Investigative Reports

U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General's investigations newsletter for the period of October 1 – November 30, 2018.

Section 11(d)(9) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, requires the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to submit to Congress and the President an annual report on the activities of the Integrity Committee. For more informatoin about the Integrity Committee, please visit the link below.

The OIG investigated allegations that an Office of Aviation Services (OAS) employee conducted private pilot examinations while on U.S. Government time, leased his personal aircraft to the Government, and improperly obtained clients because of his wife’s position at another Federal agency.We confirmed the employee conducted private pilot exams during time he also claimed for official duty on as many as 33 occasions. The employee said he mistakenly failed to take leave on 11 of those occasions but disputed the other 22. We found no indication he leased his private aircraft to any Government agency or that he obtained clients through his wife. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Idaho declined prosecution.

An Amtrak Service Engineer resigned from employment on December 20, 2018, following a joint investigation with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) OIG which revealed the employee simultaneously worked at both Amtrak and New York’s MTA. The employee failed to disclose his dual employment on Amtrak’s Certificate of Compliance form. When confronted with the investigation’s findings, the employee immediately resigned from the Amtrak.

The OIG investigated multiple allegations of improper hiring, noncompetitive promotions, nepotism, favoritism, and other improper personnel practices by three Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) senior officials.We found that one of the officials violated Federal regulations when he pursued a procurement action to hire an employee with whom he had a prior relationship. We also found that he directed a change to the minimum qualification language in a job solicitation to aid the same employee’s selection for Federal employment. We found no evidence to support the allegations against the other two officials involving hiring, noncompetitive supervisory reassignments, nepotism, or favoritism.We found that a BSEE official violated Federal regulations when he pursued a procurement action to hire an employee with whom he had a prior relationship.

We investigated an allegation that Jamie K. Reaser, Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council (NISC) Secretariat, may have violated Federal ethics and conflict of interest regulations by directing the award of a sole-source contract to an individual with whom she resided and may have had a personal and/or financial relationship.We found that in May 2017, Reaser violated Federal regulations when she directed the award of a $20,000 sole-source contract to her friend, with whom she routinely lived during the week rentfree, for writing a review article. We also found that she provided him with the Government’s budget for the contract. We also found that all the contracts awarded since Reaser became the NISC Secretariat’s executive director were awarded through sole-source procedures at her direction, even though some of those could have been openly competed. In some of the cases, Reaser provided sensitiveprocurement information to contractors prior to award, which was contrary to acquisition procedures.We are providing our report to the Assistant Secretary for Budget, Finance, Performance, and Acquisition for any action deemed appropriate.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigated an allegation that during fiscal year 2017 an employee of the Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Richmond, Virginia, misused official time by recording overtime and compensatory time in excess of 500 hours and 200 hours, respectively. During its review, the OIG also evaluated the employee’s use of telework. Concurrent with the OIG investigation, the Veterans Integrated Service Network 6 (VISN 6) Financial Quality Assurance Manager audited the time worked by the employee and concluded that the extent of the employee’s additional work hours was known to the VAMC’s management, but that documentation and internal controls governing the use of overtime were insufficient. VISN 6 recommended that the VAMC prioritize the hiring of an additional staff member in the employee’s work group to reduce the need for overtime, and that the VAMC management establish and maintain proper internal control structure over the approval of overtime and compensatory time. The OIG concurred with the findings and recommendations of the VISN 6 audit and made no additional recommendations. The OIG investigation also determined that the employee lacked a telework agreement, and that the employee’s position was not coded in the Personnel and Accounting Integrated Data system as telework eligible. When the employee was alerted to this during the OIG investigation, the employee took corrective action to obtain a telework agreement. The agreement was approved by the employee’s supervisor and the Associate Director of the VAMC. Because remedial action was taken, the OIG made no recommendations.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) Administrative Investigations Division investigated an allegation that an employee in the Veterans Health Administration, Office of Quality, Safety and Value engineered the award of a contract valued in excess of $1 million to a company whose Chief Executive Officer was alleged to be a personal friend. The complainant alleged that an existing contracting vehicle was available to meet the requirement and should have been used to procure the services at issue, and that the employee instead improperly steered the contract to the company run by the employee’s friend. The OIG did not substantiate the allegations.

An Amtrak employee in Los Angeles, California, resigned from employment on December 4, 2018, following our investigation which revealed the employee stole money from the Employee Committee Fund. During an interview, the employee admitted to stealing over $20,000 from the fund and using the money to pay for personal expenses. The employee resigned from Amtrak immediately following the interview. Judicial proceedings are pending.

The OIG investigated allegations that an Interior Business Center (IBC) official reprised against a subordinate employee by suspending the employee’s security clearance after the employee filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint against the official.We determined that the employee made a protected disclosure, that the official knew about the disclosure before suspending the clearance, and that the official did not provide clear and convincing evidence that the clearance would have been suspended regardless of the disclosure.We also determined that the IBC official consulted with the DOI Office of the Solicitor, IBC Human Resources, and the official’s supervisor before suspending the employee’s clearance. The clearance suspension was reviewed by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) personnel, per a Memorandum of Agreement with the IBC, and the BOR recommended reinstatement. The IBC subsequently reinstated the employee’s clearance.

