|The Case Against the Nomination of Gaddi Vasquez
to be Peace Corps Director
NEW on the nomination:
Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Jack Hood Vaughn
Letter for the record from John Coyne
Statement for the record from Barbara Ferris
Statement for the record from Hugh Pickens
Letter to Sen. Dodd as follow-up to hearing
Coyne OpEd in The Hill
READ Judy Mann in the Post on the nomination
MORE on the nomination:
Some talking points on the nomination
A letter from Richard Lipez
Contact members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
The Committee for the Future of the Peace Corps urges the United States Senate to reject President Bushs nomination of Mr. Gaddi Vasquez to be the next Director.
The record of Gaddi Vasquez:
The prior experience of Gaddi Vasquez:
The Los Angeles Times stated (8/20/2001):
The Peace Corps after September 11
For these reason, former Peace Corps Directors Sargent Shriver (196266), a Democrat, and Jack Hood Vaughn, (196669), a Republican, oppose the Vasquez nomination.
|The Committee for the Future of the Peace Corps is a group of concerned Americans including former Peace Corps Directors, Returned Peace Corps Volunteers, former Peace Corps Staff members, and foreign policy experts in the foreign affairs, public policy and public service arenas. For more information contact: Barbara Ferris at 202-530-0563 or John Coyne at 914-654-5281.|
|The SEC Report and Gaddi Vasquez
A Public Rebuke
In December 1994, Orange County revealed it had lost $1.7 billion dollars and filed for bankruptcy. It was the largest governmental bankruptcy in the history of the United States. The cause a case of risky investment gone bad, and with no oversight by the Board of County Supervisors.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) laid the responsibility for Orange Countys fiscal disaster directly at the feet of the Board of Supervisors. In its report of January 24, 1996 (Release 36761), the SEC stated, in part:
Public officials have ultimate authority to approve the issuance of securities and related disclosure documents . . . have responsibilities under the Federal securities laws as well. A public official may not authorize disclosure that the official knows to be false. Nor may an official authorize disclosure that may be misleading. When a public official has knowledge of facts bringing into question to issuers ability to repay the securities, it is reckless for that official to approve disclosure to investors without taking steps appropriate to prevent the dissemination of false or misleading information regarding facts. This would include questioning officials and becoming familiar with the documents.
The report concluded:
The supervisors approved official statements that among other things, failed to disclose certain material information about Orange Countys financial condition that brought into question the Countys ability to repay its securities absent significant interest income from the County Pools (Pools were operated as an investment fund managed by Orange County in which the County invested.)
Furthermore, the supervisors were aware of material information concerning Orange Countys financial condition that called into question the countys ability to repay its securities. Nevertheless, the Supervisors failed to take appropriate steps to assure disclosure of these facts. The Board members did not fulfill their obligations under the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.
The Reaction to the Boards Failure: