The VA’s Acting Secretary Claimed He Has Authority Over the Agency’s Independent Watchdog. He’s Wrong.

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) acting secretary Peter O’Rourke incorrectly claimed authority over the VA Inspector General (IG) in a letter sent to the IG on June 11 and published by Stars and Stripes on June 20.  In the letter, O’Rourke wrote to VA IG Michael Missal:

“You also appear to misunderstand the independent nature of your role and operate as a completely unfettered, autonomous agency. You are reminded that OIG is loosely tethered to VA, and in your specific case as the VA Inspector General, I am your immediate supervisor. You are directed to act accordingly.”

The letter from O’Rourke was in response to IG Missal’s concerns outlined in a June 5 letter to the VA that claimed the agency was withholding information from the IG, including information about whistleblower complaints. By trying to strongarm the IG, not only is O’Rourke blatantly mistaken in his interpretation of federal law, but his threatening language in the letter is deeply troubling. While the relevant law, the Inspector General Act of 1978, does put IGs under “general supervision” of agency heads, it makes clear that they have their own independent authority:

“Establishment IGs [IG Act, § 3(a)]: The Act specifies that each IG ‘shall report to and be under the general supervision of the head of the establishment involved or, to the extent such authority is delegated, the officer next in rank below such head, but shall not report to, or be subject to supervision by, any other officer of such establishment.’ Except under narrow circumstances discussed below, even the head of the establishment may not prevent or prohibit the IG from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing any subpoena during the course of any audit or investigation.” (Emphasis added)

The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) explains that “[w]hile by law, IG’s are under the general supervision of the agency head or deputy, neither the agency head nor the deputy can prevent or prohibit an IG from conducting an audit or investigation. The VA’s own Functional Organization Manual states that the VA IG is “an independent oversight entity” that “[h]as authority to inquire into all VA programs and activities.”

Simply put, an IG is an independent entity that operates separately from the oversight of any official within the agency it oversees. The independent authority of the IG ensures that investigators can conduct their work without fear of reprisal.

Cause of Action Institute has often written about the issues of having watchdogs without permanent leadership, but an uncooperative agency is a similar, if not greater, problem for accountability and oversight. The VA’s acting secretary should stop claiming authority he does not have and should not try to hinder accountability at a federal agency that desperately needs it.

Ethan Yang is a Research Fellow at Cause of Action Institute.

VA Travel Fraud Shows Even Reformers Can Misuse Government Power

There is little doubt that recent reforms at the Department of Veterans Affairs represent remarkable progress.  Last year saw the appointment of a new head for the agency, David Shulkin, and the passage of legislation giving him the power to start implementing badly-needed changes.  It was a lesson in how persistence can eventually lead to progress, and we recently highlighted it in the Washington Examiner as an overlooked bipartisan success.  Unfortunately, Shulkin is now reminding us of a different lesson: even those who champion reform may misuse government power once they have it.

A new inspector general report documents how Shulkin and his direct subordinates improperly turned a simple business trip in July of last year into a lengthy vacation.  Gifts were inappropriately accepted, government employees were used to plan private excursions, and an e-mail was even faked to justify flying Shulkin’s wife to Europe with him.

The saddest part is this occurred just after Shulkin visited the White House to celebrate the signing of legislation which allowed him to more easily fire VA employees for wrongdoing.  Yet instead of ending VA misconduct, Shulkin was on his way to becoming an example of it as he flew to England to attend a sold-out tennis match at Wimbledon with his wife at no cost to either of them.  She had officially been flown out to watch her husband receive “special recognition” at a dinner, a fiction created by Shulkin’s chief of staff to have $4,000 in airfare covered by taxpayers.  The Wimbledon tickets were from an acquaintance whose employer holds several government contracts.

In the days before the report was issued, Shulkin and his attorney had mounted an aggressive defense of his actions.  That tone changed significantly once the report became public, with Shulkin acknowledging how bad the behavior looked and White House officials saying off the record that Shulkin had been deceptive about the seriousness of the charges.  Yet his willingness to accept responsibility was only partial, as he blamed political appointees for targeting him and suggested that e-mails proving expense fraud by his chief of staff were the result of hacking.

The improbable hacking charge may never amount to much, as the chief of staff retired rather than face punishment.  And while e-mails have shown that Shulkin is indeed being pursued by political appointees in his agency, that does not excuse the fraudulent behavior of his staff.  If anything, the knowledge that rivals are looking to undermine you should be another reason to ensure your office behaves ethically.

