Bizarro World

We admit that when we first saw the piece in FCW.com Monday lauding former GSA administrator Lurita Doan and excoriating the (unnamed) Inspector General who had supposedly brought her down, we just chuckled and moved on.

But on second thought…maybe there really are people out there who believe this kind of tripe!  Who actually think Doan was the brave little David battling the big bad Goliath.  On the off-chance that Neal Fox is not the only person residing in this alternate universe, we offer a brief recitation of actual facts.

Fox, former assistant commissioner of acquisitions at GSA, does not mince words.  Doan battled "IG arrogance" and "fought a trend in which IGs have usurped authority that rightfully belongs to agency leaders."

Ahem.  What authority that rightfully belonged to her?  Was that the authority to pursue bad contracts that bilked the taxpayer?  As Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) stated in reference to one egregious case, that of Sun Microsystems: GSA senior officials "put pressure on the contract officer to sign a potentially bad contract.  All the evidence suggests that this particular contractor had been overcharging the government for years."

GSA IG Brian Miller's original sin was apparently to point out that Sun had overcharged the federal government by more than $25 million dating back to 1997.  Although Grassley chastised Miller for taking too long to complete the audit and for producing reports that were "incomplete, poorly organized and lacked basic information," he supported the IG's conclusions that Sun had overcharged the government.

Another charge from Fox was that "IGs have become a threat to good government by deterring innovation, causing agencies to institutionalize inefficiencies and interfering with their core missions.  IGs have shown again and again how they can get their way by public arm-twisting and underhanded tactics."

In fact, during POGO's ongoing review of the IG system, we have found that innovative ideas on how to tackle continuing management challenges often emanate from the IG's office, even while the IGs resist becoming an arm of management.  If they must occasionally go public--whether in the press or on Capitol Hill--to bring attention to their findings and recommendations, so be it.

With Doan gone, Fox agonizes, we are left with "another setback for good government at the hands of IGs."  But at least, he consoles himself, the IGs have sustained some blows--"their tactics were exposed, and their abuse of power sent a shockwave through the government."

Let's talk about the kind of "good government" that Lurita Doan brought with her during her tumultuous tenure.  She arrived at GSA in May 2006, and, according to the Washington Post: "Soon after Doan was nominated to lead the GSA this spring, she promised outside vendors that she would make contracting with the agency much easier for both government bureaucrats and corporations.  After she assumed the post, she began trimming the budget proposal of the inspector general's office.  She wrote in her annual report that the office's budget and staff had 'grown annually and substantially' in the past five years."  The Post added that in fact the number of employees had only increased from 297 to 309 from 2000 to 2006.

Doan not only proposed slicing the IG's budget by $5 million, she also wanted to shift responsibility for contract reviews to small private contractors.

Doan became infamous for referring to Miller as a terrorist, for engaging in prohibited personnel activities, and for declaring virtual war on anyone who crossed her, including Members of Congress.

Fox's single most appalling statement, however, was when he noted with approval that:  "Other agencies, such as the CIA, began to push back on their own IGs.  That is a start."

In fact, the CIA director was strongly criticized for launching an unprecedented "review" of the activities of the CIA OIG.  Ultimately an "ombudsman" was established within the OIG to make nice-nice with a group of officers that has become a de facto union.  The CIA situation appeared regrettable on its face.  It would be completely unacceptable if other agencies took even baby steps in the same direction.

The legendary Sherman Funk, an early IG at the State Department, noted that being an IG is like "straddling the barbed wire fence."  The statute clearly requires the IGs to report to both their agency heads and the Congress; never a comfortable position.  But the statute further makes clear that IGs fall under only the "general supervision," not the day-to-day supervision, of their agency chiefs.  The law specifies that the chief can delegate that supervisory power only to his second in command.  And finally, Justice Clarence Thomas, one of this administration's favorite judges, has held that such "general supervision" really amounts to "nominal supervision."

We don't need to be unthinking cheerleaders for the IG community to say that letting a Neal Fox run amok through their chicken house doesn't help anybody--least of all the U.S. taxpayer.

-- Beverley Lumpkin

Comments

[Posted on: May 18, 2008 at 08:28 PM]

One reason the IGs may look like the worst part of the "system" is because the system is moribund. Until Waxman woke up the community in Jan 07, agencies were negligently light or absent in their oversight of programs and of contractors. And, under previous Repub aegis, the pertinent committees of Congress did diddly. Even the GAO was toothless until Walker's years of efforts finally woke it up. Meanwhile, the lazy media didn't find problems; the "reporters" and "pundits" simply googled for recent audit reports and hearings.

