that spending by the rail agency in hiring outside attorneys for Amtrak executives for an in-house investigation was "wasteful."

Amtrak Chairman Thomas Carper told six senior members of Congress in a recent letter that "funding counsel for both sides of an internal, non-criminal investigation is wasteful, particularly when the witnesses are not targets of the investigation."

Mr. Carper's comments contrast with Amtrak's public statements defending the practice. The Washington Times reported this month that several top Amtrak officials had declined to participate in an investigation by the rail agency's office of inspector general until they first were provided their own attorneys at the government-funded company's expense.

It was an usual request considering that the officials were not targets of the probe.
At the time, Amtrak said the practice was standard corporate policy. But in his letter to Congress, Mr. Carper struck a different tone, saying Amtrak is reviewing its indemnification policies against those of other federal agencies.

Records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that Amtrak Treasurer Dale Stein, General Counsel Eleanor Acheson and others requested their own attorneys before agreeing to sit for interviews with the agency's own inspector general, which was looking into potential conflicts of interest in the rail service's 2008 hiring of a consulting firm.

The officials had been told they were not targets in the investigation, but they requested and received outside lawyers to represent them anyway, records show.

Mr. Carper finds himself under sharp scrutiny as three senior Republican lawmakers last week called on Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to order an investigation into whether the Amtrak chairman and Ms. Acheson ought to be fired for their handling of the ouster last year of the rail agency's former longtime inspector general.

The lawmakers — Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee; Rep. Darrell Issa of California, ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and Rep. John L. Mica of Florida, ranking member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure — cited "unlawful actions" by Mr. Carper and Ms. Acheson.

They requested the investigation after a congressional report released by Mr. Grassley and Mr. Issa found that Amtrak last year got rid of Inspector General Fred Weiderhold after he uncovered waste and abuse in the top reaches of the company.

The congressional investigation also found that Amtrak never told Congress it was forcing Mr. Weiderhold out of his job, despite a law that requires prior notification. In addition, Amtrak paid Mr. Weiderhold a severance of $244,573 in part not to disparage Amtrak, according to the report.

In their recent letter to Mr. LaHood, the Republican lawmakers said Mr. Weiderhold's ouster was targeted because of his "effective track record of exposing waste, fraud and abuse at the highest levels within Amtrak."

Mr. Carper acknowledged that his handling of the situation was "less than optimal," but said he stood by his decision.

"I do not believe that Amtrak's actions rise to the level of 'unlawful' as alleged but believe they could have been more tactful and adhered more strictly to IG-related practices," Mr. Carper wrote in his response letter, which he sent to the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Finance Committee and the House oversight and transportation committees.

An Amtrak spokesman declined Tuesday to comment on Mr. Carper's Sept. 24 letter, saying it speaks for itself. Also in the letter, Mr. Carper said he will be sending notices to Amtrak employees reminding them to cooperate with the inspector general's office.
Amtrak has declined to say how much money the rail agency has spent on outside lawyers to represent officials during inspector general's interviews.

Mr. Weiderhold left Amtrak in June 2009 after more than two decades as inspector general. His office had issued several findings that raised questions about Amtrak's "excessive use" of outside attorneys, according to the congressional report.

The congressional probe also chided Mr. Carper for not knowing during an interview with congressional staff how much money Amtrak was spending on outside attorneys or whether Amtrak had any procedures to limit legal fees.

But in his letter, Mr. Carper insisted that Amtrak "has and is rigorously" implementing policies to hire and manage outside attorneys.

View Article on Originating Site

return to top of page

Amtrak Hiring of Outside Lawyers called 'Wasteful'
Hired to represent Administrators

September 13, 2010 ~ A congressional probe is calling for an end to Amtrak's use of expensive outside lawyers to represent its top employees during administrative investigations, calling the practice wasteful and unheard of across government.

