April 9, 2008

 

A summary of daily news relevant to the federal workforce produced by the Partnership for Public Service.

1. Federal Credit Cards Misused
2. Federal Diary: Labor Trouble Brews at Marshals Service
3. Fostering Innovation
4. OPM Increases Leave Cap for Senior Defense Employees

Federal Credit Cards Misused

The Washington Post 

By Dan Eggen

 

Federal employees used government credit cards to pay for lingerie, gambling, iPods, Internet dating services, and a $13,000 steak-and-liquor dinner, according to a new audit from the Government Accountability Office, which found widespread abuses in a purchasing program meant to improve bureaucratic efficiency.

 

The study, released by Senate lawmakers yesterday, found that nearly half the "purchase card" transactions it examined were improper, either because they were not authorized correctly or because they did not meet requirements for the cards' use. The overall rate of problems "is unacceptably high," the audit found.

 

The GAO also found that agencies could not account for nearly $2 million worth of items identified in the audit -- including laptop computers, digital cameras and, at the Army, more than a dozen computer servers worth $100,000 each.

 

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), who requested the study along with Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), said that money "intended to pay for critical infrastructure, education and homeland security is instead being spent on iPods, lingerie and socializing."

 

"Too many government employees have viewed purchase cards as their personal line of credit," Coleman said. "It's time to cut up their cards and start over."

 

The audit is the culmination of a series of GAO reports over the past decade that have uncovered improper use of government-issued purchase cards at agencies, including the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Government employees spent nearly $20 billion last year using "SmartPay" cards and related convenience checks, for items ranging from pencils to computers to utility trucks.

 

Purchase cards, used by about 300,000 government employees in 2007, are essentially the federal government's equivalent of corporate credit cards. Issued by five major banks, they are primarily for transactions under $2,500 but can be used for larger contract payments. All transactions are supposed to comport with federal purchasing guidelines, including proper authorization and documentation.

 

The latest study used scientific sampling to gauge problems with the cards across numerous federal agencies from July 2005 to September 2006. The report singles out incidents for special criticism as "abusive," "improper" or "fraudulent."

 

In the fraudulent category, a longtime employee of the U.S. Forest Service in Oregon, Debra K. Durfey, wrote convenience checks worth more than $640,000 from 2000 to 2006 to a live-in boyfriend, who used the money for gambling, car expenses and mortgage payments, according to the GAO and the Justice Department.

 

The fraud went undetected until a whistle-blower forwarded a tip to the Agriculture Department's inspector general. Durfey, who headed her unit's purchasing office, pleaded guilty last year and was sentenced to 21 months in prison and restitution.

 

Another fraud case involved the U.S. Postal Service, where an unidentified postmaster used his card to charge $1,100 over a 15-month period for "various online dating services" while he was under investigation for viewing pornography on a government computer. The employee worked out an agreement to remain on sick leave until he retired in 2007 and paid back the money spent on the dating services, according to the GAO report and a Postal Service spokesman.

 

In a case the GAO deemed "abusive," the Postal Service spent $13,500 in 2006 on a dinner at a Ruth's Chris Steak House in Orlando, including "over 200 appetizers and over $3,000 of alcohol, including more than 40 bottles of wine costing more than $50 each and brand-name liquor such as Courvoisier, Belvedere and Johnny Walker Gold." The tab came to more than $160 a head for the 81 guests, the report said.

 

Postal Service spokesman Gerry McKiernan said the dinner was held to entertain large postal customers who were already in Florida for another conference, and actually saved money because it combined four events into one. He also defended the payments for alcohol.

 

"When you're having dinner with customers, it's normal to have a drink," McKiernan said.

 

To read the entire article, click here. 

 

Labor Trouble Brews at Marshals Service

The Washington Post 

By Stephen Barr

 

There are some unhappy employees at the U.S. Marshals Service.

 

About 220 criminal investigators at the Justice Department agency have formed Marshals Unified to protest a "conversion program" that permits deputy marshals to become criminal investigators without going through the regular civil service competition for jobs.

 

"The new conversion program, in effect, violates federal merit-system principles that dictate fair implementation and execution of the hiring and promotion practices of federal agencies," lawyers for Marshals Unified wrote to John F. Clark, director of the Marshals Service.

 

The dispute, which has gone on for months, demonstrates the ill feelings that can develop in federal agencies when officials change hiring and promotion practices to fill gaps in staffing or meet the demands of increased workloads. Those bad feelings often turn into grievances or court actions if employees perceive that agency managers have no interest in acting on their complaints.

 

In the Marshals Service case, the conversion program has allowed deputy marshals to become criminal investigators while putting in less time to reach the top career position -- General Schedule grade 12 -- for that occupation, according to lawyers for the investigators who have filed grievances. It permits an investigator to rise to GS-12 a year or two sooner than investigators who followed the regular merit promotion rules.

