[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
VA CONFERENCE SPENDING AND ACCOUNTABILITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-81
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-771 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BOB FILNER, California, Ranking
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado CORRINE BROWN, Florida
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
BILL FLORES, Texas BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JERRY McNERNEY, California
JEFF DENHAM, California JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan JOHN BARROW, Georgia
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
ROBERT L. TURNER, New York
Helen W. Tolar, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
November 28, 2012
Page
VA Conference Spending And Accountability........................ 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman Jeff Miller............................................. 1
Prepared Statement of Chairman Miller........................ 33
Hon. Corrine Brown, Acting Ranking Democratic Member............. 3
Prepared Statement of C. Brown............................... 34
WITNESSES
Hon. W. Scott Gould, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs............................................... 4
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gould............................. 34
Accompanied by:
Mr. W. Todd Grams, Executive in Charge, Office of
Management, Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs
Ms. Phillipa Anderson, Assistant General Counsel, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs
QUESTION FOR THE RECORD
Question From: Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member to Hon. Eric
K. Shinseki, Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.... 41
Response From: Hon. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs............................................ 42
MATERIALS FOR THE RECORD
Deliverables for VBA from Rep. Michaud........................... 44
Memorandum from Chief of Staff (00A), Department of Veterans
Affairs........................................................ 49
VA CONFERENCE SPENDING AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:14 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Miller
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Bilirakis, Roe, Stutzman,
Flores, Johnson, Runyan, Benishek, Huelskamp, Brown, Michaud,
McNerney, Donnelly, Walz, and Barrow.
Also present: Representative Al Green of Texas.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JEFF MILLER
The Chairman. Good morning. This hearing will come to
order.
And I recognize Ms. Brown for a UC request.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to be recognized in order to ask unanimous
consent that the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, be allowed to
join us at the dais and participate in today's hearing. I am
sure he will be in in the next couple of minutes.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
Thanks everybody for being here. We are here today to
examine in detail VA's conference spending, particularly
following the VA inspector general's highlighting the wasteful
spending that occurred at HR conferences in Orlando in 2011. I
also want to examine VA's response to this Committee and
Congress regarding its conference spending.
I think that fundamentally this hearing is about
accountability, accountability to the veterans, to the
taxpayers and to this oversight Committee, and I am concerned
on all fronts. And I want to briefly share today why.
On the 16th of August of this year, the Ranking Member and
I sent a letter to the Secretary asking a series of questions
relating to VA's conference spending. In that letter, we
referenced the conflicting testimonies that we had received
over the course of the 112th Congress regarding VA's total
expenditures. First, we were told $20 million was spent in
fiscal year 2011 on conferences. Then we were told it was a
little over $100 million. Finally, we were told that there
really was no accurate, reliable figure on conference spending
that existed.
And because of these discrepancies, we asked for
clarification of VA's total conference spending for that year
and prior years as well as a breakdown of all individual
conferences. So rather than receiving what----welcome, sir.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
The Chairman. Rather than receiving what we would say is a
coherent response clearly explaining the discrepancies and
answering all of the questions that we posed, VA produced what
I term as a ``data dump'' of information to the Committee under
the cover of a letter by the Assistant Secretary For
Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Joan Mooney, on August
24th of 2012.
Even though I discussed what I believed was a lack of
response to our letter at the Committee's September 25th
hearing, we were not informed by Ms. Mooney until a week later
that her letter and the information provided along with it
served as the Secretary's official response.
But even assuming that was provided in August was what the
Secretary intended to be the official response, our questions
still remain unanswered.
These questions that were answered conflicted with prior
testimony given by VA. For example, when we tallied up, when
we, the Committee, tallied up total VA conference expenditures
for fiscal year 2011, based on the information that VA had
provided to us, it came to $86.5 million. This represents the
fourth answer provided to the Committee for VA conference
spending in 2011. First was $20 million; then over $100
million; then no reliable number; then the number that we came
up with was $86.5 million.
Now the confusion over what VA's actual conference spending
is reminds me of the inspector general's report on the Orlando
conferences in which they found VA's reported expenditures were
incorrect.
