The release of the DOJ Office of Inspector General Report on the firing of the nine US Attorneys for improper (maybe illegal) reasons is a bit of a let-down for Indian Country observers. The report demonstrates the limits of the OIG’s investigation, and perhaps other investigations like it.
However, a close reading of the document demonstrates that Indian Country work may in fact have been a significant contributor to the downfall of at least one US Attorney, Margaret Chiara, but not exactly in the way we previously thought.
Two areas of concern about the report:
First, other than a brief mention in the chapter about Paul Charlton (D. Ariz), there is very little information about the import of Indian Country in these firings. More than half of the fired US Attorneys had significant responsibilities in Indian Country, from federal prosecutions to investigations of voter fraud to compliance with the Adam Walsh Act to US-Mexico and US-Canada border questions. These fired US Attorneys also represented the forefront of modern US Attorney practice in terms of cooperation with Indian tribes, extending respect and dignity to Indian victims and violent crime, and raising federal awareness of the criminal jurisdictional problems in Indian Country.
This report fails to address the very real and very obvious concerns of Indian Country by virtually ignoring these questions. There seems little doubt that AG Gonzales and the politically-charged Executive Office of US Attorneys saw no value whatsoever in the development of US-tribal law enforcement gains. While the OIG could not prove that these Indian Country US Attorneys were fired because of their positive and progressive work in Indian Country, the implication remains.
Second, the chapter on Margaret Chiara is revealing in many, many ways. Unfortunately, the report found that Ms. Chiara’s firing was explainable. This conclusion is almost outrageous given the story that the chapter told.
In short, this chapter reveals that the easiest way to destroy the career of a US Attorney under the Bush II Administration is to spread rumors that she is a lesbian having a secret affair with an AUSA, and tie that to an obviously close working relationship with the AUSA’s work on extraordinary projects.
That AUSA worked in Indian Country, one of the very few AUSAs — nationwide — tasked with traveling to far away Indian reservations to prosecute violence against Indian women (p. 294). In 2004, after Ms. Chiara asked the EOUSA to assist with the workplace problems in her office:
The EARS [Evaluation and Review Staff] team leader said that the EARS team did hear several complaints about inequitable distribution of awards, and that some of those complaints specifically concerned the AUSA. The leader said that he reviewed the AUSA’s awards and concluded that they were justified because the AUSA prosecuted matters that no one else in the USAO wanted to prosecute, that she did so in a location far from the main office requiring considerable travel, and that she worked long hours.
This is exceptionally revealing about federal prosecutions in Indian Country. The two people, career prosecutors (Joan and David Meyer) who led the charge in destroying Ms. Chiara’s job (p. 295), weren’t conducting these prosecutions. And because the unnamed AUSA was traveling to the Upper Peninsula, trying cases these two wouldn’t touch, and receiving awards and compensation for the work — well, Ms. Chiara must be having a sexual relationship with her. The report goes on like this for pages and pages and pages [pp. 293-307]
One footnote in the report demonstrates a horrifying disregard for dignity, respect, and humanity that one of the accusers seems to have had:
Joan Meyer denied spreading rumors about Chiara and the AUSA living together. However, we found numerous e-mails from Meyer in 2006 when she was in the Deputy Attorney General’s Office in which she made such allegations. We found e-mails from Meyer to seven different people in the USAO and to her husband in which she alleged that the AUSA was Chiara’s “live-in girlfriend”; that Chiara’s conduct evidenced “unfair treatment, blatant favoritism and the promotion of [Chiara’s] live-in girlfriend’s career at the expense of a government budget”; that “[the AUSA] is either keeping her job or walking out of our office with bonuses, a salary history and awards that she received, not because she deserved them, but
because she is living with and vacationing with the US Attorney who is her life partner (whatever that means);” and that there was “the substantial likelihood that Chiara is benefiting financially from the bonuses and salary increases she is awarding [the AUSA].” [p. 304 n. 189]
Awful, awful stuff.
Finally, there are very strong implications in the report that the fact that Ms. Chiara’s office was in disarray because of assertions of a relationship with a female AUSA attracted the attention of Monica Goodling, for example:
Goodling declined to speak with us, but as described in our previous report on politicized hiring by Goodling and others in the Office of the Attorney General, we found that Goodling was aware of the rumors of a sexual relationship between the AUSA and Chiara.191 In fact, Goodling acted on those rumors by terminating the AUSA’s detail at EOUSA after EOUSA had agreed to extend her detail for a second year. In addition, we found that Goodling attempted to prevent the AUSA from obtaining two other details in the Department. [p. 305]
The report did not conclude that Ms. Chiara’s dismissal was actionable, and found that there were several errors and mistakes by Ms. Chiara. But the vast majority of the problems in that office, as the report plainly demonstrates, could have been correctable if the Executive Office of US Attorneys had attempted to solve the problems, rather than using them to build a case to remove Ms. Chiara.
Moreover, the report demonstrates that with the Meyers running rampant, Ms. Chiara never had a chance to survive. The final comments from the report are revealing:
While we do not believe the Department’s removal of Chiara was inappropriate, we also do not condone the rumors and allegations that Joan and Lloyd Meyer spread about Chiara and the nature of her relationship with the AUSA. Although both Meyers have left the Department, we believe that their conduct in spreading unproven rumors about a sexual relationship between a Department supervisor and subordinate, rather than report them to the OIG for investigation, was unprofessional. [p. 311]
Turtle Talk 