Compensation not top motivator: Pay for performance won’t fix problems By DAVID FRICK, OpEd to Federal Times - August 22, 2010

…Does pay, by itself, motivate the typical fed? I looked at this specific question in my doctoral project in which I surveyed 132 senior federal employees across all agencies. My conclusions: While pay does have some motivating effect, the effect is insignificant. Total compensation ranked 18th on my list of positive motivators…

In my study, the leading positive factor was “belief in mission.” The leading negative factor was “insufficient resources.” The typical fed, if I may be so bold as to generalize, is internally motivated to perform well and will do so if given sufficient resources and if the leadership gets out of the way…

Admittedly, the federal government has challenges in acquiring specific specialty skills. Unfortunately, the range of federal salaries is simply inconsistent with the expectations of those in these specialties. Furthermore, the specialist who is motivated by pay will find better alignment of personal and organizational goals in a for-profit activity. Pay for performance, even with perfect implementation, cannot solve these inconsistencies. These skills can be acquired by contract, but this solution fuels the excessive-cost-of-contractors debate. The specialist who believes in the mission will invariably accept lower compensation as the cost of serving the greater good.

Jim Collins, author of “Good to Great,” accurately encapsulated this argument in one statement: Efforts to motivate people are a waste of time.

Pay for performance, as an effort to motivate high performance in the federal work force, is a waste of time. I cannot speak to its appropriateness as solutions to other problems, but our first task should be to describe the problem to be solved. Then we can put the right cart behind the horse.

Full Article  ——— David Frick is a Defense Department employee. The opinions contained in this work are his and do not reflect those of the Defense Department.

Analysis: The great federal pay debate By Howard Risher, Special to GovExec.com - August 19, 2010

Federal pay has been a contentious issue since the earliest days of the country. Now, in the middle of a deep recession with public concern about deficit spending, it is not at all surprising to learn that critics contend federal salaries are too high. …

… Federal agencies need a pay system that enables them to compete for talent, facilitates communication with employees, and silences the critics.

Howard Risher is an independent compensation and performance management consultant. He was the managing consultant for the studies leading to the 1990 Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act. He has a Ph.D. in labor and economics from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last month approved the GAO Improvement Act of 2010 (S.2991), sponsored by Senator Claire McCaskill & co-sponsored by Senator Susan Collins.  A McCaskill/Collins substitute version of the bill was voted out of committee on July 28.

The approved measure would strengthen GAO access to information by explicitly reaffirming that Congress has authorized GAO to pursue civil actions when agencies improperly withhold records. In this respect, the bill would provide a legislative remedy the federal district court’s decision in Walker v. Cheney, F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2002), a case that misconstrued the language of GAO’s statute as well as congressional intent regarding the role the Comptroller General.

The bill reaffirms and makes explicit GAO’s authority under 31 U.S.C. § 716(b) to pursue litigation to enforce its rights of access. The bill also contain a rule of construction intended to confirm GAO’s access authority in 31 U.S.C. § 716(a) by providing that it may not be limited other than through express statutory language.  In addition, the bill would also require agency 60-day letters (statements on actions taken or planned in response to Comptroller General recommendations) to be submitted not only to the congressional committees with jurisdiction over the pertinent agency but also to GAO.

MCCASKILL’S GAO BILL MOVES FORWARD: Senator’s bill passed out of committee will improve the Government Accountability Office’s access to information - July 28, 2010

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is one step closer to having access to information necessary to better fulfill its important watchdog role. Legislation (S.2991) introduced by U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill, Missouri’s former state auditor, that would ensure that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has access to information necessary to conduct its oversight of the federal government was passed by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee today. The GAO is an independent, nonpartisan agency charged with auditing and overseeing federal government spending and rooting out waste, fraud and abuse.

“As a former auditor, I know how difficult it can be to conduct a real audit if you aren’t given access to the important information. The GAO is the eyes and ears of taxpayers throughout the federal government, and this legislation will help provide them with the tools they need to help root out waste, fraud and abuse at federal agencies and make sure we’re spending taxpayer dollars wisely,” McCaskill said.

A 2002 court decision limited the GAO’s ability to access information from government agencies necessary to complete their valuable work [Walker v. Cheney, MEMORANDUM OPINION, John D. Bates, United States District Judge: Civil Action No. 02-0340 (JDB) - December 9, 2002; 230 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2002)].

McCaskill noted that “Today’s legislation would strengthen the GAO’s authority by reaffirming the watchdog organization’s ability to take legal action if an agency is improperly withholding information related to an ongoing investigation.”

“Additionally, this legislation would make it easier for the GAO to access information by setting out clearer guidelines for federal agencies which will make it more difficult for agencies to refuse the GAO requests for records or information related to its audits and investigations.”

For more on the McCaskill-Collins substitute amendment of this legislation that was approved by the Committee, see GAO’s July 26, 2010 letter in support of the measure.

For House action on a related GAO improvement bill, see the previous GAOUnion.org post on “House passes GAO Improvement Act of 2009″ of Jan. 13, 2010.  This post has links to the House Oversight Committee Report on the bill (HOUSE REPT 111-387) and the Committee Press Release on House passage of the bill.

For more on Senator McCaskill’s long-standing interest in promoting government efficiency and GAO, see GAOUnion post: Freshman Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill’s ambition: making government work for less money & become the GAO senator by Karen Rutzik, GovExec.com - Feb. 2, 2007.

Late last month, the GAO Union issued its report on how management implemented GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004.

The manner in which former Comptroller General David Walker chose to exercise the discretion provided him under this Act was the main catalyst for the GAO analyst staff to unionize.  Of particular concern to staff were Walker’s market-based pay and personnel workforce restructuring decisions in 2005 & 2006 which resulted in the split of GAO’s Senior Analyst broad-band and the denial of cost-of-living and merit pay increases to nearly 20 percent of GAO’s analysts with satisfactory (”meets expectations”) or better ratings in 2006 and/or 2007, despite Walker’s earlier guarantees to staff and to congressional committees that he would protect against inflation the salaries of such staff.  In September 2007 analysts voted 2-1 to unionize, strengthening their hand with management to prevent similar actions by GAO management in the future.

The report implies that GAO’s current performance appraisal (rating and ranking) system, the foundation of all pay, promotion, and many related personnel decisions at the agency, is a house of cards (see 1, 2, & 3 below).

Report to Congressional Committees: Implementation of GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004 and Its Impact on Employees — Comments from GAO Employees Organization, Local 1921, IFPTE - July 27, 2010

Executive Summary: GAO Union Report to Congress on GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004
In September, 2007, GAO analysts, who represent about 70 percent of all GAO employees, voted to join together in a union and affiliate with the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers. While GAO was and is a great place to work, the impetus for this election came from the manner in which the Comptroller General chose to exercise the flexibilities in human capital management provided under the GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004 (PL 108-271). Since then, the union and GAO management have worked toward a productive relationship and Congress has enacted some improvements. However, GAO’s equitable implementation of the Human Capital Reform Act remains a work in progress.

GAO employees and management share a commitment to the goals of encouraging and rewarding high performance. Indeed, GAO’s mission and reputation attract high-caliber staff who have high expectations both for their own performance and for the opportunity to make a difference through their work. However, the current performance appraisal system fails to foster shared confidence of employees and management.

Any pay-for performance system, reduction-in-force, or workforce restructuring program requires a fair, equitable, creditable, and transparent performance appraisal system that fosters shared confidence of employees and management; however, the current system falls short of these necessary conditions.

1. In [2008 and] 2009, GAO conducted a Performance Appraisal Study (PAS) which found that the agency’s performance system violated federal regulations; did not meet its objectives; was not consistently applied; and was “universally disliked.”
2. Around the same time [April 25, 2008], a GAO-contracted African American Performance Assessment Study found statistically significant disparities in performance ratings between African American and Caucasian Analysts.
3. Moreover, GAO’s 2010 Diversity Plan reported statistically significant differences in performance appraisal averages of its banded staff 40-years old and over compared to those less than 40-years old (i.e., lower ratings given to older employees (p. 24 & 40). Further, GAO reported a growing difference in the appraisal averages for Hispanic staff compared to non-Hispanic staff.  [GAOUnion.org note: GAO’s 2009 Workforce Diversity Plan reported that:

Employees representing those 40 years old and older said that the GAO’s managers favored younger people in nearly all human capital programs—promotions, awards, ratings, opportunities, and compensation. They also said that older employees are underutilized which is a missed opportunity for the agency. The representatives suggested that GAO management review issues of concern to employees 40 years old and over and develop ways to demonstrate that GAO respects and values its older employees (quote from p. 24 of 2009 Plan).]

