Six Degrees of Scott Bloch: A Scandal Scorecard

Govexec.com has put together a fascinating cheat sheet for all of us who are following the unfolding Bloch story. They describe it as a "handy guide" to keep track of the administration officials who have "become ensnared in an interlocking set of investigations into allegations of Hatch Act violations, whistleblower misconduct and other prohibited personnel practices." Highly recommended, but be sure to follow the numbers on the scorecard so that you get the story in its proper order.

-- Beth Daley

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

All Thumbs

A fascinating new angle on the Scott Bloch story has just been broken by Ari Shapiro on NPR.  Shapiro is reporting that part of the search warrant served on Bloch on Tuesday included a physical search of Bloch himself in order to seize his computer thumb drive.  In fact, the agents seized two thumb drives from him, according to Shapiro's and POGO's sources.

Shapiro further reports that before having his hard drive "scrubbed"€ by Geeks on Call a couple of years ago, Bloch first downloaded certain files onto the thumb drives.  He has said he had the computers' hard drives erased in order to get rid of a virus.

If Bloch is found to have lied to investigators--whether FBI agents, OPM Inspector General investigators, or staffers of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform who interviewed Bloch earlier this year--then it's possible he could become the latest example of that old Washington adage that it's always the cover-up that gets you in the end.

-- Beverley Lumpkin

Internal Draft Document Reveals Bloch-Headedness

POGO has gained access to an extraordinary internal document from the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency charged with protecting whistleblowers from reprisal.  Clearly marked "DRAFT," it is a memo dated January 18, 2008, to Special Counsel Scott Bloch from the members of a special task force.  The task force was created, according to the memo, in May 2007, "to pursue certain complex and high profile investigations, such as the firing of the U.S. Attorneys and the political presentations given by the White House Office of Political Affairs (OPA)."  The stated subject of the memo is "Summary of Task Force Activities and Recommendations," but it reads at times like an anguished cry from investigators charged with an important mission but virtually every recommendation they make is countermanded by their boss.  If they recommend going forward with an inquiry, Bloch says no.  If they say they lack evidence or jurisdiction, he orders them to go forward.

The inescapable conclusion reached from poring through the contents of this 13-page memo is that Bloch was deliberately creating the impression of a huge ongoing multi-faceted investigation of the White House--at the same time that he himself was being investigated by another arm of the White House for various forms of misconduct.  [NOTE: someone used a highlighter on the document, making certain passages nearly impossible to read.  We have transcribed those darkened parts here.] 

Here is my analysis, along with some juicy quotes.

Office of Political Affairs:
The task force (TF) began to examine allegations that 25 federal agencies had received political briefings from the White House Office of Political Affairs that may have violated Hatch Act bans against the use of government resources to promote or oppose a political party or candidate. The task force received hundreds of documents from the agencies and thousands from the White House about the briefings. But as the investigators proceeded in their classic methodical way, they received new directions from their boss: transfer a Hatch Act complaint against Commerce Secretary Gutierrez from the Hatch Act Unit to the task force); merge two complaints against Karl Rove into the ongoing OPA investigation; draft new requests for information to the White House demanding copies of all email sent or received by 50 OPA employees from January 2001 through November 2007, from both the employees' government accounts and their RNC accounts.   

The first cry of anguish followed: "TF expressed concerns that this request is too broad and may exceed OSC's jurisdiction" (emphasis in original).

But there was more. The Special Counsel demanded that the TF seek even more records from the White House: all travel records on Air Force One; all procedures for telephone and fax machines; all grant awards, etc. Again the protest from the task force: "After reviewing all documentation received and finding no information or evidence to suggest that agencies directed grants or agency resources to help candidates or political parties TF believes this request is overly broad." 

The task force recommended ways to narrow the investigation, but Bloch denied them. When the task force drafted a letter and subpoena to the RNC, Bloch returned the draft with the order that it be expanded to include ten new topics.

U.S. Attorney Firings:
After former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias filed a complaint with the OSC alleging that his discharge may have violated the Hatch Act, the task force was ordered by Bloch to broaden the inquiry to all nine U.S. Attorneys who had been fired. According to the task force's memo, to establish a Hatch Act violation, there must be proof that an individual employed by an executive branch agency had used official authority to influence the results of an election. Iglesias had complained about calls he had received from Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, both Republicans of New Mexico. The Justice Department meanwhile sent more than one letter to OSC asking it to suspend its investigation pending DOJ's criminal inquiry. Bloch writes Justice saying OSC will not suspend, even though "TF does not find any evidence of a Hatch Act violation…and expresses concern about the lack of any evidence that there was a Hatch Act violation."   

Political Hiring Practices and Personnel Decisions at Justice Department:
Following public hearings in Congress from former Justice Department officials that "certain officials at DOJ took into consideration political affiliation when determining whether to hire or promote certain individuals," along with testimony from the former chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division that he was ordered to change evaluations of attorneys based on political affiliation, the task force recommended "that this case be opened immediately and that the TF investigate whether individuals at DOJ committed any PPPs (prohibited personnel practices) when they took political affiliation into consideration when hiring and making other personnel decisions."

Nine days later, "TF is told that the Special Counsel has directed the TF not to open or investigate allegations concerning DOJ political hiring practices." Throughout August and September 2007, the TF continued to request permission to investigate these allegations, "arguing the sworn testimony before Congress appears to establish a prima facie case of numerous PPPs." 

Finally, in November, the task force was given permission to open a case--but "no other activity or devotion of resources authorized at this time."

Possibly Politically Tainted Prosecution:
The task force opened files concerning prosecution of the former Democratic governor of Alabama, Don Siegelman, and allegations that the prosecution had been pursued following directions from Karl Rove at the White House. But then "TF is informed that the Special Counsel did not authorize the Task Force to investigate these allegations and that do so [sic] is a breach. The Special Counsel requests that this file be closed immediately."   

