Patterico's Pontifications

3/19/2007

Iglesias: Bad Manager?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:27 am

In addition to his weakness on voter fraud, David Iglesias may have had problems as a manager. The Albuquerque Journal reports:

A letter addressed to [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales was being circulated among some federal prosecutors here last week. Some had signed it but were undecided whether to send it because of speculation Gonzales might lose his job. Others didn’t share the views expressed.

The letter address[es] the recent controversy, describing Iglesias as an absentee boss who was more interested in travel than in running the office.

It said he “abdicated his responsibility as United States Attorney, turning over virtually every important decision to his subordinates.”

The letter also said that Iglesias’ “lack of leadership” resulted in a decline in the quality of work produced by his office and that the reputation of the office had suffered during his tenure.

It further took him to task for his admission that he didn’t report the telephone calls and only went public after he felt betrayed.

“Disclosure of wrongdoing is not situational, nor does it depend on loyalty,” the letter said. “For Mr. Iglesias to state that he would have been happy to not disclose what he now claims was inappropriate and threatening behavior in exchange for keeping his federal job is appalling.”

Iglesias attributes the letter to “disgruntled” employees — and who knows? Maybe he’s right. Toss it in the mix, for what it’s worth — along with this report that the problems with Iglesias were long-standing. (H/t for both: Kevin R.)

P.S. The reference to not reporting the phone calls relates to the fact that Iglesias was required to report the phone calls from Wilson and Domenici to supervisors — but didn’t.

8 Responses to “Iglesias: Bad Manager?”

  1. You may want to check this out: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119186.html#comments

    A quote from that link:

    Now comes word from two fired U.S. attorneys that they were dismissed primarily for refusing to take on the obscenity cases sent to them by the Justice Department

    .

    Rostrum (2fce67)

  2. It must be the obscenity cases he neglected because he seems to have been lauded for his voter integrity work.
    From the Washington Post:
    “David C. Iglesias, who was dismissed as U.S. attorney for New Mexico in December, was one of two chief federal prosecutors invited to teach at a “voting integrity symposium” in October 2005. The symposium was sponsored by Justice’s public integrity and civil rights sections and was attended by more than 100 prosecutors from around the country, according to an account by Iglesias that a department spokesman confirmed.

    Iglesias, a Republican, said in an interview that he and the U.S. attorney from Milwaukee, Steven M. Biskupic, were chosen as trainers because they were the only ones identified as having created task forces to examine allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 elections. An agenda lists them as the panelists for a session on such task forces at the two-day seminar, which featured a luncheon speech by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

    According to Iglesias, the agency invited him back as a trainer last summer, just months before a Justice official telephoned to fire him. He said he could not attend the second time because of his obligations as an officer in the Navy Reserve.”

    carsick (deb1a3)

  3. “toss it into the mix….”?

    Very scientific, but Anonymous Liberal has
    an equally speculative theory which is more consistent with prevailing facts.

    “Even more troubling, though, is the very real possibility that the Bush administration intended this firing to look exactly how it looked, at least to a certain audience. While the administration may have expected that Congress and the media would ignore the story, those responsible for the firings may well have hoped that the other U.S. Attorneys around the country–who all knew who Carol Lam was and what cases she was pursuing–would draw the obvious inference.

    The conventional wisdom seems to be that this was a poorly-disguised act of political retribution. I don’t think that’s right. I don’t think it was meant to be disguised. I think the Bush administration was trying to send a message here and they just didn’t think anyone but the intended recipients–the remaining U.S. Attorneys–would be paying any attention.”

    semanticleo (75845c)

  4. […] Since I was away from the computer for most of the weekend and purposely avoided watching the news, I’m still getting back into the groove of finding out the latest on the ’scandal’ involving the 8 fired US attorneys. James Joyner and Patterico (more here) are the go-to guys to read on the most recent developments. […]

    Sister Toldjah » The latest on the fired US attorneys ’scandal’ (1466f5)

  5. In addition to his weakness on voter fraud

    David C. Iglesias “had been heralded for his expertise in that area by the Justice Department, which twice selected him to train other federal prosecutors to pursue election crimes.”

    Washington Post, March 19, 2007

    [You’re about the third person to post that. I will do a new post tonight acknowledging this fact. For every valid point I make in defense of the Bush Administration on this, someone on the left makes an equally valid point to counter it. — P]

    Consigliere (43f0cd)

  6. I would much rather see the commendation memos than take the word of posters. After all, we seem to be insisting on the administration providing all documentation.

    davod (09ab4f)

  7. Who cares?

    The president is free to fire them all if he wishes. We have a pseudo-scandal the likes of which the National Enquirer would not publish pursued by a pack of baying reporters who could not find an inconvenient fact if it were tattooed to their foreheads.

    Not a Yank (a47dbe)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2494 secs.