The findings from these studies are especially critical, given that employee performance appraisals are tied directly to compensation, as well as to other personnel decisions that affect how GAO exercises the personnel flexibilities granted in the 2000 and 2004 Acts. Despite being aware of the rating disparities between African Americans and their non-minority counterparts, the Comptroller General used these ratings as a critical component in placement decisions in a recent major restructuring. In 2005, GAO used performance appraisals to split its band II employees into two newly created bands—two-thirds were placed in a new Band IIA and one-third were placed into a new Band IIB position. This reversed the broadbanding system in place for these employees at GAO since 1989. The restructuring resulted in a reduction of the pay ranges for those placed into Band IIA and a reduction of responsibility and denial of annual pay adjustments for many of those placed in Band IIA. Employees in the IIB category had the opportunity to grow their salaries, but they still faced a “speed bump” from growing their salary beyond the old Band II pay system.

Congress passed the Government Accountability Act of 2008 (PL 110-323) that provided Band IIA’s affected by the restructuring with annual pay adjustments both retroactively and prospectively. However, continued oversight is needed to ensure that the flexibilities Congress has provided the agency are not used inappropriately or in ways that were not intended. The problems identified by GAO require large-scale and extensive changes to the GAO performance management system; immediate measures are needed to mitigate the impact of the current flawed system while these comprehensive changes to the system are considered. For example, the flawed rating system that was used to place a disproportionate number of African Americans during the restructuring into the lower category continues to be used in determining pay, placement decisions into the bands, and would be used should the agency implement a reduction-in-force (RIF). GAO’s reduction-in-force (RIF) policy places much more emphasis on the performance appraisal system than does the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in establishing retention factors during a RIF.

The Union has worked to further address employee concerns through regular labor-management meetings and negotiated agreements with management on annual pay agreements and other workplace issues. One of the most significant indicators of the development of a positive relationship between union and management is the continuing commitment to a collaborative problem-solving approach to negotiating our first collective bargaining contract. Through this process, using an expert facilitator, we have identified our shared interests and are making significant progress toward completing the contract while building a productive relationship.

Link to complete 24-page GAO Union Report (PDF).

GAO Access to Intel Obstructed by 1988 OLC Opinion Steven Aftergood, Secrecy News, a publication of the Federation of American Scientists - Aug 5, 2010
The current dispute between the Obama Administration and some members of Congress over whether to strengthen oversight of intelligence programs by the Government Accountability Office is rooted in a 1988 opinion from the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which held that GAO access to intelligence information is actually barred by law…

The 1988 OLC opinion “has had a broad negative impact on our access to information at the FBI and several other agencies that are part of the intelligence community,” wrote Acting Comptroller General Gene L. Dodaro in a recent letter.  “Moreover, we are concerned that this position is now being extended to cover agencies and activities that have long been subject to GAO oversight, such as human capital practices and vacancies within the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division.”  Mr. Dodaro’s June 15, 2010 letter regarding GAO access to government information was sent to Senators Charles Grassley and Richard Shelby.  A copy was obtained by Secrecy News. 

Link to Secrecy News article.

Bill with 1.4 percent federal pay raise clears Senate committee By Elizabeth Newell, Govexec.com - July 30, 2010
An appropriations bill including a 1.4 percent raise for civilian federal employees cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday. The Fiscal 2011 Financial Services and General Government spending bill includes a 1.4 percent increase for federal employees, the figure President Obama requested. Link to full GovExec article.

For Budget Chief, Not All Farewells Are Fond: Budget Chief Tilted to Executive Branch By MATT BAI, NYTimes Political Times - Published: July 28, 2010
…President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. are the first tandem to move directly from Capitol Hill to the White House since 1960, and they consciously designed what you might call a Congressional presidency — that is, an administration populated largely by Hill veterans (led by a chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who was himself a House leader) and built to navigate the culture of Congress.

Somewhere along the way toward wooing Congress, however, Mr. Obama seems to have decided that the problem, at least where reducing the cost of government is concerned, is Congress itself. There is a sense that the legislative process just isn’t set up to work, either because of the severe partisanship in both chambers, or because lawmakers tend to run from painful choices, or because of rules that make it easy for a minority party — in this case, the Republicans — to sabotage legislation.

And so, in a variety of ways, the administration has deliberately set out to create alternatives. The idea is to force Congress to make inevitable choices now, or at least to establish new mechanisms that can be used to make those choices later if the fiscal situation worsens. “The system as it is constructed now has prevented real progress on this issue,” David Axelrod, the president’s senior adviser, says flatly.

[Outgoing OMB Director] Mr. Orszag, you may recall, was the administration’s main proponent of “bending the curve” on health care expenditures. Frustrated that House Democrats wouldn’t accept some painful cost-cutting measures in the new health care law, Mr. Orszag pushed for and won a controversial provision to create something called the Independent Payment Advisory Board. This is an outside commission of 15 appointees who will, beginning in 2014, identify cuts to Medicare if the plan exceeds a preset rate for growth. Congress then has to either approve the cuts or propose an alternative.

The significance of this new advisory board goes well beyond the immediate question of how to rein in Medicare costs. Mr. Orszag, who declined to be interviewed, has said that the board represented, for Congress, the “single-biggest yielding of power to an independent entity since the creation of the Federal Reserve.” In other words, the Medicare Board isn’t only a means of cutting government spending; it is a means, too, of wresting the constitutional responsibility for budgeting away from powerful committee chairmen.

The Medicare Board may be the most striking example of this strategy, but it is hardly the only one. Mr. Orszag also helped broker the creation of an 18-member debt commission that will offer specific alternatives for re-ordering the federal budget. The administration has also proposed a bill — known in the punchy language of Washington as “expedited rescission authority” — that would effectively give the president the power to strike out spending items after the budget has been approved.

Leading Democrats in the House aren’t arguing that the legislative process, with its dueling constituencies and parliamentary procedures, is necessarily the most efficient way to cut spending. But they maintain that it’s what the framers intended — and that subverting the process amounts to an assault on the democracy.

House Democrats blame Mr. Orszag for having led this incursion onto their territory, and they seem hopeful for a better reception from his successor, Jacob Lew, who once worked for the legendary House Speaker Tip O’Neill. They may be surprised, however. White House aides say the president has told them that he is serious about getting the long-term budget under control, even if Congress won’t act on its own. In other words, the Congressional president does not seem inclined to rely solely on Congress anymore.

Outgoing OMB chief: Public has a point about government waste By Norah Swanson, Govexec.com - July 28, 2010
In his farewell address on Wednesday, the director of the Office of Management and Budget said the public is onto something when it criticizes the federal bureaucracy… Government inefficiency can be attributed largely to agencies’ failure to adopt technology quickly and to use practices that make the private sector successful, Orszag said.

Addressing improper government payments is another priority, the departing OMB chief said, noting President Obama signed the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act into law last week. Orszag said during the past three years the government paid out $180 million to dead Americans. “I wish I was kidding,” he said.

Bringing the federal government up to speed on technology also is high on the administration’s agenda, Orszag said. In addition to making government more efficient, information technology helps make agency actions more transparent for the American people, he noted, saying new dashboards and websites have led to greater levels of openness than ever before. The administration has cut more than $10 million in redundant IT projects, he added.

Nancy Pelosi: ‘How Dare The Administration’ Threaten To Veto Intelligence Reform (VIDEO) Elyse Siegel, The Huffington Post - Posted: 07-27-10
House Speaker Nancy Pelsoi issued a warning to the Obama administration over the weekend on the importance of the White House standing behind Democratic efforts to expand the scope of intelligence oversight programs, including proposals to increase the access of the GAO, Congress’s investigative arm.

The California Democrat underscored her unwavering position in an interview with FireDogLake’s Marcy Wheeler. (You Tube Video: NRN ‘10: Marcy Wheeler sits down with House Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Schakowsky)

Obama nominates Clinton budget director to lead OMB By Robert Brodsky, Govexec.com - July 13, 2010
…Jacob Lew, who ran OMB during the Clinton administration from 1998 to 2001, will return to the office in August as he takes over for outgoing budget chief Peter Orszag, the White House announced on Tuesday.  Known in political and government circles as practical and intellectual, Lew currently serves as deputy secretary for management and resources and chief operating officer of the State Department. The Senate confirmed him for the post in January 2009…

“The problems are deeper and the politics are different [now],” said Jonathan Breul, executive director of the IBM Center for The Business of Government and a colleague of Lew during the latter years of the Clinton administration. “But, he is perfect for the job.”

Sally Katzen, who worked with Lew for eight years during the Clinton administration, including nearly two years as his deputy director at OMB, is confident that her former boss is the right man for the job. “He is experienced and capable and served in one of the most demanding jobs in government, all the while keeping his cool and being the nicest person to work for,” said Katzen, who now serves as a senior adviser at the Podesta Group, a Washington-based government relations and public affairs firm. “If anyone can tackle the multiple, conflicting challenges, he can.”

In a statement issued Tuesday, Orszag said, “I have known Jack Lew for more than a decade, have worked with him under two presidents, and value his counsel and friendship. … With his experience, mastery of the budget process, and passion for public service, Jack Lew is an individual especially qualified to serve the president and the American people during these challenging economic times.”

A graduate of Harvard and Georgetown Universities, Lew began his career in 1973 as a Capitol Hill legislative aide and eventually rose to become a top adviser to former House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill…

Video and Transcript of Remarks by the President in Selection of Jack Lew to be Director of OMB

Clay: Modernize Records Management By Rep. William Lacy Clay (PDF of Article) , Special to Roll Call - July 12, 2010
Federal electronic records that document our nation’s history, preserve our rights and maintain critical archival materials are at great risk.

There is growing concern, inside and outside of Congress, about federal agencies’ management of vital electronic records. Many agencies do not have updated or workable plans to preserve them, and in the digital age, that is totally unacceptable.

During a recent self-assessment administered by the National Archives, 79 percent of agencies were found to be at moderate or high risk of improper destruction of their electronic records….

I have begun to examine solutions — including legislation — that would ensure these records are not lost. H.R. 1387, the Electronic Message Preservation Act, of which I am an original co-sponsor, is a good start.

The bill passed the House in March, and I hope the Senate will act on it as soon as possible. H.R. 1387 would establish uniform standards for the capture, management, preservation and retrieval of federal agency and presidential electronic records….

Agencies are required to preserve records of the conduct of government business that is “complete and accurate to the extent required to document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency,” according to federal rules. Agencies must also preserve records that “furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.”

….The threat to the preservation of federal electronic records is not new. As early as the 1960s, the National Archives began examining methods for long-term preservation of “machine-readable” records. However, progress has been slow for both the archives and agencies.

As recently as the late 1980s, the preferred solution to long-term preservation of these records was to put them on microfilm. And as recently as a few years ago, the National Archives was suggesting that agencies print and file their electronic records.

However, archivists, historians and open-government advocates now understand that not only the content of electronic records must be preserved, but their essential characteristics as well. We need to protect not only the data, but also the metadata — the data about the data.

Electronic record preservation must include information on who created the record, in what application it originated and many more data points that assist in not only the retrieval but also the understanding of a record. Manually searching millions of e-mails that have been printed and filed into boxes is certainly time-consuming. However, even when a printed e-mail is located, valuable information that would have been retained in a records management application is irrevocably lost.

The National Archives has endorsed for all federal agencies the Department of Defense Standard 5015.2-STD version 2, which defines requirements that must be met by records management application products.

In 2003, the Government Accountability Office testified at a subcommittee hearing that “most electronic records … remain unscheduled … and as a result, they were at risk of loss.”

Last month, the GAO again testified that “if records are poorly managed, individuals might lose access to benefits for which they are entitled, the government could be exposed to legal liabilities, and records of historical interest could be lost forever.”

Sen. Feinstein blames Pelosi for intel block By Alexander Bolton, The Hill - July 2, 2010
Speaker Pelosi met with National Security Adviser James Jones on Wednesday to push the administration to grant Congress greater oversight of covert intelligence activity. Her demands: She wants to empower Congress to use the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the CIA and she wants the CIA and other intelligence agencies to share more information about covert activities with the full membership of the Senate and House intelligence committees.

Much of that sensitive information is shared only with the Gang of Eight, a group made up of the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence panels and the party leaders from both chambers. And the GAO can only review the activities of intelligence agencies within the Department of Defense but not the CIA, according to a Democratic aide.

The Speaker is blocking the 2010 intelligence authorization bill and, by extension, the nomination of Lt. Gen. James Clapper, Jr. to serve as director of national intelligence, until the administration makes some concessions on intelligence matters. Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is not pleased with the Speaker’s interference.

Staff on the Senate and House committees were working on a compromise Thursday after Pelosi blocked the intelligence authorization bill, which had the support of Feinstein, the head of the Senate intelligence panel, and the administration.
Under the terms of that earlier deal, the bill did not include the GAO oversight but did expand congressional notifications requirements.

Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said Thursday that Pelosi and Jones emerged from the Wednesday meeting with a tentative deal that would give the GAO the power to review intelligence activities. “The language allows GAO to do some work by the direction of the intelligence committees,” Reyes said. An aide to Pelosi downplayed talk of an agreement and said the Speaker and Jones need to have further discussions. Reyes said the Senate would have to sign off on any deal before the conflict is resolved.

Lawmakers on the intelligence committees say that passing an authorization bill is important for several reasons. They say it would strengthen the authority and flexibility of the Director of National Intelligence and improve congressional oversight of the intelligence community. “This bill, like previous bills, lays out a series of measures to ensure Congress is an equal partner in intelligence-gathering activity,” said Andy Johnson, director of the National Security Program at Third Way, a Democratic think tank. “It brings balance to what was an uneven relationship between Congress and the executive branch in the conduct of intelligence activities.” Johnson said he did not think it is necessary to give GAO power to review CIA activity because the congressional oversight committees and the CIA inspector general have enough authority.

Also see Pelosi Floor Speech on Eshoo Amendment on GAO Audits of Intelligence Community on May 27, 2010 in support of an amendment by Congresswoman Anna Eshoo of California that would enhance oversight of the intelligence community by requiring the Director of National Intelligence to comply with Government Accountability Office (GAO) audits requested by Congress.

Myths of Austerity By PAUL KRUGMAN, New York Times, Op-Ed Columnist - July 1, 2010
For the last few months, I and others have watched, with amazement and horror, the emergence of a consensus in policy circles in favor of immediate fiscal austerity. That is, somehow it has become conventional wisdom that now is the time to slash spending, despite the fact that the world’s major economies remain deeply depressed.

This conventional wisdom isn’t based on either evidence or careful analysis. Instead, it rests on what we might charitably call sheer speculation, and less charitably call figments of the policy elite’s imagination — specifically, on belief in what I’ve come to think of as the invisible bond vigilante and the confidence fairy.

U.S., Europe At Odds Over Economic Recovery: Guy Raz talks to Ex-Comptroller General David Walker about short and long term fiscal issues, National Public Radio - June 27, 2010
Excerpts from interview with David Walker, former comptroller general of the United States and president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation:

Mr. WALKER: …we have an uncertain economic recovery here in the United States and around the world. We also have very high levels of unemployment in the United States and other countries around the world. And so what we really ought to be doing is helping people to understand the difference between the short-term deficits, which are largely due to temporary factors on the revenue and spending side, and the structural deficits.

So we can justify some additional spending in the short term, but we ultimately have to end up doing something about our structural deficits, although the timing that you implement the actions for the structural deficits is after you’ve had some economic recovery and gotten unemployment down.

RAZ: David Walker, as you know, Peter Orszag has stepped down as White House budget director. There has been some suggestions in the media that you should become the next White House budget director. Is that a job you would accept?

Mr. WALKER: I think I’m well-qualified for that job, especially having been comptroller general of the United States, but I have a job.

Download mp3 to listen to the interview  [8 min 5 sec]

Peterson Fdtn. Head Nostalgic for Debtor’s Prison; Is Indentured Servitude Next?
By: Jon Walker, firedoglake.com - Tuesday June 15, 2010
David Walker is the president and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, founded by billionaire financier Peterson as a think tank on fiscal issues. On CNBC’s “Squawk Box” recently, Walker seemed to long for a return to debtor’s prisons. If he’s nostalgic for debtor’s prison, the next step is to advocate the return of debt bondage…

Peterson Foundation’s Walker: “We used to have debtors prisons, now bankruptcy’s no taint” mediamatters.org - June 11, 2010 3:23 pm ET

Pentagon tries to break from past on pay, personnel reform By Elizabeth Newell, Govexec.com - June 9, 2010
True collaboration among stakeholders will be crucial to ensuring future Defense Department personnel systems avoid the flaws that led to the downfall of the National Security Personnel System, agency and labor witnesses told a Senate panel on Wednesday.

John James, director of the NSPS Transition Office, said the department is on track to move 75 percent of NSPS employees out of the system during fiscal 2010, and noted he is turning some of his attention to fulfilling congressional mandates that Defense establish a new performance management system and hiring process. Click for rest of GovExec story and comments

Hearing on The National Security Personnel System and Performance Management in the Federal Government by the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Daniel K. Akaka Chairman (D-HI)
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
02:30 PM - 05:00 PM
Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 342

[view archive webcast]

Member Statements  Senator Daniel K. Akaka   [view statement]

Witnesses: Panel 1

Mr. John H. James, Jr. [view testimony]
Director, National Security Personnel Transition Office, U.S. Department of Defense

Mr. Chuck Grimes [view testimony]
Deputy Associate Director, Employee Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Panel 2

Mr. Gregory J. Junemann [view testimony]
President, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers
Note: Pages 6-8 of testimony includes IFPTE’s Views on Performance Management, Hiring & Retention, and Training

Ms. Patricia Niehaus [view testimony]
National President, Federal Managers Association

Ms. Patricia Viers [view testimony]
President, Local 1148 (Columbus) American Federation of Government Employees

Provide Your Comments to Congress on GAO’s Human Capital Flexibility by Friday, June 11, 2010 Union News, GAO ANALYSTS NEWS CENTER - May 27, 2010

Congress mandated in 2004 that GAO report on how GAO has exercised its personnel management flexibility under sections 2, 3, 4, 9, and 10 of the “Human Capital II” Act (GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004, PL 108-271).  The Act also directs GAO to provide an opportunity for GAO’s employee organizations, such as your GAO Union, to give their comments.

Therefore, your elected GAO Union representatives need your feedback, so that the Union can communicate the perspectives of GAO Analysts and Specialists directly to Congress. As a GAO Analyst or Specialist, and a member of the bargaining unit–whether you are not yet a GAO Union member, or you are already a GAO Union member–we would like your comments so that the Union can provide an informed position to Congress on behalf of GAO’s Analyst and Specialist community.  A further summary of these sections is found at this link.

This is an important opportunity for you to inform the Union’s response to Congress about how GAO has used the personnel management flexibility granted in Human Capital II.

We will collect your comments until Friday, June 11, 2010, in order to process them and submit them to Congress.  Please email your comments to us at gaoanalysts@ifpte.org, or contact one of your Union representatives.

Re-applying the Lipstick: The Next Generation of Merit Pay By Robbie Kunreuther, www.fedsmith.com - Tuesday, June 1, 2010
The article discussed below mentions GAO and how PFP helped motivate the formation of the GAO union.

Robbie Kunreuther, Director of Government Personnel Services (GPS), who has 35 years in the government’s trenches (13+ in the civil service and 22 more teaching seminars exclusively for Feds), notes that last week, FedSmith posted a link to an article: “Is Pay for Performance Viable in the Federal Government?” which takes the reader to a Federal Times article by Professor Howard Risher, a persistent advocate of pay-for-performance (PFP) in government: Learning from NSPS failure | Last Updated: May 23, 2010.  Risher is associated with the prestigious Wharton School and with the IBM Center for the Business of Government, an organization that influences government reform, and he advocates that we continue to press on with performance-based compensation in the Federal sector despite the end of the Defense Department’s massive National Security Personnel System (NSPS) undertaking.

Kunreuther has an interest in PFP and cited in an earlier FedSmith article that Dr. James Bowman of Florida State University’s Askew School reviewed a vast body of literature on the subject and found little evidence that PFP “works”—inside or outside of government.  An abstract of Dr. Bowman’s article “The Success of Failure: The Paradox of Performance Pay” reads:

This normative article examines the contemporary record of pay-for-performance plans in the federal government. These programs, extending back nearly two generations, have consistently malfunctioned. Nonetheless,the state of the field today is one of continued attempts to use the technique despite agency history and research data that document its problematic nature. Based on scholarly literature,news media reports, and interview data, the analysis assesses the practical experience, policy findings, and political realities of this compensation method. The discussion raises questions about rational decision-making models and suggests that belief in performance pay is akin to an urban legend.

And Kunreuther mentions the Federal Merit Systems Protection Board, whose studies have found that pay is not the best motivator of federal employees.  The Board in its September 2008 report,The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, noted that it had

found evidence that a heightened connection, or engagement, between Federal employees and their organization that surpasses job satisfaction is related to better organizational outcomes. As Federal agencies face stiff competition for new talent, employee engagement strategies may help them to attract the best new employees available and retain the talented employees already on board. By fully engaging their employees as recommended, agencies can improve their operations despite a highly competitive labor market.

In Examining the Darker Side of PFP, Kunreuther cites

examples like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) where merit pay is at work today and showing mixed results, at best. Then there are the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Government Accountability Office (GAO), and (of course) Department of Defense.

Many FedSmith readers are aware that the SEC’s PFP system was challenged by the National Treasury Employees Union as discriminating against African Americans and employees over 40 years old. In September 2007, after examining the evidence, a labor arbitrator awarded $2,700,000 to the represented employees. Cleaning up PFP mistakes can be expensive! After all, the SEC is a rather small agency.

Then there’s the union that GAO never had until merit pay was introduced. While former Controller General David Walker was touting GAO’s broad-banded compensation and evaluation system, the employees affected went looking for a labor union. Unions are elected for a variety of reasons, many of which reflect on management practices and decisions. The International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees (IFPTE) credits their successful election to GAO’s PFP program and its lack of transparency.

Serious consideration should be given to what went wrong with GAO and SEC. Nor was the failure of NSPS just a hiccup. It took an act of Congress to revoke Rumsfeld’s pay-banding system. Years earlier, Jimmy Carter’s Merit Pay/PMRS initiative met the same fate. Perhaps someone from the IBM Center should be examining whether PFP may be an unsuitable strategy for the Federal government. …

Epilogues

Alan Campbell, the first director of OPM, and his sponsor, Jimmy Carter, were gone by the time his merit pay system for GS 13-15s was abandoned by an act of Congress. Similarly, Comptroller General Walker and Secretary Rumsfeld had left their agencies before their PFP efforts required clean-up. Those who serve their country year in and year out are left to wonder what this generation of leaders has in store for them. Like a parent, I suggest looking both ways before crossing to the other side.

Unions fight proposed pay freeze for feds: Federal employee groups mount offensive against House, Senate attempts to freeze federal pay in fiscal 2011 By FederalDaily Staff, Federal Computer Week - Jun 01, 2010
Unions and federal employee groups have had their hands full working to turn back attempts in the House and Senate to freeze federal pay in fiscal 2011.For example, the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE) came on strong recently to oppose legislation in the Senate that would have frozen pay and blocked a proposed 1.4 percent pay raise in 2011. The Senate on May 27 voted 53-45 to defeat that measure, which was sponsored by Republican Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and John McCain of Arizona.

United States Government Accountability Office Fiscal Year 2011 Performance Plan GAO-10-598SP - May 21, 2010 (PDF, 32 pages)

Summary: This report presents the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2011. In the spirit of the Government Performance and Results Act, this annual plan informs the Congress and the American people about what we expect to accomplish on their behalf in the coming fiscal year. It sets forth our plan to make progress toward achieving our strategic goals for serving the Congress and the American people. This framework not only shows the relationship between our strategic goals and strategic objectives, but also show major themes that could potentially affect our work.

Link to last year’s GAO FY 2010 Performance Budget / Plan (GAO-09-304SP) (PDF, 45 pages)

Platts out of GAO mix: Platts rules out GAO nomination, focuses on 19th Congressional District, Scot A. Pitzer, Times Staff Reporter, Gettysburg Times - Published: Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Rep. Todd Platts, R-PA 19, in an interview late Tuesday evening following his convincing primary victory over Republican challenger Michael Smeltzer, addressed questions regarding his candidacy for the GAO job.  Platts has long been considered a finalist for the position of comptroller general to head the Government Accountability Office.

“I’ve been told unofficially by the White House that I’m not going to be selected,” explained Platts, noting that the Obama administration was unlikely to select a “financially conservative Republican from south-central Pennsylvania” to lead the GAO, otherwise known as the “Congressional Watch Dog.”

Click for Rest of article or for a PDF copy of the story.

Related story:  Platts pulls to victory BY SCOT ANDREW PITZER Gettysburg Times Staff Writer - Published: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 1:10 AM EDT

U.S. House incumbent Todd Platts scored a convincing victory Tuesday night over challenger Mike Smeltzer for the Republican nomination in the 19th Congressional district. The district includes Adams County, as well as Cumberland and York counties.Platts received 70.6 percent of the 9,135 votes cast here, as well as 75 percent of the vote in Cumberland County. York County totals were unofficial by press time, but Platts had received about 70 percent of the vote with 95 precincts reporting.“I’m truly humbled by the support, I don’t know if there’s a better way to say it,” Platts said Tuesday night.

Platts addressed concerns regarding the federal government’s search for a new director of the Government Accountability Office in Washington D.C. He was previously considered a finalist for the position, and his opponent - Smeltzer - questioned Platts’ devotion to his Congressional seat throughout the campaign.

“I’ve been told unofficially by the White House that I’m not going to be selected for the GAO position,” said Platts, noting that the Obama administration was unlikely to select a “financially conservative Republican from south-central Pennsylvania” for the GAO role…

Davis_ECF_Appeal_Reply_Brief_as filed_051810

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
_______________________________
No 10-5044
_______________________________
Civil Action No. 06-1002
_______________________________
ARTHUR L. DAVIS,
JIMMIE GILBERT,
JAMES D. MOSES, for themselves
and all others similarly situated,
Appellants,
V.
GENE l. DODARO, ACTING
COMPTROLLER GENERAL,
of the United States Government
Accountability Office (GAO)
and
Michael Wolf, Chair,
The Personnel Appeals Board of the GAO,
Appellees.

Appellants, Arthur L. Davis, Jimmie Gilbert and James D. Moses hereby
Reply to Appellee’s Response to Appellants’ Corrected Motion for Summary
Reversal and Remand.

3. Each of the appellants, Messrs. Davis, Moses and Gilbert, were long term employees of GAO and over 40, thereby invoking the principles of ADEA. (The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended).
4. Each of these appellants pled that they had suffered from a discriminatory pattern and practice applicable to each and every age protected auditor/evaluator at GAO.
5. The discriminatory pattern and practice is well established by evidence contained in electronic personnel database records. Those records have been withheld since 1989. And the appellants’ ability to pursue their case has been impaired by that failure to produce evidence… resulting in virtually zero older employees receiving promotions to the upper ranks of GAO.
7. These actions commenced for these appellants in 1999, when senioremployees who reached 50 and beyond were adversely affected in their ratings, advancements and promotions. They received no promotions, and each was down-rated and by-passed multiple times by younger less qualified “fast tracked” employees.
8. Discrimination based upon age caused each of grievants’ paychecks and/or each of their subsequent retirement annuities to be lower than they would have been if the discrimination had not occurred.
9. The provisions of LLA [the Lilly Ledbetter Act] were tailored by Congress precisely to address this very type of employment discrimination. Each discriminatory check for wages in a diminished amount, and/or each diminished retirement annuity restarts the clock with respect to the 180 day rule for timely filing (LLA § 4 (3)).
10. The effect of new Code (LLA) is to address the definitions of continuing long-term patterns and practices by relaxing restrictions on the time for filing complaints. LLA §§ 2 (3) and 4 (3) address and correct a situation where the initial discriminatory event creates long-term lower wages and smaller retirement benefits (as here).

Chennareddy v. Bowsher,935 F.2d 315, 320 (C.A. D.C. 1991).
“We are troubled by GAO’s failure to bring 4 C.F.R. Sec. 28.51(c) to the District Court’s attention. An agency of the United States, like an attorney practicing before the court, has an affirmative duty to inform the court of controlling precedents, including the agency’s own rules and regulations.”

Whether inadvertently or otherwise, the GAO has again failed to bring an important regulatory law to the Court’s attention creating the situation herein. The record below is replete with such omissions in these related actions.

Conclusion

For all of the above reasons, the Motion for Summary Affirmance should be
denied and the Motion for Summary Remand, granted. A remand is necessary,
with instructions to correct the dearth of relevant information necessary for a just
adjudication in this case. Among that information is access to the information on
discriminatory events memorialized in the electronic personnel files as to the
frequency and magnitude of the age discrimination alleged, and the actual
discrimination based upon age in ratings and selection for promotions. Also, the
access to personnel information enabling the presentation to the court required by
LLA § 2 (3). This information has been admitted to be readily available but
withheld by GAO in the one deposition held in this case while before the district
court.

Respectfully submitted,

wtcharlton 5336
Walter T. Charlton, Counsel for the Appellants
230 Kirkley Road, Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Telephone 410 571 8764,
charltonwt@comcast.net

The GAO Must Perform a Diligent Independent Audit of the More Than $2 Trillion Issued By the Fed Robert Auerbach, Professor, Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin | The Huffington Post - Posted: May 13, 2010
Senator Bernie Sanders’ amendment for a partial audit of the Federal Reserve’s operations by the Government Accountability Office still needs an important requirement. The GAO must perform a diligent independent audit of the more than $2 trillion issued by the Federal Reserve in the United States and sent to foreign countries. The GAO should pay particular attention to Senator Bernie Sanders’ floor statements in presenting the amendment so that the intent of the Congress is carried out. If the GAO relies blindly on the veracity of Fed records without thoroughly auditing the source details, the audit will fail.

I have had experience with accounting cover-ups by the Federal Reserve when I assisted House of Representatives Financial Services Committee Chairmen in their investigations for 11 years. These problems included severe accounting problems in the cash section of the Los Angeles Branch of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank which held $80 billion in currency and coin in their vaults according to Financial Services Committee Chairman Henry B. Gonzalez. I also assisted Chairman Gonzalez in uncovering corrupted accounting problems at the Boston Federal Reserve Bank that was handling the Federal Reserve’s 50 plus contracted airplane fleet. Chairman Gonzalez wanted the Janet Reno Justice Department to pursue the corruption that was found. Justice diverted it to the Federal Reserve’s Inspector General. He is internally appointed by the Fed officials who also authorize his budget . The Fed closed down the airplane operations at the Boston Fed Bank and moved it to the Atlanta Fed Bank. They tried to take action against their own courageous Fed employees who testified in Congress in 1997 and helped expose the corrupted bookkeeping.

These are some of the details that are described in my book Deception and Abuse at the Fed. Chapter 5, “Valuable Secrets and the Return of Greenspan’s Prophetic Touch,” presents additional severe problems at the Federal Reserve which should draw the close scrutiny of competent auditors. These problems have direct bearing on faulty Fed operations and should not be hindered by waving the Fed’s mantra of independence. The Fed operates on a budget which is internally approved and is not even carried on the federal government’s budget. At the very least there should be accountability for what they have done. That will not harm good monetary policy that can be carried out in large part by members of the Fed’s Board of Governors who can serve for 14 years and can only be fired by impeachment which has never happened. Accountability will help to prevent corrupt operations.