Voter Registration Fraud Case:
Indictments were filed against four individuals associated with a liberal organization, ACORN, for engaging in election fraud. ACORN had reported the fraud itself and had fired the individuals, but a senior Justice official in Washington rushed to file the indictments a few days before the 2006 election, despite clear DOJ policy against bringing such actions right before an election because of the possibility of influencing the outcome.

The task force wrote a memo "outlining the reasons that the Hatch Act case investigating this matter should be opened.” The Hatch Act expressly forbids any Executive Branch official from taking actions that might influence an election. The task force was told they were "not authorized to open up this file." The task force protested strongly: 

Because the facts raise the strong possibility of violations of two Hatch Act provisions, the TF requests that a case file be opened into these allegations. OSC is the only agency charged with enforcement of the Hatch Act…it could be perceived that the Office of Special Counsel was abdicating its responsibility to enforce the Hatch Act if we were to take no action in this matter. More importantly, [if the actions were]…an attempt to affect the results of an election, this would constitute one of the most egregious violations of the Hatch Act.

Second Investigation of Lurita Doan:
When Special Counsel Bloch ordered a new investigation of GSA Administrator Lurita Doan be opened, the "TF raised objections to this request because OSC had previously concluded its investigation into Lurita Doan and had referred the matter to the President for disciplinary action. The TF was directed to investigate whether Doan had a larger scheme in place to use agency resources for political purposes." 

Bloch ordered the task force to request documents from the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security regarding a 2005 investigation of Doan's husband. The task force objected, saying it would be improper since "Doan was not a federal employee at the time of the DHS OIG investigation." But the task force was ordered to go forward and to particularly request a email message dated May 2005 from Lurita Doan to her husband.

The DHS OIG response was received at OSC in July 2007 but not given to the task force until November. At that point the task force was dismayed to discover that the "DHS OIG investigation is not related in any way to the May 17, 2005 email and questions why DHS produced the investigative file." The task force again two weeks later expressed its concern that the DHS OIG report was "not related to anything that OSC is currently investigating and the allegations in the report fall outside of OSC jurisdiction." The task force also expressed concern that the DHS OIG had provided information that "greatly exceeds, and arguably is unrelated to" the OSC request. The task force renews its recommendation that the case be closed since there is no evidence or information to support the allegations.   

Karl Rove:
The task force was ordered to investigate allegations that White House official Karl Rove had violated the Hatch Act by engaging in unlawful political activity during the 2006 election period. The task force learned that all of Rove's travel had been designated political and thus no official funds had been spent on it. Further, they found that on the one trip where Rove traveled on Air Force One on what had been wrongly attributed to official business, reimbursement had already been made.

Nevertheless, additional requests for information were prepared and sent to the White House regarding Rove's travel. As previously noted, the Rove cases were ordered by Bloch to be combined with the huge all-encompassing OPA case in November 2007. 

-- Beverley Lumpkin

Breaking News: FBI Agents Raid OSC Offices

The Wall Street Journal and NPR are reporting that FBI agents have raided the offices of Special Counsel Scott Bloch, seizing computers and documents belonging to Bloch and his staff as part of an ongoing investigation into alleged obstruction of justice.  Although Bloch has not been officially charged with any crime, FBI agents also searched his home and shut down email access at OSC offices across the country. 

The Journal previously reported that Bloch hired a private tech company, Geeks on Call, to conduct a seven-layer scrub of his computer and several office laptops.  Bloch claimed he was deleting a virus, but investigators suspect that he was destroying evidence related to allegations that he had used his office for political purposes and retaliated against career employees.

We'll keep you posted as we learn more.

-- Michael Smallberg

UPDATE: Click here for more background on Scott Bloch and the Office of Special Counsel.  You can also learn more by reading POGO's previous blog posts:

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2007/11/bloch-scrubs-di.html
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2007/05/office_of_speci.html
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2006/09/leave_sharon_st.html
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2006/05/who_wrote_this_.html
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2005/01/purge_at_agency.html

UPDATE 2: POGO is especially interested in what turns up, as we are in the midst of completing an investigation into OSC's handling of whistleblower disclosures and whistleblowing reprisals complaints from Federal Air Marshals.

Clay Johnson Responds to POGO

Click here to read a letter from Clay Johnson, Deputy Director for Management at OMB, responding to POGO's blog post on the annual Inspector General conference.

"Harmony!" between POGO, Clay Johnson, and the IGs

The federal inspectors general convened this week in Newport News, Virginia, for their annual conference. Very nearly all the 64 statutory IGs proved their mettle by braving a tornado and making it down there for three days of panels on issues important to the community.

Among other panels, the IGs heard from two Congressional staffers on the status of pending legislation that would bring the most important changes to the IG law in 20 years (the law will be 30 years old this October).  But alas: the only panel we were allowed to attend was the one we were on.   

POGO Executive Director Danielle Brian and I were joined by the OMB Deputy Director for Management, Clay Johnson, for an hour and a half discussion of both our findings in our first report on IGs, that many lack the tools they need to be truly independent, as well as preliminary findings and conclusions reached for our second report, scheduled for release later this year, regarding IG accountability, performance and effectiveness.

Johnson began by repeating his oft-heard beliefs about IG-dom: that IGs should be respected but not feared.  He declared that the two most important attributes of a good IG are that he or she be "really professional" and also "really good at helping the agency be successful."   

Danielle gave some opening remarks and I gave a brief summary of the rationale behind our first report.  Danielle then raised the issue of recent attacks on the IG system as being "annoying" and part of the "fear industry" and argued it might not be a bad thing for IGs to be seen this way, since they should not be regarded as part of the management team at their agency.  She had just stated that there's a big difference between helping an agency work well, and making it look good, when Johnson burst in, demanding to know, "So who's doing that?"

Further discussion about whom IGs actually work for ensued, but Johnson flatly declared that it's the executive branch that hires and fires them, so that was that.  While the IG law does require reports to be submitted equally to the agency chief and the Congress, Johnson maintained, it is "forbidden at all costs" for an IG to have an informal relationship with Congress.   

