DOCSLIB.ORG

An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility Office of the Inspector General July 28, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................ i CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION................................................................. 1 I. Scope of the Investigation.................................................................. 1 II. Methodology of the Investigation ....................................................... 2 III. Organization of this Report ............................................................... 3 CHAPTER TWO BACKGROUND.................................................................. 5 I. Monica Goodling ............................................................................... 5 II. Kyle Sampson ................................................................................... 6 III. Susan Richmond and Jan Williams................................................... 7 IV. Department Components and Personnel ........................................... 7 V. Hiring Standards ............................................................................ 11 A. Department Career and Political Attorney Positions ............... 11 B. Legal Standards..................................................................... 12 CHAPTER THREE GOODLING’S ROLE IN DEPARTMENT HIRING............. 17 I. Interview Questions ........................................................................ 18 II. Internet Research............................................................................ 20 III. Employment Forms......................................................................... 22 IV. Reference Checks............................................................................ 23 CHAPTER FOUR EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS: PERMANENT CAREER ATTORNEY HIRING DECISIONS...................................................... 25 I. Interim U.S. Attorney Waiver Requests to Hire Career AUSAs.......... 25 A. Screening Waiver Requests .................................................... 28 1. The USAO for the District of Columbia ......................... 29 2. The USAO for the Western District of Missouri ............. 30 3. The USAO for the Western District of Washington ........ 32 i B. Recent Changes in the Waiver Process ................................... 35 C. Analysis................................................................................. 35 II. Other Career Attorney Positions ...................................................... 37 A. The USAO for the District of Columbia................................... 37 B. The USAO for the District of Colorado.................................... 39 C. EOUSA Deputy Director Position ........................................... 40 1. EOUSA Deputy Director Candidate #1.......................... 40 2. EOUSA Deputy Director Candidate #2.......................... 44 III. Conclusions Regarding Candidates for Career Positions .................. 45 CHAPTER FIVE EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS: CANDIDATES FOR TEMPORARY DETAILS.................................................................... 47 I. Goodling ......................................................................................... 47 A. Candidate #1......................................................................... 48 B. Candidate #2......................................................................... 50 C. Candidate #3......................................................................... 52 D. Candidate #4......................................................................... 53 E. Candidate #5......................................................................... 54 F. Candidate #6......................................................................... 54 G. Candidate #7......................................................................... 57 H. Candidate #8......................................................................... 59 I. Conclusion ............................................................................ 59 II. Richmond and Williams .................................................................. 60 A. Candidate #9......................................................................... 61 B. Candidate #10 ....................................................................... 64 III. Recent Changes in the Detailee Selection Process............................ 65 IV. Analysis.......................................................................................... 65 CHAPTER SIX EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS: IMMIGRATION JUDGE AND BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS MEMBER HIRING DECISIONS..................................................................................... 69 I. Immigration Judges and Board of Immigration Appeals Members.... 69 A. The Executive Office for Immigration Review .......................... 69 ii B. Immigration Judges............................................................... 70 C. The Board of Immigration Appeals ......................................... 70 D. Department of Justice Policy ................................................. 71 II. Process for Hiring Immigration Judges ............................................ 71 A. The Process Prior to Spring 2004 ........................................... 71 B. The Office of the Attorney General Considers Changes to the Process.................................................................................. 73 C. Last Occasion in Which EOIR Played a Role in Selecting Immigration Judges............................................................... 75 D. The Office of Legal Counsel.................................................... 77 E. The Immigration Judge Appointment Process Implemented by Sampson........................................................................... 81 III. Sampson’s Recommendations to EOIR ............................................ 83 A. Sources for Immigration Judge Candidates............................ 83 B. Candidates Provided to EOIR by Sampson ............................. 85 1. Candidate Supported by Karl Rove ............................... 85 2. Candidates Provided by the White House...................... 86 3. Recommendations from Republican Members of Congress...................................................................... 87 4. Candidates Hired Without EOIR Interviews .................. 88 5. Other Candidates Selected by Sampson........................ 