By NICK SCHWELLENBACH
The Pentagon's top civilian official in charge of personnel issues has been accused of being incompetent, gutting his office of expertise by driving out employees, retaliating against employees with dissenting views, wasting $5 million on outside consultants to perform an inherently governmental function, and other issues according to at least four complaints to the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG) and Congress sent from May through August.
Employees within the Defense Department wrote the letters. POGO is making three of these complaints public. These three complaints have all been made anonymously; however, POGO has verified that they were written by DoD employees and has confirmed that several congressional offices and the DoD IG have received them. The complaints from May, July, and August were written by different groups of employees, one senior DoD official told POGO.
Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith told National Journal’s Megan Scully, who reported on these complaints a week ago, that “the department is aware of the allegations and takes them seriously.” Scully wrote that the investigation into Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD P&R) Clifford Stanley, “one of the Pentagon's most senior and powerful appointees, could pose the first significant personnel challenge for new Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.” The Army Times’ Karen Jowers first reported on some of these allegations in July.
Stanley and his office did not respond to press inquiries by both the Army Times and National Journal. POGO sent a detailed list of many of the allegations to Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith for further comment, but was sent a generic response that did not directly address the allegations. She wrote that “the personnel and readiness enterprise must create a culture of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency to meet the emerging needs of our service members and their families.” Underscoring the high level nature of the issue, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little also sent POGO a statement. “Secretary Panetta values Dr. Stanley's experience, skill, and dedication and believes that he is working hard to support our troops and their families,” Little wrote. “He's an important part of the Pentagon's senior leadership team."
The steady drumbeat of allegations from multiple parts of Stanley’s office cannot be brushed off easily. The complaints against Stanley come as the issues under his purview have become increasingly challenging. For instance, budgetary pressures have forced the Pentagon to scrutinize the cost of its workforce, particularly service contractors. Stanley’s office also plays a key role in tackling DoD’s health care costs, which have spiraled as significant numbers of troops return home wounded, including the “invisible” wounds of Traumatic Brain Injury and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Yet the complaints say that Stanley and a coterie of individuals that he has brought into the Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD P&R) have hindered the ability of that office to competently address these very issues.
Leadership of DoD Personnel Office “Decimated”
According to a July 11, 2011, complaint, Stanley “has decimated the leadership core of” the OUSD P&R. The “best people (many recipients or nominees of Presidential Rank awards) have been forced to leave, typically with no explanation.” It adds that “30 members of the SES [Senior Executive Service] have been fired; forced to retire or resign; detailed involuntarily; or marginalized in other ways.”
At the same time, all three complaints say Stanley has installed people with less experience. A May 2011 complaint cites as one example “an SES position filled by an experienced Army social worker who had House Veterans Affairs Committee experience [who] was replaced by a former Acting Director of Security at BWI Airport” (the complaint says this position was not competed in violation of the hiring process).
This particular “loss of leadership impacted” the effectiveness of the Wounded Warrior Care and Transition Policy Office, which, under Stanley’s predecessor, had developed plans to implement a Disability Evaluation System, the May complaint says. These joint DoD/Veterans Affairs (VA) plans to complete the Disability Evaluation System and Electronic Health Records were “not taken into consideration” by Stanley, leading to “disarray” and to the Army splitting from the OUSD P&R effort to work on its own separate plan with the VA.
One complaint dated August 3, 2011, says “because of Dr. Stanley’s disruptive leadership and siphoning funds for other purposes, a Wounded Warrior who lost a leg or his eyesight is now languishing in a Warrior Transition Unit this year for an additional 100 days!” This complaint was signed unnamed by “Some Members of the OSD [Office of Secretary of Defense] Wounded Warrior team, and some who work with them.”
Millions Wasted on Consultants, Complaint Says
The complaints say Stanley’s expenditures on consultants with McKinsey & Company constitute a waste of money. The contract with McKinsey was further inappropriate, according to the complaints, because millions were spent on McKinsey while the Wounded Warrior budget was cut, the contract was not competed, and some of the work McKinsey was tasked with is inherently governmental, i.e., work that is so intimately tied to the public interest that only federal employees should perform it.
The August complaint says that “while slashing the Wounded Warrior Budget by $11M, Dr. Stanley directed the Wounded Warrior office to pay $2.7M for the expensive and wasteful services of McKinsey and Company.” The July complaint says $5 million was spent on McKinsey to craft a strategic plan for the OUSD P&R and that the drafting of the strategic plan is an inherently governmental function violating the law. The plan crafted by McKinsey “has never been released or utilized,” the July complaint says.
In addition, the August complaint states that Stanley directed the Wounded Warrior office to pay for part of a $500,000 “unnecessary and sumptuous conference room.” These wasteful expenditures, the complaint says, “could have been used instead to pay for about 30 Recovery Care Coordinators, who could have made the lives of about 1,200 wounded soldiers and their families so much better.”
Incompetent?
Stanley also “does not know fundamental responsibilities” of his job, according to the July complaint. Among several other complaints of Stanley’s competence are allegations that he did not know the differences between the main legislative vehicles that fund and govern the DoD:
He has acknowledged on several occasions that he does not understand the difference between the Authorization Act and the Appropriations Act—while this may have been remediated since then, finally acquiring this basic information does not remotely mean he possesses the ability to conduct complex discussions with the Congress/OMB, or provide direction and leadership to the far-ranging P&R enterprise.