Several voices from the IGs in the audience piped up, informing Johnson--apparently for the first time--that IGs frequently receive requests for studies (or "unfunded mandates," as one put it) from their Congressional oversight committees.  One IG noted that the IG law requires, as part of its independence provisions, that IGs keep the Congress "fully and currently informed" of pertinent issues.  He added pointedly that their boss, the entity to which the IGs are accountable, "would be the American people."

Another IG opined that not only must IGs be independent of their agencies' leadership, but that the IG "has no boss" in terms of directing what to investigate or audit, and how to go about it.

One slightly surreal moment arose toward the end of our session, when Johnson declared quite firmly that there has "not been one instance of an IG not having the independence needed to do a good job."  To your POGO team's disappointment, no one from the audience spoke up to deny the patently erroneous assertion--despite many of those people in the room having privately confided in us of their own experiences being chilled by their management.  It was left to us to give two examples of such interference that we felt confident discussing publicly.   

The panel ended shortly after I agreed with Johnson's statement that transparency about IGs' activities is important.  Whereupon Johnson threw his arms around Danielle and exclaimed, "Harmony!"

-- Beverley Lumpkin

Important Victory for Inspector General Oversight & Accountability

Late Wednesday night, the Senate passed its version of legislation to amend the law governing federal Inspectors General, after an amendment offered by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) finally broke through the logjam that had blocked the bill's passage since last November.

Congratulations are most definitely in order for the bill's bipartisan sponsors--Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Claire McCaskill (D-MO)--but special kudos should be saved for their dedicated staffers who labored so long and hard to deal with the objections of different stakeholders, not least among them the White House.

In attaining a form that could pass unanimously, the bill was frankly watered down from its original form.  POGO has strongly supported certain changes to current law that we believe would increase both the independence and accountability of the IGs; see our February report on the first part of our ongoing review of the IG system, Inspectors General: Many Lack Essential Tools for Independence. We regret the current bill does not include all the improvements we favor, but are pleased to see the important provisions that it does contain.  We will continue to work with members on both sides of the Hill in the hope they will eventually enact all of the recommendations we proposed in our report.

The bill now must go to conference to sort out the differences with H.R. 928, passed by an overwhelming 404-11 last year.  There are some major differences between the two bills, most notably regarding terms of office (the House favors a 7-year term for presidentially-appointed IGs, but the Senate dropped that provision in deference to administration objections) and dismissal (the House listed ten reasons that would constitute the only cause for dismissal of an IG; the Senate merely requires the president to notify Congress 30 days before dismissal).  However, the political reality is such that if anything is going to prevail this year it will likely be the Senate version, which carries the administration's grudging agreement, if not quite enthusiastic support.

As the 64 statutory IGs gather for their annual conference next week, they will have much to celebrate in the Senate bill's passage:

• The president must notify Congress 30 days prior to the removal of any IG, along with the reasons for dismissal or transfer.

• All IGs must have either their own legal counsel or must use the services of another IG's lawyer. In any case they must not rely upon advice from their agency's general counsel, a clear conflict of interest.

• A Council on Integrity and Efficiency for Inspectors General was created, combining the two existing councils set up under executive order. Now with a statutory basis, the Council will help IGs coordinate training and other programs. The Council will also establish a statutory Integrity Committee to deal with accusations of wrongdoing brought against IGs or their senior staff members. Specific provisions will ensure more accountability and transparency in future investigations of such allegations.

• All IG websites must be clearly and directly accessible from their agencies' home pages, and IG reports must be posted within 3 working days of release.

• The Council on Integrity and Efficiency will recommend a slate of qualified candidates for any IG vacancy.

• The president's budget submission will reflect not only how much money is requested for each IG office, but also how much money the IG requested.

• Pay levels for all IGs were raised, but in return IGs may not accept a cash bonus or award.

Senator Kyl's amendment clarified, improved, and/or watered down some of the provisions, but was necessary to gain White House approval and unaimous consent of the Senate:

• Although the president must give Congress 30 days' notice before an IG is removed, during that time he may take other actions, such as suspending him or preventing him from taking any official actions. This clearly improves the provision in the case of an IG accused of wrongdoing. As Kyl noted, "We should not assume that inspectors general will be immune to human failings."

• Sen. Kyl also clarified that although IGs must seek advice from their own counsel, the agency's general counsel will remain the chief legal authority within the agency.

• The budget provision was somewhat diluted by a requirement that an IG must assert that he would be inhibited in the performance of his duties before he may submit a separate budget request.

• Finally, Kyl's amendment did away with Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine's most cherished desire: that he be granted authority to investigate Justice lawyers accused of engaging in professional misconduct. Such allegations--as distinct from questions of fraud or abuse--are currently handled by the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), and Kyl, in a masterpiece of faint praise, announced that "there is no evidence that this Office's reviews are anything less than adequate."

Kyl did grouse that OPR had dared to look into legal analyses produced to support the Bush administration's war on terror, but concluded that "the notion of extending that Office's authority to the inspector general is totally unacceptable. Inspectors general investigate waste, fraud, and abuse. They are suited neither by temperament nor experience to second guess whether a Justice Department lawyer should have investigated a matter, prosecuted a case, or offered a legal opinion."

POGO believes that the OPR/OIG situation is not ideal, however. Necessary changes include making clear that OPR would not have jurisdiction over allegations involving the Attorney General or anyone in his office, or the Deputy Attorney General or anyone in his office, since OPR reports to the AG and the Deputy AG. Further, the OIG should be informed immediately of every investigation opened by OPR. We have been informed that both of these changes could be accomplished by "the stroke of a pen," as one senior DOJ official put it; i.e., by internal order signed by the Attorney General. However, POGO believes that ultimately these changes should be made legislatively.

We applaud the Senate for its action, and fervently hope that the two Houses will name conferees and produce a compromise bill ready for the president's signature absolutely as soon as possible.

-- Beverley Lumpkin

DOJ Issues Guidelines on Corporate Monitors

The Department of Justice recently issued new guidelines for the selection of corporate monitors in deferred prosecution agreements with companies accused of breaking the law.

