Rachel Paulose - a short history
Rachel Paulose was born in Kerala, India and raised in Ohio. She obtained a B.A. (Summa Cum Laud) from the University of Minnesota and a J.D. from Yale Law School where she also excelled academically. Her great-grandfather, Cheruvallethu Mathunni Abraham (Avarachan Upadeshi), founded the Indian Brethren Christian Evangelical movement in Kerala and she remains an evangelical Christian. She bagan working for the Department of Justice in 1997 until 2002, then entered private practice where she worked until returning to Alberto Gonzales' Department of Justice in January 2006.
A month later she was appointed as interim U.S. Attorney for Minnesota, to replace Thomas Heffelfinger. Her appointment exposed the new provision of the Patriot Act that allowed the Department of Justice to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys for an indefinite period. Heffelfinger had apparently been placed on a list for dismissal because he spent too much time focusing on Native American affairs and because he failed to prosecute anyone to intimidate Native Americans out of voting. She was confirmed by the Senate by voice vote on the last night before the Senate adjourned for Christmas in December 2006. This was most unusual because she had never undergone Senate hearings or being voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead her confirmation was moved out of committee through a rarely used procedure called a "discharge resolution."
Ms. Paulose was the youngest woman ever appointed as a U.S. Attorney. For all her academic (and ideological) qualifications, she had limited legal experience and had no management experience when appointed. Her appointment was very probably based on her academic record, her evangelical Christianity, and her membership (beginning in 2001) in the ultra-conservative Federalist Society.
Rachel Paulose' unusual appointment as U.S. Attorney shows that she was on the conservative fast-track. It is very likely that the legal conservatives surrounding Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez intended to provide her the credentials needed so that she could be appointed to a life-time position as a young, very conservative, very religious federal judge as soon as they could get her to a Senate nomination hearing. Not only would she then be able to skew legal decisions to both the political and legal right, she would block the appointment of a liberal judge for many years. This was also the intent when Clarence Thomas was appointed as a very young Supreme Court Justice.
Unfortunately, the entire group at the Department of Justice responsible for her appointment and protection has resigned or been forced out of office, along with Alberto Gonzales, in the wake of the scandal over the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. So her boosters and protectors are now gone. She will have to depend on her own political acumen to survive. That makes her survival problematic. Her tenure suggests that she has little or no political acumen.
Rachel Paulose - The controversial tenure
Dismissal of U.S. Attorney's - Ms. Paulose took over management of the Minneapolis U.S. Attorney office upon the resignation of her predecessor, Thomas Heffelfinger. Monica Goodling later testified to Congress that Heffelfinger had been put on a list for dismissal because of "his preoccupation with Indian Affairs issues." Since Bradley Schlozeman is named as a participant in forcing Heffelfinger out, it is reasonable to assume that he, as head of the Civil Rights Division at DoJ, was unhappy that Heffelfinger was not prosecuting more Native Americans for vote fraud. [The Wikipedia article cites Schlozeman's participation in The Georgia Voter ID Law, the Missouri Lawsuit and the ACORN voter registration prosecutions, all intended to use the power of the Department of Justice to cause the state to restrict voting or to actually manipulate the outcome of a close election that Schlozeman was involved in.] Schlozeman's participation suggests that Ms. Paulose was appointed interim U.S. Attorney with, among other things, a brief to work to suppress Native American voting.
The Coronation - Upon being finally confirmed in as U.S. Attorney, Ms. Paulose conducted an elaborate swearing-in ceremony that included a processional, a professional photographer, a color guard and a choir. Such an elaborate swearing-in ceremony was not only out of the norm for U.S. Attorneys, it very likely grated on the nerves of many Minnesotans. Culturally, Minnesotans tend to be very suspicious of elaborate ceremony. It certainly caught the notice of the news organizations who were less than flattering in how they reported the event.
Such public grandstanding does not indicate that Ms. Paulose has a lot of political awareness. With the departure from the Department of Justice of the individuals who appointed her and who would normally be her political protectors, this does not bode well for her ability to survive politically on her own.
The list of "problem reporters" - Ms Paulose' reaction to the negative press coverage was to blame individual reporters for attacking her. Emulating an earlier conservative politician, Richard Nixon, who is known to have hated the press, she developed a six-page, single-spaced list that "identified Problem Reporters." Someone in the U.S. Attorney's office apparently leaked the list to the reporters. That leak suggests that Ms. Paulose does not have the total support of the workers in the U.S. Attorney's office she is attempting to manage. We have a strong indication of how much less that "total" that support is.
The Staff Resignations - On April 5, 2007 her second in command, John Marti, the civil division head Erika Monzangue and criminal division head James Lackner all resigned their management positions working directly for Ms. Paulose and returned to their civil service positions of Deputy U.S. Attorney. A fourth immediate subordinate would not comment on whether he had also resigned his management position. This was not a surprise. A representative from the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorney in Washington had already traveled to Minneapolis and tried to talk them out of resigning.
Anyone familiar with personnel management recognizes that a high turn-over rate among employees is a key indicator of management failure. Apparently Ms. Paulose is known for dressing down subordinates in public and for quoting Bible verses on the job. Neither practice is good management, especially when attempting to manage civil service professionals. What do these problems demonstrate?
