• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Georgetown Law Announces Winners of Annual Legal Service Award | Main | The Morning Wrap »

October 08, 2012



It's standard practice to bring in investigators from another agency when an IG (or possibly even another OIG senior official has been accused of misconduct).

What bothers me about this is the way the investigators seemed to go out of their way to attack Kotz for things that seemed fairly trivial. I mean, did they really expect Kotz to tell his deputy, "I've flirted with a girl who works in that organization, so you'll have to handle any investigations of that organization." Really?

The other two findings are similarly weak. Was Kotz really supposed to give Madoff a pass because he was friends with the lawyer of one of the victim? It's nuts.

I know why people in SEC hated Kotz. He did what he was supposed to do--provide independent oversight.

What I can't figure out is why the USPS OIG report tags Kotz for so many penny ante alleged misjudgments. Maybe they think it's a good idea to have a finding on every allegation where an IG is concerned, no matter how trivial. Whatever the rationale, the wisdom and fairness of the USPS OIG approach is dubious.


I'm confused. Why should the IG from the Postal Service be investigating this?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad