close X

Search Results for: IRS

Press Release: FTA Confirms Overreporting by the CTA

October 23, 2012 by

FTA Confirms Overreporting by the CTA

Cause of Action’s Investigation Into Potential Fraud With Federal Grant Money Exposes CTA & the Department of Transportation

 

WASHINGTON – In the wake of Cause of Action’s investigation into potential fraud at the Chicago Transit Authority, new facts have emerged confirming not only overreporting by the CTA, but knowledge by the Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration of the overreporting.

FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff sent a letter to CTA on April 27, 2012 stating that FTA had “conducted an in-depth review regarding the way in which Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM)” were reported. The conclusion of this review was that “CTA should revise its data for the 2011 Report Year to reflect the definition of ‘revenue service’.”

Cause of Action’s Executive Director Dan Epstein issued the following statement in response:

“FTA’s letter highlights two very important facts. First, CTA was, as Cause of Action suspected, violating the reporting manual used to calculate VRM, thereby improperly receiving federal grant money.

But secondly, FTA is revealing that it had knowledge of overreporting occurring, and by conducting a review of only 2011, it ignored the 2007 report presented by auditor Thomas Rubin that showed the same potential actions happening in fiscal year 2006.

It appears an explanation for why FTA limited its review to one year, and failed to disclose its findings to Cause of Action following our expedited FOIA request, is that there is clearly a politically motivated cover-up happening at the Department of Transportation.

Cause of Action’s revealing investigation into opaqueness and poor stewardship of tax dollars only further raises the spectre of corruption at the same agency Cause of Action revealed to have had two officials violate the Hatch Act.  Just as no punishment occured when Kathleen Sebelius violated the Hatch Act, no punishment will occur with a CTA that defrauded the American taxpayers. Cause of Action exists to fight this kind of corruption and show the American taxpayers exactly what is happening to their money in the hands of corrupt politicians.”

This revelation by the FTA raises a number of questions that Cause of Action views as critical to the public interest:

  1. Why did FTA not act on Thomas Rubin’s 2007 report of this exact behavior by the CTA?
  2. When did DOT Inspector General Calvin Scovel decide to investigate the matter?
  3. Is there evidence to suggest that this same type of overreporting is happening at other transit authorities around the United States?
  4. Why hasn’t the FTA reported the CTA to the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation in light of their overreporting and potential years of defrauding American taxpayers?
  5. How does the President explain the Chicago connections of Secretary LaHood, Robert Rivkin, Valerie Jarrett and himself in light of this misuse of taxpayer dollars?

About Cause of Action:

Cause of Action is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that uses investigative, legal, and communications tools to educate the public on how government accountability and transparency protects taxpayer interests and economic opportunity. For more information, visit www.causeofaction.org

 

###

 

Filed Under: Press Release Tagged With:

Coin for Coins: Cause of Action Finds Federal Agencies in Violation of Executive Order on Spending

October 9, 2012 by

Coin for Coins: Cause of Action Finds Federal Agencies in Violation of Executive Order on Spending

Taxpayer Dollars Purchased iPods, Plaques, Yo-Yos and Coins 

WASHINGTON – Federal government accountability group Cause of Action (CoA) today released findings of direct violations of President Obama’s order for agencies to limit spending on promotional items. A six month investigation reveals a pattern of wasteful spending across nine specific federal agency offices that are catalogued in Coin for Coins: Federal Agency Spending on Promotional and Commemorative Items, a report released today.

In November 2011, President Obama advised federal agencies through the Executive Order on Promoting Efficient Spending (EO 13589) that “[a]gencies should limit the purchase of promotional items (e.g., plaques, clothing and commemorative items), in particular where they are not cost-effective.”

Some of the most egregious examples of spending include:

  • One United States Department of Agriculture office spent $38,870 on GPS systems, Nook 3G digital readers, Apple iPods, and Nikon Coolpix cameras for staff.
  • Department of Justice COPS spent over $12,000 on commemorative items for a single conference.
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service spent over $86,000 on commemorative items between 2009 and 2012.

