Please read and critique. This is a memo style answer about Alberto Gonzales. I just started graduate school (thanks to you guys critiquing my intro essay) and I'm rusty writing... please respond.
At the commencement of Alberto Gonzales career in politics, he worked as the General Counsel to then-Texas Governor George W. Bush. As a General Counsel, he was responsible for providing legal advice to the Governor. Gonzales was "entrusted to offer legal opinions on extremely wide variety of matters." (Page 115) Specific matters include: "whether Indian Tribes in Texas could open up casinos; and whether convicts might be eligible for some form of death-row reprieve..." (Page 115)
According to the "Duties of the General Counsel" as described on the Texas Archival Online, while George W. Bush was in office and Alberto Gonzales was serving in that capacity, his role with regards to the death penalty included: tracking inmates on death row as their cases move through the judicial process including all appeals to the governor for commutations or stays of execution and handling pardon requests sent to the governor. In particular, his job in this function was to "personally advise the governor on who should be put to death in Texas." (Page 125) He would review clemency petitions, prepare his own clemency memo for the fifty-seven possible executions pending in Texas at that time. (Page 125)
On the day of a prisoner's execution, Gonzales role was to be in constant communication with the prison's warden to receive a "play by play" execution order. Once the prisoner had expired, Gonzales would notify the governor. (Page 124)
2. Alberto Gonzales was appointed to Secretary of State by then-Governor Bush. Although the position is an elected office in many states it is appointed in Texas. As Texas' Secretary of State, Gonzales was responsible for "beefing up the number of registered voters...especially Hispanic voters...(Page 149) "His primary job was to be Bush's chief advisor on relations with Mexico and border affairs..." (Page 155) In contrast of his latter private job as General Counsel, the Secretary of State position was very public. He started making speeches, cutting ribbons, and shaking hands, and serving as Texas ambassador to Mexico. (Page 155) As described in Gonzales biography on the White House's website, additional duties included being the chief elections officer.
3. According to Mr. Gonzales perspective, his primary role (and the office's role) as the White House's first Hispanic Counsel was to attract quality assistants. Recruiting staffers from varies venues; he sought after "neoconservative" people that had "beliefs that are fairly consistent with the president's." (page 196)
Mr. Gonzales intent was to work closely with Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the other body that provided the president with legal advice. (Page 195) However, he stated the he "will be the person in the White House every day. [He] will be at [the president's] side... and the attorney general is in another building, running another agency." (Page 196)
Gonzales objective was to mimic their relations in Texas whereas he was beside the president providing legal advice, being "the president's lawyer... and to make sure [they] didn't make the same mistake made by previous administrations." He was accountable for the entire legal ramification that the president would face if he wasn't properly advised on legal matters.
4. The system of accountability that I think Mr. Gonzales tends to emphasize the most throughout his career in government is professional. Although Alan Berlow stated in his Washington Post article on November 21, 2004 that "President Bush has selected a man with a long record of giving him the kind of legal advice he wants... [yet the] advice has not always been of the highest professional or ethical caliber" I disagree. Many that oppose Gonzales viewed him as a "yes man" or willing to do anything he is told. After reading this book it is my opinion that he simple did his job without distractions.
It was stated that one of the reason Bush liked Gonzales was because he was very concise and to the point and at the end made a recommendation. (Page 116) His job function was to advise the governor or president about the legal consequences and allowed Bush to make a decision. The recommendation was outside of his scope as a general counselor. Others Bush staffers would offer background information and legal ramification without an actual recommendation leaving that to the governor's discretion; in retrospect, utilizing the hierarchical accountability model. In my opinion, Gonzales felt it was his professional responsibility to provide the best advice and recommendation from a legal perspective.
In contract to the many media outlets that label him as a "yes man" or view him as someone leaning on a subornation hierarchical accountability model; I strongly felt that he never strayed from the professional style. The people that worked closely with him during his career often commented on the way he handled situation. People such as Karen Greene, whom Gonzales had hired after coming to Austin, stated there were plenty of fires, but he never blinked. (Page 126) While another lawyer from Houston stated "you won't see him straying off course." I translate this to mean whatever the task was it was done without complaint or loss of professionalism. He relied on his work experience and ethics to guide him in his career and to keep his professional relationships "all business."
5. I enjoyed the book about Alberto Gonzales' Rise to Power. I found his story to be inspirational to the many minorities that shared his low socioeconomic upbringing. Prior to reading this book I knew very little about Gonzales background, professional growth, and sacrifices that he encounter. His success as a partner in V&E as well in politics provides hope for those that have similar obstacles.
Although the majority of the book provided third party account of who Gonzales is, what he thinks, and how he response to different situation; I felt it was a good indication of how he is as person. In my opinion, the best portrayal of a good person is when people refer to and/or describe you in good measures when you are not around. The people that are close to him only offered positive insight into his world. Those that are outside of his inner circle provided negative account and anecdotal interpretation that isn't valid since it relies on second hand testimony not personal knowledge.
I did feel that he should have provided community development in his hometown and diversified his office culture instead of conforming to the "norms" (i.e. stop speaking Spanish, shaving off his mustache because he looked "too Hispanic", and never discussing his upbringing). Nonetheless, his story should be celebrated as a success and proof that regardless of classism and barriers hard work and consistency will reap rewards.
Greetings!
I think you've done an excellent job. I am not exactly sure what a "memo style answer" requires, so it may be that you don't need a thesis statement, as a paper such as this would normally require, but you might want to make sure. A thesis statement helps orient the reader, rather than leaving him or her to try to figure out the point of the paper.
I notice that, most of the time, you do not use an apostrophe when making a possessive form of Gonzales's name. For example: "Alberto Gonzales career in politics" or " According to Mr. Gonzales perspective" or "Gonzales objective" -- these all need an apostrophe after the "s"; however, there is still much controversy over whether names such as this require an additional "s" after the apostrophe, as I wrote it, above. Many sources now say yes, it does, except when the name is an ancient one, such as Hippocrates' name, or Moses' name. Personally, I think the name belongs to the person, and if Gonzales wants it either with or without the extra "s", he should have that choice. Of course, we can't very well ask him! At the very least, though, it does need the apostrophe.
You also tend to leave out commas. If you pause when reading the sentence aloud, as for this phrase which is interjected into the middle of the sentence, you set it off with commas. For example: "regardless of classism and barriers, [add comma] hard work and consistency will reap rewards." Otherwise, your reader will spend a confused moment wondering what "barriers hard work" means. :-)
Good job!
Thanks,
Sarah, EssayForum.com