90 C. Problems Created by the New Hiring Process ......................... 91 IV. Williams’s Recommendations to EOIR ............................................. 92 A. Sources for Immigration Judge Candidates............................ 93 B. Candidates Provided to EOIR by Williams .............................. 94 1. The White House Seeks to Place “Priority Candidates” .. 94 2. Candidates Solicited from a Civil Division Political Appointee..................................................................... 95 3. EOIR Requested Immigration Judges............................ 96 4. Candidates Selected by Williams who had also Applied Through the Vacancy Announcement ........................... 97 5. Additional White House Candidates Provided to EOIR... 98 C. The Direct Appointment Process Continued to Affect EOIR..... 99 D. Search Terms for Screening Candidates................................. 99 iii V. Goodling’s Recommendations to EOIR........................................... 101 A. Sources for Immigration Judge Candidates.......................... 102 B. Political Screening by Goodling ............................................ 103 1. Candidates Considered for Career and Political Positions .................................................................... 103 2. Candidates Provided to EOIR by Goodling .................. 104 C. Increasing Vacancies for Immigration Judges ...................... 106 D. Screening of Candidates by Immigration Judges in Florida .. 108 E. Candidates Selected by Goodling for Positions on the Board of Immigration Appeals........................................................ 110 F. The Hiring Freeze ................................................................ 112 VI. The Current Process for Hiring Immigration Judges and Board of Immigration Appeals Members ...................................................... 114 A. Immigration Judges............................................................. 114 B. Board of Immigration Appeals Members............................... 115 VII. Analysis........................................................................................ 115 A. Kyle Sampson...................................................................... 117 B. Jan Williams ....................................................................... 118 C. Monica Goodling.................................................................. 121 D. EOIR Director and Deputy Director...................................... 122 CHAPTER SEVEN OTHER ISSUES ......................................................... 125 I. John Nowacki ............................................................................... 125 II. Goodling’s Discrimination Against a Detailee on the Basis of Sexual Orientation ................................................................................... 128 A. EOUSA Detail .....................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mary Beth Buchanan United States Attorney
    United States Attorney’s Office Western District of Pennsylvania Mary Beth Buchanan United States Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan is the United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. She was appointed by President George W. Bush on September 5, 2001, and confirmed by the United States Senate on September 14, 2001. Ms. Buchanan is the first woman in Pennsylvania's history to be Presidentially appointed to this position. As United States Attorney, Ms. Buchanan oversees the prosecution of all federal crimes, and the litigation of civil matters in which the federal government has an interest, throughout the twenty-five counties in Western Pennsylvania. At the request of the Attorney General, Ms. Buchanan also served from June 2004 until June 2005 as the Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. This Washington D.C.-based office provides administrative support to the 94 United States Attorneys' Offices nationwide. Between April 2003 and May 2004, Ms. Buchanan served as chair of Attorney General John Ashcroft's Advisory Committee of United States Attorneys. This Committee counsels the Attorney General on law enforcement issues and plays an integral role in setting Department of Justice policy. She also serves on several subcommittees of Attorney General Ashcroft's Advisory Committee, including the Terrorism/National Security Subcommittee; the Violent Crime/Organized Crime Subcommittee; the White Collar Crime Subcommittee; the Civil Rights Subcommittee; and the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Working Group. From February 2002 to 2004, she served on an Advisory Committee to the United States Sentencing Commission, which was established to study the effectiveness of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Justice
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Main Justice Building 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530, phone (202) 514–2000 http://www.usdoj.gov JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, born on May 9, 1942, in Chicago, IL; education: Yale University, graduated with honors, 1964; University of Chicago School of Law, 1967; professional: taught business law at Southwest Missouri State University; and authored, or coauthored, several publications; public service: Missouri Auditor, 1973–1975; Missouri Attor- ney General, 1976–1985; Governor of Missouri, 1985–1993; Chairman, National Governors Association, 1991; U.S. Senate, 1995–2001; family: married to Janet Ashcroft, 1967; three children: Martha, John, and Andrew; nominated by George W. Bush to become the Attorney General of the United States on December 22, 2000, and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on February 1, 2001. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Main Justice Building, Room 5111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 20530, phone (202) 514–2001 Attorney General.—John Ashcroft. Chief of Staff.—David T. Ayres, room 5216, 514–3892. Deputy Chief of Staff and Counsel.—David M. Israelite, room 5222, 514–2291. Counselor to the Attorney General.—Jeffrey Taylor, room 5110, 514–2107. Counsel to the Attorney General: John Wood, 514–2001. Director of Scheduling and Advance.—Andrew A. Beach, room 5133, 514–4195. Advisor to the Attorney General and Deputy White House Liaison.—Susan M. Richmond, room 5214, 514–2927. Confidential Assistant to the Attorney General.—Janet M. Potter, room 5111, 514–2001. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL Main Justice Building, Room 4111, phone (202) 514–2101 Deputy Attorney General.—James Comey. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General.—Stuart A.
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General
    U.S. Department of Justice An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility Office of the Inspector General July 28, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................ i CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION................................................................. 1 I. Scope of the Investigation.................................................................. 1 II. Methodology of the Investigation ....................................................... 2 III. Organization of this Report ............................................................... 3 CHAPTER TWO BACKGROUND.................................................................. 5 I. Monica Goodling ............................................................................... 5 II. Kyle Sampson ................................................................................... 6 III. Susan Richmond and Jan Williams................................................... 7 IV. Department Components and Personnel ........................................... 7 V. Hiring Standards ............................................................................ 11 A. Department Career and Political Attorney Positions ............... 11 B. Legal Standards..................................................................... 12 CHAPTER THREE GOODLING’S ROLE
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 110 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 110 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 153 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2007 No. 47 Senate The Senate met at 2 p.m. and was appoint the Honorable MARK L. PRYOR, a After all, this was a President who called to order by the Honorable MARK Senator from the State of Arkansas, to per- won two elections by the barest of mar- L. PRYOR, a Senator from the State of form the duties of the Chair. gins, first by the Supreme Court. Yet Arkansas. ROBERT C. BYRD, after 9/11, instead of uniting the coun- President pro tempore. try, he has chosen to push the envelope PRAYER Mr. PRYOR thereupon assumed the of his authority. On everything from The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- chair as Acting President pro tempore. the runup to the war in Iraq, to the fered the following prayer: f plan to destroy Social Security, to the Let us pray: RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY use of warrantless wiretapping, this ad- Lord, You have promised to work for LEADER ministration has governed without the good of those who love You. Work compromise. in the lives of our lawmakers, The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- The political purge of U.S. attorneys strengthening them for every problem, pore. The majority leader is recog- is only the latest example of this Presi- trial, and temptation they face. Open nized. dent’s unhealthy disregard for checks their eyes to see Your hand at work f and balances.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Department of Justice's Implementation of the Death In
    Office of the Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice OVERSIGHT INTEGRITY GUIDANCE Review of the Department of Justice’s Implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 Evaluation and Inspections Division 19-01 December 2018 Introduction The Department Has Not Yet Collected State Arrest- Related Death Data Despite DCRA’s Requirement to Do Congress enacted the Death in Custody Reporting Act of So by Fiscal Year 2016 2013 (DCRA) to address the lack of reliable information about law enforcement-related deaths and deaths in We found that, despite the DCRA requirement to collect correctional institutions. DCRA requires state and federal and report state arrest-related death data by fiscal year law enforcement agencies to report to the Attorney (FY) 2016, the Department does not expect to begin its General information regarding the death of any person collection of this data until the beginning of FY 2020. who is (1) detained by law enforcement, (2) under This is largely due to the Department having considered, arrest, (3) in the process of being arrested, (4) en route and abandoned, three different data collection proposals to be incarcerated or detained, or (5) incarcerated at any since 2016. correctional facility. To encourage state reporting, DCRA If Implemented as Planned, DOJ’s State DCRA Collection Will authorizes the Attorney General to withhold up to Be Duplicative of Other Department Efforts and May Not 10 percent of Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Result in Complete Data Collection Grant Program funds from states that do not comply with DCRA reporting requirements. We cannot assess the effectiveness of the Department’s state DCRA data collection because it has not begun; The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted this however, we found that the Department’s current state review to evaluate the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • \\Crewserver05\Data\Research & Investigations\Most Ethical Public
    Stephen Abraham Exhibits EXHIBIT 1 Unlikely Adversary Arises to Criticize Detainee Hearings - New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/us/23gitmo.html?pagewanted=print July 23, 2007 Unlikely Adversary Arises to Criticize Detainee Hearings By WILLIAM GLABERSON NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — Stephen E. Abraham’s assignment to the Pentagon unit that runs the hearings at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, seemed a perfect fit. A lawyer in civilian life, he had been decorated for counterespionage and counterterrorism work during 22 years as a reserve Army intelligence officer in which he rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. His posting, just as the Guantánamo hearings were accelerating in 2004, gave him a close-up view of the government’s detention policies. It also turned him into one of the Bush administration’s most unlikely adversaries. In June, Colonel Abraham became the first military insider to criticize publicly the Guantánamo hearings, which determine whether detainees should be held indefinitely as enemy combatants. Just days after detainees’ lawyers submitted an affidavit containing his criticisms, the United States Supreme Court reversed itself and agreed to hear an appeal arguing that the hearings are unjust and that detainees have a right to contest their detentions in federal court. Some lawyers say Colonel Abraham’s account — of a hearing procedure that he described as deeply flawed and largely a tool for commanders to rubber-stamp decisions they had already made — may have played an important role in the justices’ highly unusual reversal. That decision once again brought the administration face to face with the vexing legal, political and diplomatic questions about the fate of Guantánamo and the roughly 360 men still held there.
    [Show full text]
  • Battle Making the Calls T O the Usas. Let Us Know
    Scolinos. Tasia From: Scolinos, Tasia Sent: Friday, November 17,2006 2:00 PM To : '[email protected]' Subject: RE: USA replacement plan Thanks for flagging - we are not looped in - first I have heard of it. Let me call up there and figure out what is happening here and get back to you. Also, neither Brian nor I can be on the 3:30 call by the way - conflicting meetings - let me know if that is a problem. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 1:29 PM To: Scolinos, Tasia Subject: Fw: USA replacement plan Importance: High Are you looped in on this? What is your comms plan? -----Original Message----- From: Kelley, William K. To: Fiddelke, Debbie S.; Jennings, Jeffery S.; Martin, Catherine Sent: Fri Nov 17 12:32:06 2006 Subject: FW: USA replacement plan <<USA replacement plan.doc>> The email below, and the attached document, reflect a plan by DOJ to replace several US Attorneys. By statute, US Attorneys serve for four year terms, which are commonly (but not always) extended by inaction -- in practice, they serve until replaced. They serve at the pleasure of the President, but often have very strong home-state political juice, including with their Senators. Before executing this plan, we wanted to give your offices a heads up and seek input on changes that might reduce the profile or political fallout. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:02 AM To: Miers, Harriet; Kelley, William K.
    [Show full text]
  • Oarm: the United States Department of Justice
    LEGISLATION ATF, ATR, BOP, CIV, COPS, CRM, CRS, CRT, DEA, ENRD, EOUSA, FBI, OARM: THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NSD, OIG, OIP, OJP, OLA, OLC, OLP, OVW, USAO, USMS, USTP PRACTICE AREA CHART MALPRACTICE BOP, CIV, USAO, USTP MILITARY CIV, CRM, CRT, ENRD, NSD, PARDON, USAO As our nation’s largest legal employer, Justice offers opportunities for law students and attorneys in virtually every legal practice area. This chart will help you explore the work of various DOJ organizations, NATIONAL SECURITY & INTELLIGENCE BOP, CIV, CRM, DEA, ENRD, FBI, NSD, OIG, OLC, OLP, TAX, USAO and find those that best match your interests and expertise. More detailed information about specific DOJ POLICE MISCONDUCT BOP, CRS, CRT, DEA, FBI, NSD, OIG, OLC, OLP, USAO organizations and Justice’s legal hiring programs is available at www.justice.gov/legal-careers. PRISONERS’ RIGHTS BOP, CRT, DEA, OIG, USAO, USMS, USPC PRIVACY FBI, OPCL, USTP DOJ ORGANIZATION ABBREVIATIONS PRODUCT LIABILITY CIV, OLP ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms OIG Office of the Inspector General PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY / BOP, CIV, CRM, CRT, EOUSA, FBI, JMD, OIG, OJP, OLC, OPR, PRAO, and Explosives OIP Office of Information Policy ETHICS USTP ATR Antitrust Division OJP Office of Justice Programs RACIAL / ETHNIC JUSTICE CRS, CRT, ENRD, FBI, JMD, OIG, OLP, USAO BOP Federal Bureau of Prisons REAL ESTATE ATR, BOP, CIV, ENRD, FBI, TAX, USAO OLA Office of Legislative Affairs CIV Civil Division RELIGIOUS FREEDOM BOP, CIV, CRS, CRT, ENRD, USAO OLC Office of Legal Counsel REGULATION
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Identity and Role of United States Attorneys
    Rethinking the Identity and Role of United States Attorneys Sara Sun Beale* The reputation and credibility of the Department of Justice were badly tarnished during the Bush administration. This article focuses on concerns regarding the role of partisan politics.1 Critics charge that during the Bush administration improper partisan political considerations pervasively influenced a wide range of decisions including the selection of immigration judges, summer interns and line attorneys; the assignment of career attorneys to particular details; the evaluation of the performance of United States Attorneys; and the decision whether and when to file charges in cases with political ramifications. The Inspector General’s lengthy and highly critical reports have substantiated some of these charges.2 The first two Inspector General (IG) Reports found that the Department improperly used political criteria in hiring and assigning some immigration judges, interns, and career prosecutors.3 The third report * Charles L.B. Lowndes Professor, Duke Law School, Durham, N.C. I would like to acknowledge the outstanding research assistance provided by Michael Devlin, Meghan Ferguson, Amy Taylor, and Molly Brownfield, and the helpful comments of Norman Abrams, Albert Alschuler, Rachel Barkow, Anthony Barkow, Candace Carroll, Colm Connolly, Ronald Goldstock, Bruce Green, Lisa Kern Griffin, James Jacobs, Susan Klein, Daniel Richman, and Adam Safwat. Of course any errors are my own. 1 Other serious concerns about the Department have been raised, particularly in connection with its role in the war on terror. For example, the Department has been the subject of intense criticism for legal analysis that led to the authorization of brutal interrogation techniques for detainees.
    [Show full text]
  • For the District of Columbia 2012 Report 555 4Th Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 Judiciary Center Building U.S
    U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbi a 2012 Report U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia Judiciary Center Building 555 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 2012 Report Front Row Left to Right: Michael Ambrosino, Renata Cooper, Vince Cohen, Ron Machen, Darlena Perry, Melanie Howard Second Row: Wendy Pohlhaus, Ashley Patterson, Shelia Miller, Benjamin Kagan-Guthrie, Jenny Mancino, Matt Jones Third Row: Denise Simmonds, Bill Miller, Denise Clark, Pat Riley, Ashley Fitzgerald 21,534 New Cases Opened Contents 16,762 1 Letter from the U.S. Attorney Number of Informations Filed 3 Executive Summary 10,042 6 Office Overview Number of Convictions 22 Accomplishments 72 Targeted Initiatives 4,500 80 In the Community Number of Enrolled Diversions 102 Our People 2,680 Number of Indictments Returned The United States Attorney’s Office 2012 RepoRt for the District of Columbia From October 1, 2011 Cover photo courtesy of The Washington Examiner Judiciary Center, 555 4th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20530 to December 31, 2012 Special thanks to interns Deona DeClue, Kira Hettinger, and Ashley Page for their editing contributions. Letter from the United States Attorney Dear Friends, 2012 was a year of great accomplishment and great change for the contracting. At the same time, we reached settlements exceeding $800 million with banks who United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. violated U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Depoliticizing the Interim Appointments of US Attorneys
    LIVE AND LEARN: DEPOLITICIZING THE INTERIM APPOINTMENTS OF U.S. ATTORNEYS t Laurie L. Levenson The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.' I. INTRODUCTION U.S. Attorneys play a special role in our federal criminal justice system. As the representatives of the federal government, they have the responsibility of enforcing federal laws in their respective districts.2 3 Although U.S. Attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the President," the4 goal is to have a fair and impartial prosecutor administering the laws. The recent firing of eight U.S. Attorneys has called into question at- tempts to politicize the role of this vital Office. By attempting to give the Attorney General the power to make indefinite interim appointments, I Professor of Law, William M. Rains Fellow & Director, Center for Ethical Advocacy, Loyola Law School. Thank you to John McKay, a man of true integrity, for inviting me to participate in the Symposium at Seattle University School of Law. His courage, as well as that of his fellow U.S. Attorneys, Paul Carlton, David Iglesias, Bill Cummins III, and Carol Lam, should serve as an inspi- ration for others dedicated to public service. I also wish to extend my gratitude to the editors of the Seattle University Law Review and to my wonderful research assistants, Emil Petrossian, Lindsay Meurs, William Smyth, and Mary Gordon.
    [Show full text]
  • Disciplining Criminal Justice: the Peril Amid the Promise of Numbers
    YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW Disciplining Criminal Justice: The Peril amid the Promise of Numbers Mary De Ming Fan* Introduction ........................................................................................................... 2 Governing Governance and the Manufacture of "Objective" Visibility ............ 1O A. The Law of Making Performance Visible ................................................ 14 B. Difficulties Defining Criminal Justice in the Idiom of Targets .............. 16 C. Bending the Bounds of the Officially Sanctioned .................................. 24 II. Expressive, Expiatory "Deliverables". ............................................................. 27 A. At the Point of Policy Failure ................................................................... 30 B. Numbers that Do Not Attain Aims ......................................................... 36 C. What Expiation by Numerical Proxy Effaces ......................................... 42 1. Aim ing Beyond the Baseline ............................................................ 42 2. Effacing H igher Aim s ........................................................................ 49 III. Toward a Policy Embrace of Values and Numbers in Qualitative Context ... 57 A. Q ualitative Perspective ............................................................................ 57 B. How Law and Policy Can Be Conducive to Qualitative Evaluation ........... 59 C on clusion ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]