Dan Epstein, executive director of Cause of Action, highlights how this pattern of spending is a symptom of a larger problem in Washington:

Our investigation shows that a federal government culture of waste, fraud and mismanagement remains an unchecked liability throughout federal agencies. A cavalier attitude toward the efficient use of tax dollars permeates the executive branch. While some agencies track their spending, revealing patterns of waste, others don’t even bother to document it. The Department of Defense, with one of the largest budgets, informed Cause of Action that it has no means of tracking promotional spending, rendering accountability impossible. Just in the past year we’ve seen reports of the Government Services Administration and Veterans Affairs conference spending scandals, Secretary Sebelius’s Hatch Act violations, and conflict of interest violations by NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon.  It is clear that those in the current Administration with the responsibility to steward taxpayer dollars, the President included, are not taking their jobs, nor a commitment to ethics and transparency, seriously.

Following the April, 2012 GSA spending scandal report from the GSA Inspector General, CoA submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to 32 federal agency offices demanding production of information concerning commemorative awards that have been paid for by taxpayer dollars.

Coin for Coins: Federal Agency Spending on Promotional and Commemorative Items analyzes spending from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), OIG, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), United States Department of the Interior (DOI), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (FS) Alaska Region, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (FS) Southwestern Region, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Development (RD), Department of Energy (DOE), OIG, and the United States Department of Defense.

About Cause of Action:

Cause of Action is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that uses investigative, legal, and communications tools to educate the public on how government accountability and transparency protects taxpayer interests and economic opportunity. For more information, visit www.causeofaction.org

This release was updated on October 11, 2012. The following sentences that appeared in the original release have been removed:

“CoA’s initial investigation into nine agency offices documents $1,123,118 spent on items such as yo-yos, water bottles, pens, trophies, and other awards.”

“Department of Homeland Security OIG offices spent nearly $700,000 on awards in fiscal year 2010.”

###

Filed Under: Press Release

Cause of Action Demands Answers From NLRB On Ex Parte Communications

September 11, 2012 by

 

CAUSE OF ACTION DEMANDS ANSWERS FROM NLRB ON EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS

Inspector General at NLRB May Have Ignored Evidence Against Lafe Solomon and Wilma Liebman

WASHINGTON – Cause of Action (CoA), a government accountability group, sent a letter on Monday to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Inspector General David Berry (IG Berry) requesting documents and communications about alleged ex parte communications by NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon and former NLRB Chair Wilma Liebman first revealed by CoA in November of 2011.

On November 22, 2011, CoA requested that IG Berry open an investigation to determine whether Wilma Liebman engaged in ex parte communications with Lafe Solomon. CoA submitted several emails evidencing communications between Solomon and Liebman concerning strategies surrounding the pending litigation by the NLRB against the Boeing company. Despite this evidence, deposition transcripts from March 15, 2012 related to the NLRB’s investigation into Terence Flynn reveal that IG Berry denied any other instances of ex parte communications, stating “If I have evidence other people are engaging in this type of conduct, we would look at other individuals.” While Inspector General Berry has not confirmed whether an investigation has begun, CoA is concerned that Berry may have delayed investigating CoA’s allegations until after the OIG’s two investigations into two Republicans at the NLRB: Board member Brian Hayes and then-Chief Counsel Terence Flynn.

CoA’s Executive Director, Dan Epstein, is concerned about IG Berry’s apparent failure to promptly investigate allegations of improper communications:

“In November 2011, Cause of Action provided IG Berry with internal NLRB emails evidencing potential ex parte communications between Lafe Solomon and Wilma Liebman during Lafe Solomon’s litigation against Boeing in 2011. These alleged ex parte communications were shown to have occurred even after Lafe Solomon filed the complaint against Boeing in April 20, 2011. The allegedly improper communications by Terence Flynn occurred starting in September 2011; the alleged improper communications from Member Hayes occurred between September and November 30, 2011. And yet investigations of Hayes and Flynn occurred even though the alleged improper activities by Wilma Liebman and Lafe Solomon occurred months before. As CoA states in its letter to IG Berry, ‘we are particularly troubled that a decision, if any, to investigate the allegations of ex parte communications by Wilma Liebman and Lafe Solomon after substantial delay may be arbitrary and capricious, if not politically charged.’ This is why we are requesting any documents from the NLRB that would verify that IG Berry is in fact investigating based upon the evidence Cause of Action submitted to him nearly 10 months ago.”

CoA’s letter, a Freedom of Information Act request, asks for the following:
1) All records, including e-mails, referring or relating to Cause of Action’s November 22, 2011 request for an NLRB OIG investigation.

2) All records referring to or related to Congressman Kline’s letter of April 13, 2012.

3) Any and all investigative reports or documents submitted to Congress regarding the substance of Chairman Kline’s April 13, 2012 letter.