 

The program often allows those who convert to be paid more, despite having less experience than investigators in the older merit system. Every paycheck issued to a converted investigator represents a violation of the government's principle of equal pay for equal work, the lawyers said.

 

When some investigators complained about the conversion program to Clark, they were told to take their concerns to the agency's human resources office, according to the lawyers.

 

After several months passed with no attention, the investigators sent a letter to Clark through their lawyers. The agency directed them to file individual grievances, and 181 did so.

 

The grievances, however, were denied by the agency because of "untimeliness," according to a letter from David Anderson, the deputy assistant director for human resources at the Marshals Service.

 

The grievances were filed in January, too long after the conversions took place, from May 2003 to August 2006, he wrote.

 

David Turner, a Marshals Service spokesman, said in an e-mail that the deputy conversion program was developed "to enhance the efficiency" of the agency, which has tried to make the program "as fair as possible."

 

Turner said he could not comment further because grievances are pending.

 

William L. Bransford, one of the lawyers representing Marshals Unified, said a second grievance has been filed and investigators are awaiting a response from the agency. About 300 marshals were put at a financial disadvantage because of the conversion program, Bransford said.

 

"You would think an agency with that many unhappy employees would talk to them," he said.

 

Fostering Innovation

Government Executive

By Gautham Nagesh

 

In government circles, innovation often can be seen as a dirty word, something to treat with caution, perhaps even something to avoid. Innovation generally comes partnered with risk - the bane of civil servants and their managers. Risk of failure, risk of wasted time and resources, and worst of all, risk of having your name associated with a project that went nowhere. Finding a way to encourage innovation among staff is one of the more difficult tasks that federal IT managers face. The barriers are numerous, the process of getting ideas and funding approved is long and arduous, and recognition often is nonexistent.

 

"There certainly are some things about government that make it hard or challenging to innovate," says Alan Balutis, director of the business solutions group at Cisco Systems Inc. and former chief information officer for the Commerce Department. "One is the sheer size. The IT budget itself is $700 billion." He also talks about issues of accountability and how they discourage innovation. "One of the things that's valued in government is continuity and predictability," he says. "There are lots of forces that work toward keeping things the same and predictable and argue against things that are new and different."

 

Organizational culture can be a major factor is this resistance to change, according to Emory Miller, senior vice president at Robbins-Gioia, a program management consulting firm in Alexandria, Va., and a federal employee for 36 years. "Someone might be hindered because they've done something for the past 20 years and are not aware that the world has changed dramatically," he says. "Often after people go to training and are all pumped up, they say they can't apply the new ideas because of their organization's culture."

 

One of the key elements of that resistance is government's aversion to risk. "I think the risk-averse nature of a lot of federal managers creates a barrier to success for them," says Andre Etherly, vice president for federal solutions at Keane Inc., an IT global services firm in San Ramon, Calif. "A lot of them view their career as being adversely impacted if they take a wrong step."

 

A final barrier to innovation is the nature of the federal budget and acquisitions processes. "You've got programs on annual appropriations cycles, then agency strategic plans and IT strategic plans that are intended to be forward looking one to 10 years out," says Dan Chenok, senior vice president and general manager with McLean, Va.-based Pragmatics Inc., an IT solutions provider for federal government.

 

Leading From the Side

 

So how can an IT manager overcome these barriers and encourage innovation among employees? It all starts with the people at the top.

 

"Today's manager needs to understand that we don't manage as we have done in the past, through a hierarchical structure. We accomplish work by influencing people and leading from the side," says Miller. His belief that a culture of innovation is something that must be created by senior-level executives was echoed by several other sources. "Leaders have to think differently today," Miller says. "They can't simply replicate past success, but must be thinking and must look for ways to take what we have and achieve our mission objectives."

 

A major part of creating a culture of innovation is establishing a tolerance for risk and being able to justify that risk up the line to senior and politically appointed leadership.

 

"Part of your role [as IT manager] is being a buffer, an interpreter to create an environment to foster innovation," says Balutis. "You're the one that might take some of the slings and arrows that come from outside."

 

Protecting employees who take calculated risks sends employees a message about the priority of innovation versus avoiding blame. "Innovation lots of times means risk. I think risk is good, it's important," says Miller. "We must take risk smartly, manage our risk, and we must have an environment where we are free to take risks and be innovative."

 

Sometimes failure can be an option. "I think part of it is not punishing failure, not shooting the messenger. If someone is creative and taking a risk, they are going to fail," says Balutis.

 

To read the entire article, click here. 

 

OPM Increases Leave Cap for Senior Defense Employees

Government Executive
By Alyssa Rosenberg

Senior-level civilian Defense Department employees can roll over more unused annual leave under a new regulation issued by the Office of Personnel Management.