Federal Reports

Timely follow-up action is initiated on older inactive grants to determine the potential for closing and de-obligations.

ARC Program staff and OIG to obtain HUD cooperation and action to close grants and de-obligate funds for use on other needed projects in Appalachia remains unsuccessful

In August 2008, numerous newspaper articles questioned the fairness of a TVA Maintain and Gain transaction granting water access to The Cove at Blackberry Ridge LLC (Blackberry). The articles raised questions about whether the Blackberry's primary investor, a Congressman, used his position to influence TVA's decision to grant Blackberry's request for water access. Because doubt was cast on the fairness of a TVA process, the OIG conducted an inspection and found no evidence of pressure on TVA from the Congressman to give Blackberry water access on this lakefront project. However, the appearance of possible favoritism resulted in reputational harm to both the Congressman and TVA. As a result of that inspection, TVA and the Board of Directors developed the "Obtaining Things of Value from TVA Protocol" (Protocol) in June 2009 to provide a means to identify the potential of actual or apparent conflicts of interest or the appearance of the exertion of undue influence on the part of a person applying for a TVA benefit.This audit was initiated to determine whether (1) the design provides reasonable assurance of meeting its intended purpose and (2) the Protocol was implemented as required. We determined the Protocol provides false assurance TVA is mitigating the risk of undue influence due to several factors: (1) the design not meeting its intended purpose, (2) the Protocol not being implemented as required, due to inconsistent incorporation into policies and procedures and noncompliance with some Protocol requirements, (3) a lack of consequences for the applicant's noncompliance with self-disclosure, and (4) an absence of instructions on how an employee should disclose knowledge of actual or apparent undue influence limits the likelihood it will be identified and prevented. Ultimately, this poses a risk of reputational harm to TVA and the applicant, person, corporation, or entity seen as receiving the benefit.We recommended TVA (1) perform a risk assessment to determine what types of "things of value" and "covered persons" should be defined in the Protocol; (2) enhance the Protocol by evaluating the benefit of whether to define applicant violation consequences, incorporating reporting guidelines for employees, and revising immediately, and requiring review cadence; (3) require implementation of the Protocol for benefits identified as "things of value," into all TVA related policies and processes; (4) develop a repository for all types of defined "covered person" requests other than those related to Section 26a permit and interest in real property requests; (5) identify who is responsible to brief the TVA Board's Audit, Risk, and Regulation Committee; (6) provide annual training; and (7) disseminate the Protocol annually, at a minimum, to TVA personnel who could be affected by its requirements.