The Huffington story includes an excerpt (Chapter 5 — Valuable Secrets and the Return of Greenspan’s “Prophetic Touch”) from Robert Auerbach’s book, Deception and Abuse at the Fed: Henry B. Gonzalez Battles Alan Greenspan’s Bank, 2008, Courtesy the University of Texas Press.

Former U.S. Comptroller General: ‘People starved for truth and leadership’ by Karen Brune Mathis, Managing Editor | The Daily Record - Jacksonville, Florida - May 12, 2010

A man who ran government accountability is demanding more of it.  David Walker, a 10-year veteran as U.S. Comptroller General and head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, brings his message to Jacksonville this month and in brief, it’s this.  Walker profile

“Government has grown too big, promised too much and delivered too little.”  Walker said the United States has “strayed from the principles and values on which it was founded.  “The American people are starved for two things, the truth and leadership, and when they get the truth and they get the leadership, they respond favorably. And they don’t get enough of it,” he said.

Walker spoke with the Daily Record Monday about his presentations in Jacksonville.  Link to the rest of the story

Senate approves toned-down Fed audit By Silla Brush | The Hill - May 11, 2010

The Senate on Tuesday, with overwhelming support, passed legislation requiring new audits of the Federal Reserve.

The 96-0 vote came after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) modified an earlier version of the audit legislation that was strongly opposed by the White House and Federal Reserve. They argued the amendment would compromise the independence of U.S. monetary policy.

The Sanders amendment would require a new audit of the Fed’s emergency lending during the financial crisis and a new audit of the central bank’s governance. It expressly leaves out an audit of the Fed’s monetary policymaking.   The Sanders amendment specifies that:

Audits of the Federal Reserve Board and Federal reserve banks shall not include unreleased transcripts or minutes of meetings of the Board of Governors or of the Federal Open Market Committee. To the extent that an audit deals with individual market actions, records related to such actions shall only be released by the Comptroller General after 180 days have elapsed following the effective date of such actions. 

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) is still backing the original version of the amendment, which is expected to fail.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a longtime critic of the Fed, criticized Sanders for modifying the amendment. The House passed legislation in December with a stronger provision on Fed audits; the two bills still need to be reconciled.

What was wrong with Paul Light’s OpEd The right choice for a federal watchdog (PDF) published today by the Washington Post? (Light’s OpEd also was published previously by the Post on Apr. 30 under the title “Who best could lead the GAO?”) By GAOUnion.org - May 7, 2010

Professor Paul Light recently has opined on the issue of who should be selected as the next Comptroller General in a Washington Post Op-Ed.  Light proposed that the President should use three criteria in evaluating the suggested candidates:

First, the comptroller general must be absolutely committed to rigorous investigation. Even though congressional requests drive a huge percentage of its work, the GAO must have absolute freedom to follow any lead, make any recommendation and publish any study. The comptroller general must be willing to take the heat.

Second, the comptroller general must speak the truth even when it offends Congress or the president. The GAO does much more than audit and investigate programs. It also helps set the policy agenda, draft legislation and oversee faithful execution of the nation’s laws. The comptroller general must be ready to call anyone in Washington to account on any issue.

Third, the comptroller general cannot have any partisan connections. Much as Democrats and Republicans might want one of their own at the helm, the GAO cannot be effective if it is seen as a tool of either party. The comptroller general needs strong political skills but no political past.

On the basis of these criteria, particularly the third criterion, Light concluded that Acting Comptroller General Gene Dodaro or former Assistant Comptroller General Ira Goldstein should be nominated by President Obama. 

Light’s opinion matters, as he is a well respected thought leader in the pubic administration community.  Currently a professor at New York University’s Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service, Light was affiliated with the Brookings Institution from 1999-2010 and is the author of a number of books and articles on public administration topics.  However, in the opinion of GAOUnion.org, Light’s OpEd does not hold up under scrutiny, and misses the mark in a number of ways.

The problems center on Light’s third criterion: the comptroller general cannot have any partisan connections. It is certainly the case, as Light maintains, that GAO cannot be effective if it is seen as a tool of either party. However, it is unnecessary and unrealistic assert that a Comptroller General should have no political past to avoid being viewed as a tool of either political party.

Light writes that one of the candidates with a political past–Professor Linda Bilmes–is clearly up to the job, but concludes she would be under constant Republican fire during her tenure because of her past political campaign contributions to Democratic candidates and her co-authorship of a book on the costs of the war in Iraq.  This is a questionable conclusion, even in the current acrimonious partisan political environment.  

In addition, Light ignores the fact that Republican U.S. Representative Todd R. Platts (PA-19), who was on both the Democratic and Republican lists of Comptroller General candidates submitted to the President, has the support not only of the Democratic leadership and but also of 167 of his House colleagues, including 57 Democratic colleagues (see Platts bids for Comptroller General job).

The previous Comptroller General, David Walker, was a Republican at the time of his appointment, had served as a political appointee in the administrations of Republican Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and had contributed to the election campaigns of mostly Republican candidates (see Is GAO As Neutral as Everyone Assumes?).  But few would claim that Walker was not an independent, non-partisan Comptroller General.  

Light’s Op-Ed also ignores the historical record of GAO and the legacy of a past Comptroller General of the United States. Light fails to recognize that one of the best leaders in GAO’s history was Lindsay C. Warren, who was a Democratic Member of Congress from North Carolina when he was selected to be Comptroller General by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1940. After serving eight-terms as a Democratic Member of the House, Warren became the third U. S. Comptroller General and head of the GAO from 1940-1954.

Comptroller General Warren, a lawyer, had held elected offices in North Carolina as a Democrat before being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. As a Member of the House, Warren had congressional committee experience closely related to the work of GAO, having served as Chairman of the House Committee on Accounts (now Oversight). Warren generally enjoyed good relations with Congress during his term in office as Comptroller General. Warren led GAO through World War II and helped transform GAO from a DC-based green-eyeshade checker of agency financial records to a field-based professional auditing agency that carried out comprehensive, on-site audits. See the March 26, 2010 GAOUnion Post: What kind of Comptroller General and GAO leader would a U.S. Representative be?

Therefore, it is clear that both Professor Bilmes and the other Comptroller General candidate with a “political past”–Republican U.S. Representative Todd Platts–should be able to demonstrate to Congress, as did the previous Comptroller General David Walker, that they are independent and dedicated to

@ good government and public service;
@ greater economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in government;
@ financial, managerial, organizational, and program accountability;
@ rigorous analysis and evaluation of programs, policies, and legislation;
@ honest, aggressive oversight, insight, and foresight of federal programs, policy issues, and legislation without any underlying political agenda.

GAOUnion.org would amend Light’s concuding paragraph as follows:

If the GAO is to remain a safe harbor for speaking truth to power, it needs a leader who is dedicated to honest, aggressive oversight. The White House must avoid even the slightest hint that the new comptroller general has a political agenda. Any of the candidates, especially Congressman Platts, and also Professor Bilmes, can meet that test.

Who best could lead the GAO?  (PDF) by Paul C. Light, Professor at New York University’s Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service, Washington Post Op-Ed - April 30, 2010

It is not clear whom President Obama will select, but no matter the nominee, three criteria should be at the fore:First, the comptroller general must be absolutely committed to rigorous investigation. Even though congressional requests drive a huge percentage of its work, the GAO must have absolute freedom to follow any lead, make any recommendation and publish any study. The comptroller general must be willing to take the heat.

Second, the comptroller general must speak the truth even when it offends Congress or the president. The GAO does much more than audit and investigate programs. It also helps set the policy agenda, draft legislation and oversee faithful execution of the nation’s laws. The comptroller general must be ready to call anyone in Washington to account on any issue.

Third, the comptroller general cannot have any partisan connections. Much as Democrats and Republicans might want one of their own at the helm, the GAO cannot be effective if it is seen as a tool of either party. The comptroller general needs strong political skills but no political past.

GAOUnion Note: Paul Light’s Op-Ed overlooks the fact that one of the best leaders in GAO’s history was Lindsay C. Warren, who President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) selected to be Comptroller General after serving eight-terms as a Democratic Member of Congress from North Carolina.  Warren served as the third U. S. Comptroller General and head of the GAO from 1940-1954.  Comptroller General Warren, a lawyer, had held elected offices in North Carolina as a Democrat before being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.  As a Member of the House, Warren had congressional committee experience closely related to the work of GAO, having served as Chairman of the House Committee on Accounts (now Oversight).   Warren generally enjoyed good relations with Congress during his term in office as Comptroller General.  Warren led GAO through World War II and helped transform GAO from a DC-based green-eyeshade checker of agency financial records to a field-based professional auditing agency that carried out comprehensive, on-site audits. See the March 26, 2010 GAOUnion Post: What kind of Comptroller General and GAO leader would a U.S. Representative be?

There are two candidates who appear to satisfy these criteria: acting comptroller general Gene Dodaro and former assistant comptroller general Ira Goldstein, both of whom were included on the Democratic and Republican lists. The question is whether the White House wants to reward Dodaro’s 30 years of backbreaking service in the GAO or Goldstein’s wider range of experience (at the GAO, the Social Security Administration and the consulting firm Deloitte). Each would excel in the post.

If the GAO is to remain a safe harbor for speaking truth to power, it needs a leader who is dedicated to honest, aggressive oversight. The White House must avoid even the slightest hint that the new comptroller general has a political agenda. Dodaro and Goldstein meet that test.

McCaskill Presses to End Secret Holds By Jessica Brady, Roll Call Staff - April 29, 2010
McCaskill announced that along with Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), she would no longer put secret holds on any names. Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced legislation last week that would ban the use of secret holds, a long-standing privilege in the Senate.

McCaskill Pushes to End Secret Senate Holds (PDF of Article) By Jessica Brady, Roll Call Staff - April 20, 2010
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) is leading a crusade to call out Members who have placed anonymous holds on nominees and clear the backlog of names languishing on the Senate calendar.

McCaskill launched her campaign Tuesday by employing a little-used rule adopted in 2007 that requires a Member to report their anonymous hold in the Congressional Record after a colleague has tried to clear the name.

“My beef is that this is all secretive,” McCaskill said after speaking about the subject on the floor. “My beef is that [Republicans] are using nominations as backroom bargaining chits, and last time I checked, that’s exactly the kind of thing they’re complaining about.”

There are more than 90 pending nominations on the Senate calendar, and McCaskill sought to clear 80 of those names Tuesday evening, including three being held by Democrats. Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) objected to moving forward on the names on the behalf of his caucus, citing the need for debate and time agreements.

While McCaskill was on the floor, Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) tried unsuccessfully to clear the nomination of Gen. Michael Walsh to be promoted to a major general. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) objected to Levin’s request, and while McCaskill bemoaned the hold up, she complimented Vitter for being public with his opposition.

McCaskill also said she would be watching the Congressional Record and contacting both parties’ leadership offices to track which Members come forward to reveal their holds in accordance with the 2007 rule. McCaskill said she hopes to either reveal the sources of anonymous holds — or end them all together.

“Hopefully by the end of the week we’ll learn who it is in the Senate that doesn’t want them to be nominated, who it is that doesn’t want them to be confirmed,” she said.

McCaskill said she also wants to pressure Senators “to speak out about their objections so that we can answer them and move forward and get these people to work.”

Earlier Tuesday, the Senate confirmed the nominations of Lael Brainard to serve as an undersecretary at the Treasury Department and Stuart Gordon Nash and Marisa Demeo to serve on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) filed a handful of cloture motions on nominations last week to clear some of the backlog while the chamber awaits consideration of financial regulatory reform. Democrats are also gearing up for a summer debate over President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, and the test runs this week over several lower court and executive nominees have allowed the majority to prep for that debate.

Is GAO As Neutral as Everyone Assumes? (PDF) By Rebecca Adams, CQ Staff: CQ Weekly - April 26, 2010

The job of comptroller general of the United States, the person who oversees the Government Accountability Office and its many audits and investigations, generally has been seen as above partisanship. But that hasn’t prevented Democrats and Republicans from getting into a partisan brawl over who should get the job next.
The GAO, which Congress created in 1921 as kind of its own accounting department to monitor the rest of the government, has been without a confirmed comptroller general since David M. Walker resigned in March 2008 to take over the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a prominent deficit watchdog group. He served for two-thirds of the job’s non-renewable 15-year term.

GIVERS: Bilmes, left, has contributed to candidates, but so did Walker before he was appointed to run GAO. (BLOOMBERG NEWS / ANDREW HARRER)

In addition to running what has become a $600 million-a-year investigative agency, the next comptroller general will be important in another way, because he or she will appoint members to several commissions required by the new health care law.

Picking a GAO chief is a little involved: Ten congressional leaders — currently six Democrats and four Republicans — are supposed to recommend at least three nominees, from whom the president picks one who then must be confirmed by the Senate.

When Democrats and Republicans met to select their slate, they agreed on three candidates. Democrats wanted to add a fourth, though — Linda J. Bilmes, a professor at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and a well-known critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. Republicans refused to go along, suspecting that Democrats wanted only Bilmes to be considered for the job.

Republicans say that Bilmes has contributed more than $16,000 to the campaigns of Democrats in the past decade, with no donations to Republicans. “She is an unabashed partisan with a history of supporting Democratic candidates,” says Kurt Bardella, a spokesman for Darrell Issa of California, who was on the nominating committee because he’s the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “Her nomination,” Bardella says, “would hinder GAO credibility as a nonpartisan fair investigator. I hope the president wouldn’t nominate an ideologue like Linda Bilmes and would uphold GAO’s role as a neutral broker.”

Neutral, perhaps, but the comptroller general has not always been nonpartisan before taking over as head of GAO. Walker, for instance, had spent a decade with the Arthur Andersen accounting firm and several years in government jobs, during which he contributed at least $8,000 to political funds, most of them Republican. He was confirmed in 1998, when Republicans controlled Congress.

Democrats point out that one of the other candidates recommended to President Obama is a Republican House member, Todd R. Platts of Pennsylvania. Republicans say they don’t think Platts is under serious consideration.

The other names forwarded to Obama were the current acting comptroller general, Gene L. Dodaro, and a former assistant comptroller general, Ira Goldstein. When the two parties couldn’t agree on including Bilmes, Democrats sent a letter to Obama on their own with the four names. Republicans followed up with a separate letter putting forward the names of the three who they support.

Dodaro has been the agency’s caretaker for two years, matching the stretch acting comptroller James F. Hinchman served from 1996 to 1998.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated December 18, 2009, Judge Emmett G. Sullivan, of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, refused to dismiss two of GAO Plaintiff James D. Moses’ age discrimination claims in Case No. 06-CV- 01712 (EGS). Specifically, the Court denied GAO’s motion to dismiss without prejudice on Plaintiff’s claims that: (1) His employer, the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), placed him into a lower paying “Band” than his co-workers because of his age; and (2) GAO denied him a cost-of-living adjustment (“COLA”) because of his age.

For background on the Nature of this Case and Parties, see the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - February 1, 2010 (PDF 37 pages) and these five attachments:

1) Letter to Comptroller General from Nine Members of Congress regarding his Failure to Honor Commitments to provide pay increases to all employees with ratings of “meets expectations” or better - September 28, 2006

2) AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES D. MOSES - October 4, 2006

3) AFFIDAVIT OF ARTHUR L. DAVIS - August 14, 2006 and

5) AFFIDAVIT OF VENKAREDDY CHENNAREDDY - August 25, 2006

6) DECLARATION OF ROGER CARROLL  - January 1, 2008

as well as The Effect of the Lilly Ledbetter Act Upon this Case - March 24, 2010 (PDF 23 pages), both documents filed in the case on behalf of GAO Complainant James Moses and the Putative Class by their Attorney, Walter T. Charlton -Email: charltonwt@comcast.net (410) 571-8764.

Interestingly, GAO’s motions in this age discrimination case have been filed on behalf of GAO by U.S. Attorneys employed by the U.S. Department of Justice.  Apparently, DOJ lawyers represent GAO in all discrimination cases before federal courts, despite GAO’s claims to be independent of the Executive branch and DOJ.  See the DOJ Motion on behalf of GAO to Dismiss Age Discrimination Claims - March 30, 2010 (PDF 35 pages).