4) All records referring to or related to allegations of ex parte communications from officials of the NLRB pertaining to the Boeing matter referenced above.

5) All records pertaining to concluded investigations or determinations made regarding Cause of Action’s November 22, 2011 request for investigation.

6) All records of any concluded investigations, both criminal and administrative, into NLRB ex parte communications regarding the Boeing matter referenced above.

7) All records referring or relating to why investigative reports such as Reports concerning OIG-I-467 and OIG-I-468 are not publicly posted by the NLRB OIG.

8) All documents referring or relating to the procedures used by the NLRB OIG to determine whether information or allegations are sufficiently “credible” to warrant the launching of an investigation.

9) Any and all records concerning referrals by the NLRB OIG to the U.S. Department of Justice.
The full letter can be found here.

Previous requests and findings by CoA concerning ex parte communications at the NLRB can be found here.

About Cause of Action:
Cause of Action is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that uses investigative, legal, and communications tools to educate the public on how government accountability and transparency protects taxpayer interests and economic opportunity. For more information, visit www.causeofaction.org.

Filed Under: Press Release Tagged With: ,

Regulating Social Media

August 31, 2012 by

 

The legal implications of using social media as an organization and as part of an organization have not yet been fully vetted. Yesterday, Forbes reported on a growing controversy over Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulation of advertising on social media. The FTC imposed new regulations covering social media a few years ago and is now taking a PR agency, Reverb, to court over their practice of having paid employees post reviews for products without disclosing their employment.  This brings up serious questions about free speech and FTC regulation of Social Media.

The expanding regulations related to Social Media use are a topic that has continues to interest to Cause of Action. See our previous discussion of social media standing in court here.

 

Reviews Can Work Wonders, but They Can’t be Faked

By Ed Keller
August 30, 2012

An article in the New York Times caught my eye recently.  Entitled “The Best Book Reviews Money Can Buy”, the article says there is a growing practice of authors who commission reviews for their books, rather than letting them spring up organically on online sites such as Amazon.com or BN.com.

 

It’s not just authors who crave positive reviews. The products and services from businesses of all sizes and sectors are now being reviewed online, whether on Amazon, or travel sites such as Trip Advisor or Expedia, or restaurant sites such as Open Table, or sites relating to local service providers, like Angie’s List and Yelp, or the many retail and manufacturers offer online ratings on their websites.

 

It’s not a surprise that there should be such a surfeit of ratings and reviews.  The research is very clear that online reviews are popular with consumers and are a powerful driver of online (and offline) commerce. According to Google, 70% of Americans say they look at reviews before taking the next step to purchase products.  And according to a 2012 global study by Nielsen, online consumer reviews are the second most trusted form of advertising with 70 percent of global consumers surveyed online indicating they trust this platform, an increase of 15 percent in four years; only word of mouth recommendations directly from friends or family is more trusted.  The Timesarticle quotes professor Bing Liu from the University of Illinois who says “The wheels of online commerce run on positive reviews.”

 

The troubling part about the Times article is the underlying premise that people with something to sell feel so strongly motivated to get positive reviews that they would fake it by writing them themselves or paying people to write positive reviews, rather than building up a stable to authentic reviews from customers.  This is a bad business practice on two counts. First, the marketplace is too wise to let fake reviews go unnoticed, and there is a very good chance the people who do so will be “smoked out” and publicly embarrassed, thereby negating whatever benefit they might have otherwise achieved. Second, it is potentially against the law and many businesses do not realize that.   A few years ago the Federal Trade Commission issued new advertising guidelines that cover social media and word of mouth marketing.    The guidelines make clear that companies are subject to liability for false or unsubstantiated statements made through endorsements, or for failing to disclose a material connection between themselves and their endorsers.

 

In one of the first cases the FTC brought under these new guidelines, a PR agency, Reverb , was charged with having engaged in deceptive advertising by having employees pose as ordinary citizens while posting game reviews online and not disclosing that the reviews came from paid employees working on behalf of the game developers.  In the press release announcing the action, Mary Engle, the Director of the FTC’s Division of Advertising Practices stated: “Companies, including public relations firms involved in online marketing, need to abide by long-held principles of truth in advertising. Advertisers should not pass themselves off as ordinary consumers touting a product, and endorsers should make it clear when they have financial connections to sellers.”