In a joint staff report by ranking Republicans of the Senate Finance and House Oversight and Government Reform committees, officials also called for limits on the use and expenditures on outside lawyers.

Overall, Amtrak's law department has spent more than $70 million on outside lawyers' fees three years after an independent government review uncovered a host of problems with the practice, according to a report released Monday.

Citing records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, The Washington Times reported earlier this month that several top Amtrak officials, including Treasurer Dale Stein and General Counsel Eleanor Acheson, declined to participate in a recent administrative investigation by Amtrak's inspector general until the government-owned rail service first paid for them to have lawyers.

Amtrak officials said the so-called indemnification policy of providing lawyers for employees was a standard corporate policy, adding that those fees aren't a matter of public record.

Both Mr. Stein and Ms. Acheson were told they weren't targets of the inspector general's probe, but they insisted on having lawyers, records show.

The congressional report said such practices are unusual.

"Amtrak should discontinue its policy of providing indemnification for employees, contractors and all other entities in conjunction with an administrative investigation by the Amtrak [inspector general]," the report stated.

"Amtrak's current policy of funding counsel for both sides of an internal, non-criminal inquiry is unheard of in the rest of the IG community and is a waste of Amtrak resources."

Amtrak officials have declined to comment on the findings concerning the use of outside lawyers in a statement Monday, but they previously defended the hiring of lawyers for several of its top executives.

In a formal response to an inspector general's report that raised questions about the practice, Thomas C. Carper, chairman of Amtrak's board of directors, said the executives who received outside legal services were never told they weren't targets in the investigation; rather, they were told "not at this time."

Amtrak officials also said the investigation included potential criminal violations, "which clearly invoke indemnification rights."

The majority of the congressional probe focused on the circumstances surrounding the departure last year of Amtrak's former inspector general, Fred Weiderhold. The investigation stated that Amtrak forced out Mr. Weiderhold because he was viewed as a threat, having exposed wrongdoing and mismanagement throughout Amtrak.

In addition, the report said Mr. Weiderhold had focused on the practice by Amtrak's law department of paying out excessive fees to outside law firms.

Since a 2005 review by the inspector general that reported more than $102 million paid out to outside law firms over three years, congressional investigators have learned that more than $74 million had been spent from 2007 to 2009, according to the report.

Mr. Carper, Amtrak's chairman, "had no knowledge of how much money Amtrak was spending on outside counsel and was unaware of whether Amtrak had any procedures for limiting these costs," the report stated.

Amtrak said in a prepared statement Monday that it cooperated with the congressional investigation and that the company has made numerous changes to "bring Amtrak OIG in line with the best practices of the IG community."

"In addition, the minority staff report notes positively that the new IG collaborated with Amtrak management on a protocol detailing the relationship between the new entities, a source of contention with the former IG," the Amtrak response stated, adding that the company "acted appropriately" concerning Mr. Weiderhold's departure.

View Article on Originating Site

return to top of page

September 2, 2010 ~ Top Amtrak officials declined to participate in an internal investigation until they were provided private lawyers on the government-owned company's dime, an unusual request considering they were not even targets of the probe.

Records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that Amtrak Treasurer Dale Stein, General Counsel Eleanor Acheson and others requested their own attorneys before agreeing to sit for interviews with the agency's own Office of Inspector General, which was looking into potential conflicts of interest in the rail service's 2008 hiring of a consulting firm.

Officials steadfastly decline to say how much money Amtrak paid to hire outside counsel, insisting that such indemnification amounts are confidential.

While federal agencies have a policy, at times, of providing legal services for government employees in lawsuits or legal actions arising from their official duties, Amtrak's decision is different because the executives were told before the interviews they weren't targets in the investigation, records show.

Andrew C. Selden, vice president of law and policy at the United Rail Passenger Alliance, a nonprofit corporation that seeks to improve America's passenger rail system, questioned the need to hire outside firms to represent employees if they were not targets.

