About four months ago, we learned that [tag]Housing and Urban Development[/tag] Secretary [tag]Alphonso Jackson[/tag] spoke at a public forum in Dallas and explained that he denied funding to a qualified minority contractor because the contractor said he didn’t like the [tag]president[/tag]. In fact, Jackson went into considerable detail about the incident, explaining that the [tag]contractor[/tag] worked in the advertising industry, and was selected because he was on the General Services Administration list and gave HUD officials “a heck of a proposal.”
Asked to explain why Jackson made the claim publicly, a [tag]HUD[/tag] spokesperson said the cabinet secretary was “trying to explain to [the Real Estate Executive Council] how politics works in D.C.” and was trying to send the group a “message.” Eventually, HUD said Jackson made the whole thing up, marking the first time in recent memory that a cabinet press secretary used the “he’s lying” argument as a defense.
Nevertheless, given the ensuing scandal, HUD Inspector General’s office launched an investigation into whether the agency let politics dictate the agency’s grant process. We learned the results of the probe today.
Housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson urged top aides to take contractors’ politics into account when handing out grants and deals, an internal department review has found, though there is no “direct evidence” that favoritism actually occurred. […]
Mr. Jackson, former head of the Dallas Housing Authority, claimed full exoneration. But detractors called it a scathing portrait of cronyism that cast doubts on his judgment and integrity.
Given the results of the investigation, “full exoneration” is not hardly the phrase that comes to mind. Indeed, if this were a reality-based administration, Jackson would have no choice but to resign.
The Dallas Morning News reported today that several top HUD officials, who were themselves appointed by the [tag]Bush[/tag] White House, told the inspector general that Secretary Jackson told senior staff at a meeting that they should take contractors’ political leanings into account. According to these aides, Jackson urged them to give contracts to Bush supporters — and steer funds away from Democratic supporters.
Moreover, as it turns out, the story that started this controversy — the one Jackson claims to have completely fabricated — was probably true.
[T]he investigation revealed that key elements were true.
HUD’s chief procurement officer, Assistant Deputy Secretary Aronetta “Jo” Baylor, told investigators she’d jolted awake at 4:30 one morning, 12 days after the Dallas speech, recalling an incident that fit Mr. Jackson’s description, except that the contractor had suffered no penalties for his impertinence.
They’d been in the lobby at HUD headquarters, and bumped into W. Brian Maillian, head of Whitestone Capital Group, a minority-owned firm that sells assets for government agencies. He had written a proposal and won a contract after 10 years of effort — all part of the description Mr. Jackson used in his Dallas speech.
It is, of course, illegal to reward or punish a contractor based on political views, which Jackson said publicly he did, and which his aides said he encouraged them to do.
Dems on the Hill apparently aren’t buying the “full exoneration” line. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who has taken the lead on this, said the findings are “more of a rebuke than an exoneration,” and said, “The Inspector General’s report describes more wrongdoing by Secretary Jackson than originally thought.”
In May, [tag]White House[/tag] Press Secretary Tony Snow inexplicably said the president continues to support Jackson and would not ask for his resignation. Will the Bush gang stand by this position now?
An editorial from the WaPo from May still rings true:
Whatever his intention in telling the story — and whether the story is true or false — it appears to lead to only two possible conclusions: Either Mr. Jackson broke the law and then lied about it, or he lied that he had broken the law. Which of those actions makes him fit to be secretary of housing and urban development?
I anxiously await the administration’s response to that question.