Absent any clear response, I am left to wonder whether VA,
at best, has no reliable controls on its spending or, at worst,
is hiding----and hopefully I don't believe that this is the
case----but that VA is trying to hide something from the
Committee. And so during questioning, hopefully we will be able
to get further answers this morning.
Further, after reading that VA Chief of Staff John Gingrich
would, going forward, be approving all overseas travel on
behalf of VA, I asked staff to inquire about VA's spending on
foreign travel. I wanted to know how much was spent on overseas
trips over the last 3 years, what were the purposes of the
trip, and who went on the trips. This is pretty
straightforward. It was made in August, and I repeated it
several times, yet I have not gotten an answer. I have no
answers, which would help us understand whether the pictures
posted on the VA Canteen Service's twitter feed and Facebook
page of a European field trip, which if you look at the screen,
everybody can see----there. Those are pictures----do you have
the sheet you gave me?
Those are pictures from Italy on the Facebook page of the
VA's Veterans Canteen Service.
One of the things that bothered me the most was a post that
said, somebody wrote in and said, ``tough trip.'' VA Canteen
Service response was, ``research is tough, but someone has to
do it.'' Is this a boondoggle, or not a boondoggle? At best,
these pictures are of a privately funded vacation posted on a
government Web page, or at worst, it was taxpayer-financed with
no known legitimate purpose.
The point is that if VA refuses to respond in a timely
fashion for requests of information, we have no way of knowing,
except by exercising the extraordinary step of this Committee
issuing a subpoena.
Unfortunately, lengthy delays or not responding to requests
at all has become the normal for VA. I have asked the staff to
compile a list of all outstanding requests I or my staff has
made since our accountability hearing in September. It is not a
partisan issue, because I think some of the same frustration is
shared with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
But of the 91 total requests of VA made by letter, email,
over the telephone or in meetings, 91 requests, VA has only
answered 16. Seventy-five requests are still outstanding; 66 of
those are either past 2 weeks or beyond VA's agreed date for
delivery of the information.
In a touch of irony, VA's testimony for this hearing was
almost 8 hours late. We clearly have a problem, and I think we
all want to get to the bottom of it, both with respect to
conference spending and VA's relationship with this oversight
Committee.
As an aside, I asked Ms. Mooney to testify today regarding
these and other matters but was told she would be on vacation.
She said that all of her official actions could be addressed by
the Deputy Secretary in her absence.
And I trust you are prepared to do that, Mr. Gould.
So, with that, I recognize our Ranking Member this morning,
Ms. Brown, for her opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Miller appears in the
Appendix]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORRINE BROWN,
ACTING RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And good morning everyone.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing on VA
conference spending. I am sure our veterans and American people
are waiting to hear from the VA about the two conferences that
we are talking about.
I think this is important for all organizations to have
conferences and training. It certainly helps with creating an
efficient and effective workforce that we will be better able
to serve the Nation's veterans. I also encourage our Federal
agencies to support areas outside of Washington when planning
and deciding on these events. The conference in Orlando helped
to boost economic opportunities----disclaimer, in my district--
--and also other districts.
Promotional items, travel expenses, our witness today may
not have been involved in the conference financing and planning
decisions, but they were in positions of authority to approve
the conference budget. I actually hope these two conferences
are not just the tip of the iceberg of misjudgment and wasteful
spending but rather are two isolated incidents from which the
agencies can learn.
We already know that VA processing and oversight mechanisms
that were in place were insufficient and that management failed
to review and monitor the expense of the conference. The
question is, how can we fix it, and what can we do to ensure
that this doesn't happen again? We are looking forward to
ensuring that going forward, VA's senior leadership approaches
spending taxpayer dollars with the same care and attention that
they would approach spending their own dollars.
The Department of Veterans Affairs Official Inspector
General Report, ``Administrative Investigation of the Fiscal
Year 2011 Human Resource Conferences in Orlando,'' indicates
several problems that were outlined and recommendations were
made. Following the recommendations, the administration took
appropriate action. I am looking forward to hearing today's
testimony.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Brown appears in the
Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Brown.