"Employees are welcome to hire lawyers to represent them, but it doesn't mean they're entitled to indemnification," he said in a phone interview.

Amtrak, which receives more than a billion dollars a year in federal funds, defended its responsiveness to the Office of Inspector General (OIG). In an e-mail, Amtrak spokesman Steve Kulm said all documents and every employee sought by the OIG were made available.

"The relationship between Amtrak and its OIG is very positive and constructive."

He also called the indemnification policy of providing lawyers for employees a standard corporate policy, adding that those fees aren't a matter of public record.

The interviews with the top executives stemmed from an inquiry into Amtrak's hiring in early 2008 of a consulting firm, Babcock & Brown, for advice on a series of lease deals brokered a decade earlier. Amtrak also paid legal bills for Babcock & Brown in connection with the investigation, records show.

Under the leasing arrangements, Amtrak sold hundreds of rail cars to various investors, who in turn leased them back to Amtrak while taking tax breaks on their depreciation value. Transit agencies across the nation were engaged in similar deals as a way to raise cash, but the arrangements ran into trouble during the subprime mortgage meltdown in 2008 when insurers backing the deals, such as American International Group (AIG), saw their credit ratings downgraded, which in turn put Amtrak at risk of default.

Amtrak hired Babcock & Brown for advice on how to resolve the lease deals. But that hiring later came under scrutiny when officials learned the firm had previously been retained by two of the same banks involved in Amtrak lease deals.

When a Transportation Department official later asked if Amtrak was getting "clean, independent" advice, Mr. Stein, Amtrak's treasurer, assured the official that "all was well," the inspector general's office found.

"OIG's investigation concluded that Stein's representation at that time may have been less than fully candid, based on incomplete fact validation and insufficient expertise to determine whether a conflict or other risk to Amtrak existed," investigators later wrote in a 2009 report obtained by The Times.

Mr. Stein declined an interview request.

Mr. Kulm said there was nothing amiss in hiring Babcock & Brown, calling it "appropriate" and saying it "did not constitute a conflict of interest." He said the firm's selection and retention were "consistent with Amtrak's policies and procedures" and the rail service "received appropriate, indeed, necessary and well-executed assistance from [Babcock], which contributed essentially to resolving the defeased lease transactions that [Babcock] worked on."

William Campbell, Amtrak's former chief financial officer, who is now running as a Republican for comptroller in Maryland, also was questioned about the leases. In a recent phone interview, he said he wasn't as involved in the issue as Mr. Stein, but added that he was concerned about Amtrak's debt.

Amtrak also provided outside legal services for Mr. Campbell, as well as another official whose name was redacted in documents provided to The Times, records show.

Keith McWalter, the Babcock & Brown official who worked on the Amtrak project, said the firm only "crunched numbers" for two of the investors in the lease deals in 1999 and 2000, but hadn't done any work for the investors since. Amtrak hired Babcock & Brown for advice on the lease deals in 2008.

A draft report by a law firm hired by Amtrak's law department concluded there was "little or no risk of a disqualifying conflict" in Amtrak's hiring of Babcock & Brown. But the Inspector General's Office concluded that using consultants who previously worked for two of the investors "put Amtrak at a greater business risk, which should not have been treated cavalierly by Amtrak management and should have been fully vetted prior to continuing the relationship with Babcock & Brown."

In the summer of 2008, former Federal Railroad Administration chief Joseph Boardman, then a member of Amtrak's board of directors and now its chief executive, expressed concern to Ms. Acheson that Babcock & Brown had a conflict of interest in that it had represented two of the investors in the original lease deals, records show.

Ultimately, Amtrak resolved the leases by terminating three deals and, in nine others, replacing the insurers. The total cost was nearly $100 million, according to records and interviews obtained by The Times.

The Inspector General's Office noted that some have raised questions about Amtrak's replacement strategy, which was favored by Babcock & Brown, saying officials didnt fully consider other potentially less expensive options. Amtrak defended its strategy.