The July complaint says “the most challenging aspect of today’s Total Force Management is providing governance to unsustainable contracting costs.” (The Total Force consists of the armed forces, DoD government civilian workers, and service contractor employees.) But Stanley told a Senate subcommittee chaired by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) at a May hearing that contractors are “not under my cognizance.”
This contradicts page 4 of Stanley’s own written testimony where it states that contractors are “currently the largest cost element of the Total Force. The Department is committed to enhancing it [sic] understanding of what we contract for and why. We must also look at whether the returns justify the investments, and if alternative Total Force solutions are less costly.” The written testimony also states that, in accordance with the law, Stanley’s office “is working with all DoD organizations, to move towards collecting data from the private sector firms providing services for the Department.” According to the July complaint:
When after the hearing he was told by an individual [who was leaving OUSD and "had nothing to lose"] that he had answered the question incorrectly, Dr. Stanley stated that someone should have informed him that he did have responsibilities in this area. He was then informed that this information was in the pre-testimony statement he had provided to the Committee. His response indicated that he had apparently not read, remembered or understood it. However, his responsibilities in this area had been conveyed to him on many other occasions.
Stanley’s predecessor David Chu made presentations on the cost of service contractors while Chu was the USD P&R.
Charges that Stanley’s Subordinates Have Misled Congress
The August complaint was sent to the DoD IG and to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who chairs the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security. The complaint further says that Stanley’s chief of staff Lynn Simpson lied to Congress when she testified at a hearing before Chaffetz’s subcommittee on May 4, 2011. From the complaint:
Ms. Simpson has been the Chairperson of the DoD's Wounded Warrior Overarching Integrated Product Team which coordinates and vets everything that goes to the USD and the Deputy Secretary of Defense concerning Wounded Warriors. The increase in processing time has of course been a huge topic in the OIPT she has led. Additionally, in her role as Dr. Stanley's Chief of Staff she is involved in all priority issues. Of course, in the 2 May 2011 meeting between the Secretaries of Defense and the VA concerning Wounded Warrior matters it was a central issue; Ms Simpson implied to you 4 May she was not familiar with the meeting; this was not the case at all. She also stated that she was unaware that Disability Processing time had dramatically increased.
We believe Ms. Simpson lied to you under oath 4 May, a criminal offense.
Moreover, during your May 4th hearing Ms. Simpson repeatedly stated that she was unaware of the delays for processing disability claims, voicing surprise that they had radically increased. But she had just been fully briefed on this problem; it was known by all that the hearing would focus on this troubling fact.
A review of the hearing transcript confirms that Simpson said “I regret that I was not aware that the average time had gotten that high” and “I knew it was higher than 295, but I wasn't aware it was that high that was just mentioned earlier.”
According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) official who testified at the hearing, “as of March 31st, they're at 394 for active. And if you're a Marine, you're at 455 days. So these numbers are quickly closing in on the 540” days that it used to take to process disability claims. These numbers represent the average days that it takes from the time a disabled member of the armed forces receives their medical evaluation from the DoD to the time they receive a benefit check from the VA, according to Chaffetz’s opening statement.
Simpson was promoted to chief of staff under Stanley and Acting Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness in April 2010 (she is no longer the Acting Principal Deputy as of June of this year). This latter position is second in importance to Stanley’s in the OUSD P&R and is generally empowered to exercise Stanley’s responsibilities, according to the DoD’s website. Prior to this, she was Director of Administration and Director of Human Capital and Resource Management in the Personnel and Readiness office, according to her bio.
According to the August 3 complaint, “Until Dr. Stanley elevated Ms. Simpson to her current lofty position she was merely the administrative officer (and the most junior SES [Senior Executive Service]), so she does lack experience and perspective, but she should still tell the truth under oath.”
Cronyism?
A high-level official within the Personnel and Readiness office told POGO that “even if Stanley left tomorrow, the Department of Defense would still be in a precarious position” because Stanley has filled the Personnel and Readiness office with individuals who lack the needed expertise. The source, requesting anonymity out of fear of retaliation, added that Stanley forced out qualified employees and replaced them with “sycophantic individuals who simply do his bidding.” The official argued that there needs to be massive sweep of the office and a replacement of unqualified personnel with qualified “thoughtful” people.
Another one of Stanley’s main deputies is Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Jo Ann Rooney, who was previously the president of Spalding University from 2002 through 2010. Rooney was sworn in on June 2, 2011. She is an illustrative example of Stanley’s personal ties to his subordinates. Stanley was on Spalding University’s Board of Trustees while she was its president and he received an honorary Doctor of Law degree from Spalding as well.
Also, Stanley received another honorary Doctor of Law degree from South Carolina State University and was Vice Chairman of South Carolina State University Foundation Board of Directors. Yet on Stanley’s official DoD bio, it is not disclosed that both of these Doctor of Law degrees are honorary degrees. However, his bio as keynote speaker for a 2007 Tempe Dollars for Scholars banquet (he was previously Scholarship America’s president) notes the honorary natures of these law degrees.
Neither Spalding University nor South Carolina State University actually have law schools (SCSU had one from 1947 through 1966).
Nick Schwellenbach is POGO's Director of Investigations.
Images via DoD (photo by R. D. Ward).
Comments