A March 7 memo drafted by former acting deputy attorney general Craig Morford sets forth nine basic principles governing the selection and scope of duties of corporate monitors. From now on, prosecutors will be required to consult with U.S. attorneys, the Criminal Division, and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General before selecting monitors, who must be selected from a pool of at least three candidates. The selection must be based on merit, with an emphasis on avoiding potential or actual conflicts of interest. Finally, the government must "obtain a commitment" from the company that it will not employ or be affiliated with the monitor for at least one year after the monitorship ends. (The memo does not mention the fact that corporate monitors are paid--often quite handsomely--by the company. In fact, the guidelines are completely silent on the issue of monitor compensation, even though it was this very issue that caused a public outcry and spurred Justice to act.)

Readers of this blog might be familiar with the events leading up to the new guidelines. As POGO noted last December and again in January, U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie raised eyebrows last year with his selection of his former boss, ex-Attorney General John Ashcroft, to be the monitor of a medical supply company Christie's office prosecuted for fraud. The arrangement will net Ashcroft and his consulting firm up to $52 million.

Hearings on this issue continue in Congress. Ashcroft was scheduled to testify today before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. In addition, both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have requested a GAO inquiry into deferred prosecution agreements and corporate monitor appointments, and lawmakers have sent letters of inquiry to Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

POGO welcomes the additional oversight of corporate monitors and deferred prosecution agreements, but we hope it doesn't draw attention away from a more important goal: keeping corporations from breaking the law in the first place.

-- Neil Gordon

FAA Providing Inadequate Oversight of Suppliers

"Neither manufacturers nor FAA inspectors have provided effective oversight of suppliers; this has allowed substandard parts to enter the aviation supply chain," a Transportation Department IG audit, first disclosed by POGO, states. In other words, defective parts, that can lead to plane crashes, are ending up unnecessarily and at far too high of an acceptable rate on planes because companies and the FAA are shirking their responsibility to the flying public.

Some examples cited in the report are:

• Manufacturers were not verifying that their suppliers were providing effective oversight of the sub-tier suppliers they used to produce parts. This is a critical safety issue, as demonstrated by four engine failures that occurred in FY 2003 due to faulty speed sensors on fuel pumps obtained from a supplier. Three of the engine failures occurred on the ground and one occurred in flight. The part failures were traced to unapproved design changes made by a sub-tier supplier. In all, 152 parts were manufactured in the suspect population.

• Effective oversight of suppliers is essential to ensure that substandard parts do not enter the aviation supply chain. For example, in February 2003, 1 supplier released approximately 5,000 parts that were not manufactured properly for use on landing gear for large commercial passenger aircraft. At least one of these landing gear parts failed while in service. While FAA became aware of this large-scale breakdown at this supplier in 2003, it has not performed a supplier audit at this facility in the last 4 years.

The IG found in 20 out of 21 suppliers that there were "widespread deficiencies at supplier facilities used by major aviation manufacturers. We found that some aircraft manufacturers had not designed effective oversight systems for their aircraft part suppliers." The IG added, "Manufacturers are the first line of defense in ensuring the products used on their aircraft meet FAA and manufacturers' standards. Yet, during the 24 months preceding our review, manufacturers had not audited 6 of the 21 critical part suppliers we visited."

In a striking statistic on the "second line of defense"--FAA oversight--the IG stated "in each of the last 4 years, FAA has inspected an average of 1 percent of the total suppliers used by the five manufacturers we reviewed. At FAA's current surveillance rate, it would take inspectors at least 98 years to audit every supplier once. This is particularly troubling because, as discussed previously, manufacturers are not evaluating these suppliers frequently or comprehensively." The number of FAA supplier audits has declined even as the issue of supplier oversight has been identified as one of six top issues in aviation manufacturing. One FAA Manufacturing Inspection District Office manager told the IG that "his inspector workload had been cut almost in half under the new risk-based system."

Though industry and the FAA have offered public assurances that they are addressing problems identified by the IG, some of their statements have been highly disturbing.

In response to a CNN segment on the IG report, the FAA deflected criticism, rather than publicly embracing the findings as constructive. According to the CNN transcript:

In a conference call with CNN officials from the FAA made it clear final responsibility rests with the companies. Quote, "Safety in aviation first and foremost rests with the manufacturers, not the Federal Aviation Administration. Courts have made that clear."

Those same officials also said they're satisfied with the way the companies assure the quality of parts, noting that an inspector general's report is never positive and always harsh in tone.

Despite numerous cited instances of defective parts making their way onto planes, some even failing in flight due to quality control problems, the FAA simply sought to minimize the safety concerns raised. To the Washington Post, FAA spokeswoman Alison Duquette said, "There are absolutely no imminent safety issues raised by the report."

This mirrors previous statements the FAA has made in response to previous IG reports. For example, a 2003 IG report on weak oversight of airplane maintenance found "potentially fatal malfeasance at 85 percent of the facilities it checked," as Air Safety Week put it, since the IG found numerous serious problems in maintenance work that were the same kinds of problems that have led to previous plane crashes. In response, then-FAA administrator Marion Blakey said, "There's no data in the report to support a safety issue."

Earlier in 2000, the IG performed an audit very similar to the one just released, but on a narrower scope: the quality control of fasteners used in the manufacture and upkeep of planes. After encountering numerous delays and denials of the IG's lab-based findings from the FAA, the IG noted in its report that evidence suggested a "systemic weakness in FAA's process to evaluate safety issues brought to the agency's attention."

POGO believes these issues merit attention from Congress, including public hearings.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

"Straddling the Barbed Wire Fence"

That's the way one longtime Inspector General (IG) described his job--the fact that an IG has a dual responsibility, to report both to his agency head and also to Congress, can frequently put him in an uncomfortable position.  Then-State Department IG Sherman Funk told Congress in 1988 that's the way he felt, and it seems not much has changed since.  Another IG told POGO that whenever he walks into a meeting at his agency, everybody groans, because they know they're going to hear some bad news.