In a response to the inspector general's report by Thomas C. Carper, chairman of Amtrak's board of directors, Amtrak officials last fall disputed many of the inspector general's findings. The response said the executives who received outside legal services were never told that they weren't targets in the investigation; rather, they were told "not at this time."

Amtrak officials also said the investigation included potential criminal violations "which clearly invoke indemnification rights."

Amtrak also defended Mr. Stein and Mr. Campbell about whether they disclosed a potential conflict involving Babcock & Brown after an inquiry from a Transportation Department official. The rail company said "it must be noted that ... they responded to the question of whether there was a conflict of interest by saying there was not conflict of interest. That was the good faith conclusion of those two officers of the company."

The lease inquiry wasn't the first time Amtrak footed legal bills. In a separate investigation, Amtrak paid nearly $150,000 in legal fees on behalf of the two unnamed former officials investigated in a nearly seven-year probe into accounting irregularities that concluded in 2008.

The inquiry found that the former officials in fiscal 2001 either booked false or incorrect accounting entries in Amtrak's monthly financial statements or failed to report the activities at a time when Amtrak was under pressure from Congress to wean itself off of public subsidies.

The Times reported earlier this year on the previously undisclosed investigation, which concluded without criminal charges although the Inspector General's Office later noted that "neither individual acted in good faith."

While accounting misstatements have long since been corrected, it's unclear whether Amtrak ever recouped any of the legal bills it paid out on behalf of the officials.

View Article on Originating Site

return to top of page

Jim McElhatton-The Washington Times

December 10, 2010 - The Senate Commerce Committee is defending two top Amtrak executives whom Republicans want investigated for failing to tell Congress about the removal of longtime Amtrak Inspector General Fred Weiderhold.

Committee staff in a report this week also rejected calls by three Republican leaders in the House and Senate calling for the removal of Amtrak Chairman Thomas Carper and General Counsel Eleanor Acheson.

Among other reasons, the Republicans — Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, and Reps. Darrel Issa of California and John L. Mica of Florida — say the Amtrak officials never told Congress as required by law last year that they were forcing out Mr. Weiderhold.

In addition, an investigation released by Mr. Grassley and Mr. Issa concluded that Mr. Weiderhold was targeted by Amtrak management because of his track record at exposing waste, fraud and abuse in Amtrak's executive ranks.But a staff memo released this week by the Democratic majority for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation cited what it called "significant omissions" in the Republicans' report.

That commerce committee report, among other findings, said Mr. Weiderhold's inspector general's office failed to protect sensitive information from public release and the office fell below federal government's basic quality standards.

The commerce report also cites a 2009 letter to Mr. Carper from four former Amtrak chairmen and presidents not included in the Grassley-Issa report. The letter said Mr. Weiderhold had been in the job for 17 years longer than any other inspector general in federal government and that he had turned the position into "a personal fiefdom" while creating "a climate of fear."

Mr. Grassley defended his staff's report and said the committee's latest findings do nothing to dispute the fact that Mr. Weiderhold was removed without notice to Congress. He also said a level of tension between an inspector general and management is a sign of worthwhile oversight being conducted.

"Our 21-page report had 80 footnotes, attached 29 exhibits and relied on about a dozen witness interviews to support its conclusion," Mr. Grassley said. "The Rockefeller report cites no witness interviews and does not at all deal with the core issue of whether Amtrak complied with the law in the way that it removed its inspector general."

Mr. Grassley also said he looked forward to a review into the question of whether Amtrak complied with the law in removing Mr. Weiderhold that is under way by the Department of Transportation's inspector general.

In a prepared statement Thursday, Amtrak officials said, "Amtrak has been and remains committed to an independent Office of Inspector General that operates pursuant to the Inspector General Act and in accordance with the best practices of the Inspector General community."