If you’re unsure what constitutes ethical business practices in this area, you might want to check out the Word of Mouth Marketing Association.  The WOMMA Ethics Code provides a strong guidepost to help businesses, whether large or small, plan your social media disclosure activities. (Disclosure: my business partner, Brad Fay, is on the WOMMA Board of Directors and I am a former President of the association.)

In part, they say that any word of mouth or social media marketing should include:

  • Disclosure of identity: Make meaningful disclosures of your relationships or identities with consumers in relation to any marketing initiatives that could influence a consumer’s purchasing decisions.
  • Disclosure of consideration or compensation received: Do not engage in marketing practices where the marketer/sponsor or its representative provides goods, services, or compensation to the consumer as consideration for recommendations, reviews, or endorsements, unless full, meaningful, and prominent disclosure is provided.
  • Disclosure of relationship: Any brand or representatives involved in a word of mouth initiative on their behalf should disclose the material aspects of their commercial relationship with a marketer, including the specific type of any remuneration or consideration received.

What it all comes down in the end is that there should be genuine honesty in communication. That’s what makes consumers turn to word of mouth and social media for advice, recommendations, and help in making product choices. If you’re honest, your efforts will be rewarded. If you’re dishonest, it will be come back to haunt you.

The bottom line for all businesses is that you are being watched, both by the FTC and also by consumers who have an uncanny sense of smell for what’s real and what’s fake.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With:

The Washington Free Beacon: Report: 170 ACORN-affiliated groups still active

August 28, 2012 by

Read the full article here. Washington Free Beacon

“Cause of Action, a nonprofit government watchdog group, recently identified 174 active or rebranded ACORN affiliates, as well as organizations that share former ACORN staff. The groups shared the same physical location, leadership or staff, or tax ID number as old ACORN chapters, Cause of Action said.

 

At least two of the groups, Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA) and Mutual Housing Association of New York (MHANY), have received federal dollars. According to MHANY, it receives funds from the Federal Home Loan Bank, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Fannie Mae. “It’s a serious concern because, as we stated in our letter to the IRS, it has been engaging in political activity,” Cause of Action executive director Dan Epstein told the Free Beacon. “We have concerns that these rebranded groups are using the same model that ACORN essentially trademarked: getting tax-exempt funds and using them for political purposes…”

 

Filed Under: News Tagged With: ,

CoA Uncovers Still-Active ACORN Entities, ACORN Allies, and Rebranded ACORN Organizations

August 22, 2012 by

 

List of Still-Active ACORN Entities, ACORN Allies, and Rebranded ACORN Organizations