If all that oversight had been occurring the IGs issues, asserted by KH, might have not loomed so large.

BTW, if the IGs are as rotten as KH claims, and I will leave that open, it ought to be easier than ever to get the FBI and, on another plane, Mr. Waxman interested. Waxman has only been nibbling around the edges, and the FBI seems to only come when called into that world. The good news is that with either McC or Obama, the IG world, and acquisition in general, is going to get the additional focus that it needs from the Executive Branch, but this will take some time to develop.

[Posted on: May 16, 2008 at 01:04 PM]

Gargantua,

I'm not sure what you define as "system". I assume you view it as what's written into law, rule and regulation. If that's all you mean, then you are correct, the system is only occasionally flawed. If you include in your definition that those charged with implementing the laws do so in a competent, legal, and ethical manner, subject to reasonable accountability, then the "system" often fails, particularly in the IG community. After 22 yrs. in line and staff management at six exec. branch agencies and departments, I found the most evident fault lines of the "system" coursing through the IG community. In the OPM and it's IG, the system is seriously corrupted. Please understand that I'm defining corrupted as maleficence, illegal activity, and gross mismanagement. Good luck to 'ya.

[Posted on: May 16, 2008 at 12:59 PM]

The same poster who provided a 187-word sentence yesterday has, at 11:29 today, given us 98- and 137-word sentences.

Suggest reading every fourth word to save time and keep from being confused.

[Posted on: May 16, 2008 at 11:29 AM]

Please note that with in general overall agreement of the 11:50:45 PM comment with the identifications and concerns of the basic non personal mentions that there, if my recollection is correct and which may have been recognized in several documentarys and/or on the daily Democracynow.org Radio broadcast in reference to many reports that are only brought to light and/or an initial conclusional and/or public mention after 50 years and in some instances somewhat deemed as moot and/or not acted upon further for one and/or many and/or varied implied reasons, whether implied and/or presummed to be correct or not. Obviously these few somewhat ambigious sentences could easily benifit from a more complete and thorough mention and/or clarifications.

Please note that where hope may remain and hope fully somehow procrastinatiing that time has not past us by and that approval and implementation of the current and seemingly neverending Whistleblower Legislation that has been and continues to be langiushing in our US legislative committees and should the Sabersky Plan be acknowledged and implemented it may allow, in some instances for the excellent and/or superb IG or similar reports to have at least some direct and/or indirect reasonable and proper support for further oversight and where applicable for the redemption and salvation for all within our Democracy with the proper and true interpretation of intent of and for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all and with the best possible respect and regard for Democracy, Law and Religion and towards God, Man and Country.

Thank you and all for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Axel

[Posted on: May 15, 2008 at 11:50 PM]

To Ken Huffman,

Have read docs on the Web about your own struggle, and I am sympathetic to what you were put through, and I thank you for your service. But I am not sure the system mistreated you. Rather, it was a subset of careerists with an admixture of politicals, as far as I can tell. They can't handle the truth, as Jack Nicholson once said in a different context in a great movie.

The IG system on paper is not too bad. And yeah, the success claims are inflated, but aren't all governmental claims of success inflated, no matter what the origin?

The big problem with the IG system is that weak-kneed, incompetent career and political officials use it as a safety net of sorts. They are risk averse to excess, but still want to be seen as executives. The officials don't care to, or do not know how to, manage, so they like IG's for exercising some vigilance. And, as there often is in government, these officials rarely suffer a career setback if they are gotcha'd in an IG report. No harm, no foul is the way they think. Meanwhile, the standards of success and accomplishment are taking a nosedive in government. But the IGs and the media are not the real villains. Congress is partially at fault, but the Executive Branch hardly seems worthy of the name in many, many agencies and progdrams, no?

As people sometime say, we get the kind of government we deserve.

[Posted on: May 15, 2008 at 11:17 PM]

Gargantua,

If you'd stop frothing at the brain, your thoughts would be more easily decipherable. As best as I can tell, I agree with many of your points - I carry no brief for senior govt. mgt. As for the jackboot reference, that's the way the raid on an independent govt. agency impresses me. The OSC has been highly politicized and virtually dysfuntional for thirty years. But I've yet to hear evidence of a crime justifying such heavy handed conduct by the FBI or by an integrity and competence challenged OPM IG.

[Posted on: May 15, 2008 at 04:36 PM]

I don't know who you are IG in Training, but I think I love you.

[Posted on: May 15, 2008 at 03:37 PM]

I object to the posting of any comment on this blogue that is 187 words long, such as that timestamped at 3:21:24 pm today.

