Overly cozy relationships between inspectors general and the agencies they oversee undermine IGs’ effectiveness, according to findings of an investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The watchdog system is further compromised when IGs lose their effectiveness by remaining in office amid allegations of inappropriate behavior and lack of accountability, reform advocates say.
Here are some examples of recent IG controversies.
CIA IG John Helgerson’s investigations into the agency’s detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists have themselves become the target of an investigation ordered by Michael Hayden, the CIA’s director.
Some agency operatives have complained that Helgerson is overzealous in investigating the use of torture.
State Department IG Howard Krongard allegedly blocked investigations of contract fraud in Afghanistan and Iraq and censored reports. Members of Krongard’s staff raised the allegations.
He resigned Dec. 7, 2007.
NASA IG Robert Cobb abused his authority and created a hostile work environment, according to the Integrity Committee of the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency.
The committee investigated allegations that Cobb penalized his staff for pursuing charges of theft and safety violations at the agency. Cobb remains in office.
The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart Bowen Jr., uncovered waste, fraud and abuse by federal employees and contractors after being appointed in 2004. In 2006, a last-minute addition to a military authorization bill would have eliminated Bowen’s office. Congress backed down when the maneuver became public.
Acting Environmental Protection Agency IG Bill Roderick announced plans to eliminate 60 of 360 staff positions because of possible budget cuts, even though the agency’s budget increased in fiscal 2007 and no action had been taken on the 2008 budget. Roderick succeeded Nikki Tinsley, who had issued reports critical of EPA management.
General Services Administration IG Brian Miller investigated allegations of improper procurement practices and potential Hatch Act violations by GSA Administrator Lurita Doan, who allegedly engaged in partisan political activities while at work. Doan proposed cutting funds for IG audits.
Former Smithsonian Institution IG Debra Ritt said she was pressured by former Secretary Lawrence Small to drop an audit of high-ranking Smithsonian officials. That audit led to Small’s resignation. Ritt resigned after her office’s budget was cut.
Commerce Department IG Johnnie Frazier resigned in June 2007, after eight years on the job. He left amid multiple investigations into allegations that he misspent funds, abused the government’s travel system and demoted subordinates who refused to cover up his actions.
Former Homeland Security Department IG Clark Kent Ervin issued reports critical of DHS programs, which resulted in alleged intimidation by then-DHS Secretary Tom Ridge.
— John Pulley
Some lawmakers from both parties are worried that agency inspectors general are vulnerable to political influences that, unchecked, could diminish IGs’ stature as unbiased and evenhanded overseers. Eager to forestall such occurrences, the House passed in October the Improving Government Accountability Act, the most significant reform proposed to the IG Act in almost 30 years. The Senate is considering its version of the legislation.
The president has threatened a veto.
Congress is seeking to fix a critical governmental function that some lawmakers have come to view as flawed. They say the rules by which IGs operate provide insufficient autonomy for IGs in some instances and inadequate means for swiftly removing them from office in others. IGs kept on too short a leash become lapdogs, critics of the current regulations say. Yet, IGs who are given too much rope risk hanging themselves in entanglements of the type that have made headlines.
“Too often, IGs are subjected to pressure by political appointees who want to stifle negative findings about their agencies,” said Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), sponsor of the Improving Government Accountability Act. “In other cases, errant IGs violate rules with impunity because administrators don’t want to be seen firing the watchdog.”
The IG Act of 1978 created a new federal watchdog office, gave it teeth in the form of statutory authority to conduct audits and investigations, and set it loose to sniff out waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement at a dozen government agencies.
In the decades since, IGs saved the federal government billions of dollars, and their investigations led to thousands of criminal and civil prosecutions.
Congress mandated the neutrality of IGs, but over time, the landscape has changed: the IG Act has undergone several minor revisions, the number of statutory IGs has grown fivefold, and IGs’ workloads have mushroomed. In addition, expectations of governmental accountability have risen, and partisan politics has become more pronounced. In that harried, hyperscrutinized and politically pitched environment, remaining neutral has become increasingly challenging for IGs.
Digg
De.licio.us
Slashdot
Technorati
