Inquiry faults administration’s judgment

Paid to promote ‘No Child Left Behind’
The department paid $240,000 to Williams, a commentator with newspaper, television and radio audiences, to promote President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law. The deal was part of a $1.3 million contract the department had with Ketchum, a public relations firm.

Williams, who is black, was hired to conduct “minority outreach” about Bush’s law by producing favorable ads with Paige. Yet work orders show that Williams was also hired to provide media time to Paige and to persuade other blacks in the media to talk about the law.

The hiring of a public relations firm began in part because of pressure from the White House and Congress to improve communication about No Child Left Behind, the report said.

Williams approached Paige about doing work for the department. His company was hired through Ketchum in late 2003 at the direction of the department despite some internal divisions about whether it was a good idea. Those divisions grew deeper.

When Williams’ contract came up for renewal in May 2004, Paige’s chief of staff and the department’s deputy director of communications raised concerns about whether money was being spent wisely — and whether there was a conflict in hiring a commentator. The concerns were so strong, the report said, that Dunn was told about them at the White House, and he agreed.

Asked Friday why the contract was not stopped at that point, Spellings defended Dunn. She said the White House assumes that the people hired to run federal agencies do so properly.

“How is it that David Dunn would have found something (wrong) that the inspector general didn’t find?” Spellings said. “It was a dumb thing to do, but it certainly wasn’t unlawful.”

Asking the propaganda question
In June 2004, the department’s deputy general counsel concluded a “weak argument” could be made that Williams’ hiring could run afoul of federal law banning propaganda. But when the general counsel met with Paige, that analysis never came up. According to the report, the department’s top lawyer felt Paige “would not have been interested” and only wanted to know whether the contract was “legally defensible.” The general counsel told him that it was.

Paige became upset when investigators showed him that his own department had expressed concerns in a legal analysis, the report said. He said he had never heard such concerns.

Spellings said Friday that Paige was poorly served by people around him and that those responsible for the contract are no longer at the agency — including Paige.

Spellings would not be interviewed by Inspector General Jack Higgins, asserting a principle of privacy accorded White House officials. She worked in the White House as Bush’s domestic policy adviser during his first term.

“Every American should be outraged that concerns were raised at the highest levels of the department and to the White House about the highly irregular nature of this contract,” said Rep. George Miller, a California Democrat who requested the investigation with Paige. He said White House officials have professed ignorance of the contract, but “this report makes it clear they were aware but failed to intervene.”

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

Obama says he regrets abortion answer    NYT: Palin's fusion of politics, motherhood   Obama plans meeting with Bill Clinton Candidates assess Fannie-Freddie rescue Bush hosts his last T-ball game Palin offers first TV interview to ABC Palin's pastor wants prayers for media Family's place in Palin's politics Kennedy plans January return to Senate NYT: Adviser sharpens McCain campaign Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: