More Inaccuracies in von Spakovsky’s Testimony

by Eric Marshall

More information continues to surface about the inaccuracies in FEC nominee Hans von Spakovsky's testimony to the Senate in June.  As we've noted earlier, several career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice have noted how von Spakovsky ordered changes in performance reviews to punish attorneys who disagreed with him or criticized his decisions.

Paul Kiel with Talking Points Memo Muckraker has been actively following the von Spakovsky issue.  In a recent article he notes:

In written testimony, Von Spakovsky said the accusation that he'd retaliated against career lawyers was "simply untrue" because he lacked the authority to transfer or fire employees. He admitted, however, that he'd modified the performance evaluations of certain career attorneys, but said that such changes were approved by the Deputy Assistant Attorney General—at the time, Bradley Schlozman, who's been heavily criticized for politicizing the Division. He asserted that there's "no evidence that any information included in any evaluation was false" and added that he was "unaware" that any appeals to those changes were successful.

In fact, three voting section attorneys successfully appealed such changes, Joe Rich, the former chief of the voting section, told me. Two more appeals were unsuccessful. The appeals were handled by senior political appointees in the Division.

The changes von Spakovsky made to the evaluations focused on minor details—in one case, literally a footnote—and criticized the attorney for sloppy work. Such a negative addition to a civil servant's evaluation can be detrimental to future prospects of a promotion or work elsewhere.

"To pick something that picayune, I was astounded," said Rich, a nearly 40-year veteran of the Civil Rights Division. As section chief, Rich completed the evaluations, which were then passed up to von Spakovsky. "You're trying to give an overall view of the type of work, the quality of work." Von Spakovsky and Schlozman only made such changes (seven in all), Rich said, to the evaluations of attorneys who made recommendations with which von Spakovsky disagreed.

In addition to changing performance reviews, Kiel's sources at Justice provide evidence that von Spakovsky attempted to suppress lawyers' appeals to said changes.

The grievances were settled only after one attorney spoke directly with Assistant Attorney General Alex Acosta, then the head of the Civil Rights Division, during an exit interview. "I just wanted to leave with closure," the attorney told me. But even though the appeals had been addressed to Acosta and it had been nearly fourteen months since the attorney had filed his grievance in the fall of 2003, Acosta said he'd never seen it; "He'd never heard of it, never heard of the evaluations being changed, had no knowledge of grievances pending." Nevertheless, Acosta "showed concern" about the changes, the attorney said.

The next day, the attorney received a call from Sheldon Bradshaw, another senior political appointee in the Division. "He apologized and seemed embarrassed that he didn't have knowledge of the grievances. He said he'd found them on von Spakovsky's desk." The attorney's appeal was granted, and Bradshaw told the attorney that the other grievances would be resolved.

For more, read the entire article, Ex-DoJ Attys Question Civil Rights Official's Testiomny.