Not Mild-Mannered Enough

Clark Kent Ervin was hired by his friend President Bush to expose flaws in homeland security. Trouble was, he did.

Illustration: Tim Bower

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Clark Kent Ervin was stirring up trouble right until the end. Late last year—just weeks before he was unceremoniously dismissed from his job as the chief internal watchdog for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—he reported that the federal government still could not keep foreigners from using stolen passports to enter the country. In the weeks and months before that, he’d released reports that found the federal air marshal program in disarray, warned that shipping containers were entering U.S. ports every day without even superficial screening for nuclear material, and chastised the department for failing to fulfill its congressional mandate to come up with a centralized watch list of suspected terrorists. Even Homeland Security’s single most publicized initiative, the screening of passengers and bags at the nation’s airports, had failed to make it any more difficult to sneak guns, knives, and explosives onto planes, Ervin’s investigators in the Office of Inspector General had found.

None of those disclosures, however, seemed to be of much interest to department leaders. Secretary Tom Ridge, Ervin notes, met with him only twice, both times to complain about negative publicity generated by his reports.

Never once, he says, did Ridge so much as request a face-to-face briefing on the continued problems in airport security. It was only after Congress put pressure on the department that Ervin was asked to present his findings to Admiral James Loy, then head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). “His response was to say, ‘Why are you calling it a failure rate at this airport? Why not say success rate?’” Ervin remembers.

At 45, Ervin is a tidy man with deep-set eyes, tortoiseshell glasses, and graying hair. When he spoke to Mother Jones, a few weeks after his dismissal, he had traded the suit-and-tie uniform of a senior federal official for a cable-knit sweater and slacks. His political allegiances, however, had not changed. “I am a Republican who is supportive of this president,” he said. “Please write that down.”

But loyalty didn’t prevent Ervin from doing his job. “He was really the citizens’ last chance of ensuring that vitally important money was being spent well,” says Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group that has been critical of the department. “Often it wasn’t.”

Ervin was born to a Democratic family in Houston, the child of a union bricklayer. It was his older brother, he says, who chose to name him after Superman’s alter ego. On the recommendation of his teachers, he was offered a scholarship as the first black male student at Kinkaid, an elite Houston prep school. He had always been interested in politics—“When I was two years old in 1961, I remember Kennedy’s news conferences”—but it wasn’t until he became a Rhodes scholar at Oxford, and then a student at Harvard Law School, that he began to question the Democratic Party for, in his view, going soft on defense and embracing a radical social agenda.

His new political views attracted him to the administration of George H.W. Bush, where he worked on the “Thousand Points of Light” volunteer initiative and soon afterward became friendly with George W. Bush, a fellow Kinkaid alum. He made failed bids for Congress and then the Texas Legislature during the early 1990s before joining the administration of then Texas Governor Bush. In 2001, he returned to Washington as inspector general at the State Department, moving to Homeland Security in 2003. He served nearly two years in the job—in an acting
capacity, because the Senate had failed to vote on his confirmation.

At Homeland Security, Ervin’s team of 459 auditors and investigators uncovered not just security lapses, but extensive waste. By the time Ervin arrived, the Department of Transportation had already uncovered one massive cost overrun: A $100 million contract granted to hire new airline screeners had ballooned to more than $600 million. Ervin’s subsequent reports revealed that Boeing Company had received at least $49 million in extra profits for a contract to do nothing more than oversee other contracts. And executives at the cash-strapped TSA awarded themselves $1.5 million in year-end bonuses in 2003, and then spent another $462,000 on an awards ceremony for departmental brass, including nearly $2,000 for seven sheet cakes and $1,500 for three cheese displays.

Yet over and over again, department leaders ignored Ervin’s calls for action. “Basically, the focus there at the top was, let’s put out press releases touting advances and let’s minimize problems,” says Ervin, “because we want DHS to be a good news story.”

Perhaps it’s that focus on positive spin that has kept officials from explaining Ervin’s dismissal. Either Congress or the White House could have acted to keep him in office when his term as acting inspector general expired in December. But neither did.

“The decision not to renominate Clark Kent Ervin was purely a White House decision,” says Elissa Davidson, a spokeswoman for Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), though Collins herself held up Ervin’s confirmation for two years because of a dispute over an investigation he’d conducted at the State Department. White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to comment, saying simply, “We appreciate the job he has done.”

For his part, Ervin says he’s not bitter. “I don’t have an ax to grind,” he insists, adding that he plans to continue drawing attention to the department’s problems—most of which, he says, could be fixed with the right management. “I don’t take any joy in saying what I am saying—but you have to tell the truth when you are in a job like this.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate