AGA Today
Into
the Oversight Void Step the Inspectors General
By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 12, 2006;
Page A19
When a Chicago newspaper
reported in 2004 that Illinois ranked last in federal disability
payments to veterans, the secretary of veterans affairs -- prodded by
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and other influential lawmakers
-- turned to his department's inspector general for an explanation.
After four months, 1,900
interviews and a review of 2,100 disability claims, a team of 36
auditors found reasons that veterans in top-ranked New Mexico got an
average of $12,004 in annual disability payments while Illinois veterans
received $6,961. Their 192-page report made eight recommendations for
addressing the inequity, and the Department of Veterans Affairs is
implementing many of them.
"It's a really big project,"
said Michael L. Staley, assistant inspector general for auditing, who
led the effort. "Our national reviews generally take about 11 months,
and we accomplished this from January to April."
For their labor, Staley and
his team recently picked up the Alexander Hamilton Award. The annual
honor recognizes the foremost effort by an inspector general to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of executive branch operations.
Created by an act of
Congress in 1978, "IGs," as they are known, can trace their roots to the
Continental Army, which had an inspector general independently assess
the readiness of combat troops. Their modern mission is to foster
integrity and efficiency in government through the prevention and
detection of waste, fraud and abuse.
Initially Congress created
12 independent audit and investigative offices, and every affected
agency opposed them. Over the past 27 years, inspectors general have
become a fixture of the bureaucracy. Their ranks have grown to 57 --
more than half appointed by the president -- and their offices employ
11,400 auditors, investigators, inspectors and other professionals.
The role of inspectors
general has taken on new prominence, as one-party control of Capitol
Hill and the White House has dampened the appetite in Congress for close
oversight of the executive branch, analysts say.
"They are becoming the de
facto overseers of government," said Paul C. Light, a professor of
government at New York University and the author of a book on IGs. "As
congressional oversight has declined sharply over the last decade, many
IGs are getting into areas that were once reserved for the investigatory
committees of Congress. And many, but not all of them, have risen to the
challenge. . . . Some of these reports are very hard-hitting."
Clay Johnson III, deputy
director of the Office of Management and Budget, agreed that Congress is
not "as aggressive as it needs to be," but not because the GOP dominates
the levers of power.
"The executive branch pays
more attention to whether we spend money on real needs and whether we
get what we pay for than Congress does," said Johnson, who heads the
President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, an umbrella group of 29
presidentially appointed inspectors general. "That has nothing to do
with which party is in charge of what branch."
In 2004, the most recent
year for which figures are available, inspectors general processed
189,500 complaints, identified $18 billion in potential savings through
audits, and were instrumental in nearly 6,500 prosecutions that led to
convictions or settlements with the Justice Department. They collected
$3.5 billion in fines, settlements and voluntary repayments, making the
$1.9 billion spent to fund them look like a bargain.
Notable reports last year
included a finding by the Transportation Department IG that the Federal
Aviation Administration's inspection program had failed to address
safety risks posed by airline industry cost-cutting and the rapid growth
of budget carriers. A report by the Justice Department IG found that the
FBI's failure to detect the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacking plot stemmed in
part from "widespread and long-standing deficiencies" in the way the
agency handled terrorism and intelligence cases.
Last year, the special
inspector general for Iraq reconstruction found federal mismanagement
complicated by corruption among government contractors and Iraqi
officials that led to at least one criminal indictment.
And more than 350
investigators, auditors and evaluators from the inspectors general
offices at the Department of Homeland Security and other departments
were dispatched to scrutinize federal spending in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina.
The job can bring as much
grief as acclaim. Before becoming IG at the Corporation for National and
Community Service in 2002, J. Russell George, then a staff director for
a House subcommittee, called around to current and former IGs to ask
what the job was like: "The vast majority of them said, 'Don't do it,' "
he said.
George was told that IGs
considered too aggressive by the White House can be perceived as too
docile by Congress. He took the job anyway, and last year he was
promoted by President Bush to be the inspector general overseeing the
Internal Revenue Service.
"There's no question that
being an IG is difficult," said George, who says he likes his work.
"It's human nature that people many times do not like to be criticized
or to be told that what they are doing is either wrong or could be done
better. That is exactly what we as IGs have to do."
Some IGs are as
controversial as the agencies they oversee.
Pentagon Inspector General
Joseph E. Schmitz resigned in September after learning that he was the
target of a congressional inquiry into whether he had blocked two
criminal probes. Janet Rehnquist resigned the IG's post at the
Department of Health and Human Services in June 2003, ending a
controversial 22-month tenure in which she improperly kept a firearm in
her office and initiated personnel changes that led at least 20 senior
managers to retire, resign or be reassigned. That same summer, U.S.
Postal Service Inspector General Karla W. Corcoran retired after a
federal investigation found that she abused her authority, spent more
than $1 million on each of three employee award ceremonies and conducted
questionable personnel practices.
A few critics say the work
of inspectors general has been undermined by politics. A 2004 report by
the Democratic staff of the House Government Reform Committee found that
fewer than 20 percent of inspectors general appointed by Bush had audit
experience, while nearly two-thirds had held political positions, such
as working for a GOP member of Congress or in a Republican White House.
Under President Bill Clinton, more than 60 percent had audit experience
and fewer than one-quarter had held political positions, the report
said.
Yet, as Light, the
government professor, pointed out, "Yes, there are more politicals, but
some have become very aggressive IGs."
Clark Kent Ervin, a Texan
who served in Bush's gubernatorial administration, got the inspector
general's job at the Department of Homeland Security through a recess
appointment because the Senate would not schedule a confirmation vote.
Once in, Ervin became a thorn in then-Secretary Tom Ridge's side,
issuing reports critical of spending and management practices at DHS
agencies. He left in December 2004 (the expiration of his appointment)
when it became clear that the White House would not renominate him.
"Here's a guy who was being
groomed as a political type, but they canned him as quickly as
possible," Light said.
Kenneth M. Mead, the IG at
the Transportation Department, said inspectors general must set politics
aside and "speak truth to power."
"It's important that the IG
be a player," Mead said. "If you don't go after the big issues, you can
be marginalized. I think it's important that we're not just sitting
around looking at vouchers."