  1. 1825 Atlantic MHANY, Inc.
  2. 4415 San Jacinto Street Corporation
  3. 5301 McDougall Corporation
  4. 730 Rockaway MHANY, Inc.
  5. A Community Voice (ACV)
  6. ACORN Community Land Association of Pennsylvania
  7. ACORN Community Land Association, Inc.
  8. ACORN Global Enterprises, L3C
  9. ACORN Loan Program
  10. Action NC
  11. Action Now
  12. Action Now Institute
  13. Action United
  14. Action United Education Fund
  15. Action United Political Action Committee
  16. Advancement Project
  17. Advancement Project California
  18. Advocates and Actions
  19. Affiliated Media Foundation Movement, Inc.
  20. Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA)
  21. Affordable Housing Centers of Pennsylvania
  22. Agape Broadcasting Foundation, Inc.
  23. Alliance for Justice (AFJ)
  24. Alliance for Justice Action Campaign
  25. Alliance Institute
  26. Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
  27. Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment Institute
  28. American Home Day Care Workers Association, Inc.
  29. Applied Research Center
  30. Arizona Center for Empowerment
  31. Arkansas Broadcasting Foundation, Inc.
  32. Arkansas Community Institute
  33. Arkansas Community Organizations (ACO)
  34. ASI Community Center
  35. Association for Rights of Citizens, Inc.
  36. Association for Union Democracy
  37. Austin Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
  38. Baltimore Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
  39. Baton Rouge Association of School Employees
  40. Broad Street Corporation
  41. Catalist LLC
  42. Center for Labor Education and Research, Inc.
  43. Center on Policy Initiatives (CPI)
  44. Chicago Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
  45. Chief Organizer Fund, Inc.
  46. Chincoteague Cultural Alliance, Inc.
  47. Citizens Consulting Inc.
  48. Citizens Services, Inc.
  49. Communities United
  50. Communities United New Jersey
  51. Communities United Training and Education Fund
  52. Communities Voting Together
  53. Community Asset Development Redefining Education
  54. Community Empowerment Education Fund
  55. Community Labor Administrative Services, Inc.
  56. Community Organizations International
  57. Community Voices Together
  58. Connecticut Working Families Party
  59. Dallas Monthly Meeting of Friends, Inc.
  60. Delaware Alliance for Community Advancement, Inc.
  61. Delawareans for Social and Economic Justice (DSEJ)
  62. Elysian Fields Corporation
  63. Elysian Fields Partnership
  64. Fifteenth Street Corporation
  65. Flagstaff Broadcasting Foundation, Inc.
  66. Florida Institute for Reform and Empowerment (FIRE)
  67. Florida Watch Action, Inc.
  68. Floridians for All PAC
  69. Forefront Organizing
  70. Good Jobs = Great Houston
  71. Good Jobs Now, Inc
  72. Good Jobs, Better Baltimore
  73. Greenwell Springs Corporation
  74. Hammurabi Fund, Inc.
  75. Health Care for America Now
  76. Home Defenders League
  77. Housing Here and Now
  78. Houston Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
  79. Impact Restoration Community Development
  80. Institute for Neighborhood Action
  81. Jobs With Justice
  82. Jobs With Justice Education Fund
  83. KABF Radio
  84. KNON
  85. Labor Education and Research Project
  86. Labor Neighbor Research and Training Center
  87. Leadership Center for the Common Good
  88. Leadership Center for the Common Good Action Fund
  89. Living United for Change in Arizona
  90. Massachusetts Jobs With Justice
  91. McLellan Multi-Family Corporation
  92. MHANY 1 Associates, L.P.
  93. MHANY 1 Inc.
  94. MHANY 1999 Housing Development Fund Corporation
  95. MHANY 1999 II Housing Development Fund Corporation
  96. MHANY 2 Associates, L.P.
  97. MHANY 2, Inc.
  98. MHANY 2002 Housing Development Fund Corporation
  99. MHANY 2003 Housing Development Fund Corporation
  100. MHANY 2004 Housing Development Fund Corporation
  101. MHANY 2005 Housing Development Fund Corporation
  102. MHANY 2007 Housing Development Fund Corporation
  103. MHANY 2011 Housing Development Fund Corporation
  104. MHANY 2012 Housing Development Fund Corporation
  105. MHANY 2012 II Housing Development Fund Corporation
  106. MHANY 3 Associates, L.P.
  107. MHANY 3, Inc.
  108. MHANY 4 Associates, L.P.
  109. MHANY 4, Inc.
  110. MHANY Bristol Housing Development Fund Corporation
  111. MHANY Bristol, Inc.
  112. MHANY Holdings 2012 LLC
  113. MHANY Management Inc.
  114. Middle South Home Day Care Workers Association, Inc.
  115. Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change (MNOC)
  116. Missouri Progressive Vote Coalition
  117. Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE)
  118. Montana People’s Action
  119. Mutual Housing Association of New York (MHANY)
  120. National Housing Resource Center
  121. New England United for Justice (NEU4J)
  122. New Jersey Working Families Alliance
  123. New Majority Education Fund
  124. New Mexico Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
  125. New York Agency for Community Affairs (NYACA)
  126. New York City Parent Organizing Consortium
  127. New York Communities for Change (NYCC)
  128. New York Communities Organizing Consultants, Inc.
  129. New York Communities Organizing Fund (NYCOF)
  130. New York Organizing and Support Center
  131. North Carolina Social Justice Project
  132. Nwannedinamba of Columbus, Ohio
  133. OLE Parents Association
  134. Organization United for Reform Washington (OUR Washington)
  135. Organize Now
  136. Organizing for Action California
  137. Organizing in the Land of Enchantment (OLE)
  138. Our City, Our Schools
  139. Our D.C.
  140. Pennsylvania Communities Organizing for Change (PCOC)
  141. Pennsylvania Institute for Community Affairs, Inc.
  142. Pennsylvania Neighborhoods for Social Justice (PNSJ)
  143. People’s Equipment Resource Corporation
  144. Phoenix Estates Housing Development Fund Corporation
  145. Phoenix Hunts Point Corporation
  146. Phoenix Organizing and Support Center, Inc.
  147. Progressive Future Education Fund
  148. Progressive Maryland Education Fund
  149. Progressive Maryland, Inc.
  150. Project Vote
  151. Public Services for the Public Good
  152. Radio New Mexico
  153. San Francisco Labor Council
  154. Sankofa Community Development Corporation
  155. SEIU 1199
  156. SEIU Healthcare Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Kansas
  157. SEIU Local 21 LA
  158. Services Employees International Union
  159. Sixth Avenue Corporation
  160. Southern Training Center
  161. St. Louis Organizing and Support Center
  162. St. Louis Tax Reform Group
  163. Start Corporation
  164. Texas Organizing Project (TOP)
  165. Texas Organizing Project Education Fund (TOP ED)
  166. Texas United City-County Employees Inc.
  167. The Black Institute
  168. United Family Corporation, LLC
  169. United Labor Foundation of Greater New Orleans, Inc.
  170. Voter Alliance to Improve Democracy
  171. Wal Mart Alliance for Reform Now, Inc.
  172. Working Families Association, Inc.
  173. Working Families Party
  174. World Owerri People’s Congress Inc., Columbus/Franklin County Ohio Chapter