I want to welcome the first panel and only panel of
witnesses to the table this morning. First, Honorable W. Scott
Gould, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs for the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs. With him, Mr. W. Todd Grams,
Executive in charge for the Office of Financial Management and
Chief Financial Officer for the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs, and Ms. Phillipa Anderson, Assistant General Counsel
for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Thank you very much for being here with us today.
Mr. Secretary, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE W. SCOTT GOULD, DEPUTY SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY W. TODD
GRAMS, EXECUTIVE IN CHARGE, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT, CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND
PHILLIPA ANDERSON, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
STATEMENT OF HON. W. SCOTT GOULD
Mr. Gould. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Miller,
Ranking Member Brown, distinguished Members of the House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, thank you for your steadfast
support for America's veterans and for this opportunity to
testify on VA's commitment to oversight, accountability and
training for our employees.
Mr. Chairman, our written statement and ask that it be
included in the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Gould. Thank you.
VA's first priority is always providing our Nation's
veterans with the best care, services and benefits possible.
For that reason, none were more disappointed than the Secretary
and I in the lapses in oversight and judgment identified by the
VA inspector general's report on the execution of two human
resources and administration conferences in Orlando in 2011.
As Secretary Shinseki said upon the public release of the
report, the failures outlined in it represent abdications of
responsibility, failures of judgment and serious lapses of
stewardship. Those failures were unacceptable, and I apologize
to veterans and to this Committee for their occurrence.
Accordingly, we have taken immediate action, consistent
with the recommendations of the IG report, to strengthen
oversight of training conferences, improve accountability and
safeguard taxpayer dollars. The IG report stated that the
Secretary provided a responsive action plan addressing the IG's
recommendations. VA has removed purchasing authority from
employees in the work unit under investigation. We have
directed outside independent reviews of all training conference
policies and procedures. We have directed ethics training for
all VA personnel involved with the planning or execution of the
conferences and undertaken an internal review of training
conference approval processes to ensure compliance with Federal
law and regulation, administration policy and departmental
policy.
As a result of the internal review, VA issued a revised
conference planning and oversight policy in September of this
year, establishing new standards to ensure senior executives
exercise due diligence in the planning, execution and
management of their sponsored training conferences.
In summary, this policy demanded three things. First, every
event will have a single point of accountability at the senior
executive level. Second, each event will have four phases:
concept, development, execution and reporting, each with its
own objectives, metrics and standards of execution to ensure
value and accountability. And third, a new training support
office to assist VA employees in meeting our new reporting
requirements.
I am confident that these new policies will improve
accountability, and we look forward to receiving the final
reports from the ongoing third party reviews to further hone
our processes and ensure accountability. While we are
aggressively addressing the issues identified by the IG, we
also recognize the critical importance of VA training. The IG
report states that VA's HR conferences in Orlando were held to
fulfill valid training needs and that they offered legitimate
substantive training courses, making clear that our focus on
legitimate and required training is not in question.
A large number of VA doctors, nurses, claims processors,
human resource specialists and other dedicated VA employees
and, most importantly, our Nation's veterans benefit from VA
training every year. Veterans expect, require and deserve a
professional, well-trained workforce. Our department's mission
and sacred obligation is to honor and best serve our veterans.
Incumbent in that mission is the nonnegotiable requirement to
manage our resources carefully and ensure that there is always
appropriate oversight of and accountability for our acts.
We look forward to working with this Committee to ensure
that that happens consistently, fairly and routinely, while
preserving the ability to train our personnel to deliver high-
quality care, benefits and services.
Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to answer questions from you
and other Members of the Committee. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of W. Scott Gould appears in the
Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I originally had
contemplated swearing in the witnesses today, but I do not
intend to do that. I expect that all answers will be full and
complete or taken for the record and, if taken for the record,
that we will receive a timely response to the questions.
Have you or anyone at the table been directed to withhold
or delay the transmission of requested information to this
Committee?
