Muzzling The Watchdogs
In 1978, Congress passed the Inspector General Act. The law mandated that federal agencies would have an internal watchdogs to ensure that they were run efficiently and with due respect for law. Inspector Generals are supposed to be politically neutral and independent. However, under the current administration, Inspector Generals who are too independent and who do their jobs too well have themselves become targets for investigations.
Clark Kent Ervin, former inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security and someone who found himself on the receiving end of one of those punitive investigations, has a pretty good op-ed piece in today's Los Angeles Times. He not only details the problems Inspector Generals are currently facing, he also suggests how Congress could fix the problem, once and for all.
STUART W. BOWEN JR.'S job is to investigate alleged waste, fraud and mismanagement of the U.S. tax dollars being used to rebuild Iraq. He's done that job so well that he is himself under investigation.
This is no surprise to me. Since assuming the post of special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction in 2004, Bowen has issued one damning report after another documenting the misuse of billions of dollars that should have been used to restore Iraq's economy and civil society. In doing so, he has embarrassed the Bush administration and its allies in Congress. Embarrassing them has proved to be something that an inspector general does only at his peril. ...
Like the eight U.S. attorneys whose firings have captured the attention of Congress, several inspectors general have recently drawn the administration's fire for putting principle before politics. (The head of the General Services Administration went so far as to call its inspector general a "terrorist.") So now is a good time for Congress to consider changes in the law to make it easier for principle to prevail.
To start, inspectors general should be appointed to a fixed term, removable only for cause. At present, they serve at the "pleasure of the president," meaning they can be fired for any reason at any time. The scandal at the Justice Department shows why such subjective evaluation is ill-suited for officials who are supposed to be apolitical in the discharge of their duties.
Additionally, inspectors general should submit their budget requests directly to congressional appropriators. Currently, the approval of the White House and the head of the agency are required first — which means that an independent and aggressive inspector general is more likely to get budget cuts than increases.
Next, we need to change the leadership of the committee that investigates wrongdoing by inspectors general. The head of that committee is the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, which is part of the executive office of the president. For the last few years, the occupant of that post has been Clay Johnson III, a longtime friend and aide to President Bush.
Simply put, the White House should not be in charge of investigating officials who are supposed to be independent of it. During my time as inspector general at the Homeland Security Department, Johnson vigorously urged my counterparts and me to sign a statement of principles that, while innocuous in its particulars, had the overall effect of discouraging us from investigating or reporting anything that the administration might deem embarrassing.
Finally, Congress should eliminate the legal provisions that allow the heads of certain agencies (the Homeland Security, Justice and Treasury departments, for instance) to block inspector general investigations into sensitive matters on national security grounds. Agency heads can use this as an excuse to protect themselves and the administration from simple embarrassment. [Emphasis added]
Inspector Generals and the reports they issue have played an important role in keeping federal agencies in check, no matter which party holds the White House. Naturally, under the Bush administration, the position has been undercut, especially in the last year when it became obvious that the American electorate had had enough of the Republican way of doing things. Mr. Ervin's suggestions should be seriously considered by the 110th Congress with an eye to a new, improved Inspector General law.
Clark Kent Ervin, former inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security and someone who found himself on the receiving end of one of those punitive investigations, has a pretty good op-ed piece in today's Los Angeles Times. He not only details the problems Inspector Generals are currently facing, he also suggests how Congress could fix the problem, once and for all.
STUART W. BOWEN JR.'S job is to investigate alleged waste, fraud and mismanagement of the U.S. tax dollars being used to rebuild Iraq. He's done that job so well that he is himself under investigation.
This is no surprise to me. Since assuming the post of special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction in 2004, Bowen has issued one damning report after another documenting the misuse of billions of dollars that should have been used to restore Iraq's economy and civil society. In doing so, he has embarrassed the Bush administration and its allies in Congress. Embarrassing them has proved to be something that an inspector general does only at his peril. ...
Like the eight U.S. attorneys whose firings have captured the attention of Congress, several inspectors general have recently drawn the administration's fire for putting principle before politics. (The head of the General Services Administration went so far as to call its inspector general a "terrorist.") So now is a good time for Congress to consider changes in the law to make it easier for principle to prevail.
To start, inspectors general should be appointed to a fixed term, removable only for cause. At present, they serve at the "pleasure of the president," meaning they can be fired for any reason at any time. The scandal at the Justice Department shows why such subjective evaluation is ill-suited for officials who are supposed to be apolitical in the discharge of their duties.
Additionally, inspectors general should submit their budget requests directly to congressional appropriators. Currently, the approval of the White House and the head of the agency are required first — which means that an independent and aggressive inspector general is more likely to get budget cuts than increases.
Next, we need to change the leadership of the committee that investigates wrongdoing by inspectors general. The head of that committee is the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, which is part of the executive office of the president. For the last few years, the occupant of that post has been Clay Johnson III, a longtime friend and aide to President Bush.
Simply put, the White House should not be in charge of investigating officials who are supposed to be independent of it. During my time as inspector general at the Homeland Security Department, Johnson vigorously urged my counterparts and me to sign a statement of principles that, while innocuous in its particulars, had the overall effect of discouraging us from investigating or reporting anything that the administration might deem embarrassing.
Finally, Congress should eliminate the legal provisions that allow the heads of certain agencies (the Homeland Security, Justice and Treasury departments, for instance) to block inspector general investigations into sensitive matters on national security grounds. Agency heads can use this as an excuse to protect themselves and the administration from simple embarrassment. [Emphasis added]
Inspector Generals and the reports they issue have played an important role in keeping federal agencies in check, no matter which party holds the White House. Naturally, under the Bush administration, the position has been undercut, especially in the last year when it became obvious that the American electorate had had enough of the Republican way of doing things. Mr. Ervin's suggestions should be seriously considered by the 110th Congress with an eye to a new, improved Inspector General law.
Labels: Corruption
posted by Diane at 4:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home