A June 13 Washington Times article by Jerry Seper previewing testimony by General Services Administration (GSA) administrator Lurita Doan before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform mischaracterized the findings of a May 18 report by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC). The Times article claimed that special counsel Scott J. Bloch's report “said Mrs. Doan violated the Hatch Act when at the conclusion of a [January 26] meeting” with deputy White House political director Scott Jennings and more than 30 of the GSA's political appointees, Doan asked “whether GSA could help Republican candidates.” In fact, Bloch did not report that Doan had asked “whether” the agency could help -- a construction that suggests she was asking whether it was permissible for the agency to “help Republican candidates.” Rather, Bloch alleged that, according to sworn testimony by “numerous” GSA employees present at the meeting, she actually asked, “How can we help our candidates?”

Further, the Times article quoted an anonymous “high-ranking Republican congressional source” saying that the OSC report “begins and ends with extreme exaggeration.” The anonymous source said of Bloch: “The fact that he can't imagine a more egregious violation of the Hatch Act boggles the mind; that Mrs. Doan engaged in pernicious political activity boggles the mind.” The source then asked: “What was OSC's goal in this investigation and what flawed process did it use to get there?” No reason was given for the source's anonymity.

In the May 18 OSC report, Bloch claimed that, at the January 26 meeting, Jennings had delivered a PowerPoint presentation on the 2008 election cycle that “included a list of Congressional Democrats targeted to be unseated in the 2008 elections, followed immediately by a list of Congressional Republicans whose seats need to be defended in the 2008 election.” Bloch went on to state:

A question and answer session immediately followed Mr. Jennings' PowerPoint presentation. Numerous GSA political appointees testified under oath that during the question and answer session, the Administrator asked a question about, “How can we help our candidates?”

A footnote to the above passage noted that several witnesses had offered “slight variations” of Doan's question, but further stated that “the intent behind the various statements is the same -- what can we, the political GSA appointees, do to help our candidates?” From the footnote:

A review of the witness' testimony reveals that some of the appointees remember the Administrator asking Mr. Jennings, “How can we help our candidates?” Other witnesses testified that the Administrator asked, “What can we do to help our candidates?” Other witnesses remember the Administrator posing the question, “How can we use GSA to help our candidates?” While another witness remembers “How can we use GSA to support our candidates?” Despite the slight variations regarding the witnesses' testimony as to what the Administrator said, the intent behind the various statements is the same -- what can we, the political GSA appointees, do to help our candidates? Furthermore, each of the witnesses testified that they interpreted the term “our candidates” to mean “Republican candidates” because they are all Republican political appointees. Moreover, although some of the witnesses acknowledged during their interviews that they could not remember verbatim what the Administrator said, they did remember her saying something to the effect of how can we help our candidates or how can we use GSA's resources to help our candidates.

As Media Matters for America noted, the OSC described Doan's question as an “inherently coercive” attempt to “ask and/or encourage her subordinates to engage in political activity.” The OSC concluded that Doan violated the Hatch Act's prohibition against using one's official position to influence an election and submitted its report to the president for “appropriate action.” The version of the report sent to Doan was accompanied by a cover letter in which Bloch recommended “that the President take appropriate disciplinary action against you for your serious violation of the Hatch Act.”

Through her lawyer, Michael J. Nardotti Jr., Doan sent a June 1 letter to Bloch stating that “the objectivity, impartiality, and fairness of this [OSC] report is seriously in question” and that it was “a harsh report, clearly visceral in tone.” The letter was quoted in the Times article. Bloch responded on June 8 claiming that in her letter, Doan “does not dispute any of the facts evidencing that she solicited the political activity of her subordinates.” Bloch's letter added that “each of [Doan's] arguments is demonstrably false.”

From the June 13 Washington Times article:

Republicans, angry about the report and its conclusions, are expected to turn the tables on Mr. Bloch during the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, seeking instead to talk about what they have described as his “flawed conclusion and analysis.”

“Mr. Bloch's report concerning Mrs. Doan begins and ends with extreme exaggeration,” said a high-ranking Republican congressional source. “The fact that he can't imagine a more egregious violation of the Hatch Act boggles the mind; that Mrs. Doan engaged in pernicious political activity boggles the mind.

”What was OSC's goal in this investigation and what flawed process did it use to get there?" the source said.

[...]

Mr. Bloch, who served on the Justice Department's Task Force for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and was named to head OSC three years ago by Mr. Bush, said Mrs. Doan violated the Hatch Act when at the conclusion of a meeting with Scott Jennings, special assistant to the president, and a deputy of political adviser Karl Rove she asked whether GSA could help Republican candidates.

Meanwhile, the inspector general at the Office of Personnel Management, at the behest of the president's Office of Management and Budget, is examining a complaint by OSC staff members and others who accused Mr. Bloch of interfering in Hatch Act cases.

The complaint said he created a hostile work environment with retaliatory acts, that a dozen employees thought to be whistleblowers were involuntarily reassigned, and that he did not enforce bans on workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.