On April 8, 2010, Judge Emmett G. Sullivan issued a MINUTE ORDER concerning the case: see MINUTE ORDER 04-08-2010 Moses v Walker-Dodaro-GAO.

For additional background on the age discrimination issue in GAO dating back to the 1980s, see the links below, arranged in reverse chronological order.

GAO Retirees Seek Retroactive Raises; opposed by GAO & suffer setback in PAB, GAO’s own agency court - April 12, 2010

Declaration of Acting Comptroller General Dodaro about his role in GAO’s pay system changes in federal age discrimination case - March 30, 2010

An Opportunity to Rectify 25 Years of Age Discrimination at GAO by Using the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 - March 18, 2010

Age Discrimination Has Undermined GAO and Its Ability to Improve Government Efficiency and Accountability - February 5, 2010

GAO Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) Annual Report - September 1, 2009

According to the Report, an EEO study on Recruiting, Retaining, & Reclaiming Older Workers was authorized during the year.  In its study, PAB will attempt to identify whether there are any cultural,  environmental, or organizational barriers to the engagement and retention of older workers at GAO.  The study will also identify policies, procedures or practices at GAO that either limit or foster employment opportunities for older workers.  Issuance of a report with findings and recommendations is planned for 2009.

House Floor Remarks about GAO Market Based Pay, Band II Restructuring, & COLA Denials to 300 of GAO’s most experienced employees - June 22, 2007

Mr. Davis.  GAO says that it took this action based upon a compensation-based study conducted by Watson Wyatt. However, when the subcommittee’s staff, working with experts in market-based pay, reviewed the documentation, they were unable to validate that the employees who did not receive their across-the-board increase were overpaid, as asserted by GAO.  In addition to meeting their performance expectations, these employees were among the most experienced, with over 25 years of service to GAO.

Ms. Norton. [T]he actions taken by the Comptroller General where you would at least have expected it has produced nothing short of a revolution within, of all places, the GAO workforce… How would you feel if you had worked at or above performance, and yet you were among 300 employees of, what is it, 2 million Federal employees who did not receive the across-the-board pay increase that everybody else receives? Well, some of you might have sued or filed a claim with the Personnel Appeals Board within the GAO. And those employees, all 12 of them, have received their COLA, have been promoted, and have had their retirement fixed. But there are 300 employees from 2006, 130 from 2007 who have been punished as to their pensions and pay because the Comptroller did not keep his promise with the Congress, which was that nobody’s across-the-board pay would be affected. In fact, what he did was to insert a market-based study without informing the subcommittee, an unvalidated study, and now he has a whole racial claim on top of it because the African Americans have been disproportionately affected by his action [and age discrimination cases in Federal Court as well].

Opening Statement of Chairman Danny K. Davis at Joint Hearing on GAO Personnel Reform: Does It Meet Expectations? - May 22, 2007

In March of 2006, in response to questions submitted by Representative Hoyer at a GAO appropriations hearing on the issue, the comptroller general acknowledges his commitment, but said that his views changed as a result of a Watson Wyatt compensation-based study that led to a split in Band 2 and the finding that some 308 were being overpaid.

The employees, on the other hand, said that they were never involved in the Watson Wyatt study process and were not provided any of the documentation to support the claim that they were overpaid.

The subcommittee determined that the concept of splitting Band 2 arose with the result of a job questionnaire administered to GAO employees by Personnel Decisions Research Institute in 2000. Furthermore, in its 2004 contract with Watson Wyatt, GAO requested compensation ranges not for the three bands that existed at GAO at the time, but for four pay bands, Band 1, Band 2A, Band 2B and Band 3.

The fact is the idea of splitting Band 2 predated the Watson Wyatt study by approximately four years and that Watson Wyatt provided compensation ranges that reflected a split in Band 2 because that was what GAO asked them to do.

The comptroller general’s reasons for breaking his commitment to Congress hinge on the Watson Wyatt compensation study and the notion that some GAO employees were overpaid. But even Watson Wyatt has said that they present the data. They do not make policy decisions as to who is and who is not overpaid. That decision is made by the client.

My hope is that at the end of this hearing, GAO will take steps to regain its credibility by honoring its commitments, obeying the law and addressing employee concerns.

Joint hearing on GAO market-based pay and personnel reforms (The Hearing TRANSCRIPT is @ GAO Personnel Reform: Does Is Meet Expectations?) - May  22, 2007

Press articles leading up to May 22 Hearing on GAO pay system - May 21, 2007

Plaintiffs upset by GAO refusal to submit evidence in lawsuit - May 18, 2007

Diersen files petition for rehearing in discrimination/retaliation lawsuit against GAO By David John Diersen, Adversity.Net Report - December 17, 2004

GAO: The Human Capital Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2004-2006 GAO-04-1063SP (PDF 36 pages)  September 1, 2004  (Click to find an employee over 40 on the cover or p. 20 of GAO’s Human Capital Plan)

Diersen v. GAO: Additional Documents in ADEA & Title VII discriminiation case against GAO’s older, white, & male employees - April 25, 2001

Diersen v. GAO: ADEA & Title VII discriminiation against GAO’s older, white, & male employees - February 27, 2001

Diersen Letter to Mr. Gregory Zygiel, U.S. Office of Personnel Management - August 10, 1999; updated October 17, 1999

Personnel Appeals Board: Promotions of Banded Employees, 1991-1995 SP-99-9 - September 30, 1999

PAB Study shows disparities against GAO employees over 40, white, and male (pp. 25-26):  At headquarters, employees under 40, in general, were nearly twice as likely to be promoted and females were promoted at more than twice the rate of males. In the regions, white employees were promoted at 70% of the rate of minority employees; males and employees 40 and over were promoted at approximately 2/3 the rate of females and employees under 40. Combining data, younger employees had nearly a 40% more favorable rate of promotion; females had nearly a 30% more favorable rate; and, minority employees had nearly a 20% more favorable rate.

GAO Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) Hearing on Age Issues in Employment - March 29, 1996

Charles Woodward, Chair of the Mid-Level Employees’ Council, speaking on behalf of his and other GAO councils, stated a belief that age is an important factor in promotion decisions at GAO. Relying on anecdotal information, Mr. Woodward said that his constituency believes that age plays a significant role in GAO’s personnel decision-making and that a “steady stream” of younger staff has been promoted more quickly than and instead of older, more experienced staff.

Mr. Woodward asserted that the speed with which newer, younger employees are promoted is the reason that promotions are scarce for the older mid-level employees and, absent that factor, a funnelling of a certain number of the older mid-level employees to higher level jobs would occur.

Also speaking at the hearing was Walter Charlton, a private attorney representing thirteen employees who have filed an age discrimination suit against GAO in Federal District Court. The focus of the suit originally was promotions at GAO. According to Mr. Charlton, the probability of promotion at GAO declines at 43; by 55, that probability is virtually non- existent. He echoed Mr. Woodward’s claim that at GAO young, newly-hired employees are being promoted faster than older employees were and that they are being promoted over more senior employees. The suit has been expanded to include lack of visibility of assignments given to older workers and the denial of certain other benefits based on age. The plaintiffs are awaiting a decision from the judge on whether he will certify them to proceed as a class.

Age Employment Discrimination: EEOC’s Investigation of Charges Under 1967 Law GAO/HRD-92-82 September 4, 1992

Comptroller General Bowsher 1989 Pay Protection Guarantee when staff were converted to Broad-Bands - June 16, 1989

EEO Oversight; Functional Study of GAO’s Career Ladder Promotion Process Found Race but Not Gender Disparities (PAB-88-1) - October 1987

This study concluded that between 1980 and 1985 there were statistical disparities associated with race in evaluator career ladder promotions.  The disparities were particularly evident in comparisons between Black and White evaluators.  Age disparities were not examined.

Age Discrimination and Other Equal Employment Opportunity Issues in the Federal Work Force GAO/FPCD-82-6 - November 20, 1981

A Brief Guide to GAO’s Administrative Process for Unlawful Discrimination Complaints GAO/PAB Office of General Counsel