Mr. Gould. No, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Have you or anybody here directed others to
delay anything to this Committee?
Mr. Gould. Mr. Chairman, there are many instances where in
the interest of providing accurate information, we continue to
review and analyze the information that we gather to meet the
many requests of this Committee. I would cite as examples of
that work that we have done to testify in over 100
congressional hearings, to respond to 1,100 congressional
briefings, to formally respond to over 6,000 specific policy
requests. We have responded to over 3,000 questions for the
record. I could go on, but the idea is a simple one, that we
have a steady and very large flow of information to this
Committee and others on the Hill, and I just submit to you that
making sure that the information is properly and accurately
prepared is paramount in our mind.
The Chairman. Is it your testimony, then, that you are not
aware of anybody at VA directing anybody to withhold
information from this Committee?
Mr. Gould. My testimony would be that we are absolutely
committed to congressional oversight, that we have provided a
constant flow of information to this Committee and that our
intent is to do so in an accurate and thorough manner.
The Chairman. On behalf of the entire Committee, I ask
again, can we get your assurances that the 66 overdue requests
for information that this Committee has made can be responded
to in a timely fashion, and what do you consider a timely
fashion? Obviously, you probably don't know what all 66
requests are, but some of them are very long in being responded
to. And I think part of the problem that we have had has been
we ask a question, it doesn't get responded to; we ask again,
and then, of course, it gives the impression that somebody is
not wanting to provide timely information. So I want to say can
you do it by the end of the week? Obviously, the end of the
week is pretty quick.
What type of answer would you give me?
Mr. Gould. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I have directed our
congressional team to respond to oversight requests
expeditiously.
Let me just give you an example just to put this in context
and for veterans and viewers that might be listening at home.
This Committee had a very active engagement in oversight on the
pharmaceutical prime vendor, you recall that, PPV, on that
single series of exchange, we provided this Committee almost
35,000 documents and emails. And so I would just point out
that, Mr. Chairman, we both recognize the need to fulfill our
duty to submit to congressional oversight. We have done so in
the past in enormous volume. There is a range of inquiries that
we get from your Committee, sir, and others on the Senate side
as well, and in the effort to provide accurate information, to
do it well, we often run into time delays, and that is the sole
reason for our delay here.
The Chairman. And of course, the whole genesis, the PPV
issue, was we had requested and requested and requested the
information. We hadn't gotten any information. We threatened to
subpoena, got an agreement from VA, and of course, in a very
short amount of time, all of that documentation appeared. So I
certainly understand that as well.
If we can, I talked about the different, in the travel and
conference schedules, the different numbers that we had come up
with, do we have yet, or does VA have a number that was spent
on travel in 2011 for conference spending? Conference spending.
Mr. Gould. Mr. Chairman, as we begin the discussion on
costs in your opening remarks, I am certainly appreciative of
the fact of the different numbers that you have received and I
am sure many people are listening thinking, well, why would
that be the case? Before I turn to our CFO and give a little
bit of detail into that, I just want the Committee to take
stock of the fact that we have received over 125 requests for
information about travel. When those requests come in, they
come in for different time periods, different purposes, with
different cutoff points, 20, 50, 100, and in fact define cost
for training in different ways. One different example is, is
travel included or not?
So Mr. Grams I think can shed some additional light here,
but I just want to temper the Committee's review and as you
listen to this understand that there is an enormous burden on
VA to respond professionally well and accurately to a range of
requests coming at us from different individuals with different
definitions.
The Chairman. And if I can, Mr. Grams, let's add one more
that the request be answered timely.
Mr. Gould. Yes.
The Chairman. You failed to put that in your response as
well as.
Mr. Gould. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that correction.
Mr. Grams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say that when
it comes to conference costs, you were given all the numbers
that you mentioned earlier. The best and most current estimate
that we have are the numbers that you cited, the 86.5, that was
the, if you add everything that was up in the material that we
gave to this conference and to this Committee and Chairman
Issa, that is the best number that we have today.
If I may, let me explain why these numbers are changing.