[Posted on: May 15, 2008 at 03:21 PM]

I was not going to write and I will be more explicit if requested. I would like to mention that that if there is any possibility that a hope may remain for the correct IG reports and similar reports of the last Century to be accorded the intent to properly be more fully heard and addressed in a more and/or additional venues and formats and as expected and/or implied and/or required with the true and Democratic intent to oversight and/or resolve with reperation and salvation as best as possible for all with the intent of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for all with the best possible respect and regard for our laws, democracy and religion and god, man and country that proper and correct oversight and accountability are going to be a formidable task within the future for all of us and seemingly will only take place if our Executive, Judicial and Legislative Branch of our Government do not fail us and/or continue to fails us in our most important democratic issues and concerns within our republic which is recognized and/or implied and/or in the hopes in and for which we are assumed and/or presummed to be reasonably accountable.

[Posted on: May 15, 2008 at 02:28 PM]

Oh, Ken H., you ignorant [SNL epithet]. Why the national socialist allusion (jackboots, eh)?

You have to ask these questions for the alleged legions of SES's who feel put upon by IGs and gotcha'd to death: who is your boss? To whom are you accountable? What should be the reward of your successes (pls take into account such factors as your dedication to public service, feeling good about your work, and legendary job security, and pretty good benies)? What should be the penalty for failures -- and you are entitled to a couple of mulligans--including waste of tens of millions of taxpayer money, unserved customers in the government or the great unwashed citizen-taxpapyers or leaving the country unsafe? Em?

Can anyone criticize you, constructively or not, without you crying foul.? Can you do what you want? Or remain inert and not do your job so your record is unblemished, if undistinguished by obvious successes, compared with treading water and turning the crank? Can you name any GS 15 or SES who actually suffered career consequences by contributing heavily to blowing a program, or just wasting time and money?

How much of your glorious PD is actually reflected in what you produce, really?

If an SES can't answer these questions frankly, even in the solitude of the bathroom, we are in deeper kimchee than we know.

We have a lot of fine SESs. We'd be lost without them. I refuse to believe the majority are cowering and listening for the jackboots. Anyone who is needs to be replaced with someone who will get things done and be accountable for peformance.

[Posted on: May 15, 2008 at 10:01 AM]

Fox is addressing a much broader issue than you seem capable of understanding or analyzing Beth. The FCW article seemed fairly balanced to me. I don't see so much cheerleading involving Doan as I do concern about the sheer lack of accountability and fundamental competence associated with the IG community. I think I've seen more cheerleading from you and POGO over the jackbooted mentality and stormtrooper techniques, often characteristic of IG offices, that were (so far) inexplicably imposed on the OSC. Always leaves me with a queasy feeling when ideological extremists of the left and right find common ground.

[Posted on: May 14, 2008 at 05:54 PM]

Folks,

Fox is a good guy, but utterly deranged on this topic. You are dead right. He--and a growing number of SESsymps,--believe they have no bosses--no tagency top management (sorry, folks, they are political), the WH, OMB, etc. And they think they can ignore Congress, too. Dumb da dumb dumb.
They--agency senior line managers--may not even think they work for the customers or taxpayers. They can dither and waste and waste and dither. When anyone calls them on it, they sling mud, just like Hillary. It is sad. The good ones have left. That's why recovery at GSA will take years, if ever.
Of course the IG corps has some rotten apples, but is the proportion of bad ones any higher among SES careerists as a group? I don't think so. And there are many talented ones, but an unseemly number have left during the latter Bush years. And I know that from experience.

Fed execs need to stop bellyaching, dithering, and resorting to "the devil made me do it," including blaming problems on contractors all the time.

As for FCWs astoundingly fawning love affair with the lovely Lurita D, it goes way back. FCW may think it is noble to be a contrarian, but liking her is lunacy. She drove customers away and ignored them. She much preferred internal battles with IG Miller and anyone else. And her performance before Waxman last year was not just bizzarre, it reeked of gross incompetence and a bit of craziness, eh? And she played dumb re her gross violation of the Hatch Act. All in all, just a median performer in the Bush circus of creeps and crazies.

FCW won't score any points with its target audience--feds--by loving her. They lose when they have a leader that bad. And reports of better morale at GSA are baloney shmagoney.

But who cares who FCW likes, as it needs to be a little bit of a lacky to maintain its many industry ties. (However, loving Lurita is something industry didn't do, but didn't say it outloud.) No one should claim that FCW's views are conditioned by advertising--because there seems to be hardly any. But it is free and serves us great unwashed who read what we can get via bingo cards and Webpap.