TPMDC
« Poll: GOP Senator Burr Down By Three Against Potential Dem Opponent | Home | New York And DOJ Fixing Last-Minute Legal Dispute In Special Election »

Top Obama Enviro Nominee Pulls Out Amid 'Scrutiny' of His Work With Scandal-Plagued Non-Profit

Jon Cannon, President Obama's nominee to become deputy chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, withdrew from consideration today with a veiled reference to "scrutiny" of his association with America's Clean Water Foundation (ACWF) -- a group that the EPA inspector general cited in 2007 for steering federal grant money to the livestock industry.

ACWF has not made the news or attracted congressional criticism for any recent misdeeds. In fact, its attorneys told the EPA in 2006 that the entire group had abruptly dissolved, disappearing into thin air as the inspector general advised the government to claw back more than $21 million in federal grant money that had gone from ACWF into the hands of the National Pork Producer Council.

What did Cannon have to do with that shady move on ACWF's part? Nothing, according to his statement, released today through EPA:

Today I am voluntarily removing my name from consideration to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. It has come to my attention that America's Clean Water Foundation, where I once served on the board of directors, has become the subject of scrutiny. While my service on the board of that now-dissolved organization is not the subject of the scrutiny, I believe the energy and environmental challenges facing our nation are too great to delay confirmation for this position, and I do not wish to present any distraction to the agency.

Cannon's choice of the present tense is telling: ACWF "has become the subject of scrutiny," he states, which would suggest that new attention is being paid to the group's past misdeeds. The EPA inspector general's audit in 2007 found that the Foundation had awarded a contract to a member of its board of directors, in violation of federal conflict of interest policy.

That board member, according to the audit, was not Cannon but Charles Grizzle, proprietor of The Grizzle Company and an EPA official during the Reagan administration.

We'll update you with any more information that emerges on Cannon's withdrawal.

Late Update: The plot thickens. Jim Inhofe (OK), the conservative ranking Republican on the Senate environment committee, says his aides questioned Cannon on his ties to ACWF ... but the senator says he wouldn't have held up Cannon's nomination over the issue. Here's Inhofe's full statement:

We were surprised to learn today about Jon Cannon's decision to remove his name from consideration to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

At a recent staff meeting, as part of the normal oversight process for nominees, Inhofe committee staff questioned Mr. Cannon regarding an EPA Inspector General report on America's Clean Water Foundation, on which Mr. Cannon served as a board member. According to the report, the organization mismanaged $25 million in taxpayer-funded grants. Through his leadership position on the EPW Committee, Senator Inhofe has long made EPA grant oversight a priority.

I want to make clear, however, that at the meeting Inhofe staff expressed to Mr. Cannon that, though the organization committed serious missteps in managing federal grants, it did not warrant opposition to his nomination.

Cannon had been slated for a confirmation hearing before the Senate environment panel tomorrow.


11 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Will nobody stand up to the faux interest in "integrity"?

user-pic

Um, okay.

Is this good or bad?

user-pic

I don't know what your values are, but it appears that the ACWF was decidedly biased toward industry.

user-pic

That helps to know.

user-pic

Obama's vetting team must be the Marx Brothers.

user-pic

No, they're not the Marx Brothers. The two issues are that Obama set up highest standards for people to meet in order to be in his administration. Secondly, the vetting process has become so onerous, the depth to which every detail of a person (and families') lives are investigated and then the "grandstanding" politicians who will knit pick the smallest detail to railroad an appointment.

If anything, it will become even more difficult in the future, beyond Obama for people to be willing to serve.

Maybe the Pope can become part of the vetting and use the church's methods to name a "saint."

user-pic

The Pope is out.

After his comments of that condoms have increased the spread of Aids in Africa.

user-pic

belt,

Obama has too many Wall Streeters and lobbyists on his list of potentials and that's why there is so much controversy. If Obama is really the agent of change he's going to have to get these people who eventually get appointed to change their entire philosophy.

user-pic

Embarrassing, time consuming, and political capital consuming, yes.
But what did anyone seriously expect from imposing higher ethical standards?
The fact that the process is at times --time consuming, embarrassing, and consuming political capital is a sign that it is WORKING.
Compare and contrast:
Status Quo: President "x" promises high standards, political adversaries and largely random press initiatives are the mechanism of oversight.
Obama admin.: blah, blah, ethics, blah, blah, BUT here is the process, here are the "deliverables."
Now, if Obama's "blah blah blah" was more than just talk, what would be the evidence we could all look for that his process was doing something?
Should we expect 0 "scandal" and breezy confirmations of ALL Obama appointees?
Nonsense.
If the process is working, nominees will drop out, sometimes unexpectedly, sometimes after rather minor criticism, sometimes after a chorus of criticism. There will be some vulnerability for the administration, some hand wringing, some regret...
However, what is lost in political capital, can be somewhat gained back in credibility.

The problem? A large, well connected, well motivated, and well funded group, previously accustomed to having great political access and influence is shut out... In short, if you really want a president to upend the culture of lobbying and influence inside the beltway, there is going to be some blood lost, and a lot of gnashing of teeth --lobbyist get/got paid a lot of money and did their job extremely well, they are not going to go quietly into the night.

user-pic

I do think the Administration has set the bar a bit high here, yet when they're fully staffed (and hopefully soon) we'll have an example of less-corrupt government and can build on it from there.

user-pic

I agree, I get a little annoyed with the faux "vapours" expressed over the process, and over the issuing of waivers. Perhaps the admin. will have to backtrack, or issue more waivers, but that is not automatically a bad thing, especially when its done openly. The waiver process highlights potential conflicts of interest, and raises the bar for those who get them. I think we are seeing a bit of power struggling going on, the question is, who will blink?

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio


Latest Videos




Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address