"As demonstrated by the National Academy of Public Administrators assessment and Amtrak [inspector general's] most recently released semi-annual report to Congress, the Amtrak OIG is carrying out its statutory responsibilities on behalf of the taxpayers," the Amtrak statement read.

View Article on Originating site

return to top of page

Mayor-Elect's Aide Faulted in Dismissal of Amtrak IG
Amtrak's VP Human Resources under Microscope

Jim McElhatton-The Washington Times

December 12, 2010 - D.C. Mayor-elect Vincent C. Gray hailed Amtrak executive Lorraine Green's more than 25 years of government and private-sector experience when he put her in charge of both his campaign and transition team.

But within days of Mr. Gray beating Mayor Adrian M. Fenty in the mayoral race, a little-noticed congressional report raised sharp questions about Ms. Green in connection with the controversial dismissal of a longtime former Amtrak inspector general.

Republicans say former Inspector General Fred Weiderhold was forced out of his job after issuing a series of reports that uncovered waste and fraud in Amtrak's executive ranks.

After Mr. Weiderhold's abrupt departure, Amtrak officials tapped Ms. Green, head of human resources at Amtrak, which has about 19,000 employees, to be interim inspector general. During her months in the interim job, congressional investigators said Ms. Green delayed the release of a report by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) that scrutinized the very Human Resources Department she oversaw at Amtrak.

In addition, she also impeded a salary increase for one of the OIG employees involved in the human resources report, according to findings released by Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and Rep. Darrell Issa, ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

In the report, the lawmakers also concluded that Ms. Green was a poor choice by Amtrak's Board of Directors for the interim inspector general's position.

"The board's actions following its removal of Weiderhold exacerbated the appearance that it was inappropriately attempting to control the OIG," investigators wrote in the report.

"The board appointed Lorraine Green as interim IG, who, as the vice president for human resources, was a member of Amtrak's management team and intended to return to the position.

"Her inherent conflicts of interest, lack of independence and lack of IG experience rendered her an inappropriate choice for the position," the report said.

The report portrays Ms. Green as doing Amtrak management's bidding.

Once named the interim inspector general, at the request of Amtrak management, Ms. Green hired three outside consultants for three months to interview OIG employees as part a review.

One employee told investigators that some felt like they were reinterviewing for their jobs.

Through an Amtrak spokesman, Ms. Green declined to comment on the report. And a spokeswoman for the Gray transition team did not respond to questions e-mailed by The Washington Times last week.

Even as Ms. Green was put in charge of both Mr. Gray's mayoral campaign and his transition team, she has continued to oversee human resources for the government-owned rail company, which reported more than $1.6 billion in salary and wage expenses in 2009.

An Amtrak spokesman said officials cleared Ms. Green to accept the positions in the Gray campaign and transition team.

"As chairman, Lorraine was not responsible for day-to-day campaign activities and performed the duties she had during her personal time," Amtrak spokesman Steve Kulm said of Ms. Green's work with the Gray campaign.

"Likewise, as the leader of the transition team, she is doing that work on her own time," he said.

"Prior to accepting the positions, she sought and received guidance and clearance from Amtrak. It was determined that her activities are within the guidelines of Amtrak's own ethics and conflict of interest policies and other applicable laws."

In announcing Ms. Green as its chairman, the Gray transition team referred to her on its web site — www.graytransition2010.org — as "a corporate executive with more than 25 years of private sector and government experience in the areas of financial management, procurement, contracting and human resources."

A biography of Ms. Green on the Gray website also notes that she is a native of Washington and a D.C. Public Schools graduate who was twice confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the deputy director of the Office of Personnel Management and as a member of the bipartisan U.S. Census Monitoring Board.

In a profile of Mr. Gray that appeared in The Washington Post in September, Mr. Gray referred to Ms. Green as his closest friend and adviser. They first met when Mr. Gray was in charge of the city's Department of Human Services under then-D.C. Mayor Sharon Pratt.