As if it isn't bad enough being the proverbial skunk at the picnic, IGs also are forced to accomplish their near-impossible missions with few of the tools they need to get the job done.  That's the basic conclusion of a new report from POGO, part one of a major study of the federal Inspector General system.  This first report--which has been covered in Government Executive and the Washington Post--focuses on issues of independence, and what happens when IGs don't have it.  A second, later report will address questions of IG accountability, performance and effectiveness.

This first part points out that an IG without independence is an impostor:  "Calling someone who lacks independence of agency leadership an 'Inspector General' not only confuses the press and public, but can also create pitfalls for potential whistleblowers.  The sincere…whistleblower may believe he or she is approaching an independent arbiter and end up sadly mistaken."

POGO began its project with a questionnaire to all the IGs who fall under the 30-year-old Inspector General law, and received responses from 49 of the 64.  Those replies form the backbone of POGO's report, and they reveal sometimes surprising information and insight.

One issue that POGO finds troubling is the non-statutory IGs--those not covered by the law--who have the title but not the independence.  These so-called IGs can be found at the military service agencies, like the Army, Air Force or Navy; on military posts and bases; and at the Defense Department's intelligence agencies, like NSA, NRO and DIA.  Again, a sincere whistleblower may be misled and not understand that these IGs report only to their agency chiefs.

Of the 64 statutory IGs, 30 are presidentially-appointed and 34 are appointed by the heads of their agency.  The latter group of IGs, who mainly serve at the smaller agencies or commissions, are often grotesquely under-resourced, and they have a difficult time even having their voices heard.  One of those IGs said, "We're a little like the step-child of the IG community."

It's not just that many of these IGs don't get enough resources to do their jobs properly; they can't even get their foot in the door, because they don't have a separate budget account in their agency's budget.  So they are very much at the mercy of their agency heads when budget time rolls around.  They have trouble getting the staffing they need, and sometimes even when they've been granted funds by Congress, their agencies deny approval for the IGs to spend that money.  Some IGs--and not just the smaller ones--have also run into problems trying to control their own web pages on the agency's websites.  Agencies like to think of their websites as places for the agencies to shine, and they hate having to post IG reports that tend to focus on the agencies' failings.  Some IGs--even including the Defense Department--also don't have their own legal counsel, which means they don't get legal advice dedicated to their own mission.  Some of these IGs are forced to rely on advice from their agencies' general counsels--a situation POGO considers a clear conflict of interest.

POGO has made a number of recommendations that it believes will assist the IGs in accomplishing their mission.  Among them:

• Create a resource pool of trained professionals--lawyers, auditors, investigators, IT experts, etc.--to assist IG offices on a temporary basis

• Revive the long-lost practice of choosing IGs from a slate of qualified candidates submitted by a committee of IGs

• Establish separate budget authority and transparent public budgets for all IGs

• Clarify that once an IG's budget is approved, expenditures can be made without further approval

• Require IG offices either to have their own counsel or to consult with another IG's counsel--but in any case not to rely on agency general counsel

• Require each agency to establish a clear and direct link to the IG's page from the agency home page, and provide IGs autonomy over their own content

Legislation that has passed the House and is currently pending in the Senate would address some, but not all, of the problems POGO has highlighted.

-- Beverley Lumpkin

Bloch's Double Standard

Two weeks ago, U.S. Special Counsel Scott Bloch accused the Department of Justice (DOJ) of blocking his supposed investigations into the U.S. attorney firings when DOJ's Inspector General asked Bloch to defer his review until they had completed their own investigation.  At the time, the dueling investigations argument didn't pass muster with Bloch's office.  But that same defense was good enough for Bloch to use in his own defense last week in a letter to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and Ranking Member Tom Davis.

The Committee wants to question Bloch about his seven-level wipe of computers at his office.  That may have been an effort to cover up wrongdoing or obstruct an investigation into Bloch himself, according to the Wall Street Journal.  Bloch has canceled scheduled interviews with the Committee twice.

According to Bloch's letter last week:

This letter is in response to your letter of January 16, 2008 regarding the Committee's request for a transcribed interview of me.  I continue to have substantial concerns about the Committee's request because any such interview may touch on a matter that remains under investigation by the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM").

That sounds familiar.  According to the Washington Post a few weeks back:

[DOJ Inspector General Glenn] Fine's office generally does not comment on investigations, but Cynthia Schnedar, a spokeswoman for the inspector general, rejected Bloch's letter as "both factually inaccurate and misleading."

She added: "We agree with the Department of Justice that the more responsible course would be for Mr. Bloch to postpone his limited review--as OSC has stated that it has done in other instances--so that it does not interfere with the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility's comprehensive joint investigation into the U.S. Attorney firings."

James P. Mitchell, a spokesman for Bloch, challenged Fine's office to explain the alleged inaccuracies in detail.  "We have our jurisdiction," he said.  "We have always said we will not be interfering with this investigation."

Looming in the background are questions as well about whether Bloch perjured himself when he testified before the Committee's Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia. Members of Congress questioned Mr. Bloch at the hearing about the circumstances surrounding the leak of an Office of Special Counsel report chastising GSA Administrator Lurita Doan.  Sources say Bloch lied when he claimed he knew nothing about the leak of the report, and that he, in fact, may have directed that it be leaked in order to bask in the media spotlight.

Sources also raise questions about whether Bloch's supposed investigation of the U.S. attorney firings at DOJ is even within OSC's jurisdiction, whether he is being disingenuous in claiming to be actively investigating Karl Rove, or whether Bloch is simply using every last trick in the book, from seven level security wipes to phony high profile investigations, to save his own hide.

-- Beth Daley

Bill Moyers reports on congressional oversight

The latest edition of Bill Moyers Journal on PBS, which aired last Friday, provides an informative snapshot of congressional oversight. In particular, it covers the past year's worth of investigations conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform under the leadership of Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA). The episode is available to watch online in two parts along with summaries, transcripts, and links to relevant information.