We know that Ms. Paulose had a sterling academic record, outstanding ideological credentials and the connections with the Federalist Society that have been the key for advancement for so many conservative federal judges. She was being fast-tracked to a lifetime federal judgeship. It is a political plus that she is an attractive young woman and an Indian-American. Those two characteristics alone guarantee her a large number of political supporters. Unfortunately, in her first real management position she has proven that she has few political or management skills. She simply does not play well with others and her first reaction to those who disagree with her or question has been to identify who are her enemies. But she has defenders.
Defenders of Rachel Paulose
Eric reports that University of Rhode Island Women’s Studies Professor Donna M. Hughes claims that (unnamed) DoJ officials are attempting to hound Rachel Paulose out of her job as U.S. Attorney because she has been too active is too active in trying to prosecute human trafficking cases. She offers no evidence or details to support these accusations. She is circulating for signatures a letter she sent to Michale Mukasey making this clam. It can be read at Powerline, a well-known ultra-right-wing blog. The letter was posted by Scott Johnson Bio who strongly supports Ms. Paulose and claims he has known her for ten years.
The investigation of these allegations
Eric responds to this rather breathtaking but unsupported allegation:
Paulose’s job is indeed in jeopardy, but until this breathtaking new theory was introduced by Hughes and Powerline, the jeopardy was attributed to several other causes:Eric, as a good reporter should, then followed up by asking Professor Hughes what evidence she had for her allegation. Professor Hughes has not responded. Eric also contacted Rachel Paulose' predecessor. Here is Eric's report:
- She was promoted by the now-discredited circle of Justice Department officials who were implicated in the forced resignations that caused several openings for new U.S. attorneys who were considered to be “loyal Bushies.” She had little administrative/managerial experience to run a large office and has alienated most of the staff in the Minneapolis office.
- Several of Paulose’s highest-ranking subordinates voluntarily took demotions to non-management positions to protest against her leadership style. Her staff has been in nearly open rebellion against her, on one occasion bursting into applause, in her presence, to honor those who demoted themselves.
- She is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the federal Office of Special Counsel into allegations that she mishandled classified material and mistreated employees. She received a very negative job review by a team of Justice Department specialists, focusing on her shortcomings as a manager and administrator. A pending Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint alleges that Paulose created a hostile working environment by making a racist remark about an administrative employee in the office — a remark that has been corroborated by two witnesses.
- The morale of the office has been in the toilet for many months. One of her predecessors, former U.S. Attorney Todd Jones who hired her for her first federal job, told the New York Times that his former colleagues described the office as “dysfunctional” and said that that there was “an inability to have effective leadership move forward in a nonpartisan way.”
- The same New York Times article portrayed her situation as “representative of much that went wrong at the [Justice] Department under” former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and as representing “what [Mukasey] is up against in restoring stability to the Justice Department.”
- Sen. Norm Coleman, who sponsored Paulose’s appointment, has become a critic, and extracted a promise from Mukasey to look into the problem and take corrective action. Her original sponsors and patrons at Justice and in the White House are gone.
So, yes, as Prof. Hughes letter suggests, Paulose’s tenure is in some jeopardy. But the idea that her problem derives from powerful dark forces in Washington who are soft on human trafficking, child prostitution and related crimes is a breathtakingly new explanation for Paulose’s problems since taking office. It is offered without any names, facts or other form of substantiation. Hughes is careful to describe her theory as a “suspicion” and a “surmise” but she offers not even a theory as to why — in a Justice Department in which the prosecution of human trafficking and child pornography have been officially declared to be priorities — these unnamed department officials have decided to hound from office anyone who implements the stated policy.
I also asked Paulose’s predecessor, Tom Heffelfinger, to assess the Hughes theory about the possible dark reason that Paulose might be in danger of losing her job. He made three points.So it appears at this time that the the rather extreme allegation that some cabal of supporters for sex trafficking and prostitution is attempting to get Rachel Paulose removed as U.S. Attorney because he is too effective is merely a smokes screen designed to defend her and paint those who want her gone in the worst possible light.
- Yes, Paulose has aggressively pursued human trafficking prosecutions, and he salutes her for it.
- No, during his years in the Justice Department, he never heard of any element that was opposed to cracking down on these crimes. On the contrary, this policy unites several important departmental factions: those who favor cracking down on street crime; those who want to emphasize crimes against women; and those who want to emphasize border security (since many human trafficking crimes involve women who have come illegally across the border).
- No, from everything he has heard from his former colleagues and subordinates in the U.S. attorney’s office, “there’s no link” between Paulose’s troubles and the priority that she has placed on trafficking cases. Her problem is not based in Washington. Her problem is based in Minneapolis.
Paulose will speak at noon Tuesday at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute. Her talk is titled: “End Slavery Today: Policy Responses to Human Trafficking.”
See also:
- The defense of Paulose steps up the rhetoric
November 19, 2007 4:12 PM CDT - Paulose has lost her U.S. Attorney position
November 19, 2007 5:26 PM CDT - Why Paulose has suddenly moved to Washington
November 20, 2007 9:38 AM CDT
No comments:
Post a Comment