View Article on Originating Site

return to top of page

Issa Urges Firing of Amtrak Chairman
Rockeffeller Disputes Claims of Railroading of Inspector General

Jim McElhatton-The Washington Times

January 24, 2011 - A powerful House Republican wants Amtrak‘s chairman and top lawyer fired.

Rep. Darrell Issa of California, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said in a recent letter to Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV that both Amtrak Chairman Thomas Carper and General Counsel Eleanor Acheson “unlawfully interfered” with the independence of the rail agency’s Office of Inspector General.

Mr. Issa‘s firing call comes months after he and Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, released a joint investigation that accused Amtrak of violating federal rules by failing to inform Congress about the 2009 removal of the rail agency’s longtime inspector general, Fred Weiderhold.

The report also said Mr. Weiderhold was targeted by Amtrak officials because of his record of exposing waste and fraud, including investigations into the Amtrak law department.

“I believe that the actions of chairman Carper and [general counsel] Acheson are sufficiently egregious as to merit their removal,” Mr. Issa wrote in a Jan. 19 letter to Mr. Rockefeller, West Virginia Democrat, who as chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation oversees Amtrak.

Mr. Rockefeller disagreed.

“Chairman Issa‘s letter fails to address the significant omissions in his own report,” Senate Commerce Committee spokeswoman Jena Longo said Friday.

“While it’s nice that Chairman Issa is enthused about oversight, it is irresponsible to call for the removal of federal officials without presenting the full story,” she said. “His allegations on Amtrak are part of a pattern of making allegations that don’t stand up to careful scrutiny.”

In his own report last year, Mr. Rockefeller said the Grassley-Issa report had omitted information, including a 2009 letter sent to Mr. Carper from four former Amtrak chairmen and presidents.

In that letter, the former Amtrak executives charged that Mr. Weiderhold had been in his job far longer than any other federal inspector general and that he’d turned the position into a “personal fiefdom” while creating a climate of fear.

Mr. Grassley has defended the report.

In his letter, Mr. Issa said both Democratic and Republican investigators alike questioned Ms. Acheson‘s denials about involvement in Mr. Weiderhold‘s removal in 2009.

“Democratic and Republican committee staff asked Acheson in a number of different ways to describe what she knew about Weiderhold‘s departure,” Mr. Issa wrote. “After several follow-up questions, [General Counsel] Acheson flatly denied any knowledge or involvement, stating that ‘I know nothing about Fred’s retirement.’”

But, according to Mr. Issa, evidence surfaced during the congressional probe that Ms. Acheson participated in the preparation and review of a separation package and retirement documents for Mr. Weiderhold. Mr. Issa‘s letter was first reported by the National Journal.

“After this information came to light, Democratic and Republican investigators had telephone discussions and exchanged e-mail about how they agreed that GC Acheson had denied involvement in or knowledge of the plan to remove IG Weiderhold,” Mr. Issa disclosed in his letter.

An unnamed senior Democratic staffer confirmed as much in a July 31, 2009, e-mail to a Republican staff member, according to Mr. Issa. The staffer wrote, “That was my impression too, that she was telling us she had nothing to do with [IG Weiderhold’s removal] and [his removal] was news to her.”

Asked to respond to Mr. Issa‘s letter, Amtrak officials said in a statement Friday that the rail agency has cooperated with “numerous entities” that have reviewed Mr. Weiderhold‘s departure.

“Amtrak will cooperate fully with any other inquiry into this matter,” Amtrak said in the statement.

Mr. Issa‘s letter also said Amtrak was being investigated by the U.S. Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General for possible misuse of Amtrak‘s e-mail system.

Mr. Carper was named Amtrak chairman in January 2009, after about a year on its board of directors. He was mayor of Macomb, Ill., from 1991 to 2003. Ms. Acheson, a big Democratic donor, was an assistant attorney general in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration and has worked in private practice.

View Article on Originating Site

return to top of page