Rep. Waxman's committee has played a leading role in unraveling the Administration's abuses of power and taxpayer dollars. The Bill Moyers episode focuses on a few of the committee's more prominent investigations – including GSA administrator Lurita Doan's alleged use of her agency's resources for Republican party politics, the potentially illegal activities of Iraq contractors hired by the State Department (e.g., First Kuwaiti and Blackwater), and former State Department Inspector General Howard "Cookie" Krongard's improper ties to Blackwater.

On a more general level, the House committee's work over the past year has been to create an extensive documentation of the Administration's policies and practices. This has proven to be a monumental task considering that executive secrecy has increased dramatically under the current President. As Rep. Waxman states at the end of his interview with Moyers, "I think this administration is doing a lot, maybe all it can, to keep from being held accountable."

This is particularly true when it comes to federal contracting, which has roughly doubled over the past decade to currently $400 billion per year. Rep. Waxman notes that almost half of this amount has been distributed without open competition, thus making it difficult to determine if the government is receiving the best products and services at the lowest cost. Furthermore, this lack of competition has led to instances of corruption and kickbacks.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has certainly gone a long way towards reasserting the "oversight" function in Congress. For more information on the committee's efforts, Marc Ash, Executive Director of Truthout, also conducted an interview (video available online) with Rep. Waxman in December.

-- John Pruett

Dept. of Interior IG Aims to Increase Mineral Royalties Oversight

The Department of Interior’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has revealed its intentions to create a new division to provide “more oversight of royalties” collected from mineral production on public lands, according to OIG Central Regional Audit Manager Jack Rouch, who will be responsible for the division. Mr. Rouch announced the plans at the most recent meeting of the State and Tribal Royalty Audit Committee on January 16-17 in Sacramento, California.

The new division’s priorities and workload are still being determined, but Mr. Rouch indicated that they would include a balance between additional oversight of royalty collections and auditing of the companies that owe royalties to the government. However, he stated that it’s “not [the OIG’s] intent to duplicate audits already being done” but, instead, to “establish more oversight and dedicate more resources” to the area of royalty management.

The OIG’s current plans place the new division at Mr. Rouch’s Central Region audit office in Lakewood, Colorado. The division will initially include six staff employees. Three of these employees are presently working to complete an OIG study of the Minerals Management Service’s (MMS) royalty-in-kind (RIK) oil program, and the remaining three will be added through a hiring process.

The division’s operating budget has not yet been made public, but this year’s activities will be funded from an FY 2008 congressional appropriations increase of almost $6 million over last year. The appropriations increase amounted to over $2 million more than the President’s budget request for FY 2008 (pdf).

This development comes in the wake of heightened scrutiny of MMS’s royalty management program. Much of the recent scrutiny has been in response to revelations that royalty measures were inappropriately omitted from offshore oil and gas leases. The OIG investigated the issue (pdf) last year. The OIG has also recently reported on problems with MMS’s royalty compliance review process (pdf) and on agency retaliation against whistleblowers (pdf).

Also, last month, an independent subcommittee with Interior’s Royalty Policy Committee (RPC) released an extensive report detailing recommendations for improving royalty management. On January 25, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced that the agency will “immediately” implement the subcommittee’s administrative proposals. POGO’s statement to the RPC addressing the recommendations can be found here.

-- John Pruett

Corporate Monitor Investigation Picks Up Steam

If a tree falls in the forest and the New York Times doesn’t report it, does it make a sound?

POGO ponders this in light of the recent brouhaha over deferred prosecution agreements, specifically the one implemented in New Jersey by U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie, in which his former boss, John Ashcroft, was awarded a multi-million dollar corporate monitor contract. Readers of this blog might remember POGO weighing in on this last month, but it was this January 10 article in the “Gray Lady” that really kicked up the dust and brought this issue to the forefront.

Last September, Christie appointed his ex-boss, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, to be the corporate monitor of a company involved in a deferred prosecution agreement with Christie’s office. Ashcroft’s consulting firm stands to earn up to $52 million on what essentially amounts to a sole source contract drawn up entirely at Christie’s discretion. The company, Zimmer Holdings, must pay for Ashcroft’s services or else face prosecution. The public might not have learned about the fee arrangement (and the entire matter might have gone largely unnoticed in the first place) had Zimmer Holdings not disclosed it in an SEC filing.

On Wednesday, the chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees – Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) – requested a GAO inquiry into deferred prosecution agreements and corporate monitor appointments. This action follows letters of inquiry Conyers and other lawmakers sent to Attorney General Michael Mukasey on these issues. According to the Times article, the Department of Justice is conducting its own investigation in order to come up with formal procedures for the selection of corporate monitors.

POGO supports efforts to add more transparency and oversight to these relatively new prosecutorial tools. However, we hope one especially important issue does not get overlooked. According to the Newark Star-Ledger, Christie did not impose criminal fines on Zimmer Holdings because he knew it would be paying substantial monitoring fees. The company is still being punished, but is the public getting short-changed if ill-gotten gains go to a corporate monitor – especially one who has connections to the prosecutor – instead of the government?

– Neil Gordon

Cookie Crumbles

While POGO also has “concerns regarding inherent structural and conceptual defects in the inspector general position” (though we have a sneaking suspicion our concerns may be very different) we are not weeping over Howard “Cookie” Krongard’s resignation announcement today as the Department of State’s Inspector General (IG), given the allegations raised about his leadership and conduct. 

Congressman Harry Waxman’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee compiled a long list of examples from several current and former State Dept. IG employees about how Krongard blocked, white-washed, or repeatedly halted investigations.

Also, one would have little faith in an inspector general who claimed, under oath, in November to have no idea that his brother A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard was recently named to the Advisory Board of Blackwater Worldwide, a private security firm Krongard’s office was supposed to be investigating for human rights and contracting abuses in Iraq.

POGO has long emphasized the right balance of accountability and independence in the institution of IGs and believes in the old adage that they should be “as pure as Caesar’s wife.” Thus we find it rather odd that in his resignation letter to the White House, Krongard suggests that there is too much oversight, in that public servants such as himself are threatened by the level of “rancor and distrust” between political parties, the executive and legislative branch, the media and various interest groups.

-- Ingrid Drake

Bloch Scrubs Dirty Computers

Instead of going with the in-house computer technicians, Office of Special Counsel-head Scott Bloch hired Geeks on Call for a 7-layer scrub of his computer and several office laptops to get rid of a virus last December, reports today’s Wall Street Journal. Such a cleaning is not usually performed for viruses, commented the guy in charge at DC’s Geeks on Call franchise. The cleansing occurred while the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Inspector General (IG) was looking into allegations that Bloch “improperly retaliated against employees and dismissed whistleblower cases without adequate examination,” writes WSJ reporter John Wilke.

Whether or not this unauthorized battle against the computer viruses was a cover-up or an improper administrative protocol will be the determination of the OPM IG, but POGO is wondering if Bloch can do anything that would get him fired. Today, POGO, along with several whistleblower protections groups and current and former OSC staff, sent a letter to President Bush recommending that he should remove Bloch from his position as Special Counsel.

POGO has repeatedly criticized Bloch's administrative actions on our blog. Today's news can be added to a long list of concerns, which includes inappropriately steering contracts (pdf) to friends and cronies, interfering with politically-sensitive investigations, closing hundreds of whistleblower files summarily without investigation, and advising female staff members to wear skirts that could lead to flashing their co-workers.

-- Ingrid Drake

Cookie and Buzzy

Remember the cozy little Blackwater-Krongard picture we drew for you a month or so ago?  Well, it just got cozier.  Today, Chairman Henry Waxman, of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, revealed that State Department Inspector General Howard "Cookie" Krongard's brother, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard, sits on Blackwater's advisory board.  Cookie's outfit, the State Department OIG, is involved in investigating Blackwater.  Initially he denied that his brother was on the board, but after calling him, Cookie discovered that Waxman's charge was, in fact, true.  E-M-B-A-R-R-A-S-S-I-N-G. He then said he would recuse himself from all Blackwater matters in his office.

UPDATE: Spencer Ackerman at TPM Muckraker caught a big one.

 

-- Nick Schwellenbach

Senators Propose Reforms for Inspectors General

Yesterday, Senators McCaskill, Collins, Lieberman and Coburn introduced legislation (S. 2324) to strengthen Inspectors General (IGs) in the federal government, those watchdogs who make government function better and root out waste, fraud and abuse. This bill is the counterpart to Representative Jim Cooper's House legislation which passed handily by a vote of 404 to 11 in early October. CongressDaily reports S 2324 will be marked up next Wednesday in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and is expected to be moved to the floor quickly.

As POGO has pointed out on this blog, the independence of numerous IGs has been under assault in recent years including the Small Business Administration IG, Central Intelligence Agency IG and the General Services Administration IG. On top of that, several IGs have come under a cloud of controversy and have been investigated for wrongdoing despite their unique place in government as leading guardians of ethics and integrity.

The Senate bill, which is similar in many respects to the House legislation, would do much to improve the IG system and bolster IG independence so that they can effectively carry out their fraud-fighting, government accountability activities without political interference.  There are a few changes from the House version, most notably the dropping of a fixed seven-year term for IGs, and the requirement they can only be dismissed for cause.  The Senate bill instead requires the President or agency head to notify Congress of the reasons for dismissal or transfer at least 30 days beforehand.

-- Beth Daley

Secret Briefing to House Intel on the CIA IG Today

The House intelligence committee is holding a closed door meeting on the CIA's Inspector General today, presumably to figure out if its independence is being threatened by the actions of CIA chief Michael Hayden and his subordinates.

Though there may be some anonymice going to some of the major papers, the House intelligence committee should make transcripts of this hearing available, consistent with the needs of national security.  Which means if there is information that is truly sensitive (it should go without saying that embarrassing information is not sensitive), redact it, but the blanket cloak of secrecy itself may undermine the full effectiveness of congressional oversight.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

Fireworks Over SBA Inspector General Report

Senator John Kerry threw down the gauntlet yesterday over a Small Business Administration Inspector General report (pdf) that got the heavy black marker treatment from the agency. According to a release from Kerry’s office:

The Small Business Administration (SBA) took the highly unusual step of requesting that the Inspector General redact large portions of its report, including the majority of its recommendations, the agency’s responses to those recommendations, and the Inspector General’s comments on the agency’s response.

And, according to Senator Kerry’s letter to the SBA Administrator (pdf), “The OIG has stated that it does not necessarily agree with the extent of the redactions, and I am inclined to agree.”

In fact, the redactions were so extreme that they included the first three of the IG’s recommendations, and both the SBA’s response to the recommendations and the IG’s reply to that response.

An unusual note by the SBA Office of General Counsel prefaces the report and draws attention to the extensive redactions: "Although the Office of the Inspector General does not necessarily agree with the extent of, as a courtesy, we have agreed to redact this text." [emphasis added]

Just in case you think the IG protests too much, check out the Results in Brief section, pp. 4-7 of the report.  That’s a huge waste of a lot of perfectly good black ink.

There is often tension between government agencies and their Inspector General watchdogs who can be the bearer of bad news about those agencies. POGO has been researching the effectiveness and independence of the IG’s. We’ve already found other instances where IGs have had their reports unnecessarily redacted by agencies or where the agency has simply refused to post an IG’s reports on the web.

Inspector General legislation THAT passed by a vote of 404-11 in the House, despite a Presidential veto threat, would require that all IG reports be posted on the web within three days. The Senate will likely take up corresponding legislation in the coming days.

Meanwhile, Senator Kerry promises a hearing in the near future.

-- Beverley Lumpkin and Beth Daley

First Congress, now his peers: More trouble for Cookie

We learn today that State Department Inspector General Howard “Cookie” Krongard is under investigation by the Integrity Committee of the council that coordinates activities of presidentially-appointed IGs, the President’s Committee on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE).

POGO has previously noted the serious questions raised by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about Krongard’s actions. In a scathing 14-page letter sent in September, Chairman Henry Waxman accused Krongard of impeding investigations launched by his staff into allegations of waste and fraud.  A number of those staffers have sought protection under federal whistleblower laws.  Now Government Executive writer Peter Stone quotes another IG staffer who says he was forced out after raising questions about defects in the new US Embassy in Baghdad.

Ralph McNamara, a former deputy assistant IG at State, told Stone he was interviewed in September by FBI agents doing a preliminary inquiry at the behest of the PCIE’s Integrity Committee.

The PCIE exists only under executive order at present.  Current legislation now pending in Congress would establish the council as a statutory body, with a clear line of funding, and delineated responsibilities to coordinate training and professionalism in IG offices throughout the federal government.

After a second letter from Waxman to Krongard in late September that accused him of allowing intimidation of potential witnesses, Krongard hired Barbara “Biz” van Gelder to represent him.  Gov. Exec. quotes Van Gelder saying the allegations about Krongard having impeded investigations were based on “imperfect recollections.”  Van Gelder most recently was in the news defending former White House aide David Safavian, found guilty in June 2006 of lying and obstructing justice as part of the Abramoff scandal.

-- Beverley Lumpkin

The CIA IG's Independence Threatened

In an unusual and highly troubling move, CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden has ordered an internal investigation of the CIA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) after that internal watchdog issued numerous critical reports which have bred resentment among the secretive agency's operatives, in particular those involved in the CIA's secret prisons program, the Los Angeles Times and New York Times report.

This is an unprecedented instance of an agency or department head beginning their own investigation into their own inspector general.  Usually when there are allegations of wrongdoing by a presidentially-appointed inspector general or senior OIG staff, the matter is turned over to the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE)--an association of all of the government's presidentially-appointed IGs (agency head-appointed IGs, which tend to exist at smaller agencies, are part of the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency).  By turning to a body outside of the IG's agency or department, the independence of the IG is not undermined.  Compounding the institutional conflict of interest of an agency investigation into its own watchdog, is the important detail that the internal investigation is headed by someone long close to Hayden, attorney Robert Dietz, who was the National Security Agency's general counsel under Hayden in the 1990s.  Hayden's move is highly troubling and violates the spirit of the IG Act, as well as the independence of the CIA IG.

The LA Times quotes Frederick P. Hitz, who served as the CIA's inspector general from 1990 to 1998, who told them that Hayden was sending a signal to John Helgerson, the CIA IG, "to call off the dogs."

"What it would lead to is an undercutting of the inspector general's authority and his ability to investigate allegations of wrongdoing," Hitz told the LA Times. "The rank and file will become aware of it, and it will undercut the inspector general's ability to get the truth from them."

Former Defense Department IG Eleanor Hill has repeatedly and strongly stressed that the Defense Department intelligence agencies--including notably the National Security Agency, formerly headed by Hayden--do not have statutorily independent IGs.  She has rather scathingly pointed out (pdf) that military service and Defense Department agency IGs often would come to her, since they did not have the clout, independence or resources to fully tackle certain kinds of sensitive investigations themselves:

As Defense IG, I worked closely with the military IGs and oversaw many of their investigations. My work with them - and with many other administrative Defense Agency IGs - reinforced my belief that independence is absolutely essential for federal statutory IGs. Military IGs often requested that our office conduct top-level, particularly sensitive investigations since they did not believe they had the independence needed to conduct an investigation that would both be and appear to be objective. I had similar conversations with some administrative Defense Agency IGs, who are appointed and serve, without the benefit of statutorily-protected independence, at the pleasure of the Directors of their agencies. All of those IGs recognized that in investigations of very senior officials or in audits of programs dear to the agency head, the statutorily protected independence of the Departmental IG was critical to both the integrity of the inquiry and to the credibility of the findings in the Department, on Capitol Hill, and with the American public. I could not help but recall those conversations when I read reports last year that oversight of what has been referred to as NSA’s “terrorist surveillance program” had been handled by the NSA IG, who has limited resources and no statutory independence, and not by the Department of Defense IG. In my view, that is exactly the kind of program where the oversight should have been conducted, from the very beginning, by the independent Defense Department IG.

Perhaps Hayden, due to his years at NSA, was accustomed to IGs who have less independence and latitude, and thus he wasn’t ready for an independent and assertive IG at the CIA.  Unfortunately for Hayden, Helgerson has the law behind him and Hayden should back off.  If there is indeed a problem with the CIA IG, the investigation should be placed in the hands of an entity outside of the CIA--the PCIE or a congressional intelligence committee (but definitely not the Office of Special Counsel).

-- Nick Schwellenbach and Beverley Lumpkin

Maybe the Facts are Just Biased

This week, Scott Bloch, the head of the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC)--the lead federal agency for investigating whistleblower claims--charged that the non-profit Government Accountability Project (GAP) "cherry picked" statistics to show that there is a decline in the help OSC offers to whistleblowers.  Are GAP's facts even cherry picked though?  Bloch didn't really say anywhere in his 672 word opinion piece how they were wrong, he just asserted they were while saying that under his tenure OSC has doubled its positive findings for whistleblowers (which GAP says is a result of OSC broadening "its definition of favorable actions")--though he cites no numbers or years himself.

The only places I saw stats or numbers--based on OSC's own reports--mentioned by GAP's Tom Devine and Adam Miles in their op-ed were:

• According to OSC's own reports, the number of "favorable actions" OSC obtained for whistleblowers, its primary constituency, fell from 98 in fiscal 2002 — the last full year of the previous special counsel — to 40 in fiscal 2006. The figure of 40 is an inflated one considering that OSC broadened its definition of favorable actions in 2005.
• Our analysis of OSC's annual reports indicates that the percentage of complainants helped by OSC, 2.49 percent, is the lowest since the Whistleblower Protection Act's 1989 passage.

Unless Bloch can somehow refute his own office's numbers or GAP's analysis of them, this reminds me of this famous Daily Show exchange:

Rob Corddry: How does one report the facts in an unbiased way when the facts themselves are biased?

Jon Stewart: I'm sorry, Rob, did you say the facts are biased?

-- Nick Schwellenbach