The VA is not an easy place to lead, and Shulkin has been a consistent advocate for reform.  But that reform will only stick if he can make sure his own subordinates maintain the standards of behavior that he champions for the VA as a whole.  The agency has long suffered from low morale, as years of unaccountability and understaffing have led to dissatisfied veterans and endless frustration for competent employees.  It will be that much harder to change this environment if the top official is excusing ethical lapses instead of preventing them.

The latest reports indicate that Shulkin will remain in his position despite what happened.  He must now focus on using the powers given him by last year’s reform bill to ensure the VA is a place where this kind of behavior is no longer tolerated.

John McGlothlin is counsel at Cause of Action Institute

An overlooked bipartisan success story in 2017: VA reform

An overlooked bipartisan success story in 2017: VA reform

From the Grammy Awards to the Pro Bowl, it is an American tradition to start the new year by celebrating last year’s successes. These celebrations may seem indulgent, but they serve a purpose: to remind us about achievements that might otherwise be forgotten. Just like sports or entertainment, the end of the year dominated headlines when it came to what Congress accomplished (or didn’t) in 2017.
The push to pass tax cuts was hectic and eventful, with even Republicans saying a major legislative victory was needed after several attempts to repeal Obamacare failed. Yet there was another legislative victory in 2017, one at least as impressive as tax cuts in almost every way: reform at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The bill may have passed in another era — last June — but it should not be forgotten.

New York Post – Obama’s pet watchdog left veterans out in the cold

Read the full story: New York Post

Driven out by whistleblowers, Acting Inspector General of the Veterans Administration Richard Griffin finally resigned last week. Good riddance.  Griffin had whitewashed and concealed information about inadequate care and phony waiting lists and tried to retaliate against truth-tellers.  But don’t expect real improvement at the VA. Griffin’s successor is another bureaucratic lifer, Lin Halliday. She’s been collecting a paycheck from the VA Inspector General’s Office since 1992, while the deadly problems festered. President Obama seems to like that approach.  On July 2 in Wisconsin, whistleblower Ryan Honl — a Gulf War veteran — urged Obama to appoint an independent inspector general: “If they just pick someone new from inside the agency, it will be business as usual and the problems will continue.” But Obama brushed him off, saying VA Secretary Robert McDonald “had it covered.”  Sorry. That’s just not true.  Only the president can appoint an inspector general. Federal law requires that the Veterans Administration and other departments have outside inspectors general to guard against corruption and mismanagement. Obama simply refuses to appoint them, allowing the vacant offices to be filled instead by “acting” IGs like Griffin and Halliday.  They’re lapdogs instead of watchdogs, compliant temporary placeholders from inside the system…

Daniel Epstein, executive director of Cause of Action, a good-government group, said for Hillary Clinton’s entire tenure at the State Department, Obama refused to appoint a permanent IG.  Consequently, “oversight” at State was in the hands of the ultimate insider, acting IG Harold Geisel, who’d served as an ambassador under former President Bill Clinton and remains a close friend of the Clintons: The very definition of a lapdog.

FOIA Documents: Veterans Affairs P-Card Spending

FOIA Request (April 20, 2012)

VA Response Letter (July 30, 2012)

Documents:

 

 

WSB-TV Channel 2 Atlanta: Ch. 2 investigation finds hundreds of VA patient deaths linked to malpractice

Read the full story:  Channel 2

 

Channel 2 Action News brought our findings to national government watchdog Daniel Epstein with Cause of Action.


 
“That not only signals an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars and a mentality and a culture at the top that is totally inappropriate, but it also shows that they’re not really concerned about the problem,” Epstein said. 

WSB-TV: VA hospital paying record malpractice settlements

Read the full story: WSB-TV

 

“It’s not just harming the taxpayers, they’re harming public health,” said Daniel Epstein, from the D.C. based watchdog group “Cause of Action.” He called for an Inspector General’s audit when Channel 2 showed him VA malpractice costs soared to a 10-year high in 2012 to nearly $100 million.

 

The highest payout in 2012 went to Marine Vet Christopher Ellison. He was awarded a $17 million judgment. He had a stroke following a dental procedure. He is now paralyzed

 

“I think this sounds like a management problem. This sounds like a systemic problem at the agency,” said Epstein.