Today the
Washington Post reports
that Education Department Inspector General pinned the debacle over the Department paying Armstrong Williams for promoting the department squarely on the Department of Education and not on the White House.
"The IG report, along with Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, blamed the Education Department -- not the White House -- for the contract. "It was a problem that originated at the department and ultimately is a problem that will continue to be fixed here," she said in response to the report. "The senior appointees who were responsible for the contract no longer work at the department...."
However, and I quote: "The report said that Education Department officials who were concerned about the Williams contract took their complaints last summer to David Dunn, who was then the special assistant to the president for domestic policy and is now Spellings's chief of staff. The report noted that Dunn "indicated he agreed with their concerns" but did not explain why the White House did not end the arrangement. Spellings said it would be unreasonable to assume Dunn knew all the details of the contract."
So supposedly those senior officials who knew or were responsible no longer work at the department, yet David Dunn knew, and IS working at the department, despite not having sought to end the advertising relationship.
Another person whose job seems to have related to this incident, Emily Kertz Lampkin, has been promoted by Spellings to deputy chief of staff.
According to the Department of Ed website "Emily Kertz Lampkin has served as the Department's director of No Child Left Behind communications and outreach for the past two years. Prior to this, she was deputy director of public affairs at the U.S. Department of Commerce."
I also am curious how someone who has been the p.r. staff suddenly becomes a deputy chief of staff for policy?
I would be curious to know if any other staffers who were responsible for this matter are still employed at the Department of Education?
Furthermore, in an era, when teachers are held to the strictest accountability, Sec. Spellings considered withholding information from the report.
The [Post] "Spellings said yesterday that she had considered but ultimately decided against using an obscure legal privilege that would have allowed her to redact information from the report before it was released to the public."
What exactly was it that is in the report that they were considering redacting?
The GAO is also investigating this matter.