 

 

 

Click here for sources and explanations of each organization’s connections with ACORN and each other.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With:

Federal Times: Dan Epstein: Ethics office audit of GSA fell far short

August 13, 2012 by

Epstein: Ethics office audit of GSA fell far short

 

By Dan Epstein

When reports surfaced that the General Services Administration had spent almost $1 million on a Las Vegas conference, Congress and the media demanded accountability. This blatant misuse of taxpayer funds is egregious enough on its own, but Cause of Action’s recent investigation shows that the spending spree could have been prevented and should have been stopped by those with authority to monitor the agency.

The Office of Government Ethics, designed to oversee ethics programs for all executive branch agencies, evaluated GSA when it was planning the 2010 Western Regional Conference. OGE’s June 2010 investigation ended with a letter praising GSA for its ethics policies and practices and described the agency’s ethics program as “employing a number of what OGE [considered] model practices.” Now, knowing what we do about the GSA’s spending at the time, those statements, even the entire investigation, are laughable, if not absurd.

Not only did OGE overlook GSA’s shopping spree, but it failed to address known risk factors that, if corrected, could have prevented the scandal. Those factors included the fact that there was no designated agency ethics officer at GSA for nearly four years. Also, there was evidence that an alternate DAEO was spending “less than 25 percent of her time on ethics-related duties.”

If the officers charged with monitoring ethics compliance are nonexistent or spending their time on other endeavors, why did OGE not intervene? Did OGE inform GSA Inspector General Brian Miller immediately? And, as House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa pointed out, why didn’t Miller inform Congress about the misfeasance earlier?

Lastly, of what value is OGE in overseeing agency ethics? Inefficiency in oversight by OGE is a classic example of how government bureaucracy fails to solve problems.

In response to our investigation, OGE told The Washington Post: “Laws and regulations regarding appropriations, travel, personnel and government contracts are administered by a variety of agencies and are outside OGE’s purview. OGE is not an investigatory agency but routinely works closely with inspectors general.” If OGE works closely with IGs, why didn’t OGE notify Miller on Nov. 2, 2010, about the problems with GSA instead of stating things were aboveboard?

Moreover, the notion that OGE doesn’t have investigatory authority over federal ethics is misleading, as OGE is statutorily mandated to conduct ethics audits. Indeed, given President Obama’s ethics pledge — his first act of office — perhaps pleading ignorance is the only appropriate response for an Office of Government Ethics in the time of the allegedly most transparent government in history.

OGE’s failure to deny our findings, and instead dodge responsibility, was expected by Cause of Action, especially after another Obama-era entity, the Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency, similarly pleaded no-contest to responsibility for inspecting how the government responds to waste. Given the chorus of do-nothing bureaucrats, Cause of Action was pressured to send a letter to the president asking him to have the Office of Management and Budget consider whether OGE’s sole authority over the standards of ethical conduct should be transferred to the IGs, who have the resources and independence to address waste, fraud and mismanagement.

IGs have the infrastructure and personal knowledge of their respective agencies to properly audit violations of the Standards of Official Conduct, but they lack authority to enforce these standards. By transferring this authority from OGE, which is wasting taxpayer dollars performing perfunctory investigations, and shifting responsibility and oversight to the IGs, needless bureaucracy is cut away for one system, one set of expectations and one set of enforcement.

Dan Epstein is executive director of Cause of Action, a nonpartisan government accountability organization in Washington.

Filed Under: News Tagged With: ,