DHS OIG this investigation in response to a complaint made by a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Coast Guard, stationed at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, alleging that: (1) Complainant received a negative Officer Evaluation Report (OER) after making discrimination and harassment complaints against her superiors; (2) The U.S. Coast Guard failed to respond to the discrimination and harassment experienced by the Complainant; and (3) The U.S. Coast Guard subjected the Complainant to additional harassment and retaliatory actions after filing the complaints. DHS OIG’s investigation substantiated Complainant’s claim that she was retaliated against on the basis of her complaints, in violation of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1034. Specifically, a preponderance of the evidence established that her complaints were a contributing factor in the numerical marks in her OER for the period ending May 31, 2016. The totality of the evidence demonstrated that the Complainant would have received higher marks absent her complaints. DHS OIG thus recommends that the Secretary order corrective action with regard to the Complainant’s OER.

The OIG investigated an allegation that a National Park Service (NPS) contractor in the U.S. Virgin Islands attempted to provide a cash bribe to an NPS employee. We also investigated allegations that a park supervisor influenced Government personnel to hire a family member as a contractor, that another supervisor prepared fraudulent Government documents to support an improper payment to a contractor, and that two supervisors received free personal work or discounts from a contractor in return for work or promises of work.We found that in June 2018, an NPS contractor gave an NPS employee $500 cash as an illegal gratuity for hiring him to do contract work at the park. The employee immediately reported the incident and turned the money over to the park’s acting superintendent, who provided it to our office.In addition, we found that a park supervisor gave the appearance of a conflict of interest when she told park staff about her family member’s qualifications, but we found no evidence the supervisor was directly involved in hiring the family member as a contractor.We further found that another supervisor failed to follow park guidance by preparing a micropurchase approval form after the contractor had been paid instead of completing the approval form before the work was completed. We did not, however, find that the payment was improper because the contractor performed the work. We found no evidence that two supervisors received free or discounted personal work from a contractor in exchange for work or promises of work.We presented our illegal gratuity finding to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of the U.S. Virgin Islands, which declined prosecution.

The OIG investigated allegations that a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) manager had used his position for the private gain of a friend, overruled decisions made by an employee’s supervisor regarding the employee’s leave and telework requests, and improperly influenced the award of a contract because of a personal relationship.We found that the BIA manager created the appearance of using public office for the private gain of a friend when he participated on the interview panel that recommended the friend, who was also his former fiancé, for a position within the BIA. We found no evidence that the manager influenced any decisions related to an employee’s leave or telework requests, or that the manager improperly influenced a contract award.

The OIG investigated allegations that senior management within the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Gulf of Mexico Region reprised against an employee for disclosures she made to BOEM officials. The employee also filed similar complaints under Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) provisions.During our investigation, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Office of Civil Rights issued a finding that the employee was discriminated against and subjected to reprisal and a hostile work environment by a former BOEM supervisor. The former BOEM supervisor resigned from Federal service before the Office of Civil Rights issued its finding.The employee subsequently settled with the DOI to resolve all claims, some of which pertained to matters under our investigation. Because of the resolution provided under the settlement agreement, we concluded our investigation.

The OIG investigated allegations that two former employees of a tribally controlled school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) did not repay payroll advances.We found that one employee failed to repay the school for more than $77,000 in payroll advances and the other failed to repay the school for more than $16,000 in payroll advances. Both employees admitted to owing the funds and that they made no attempt to repay the money when they were no longer employed by the school.We referred this matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico, which declined prosecution.

We investigated whether the boundaries of Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) were modified, at least in part, for the personal financial benefit of former Utah State Representative Michael Noel, who owned property along the GSENM border and who is currently the executive director of the Kane County (UT) Water Conservancy District. Our investigation focused on:1. Whether the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) followed an established process for assessing proposed boundaries for national monuments, including the proposed GSENM boundary modifications2. Whether Noel influenced the boundary-modification proposal Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke submitted to the President, including whether Zinke was aware of Noel’s property ownership and financial interest in revising the GSENM boundaries and whether he gave Noel preferential treatment in the proposed boundariesWe found that although the DOI had no formal processes in place for modifying national monument boundaries, DOI staff developed and followed a consistent process when reviewing the GSENM and other DOI-controlled national monuments that were being considered for boundary modifications.We also found no evidence that Noel influenced the DOI’s proposed revisions to the GSENM boundaries, that Zinke or other DOI staff involved in the project were aware of Noel’s financial interest in the revised boundaries, or that they gave Noel any preferential treatment in the boundaries proposed to the President.We provided this report to the Deputy Secretary of the Interior for any action deemed appropriate.