There are I would say two periods in budget and finance in
government right now, before conference and after conference.
And this attention on conferences happened all in the past
year. The traditional way, the way we are required by the rules
and procedures in putting together our budget at the VA and the
Federal budget at large that comes to Congress, goes through
OMB, does not specifically identify conference costs, be that
good or bad that has never been a requirement. However, all the
costs are captured and accounted for in our budget, the travel
for conference is under the line item in the budget of travel.
The supplies and materials are under supplies and materials.
So what we are being asked to do, be it good or bad, it is
the reality right now, is to find a way to go across those what
are called object classes or budget accounts, travel, supplies,
materials, et cetera, et cetera, contractor support. We now
have to go through all those accounts in the VA and pull out
for each conference those different pieces and then add those
numbers up.
This is the first time we have had to do that at a
cumulative level because of the new requirements on conference,
and it is becoming an iterative process. I do believe the
numbers are getting better over time.
Our focus right now is to have a manual system, which is
being put into place so that we are collecting this data as we
do the conferences now in a more, in a more cohesive way of
capturing those different dollars across the different accounts
so that we have it up front so this doesn't become kind of a
fire drill exercise when we are asked a question.
Our goal in the future is to have an automated system that
will do this for us so we are focused on the future so that we
make sure these numbers stop changing and we have a better
count.
The Chairman. If I can, and I know my time has expired, but
can you talk a little bit about foreign travel and why we are
having such a difficult time getting information in regards
to----there can't be that much foreign travel done by the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Gould. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question.
Your photos earlier on, obviously, the first time we have
seen those even though you got them from our Web site I would
just point out that we have a community of physicians that are
renowned across the world as leaders in their field. We spend a
half a billion dollars a year in research and development, and
we are smart enough to know that there are other smart folks
out there in other countries that may have insights,
suggestions and scientific advances that can help us serve our
veterans more effectively. We are working to improve our
knowledge of health care at every turn, and that includes being
open to the idea of leaving this country to go find that.
So we are hard at work making sure that we pull together
that information. You asked a request for a 3-year period, and
as Mr. Grams just testified, this is a data pull that our
financial management system is not set up to do quickly or
well.
The Chairman. Very simple question.
Mr. Gould. Yes.
The Chairman. How much money is spent on foreign travel by
the Department of Veterans Affairs?
Mr. Gould. Mr. Chairman, we are looking to provide that
information to you. I am sure in this environment, folks know
that we have a tendency to litigate on just about every figure
we put before the Committee lots of discussion pro and con and
analysis. Sir, with respect, you just did it to start off
remarks here, four different numbers. We are very committed to
making sure that we provide you a single number that is
accurate and correct. We will do so, and we know we have an
obligation to do that.
The Chairman. Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I have a question for you, because recently
I had to go to Bethesda, and I was out there, and there were
numerous veterans out there that had lost several limbs, and of
course, with the new technology, we are saving many lives, but
they are coming back, and they need all kind of help and
assistance. Your position, what else do you do besides respond
to us, Congress? Do you have any other responsibilities to the
veterans?
Mr. Gould. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Brown. I would like to know what they are, because
obviously, we don't know.
Mr. Gould. One of the----
Ms. Brown. As Under Secretary, that is what I want to know,
what are you doing to help those veterans?
Mr. Gould. Yes, ma'am. So that is our number one mission.
Ms. Brown. Are you sure?
Mr. Gould. To provide the health care and the benefits that
our veterans need and that they have earned and that they
deserve. Secretary Shinseki has laid out an aggressive program
to improve access. We have added 800,000 people to the roll;
put more youngsters in school, we have almost 1 million on the
new GI Bill now; reduce homelessness, we have dropped that
number substantially almost 20 percent in the last 2 and a half
years, so progress has been made. And that is our prime role.
At the same time that we engaged in a process that is as
important as this one is today, we find ourselves focused on
less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the budget and a set of
actions that we freely admit that should never have happened,
but we end up diverting the activities of the senior management
team to fulfill this particular discussion on training
conferences in Orlando.
Ms. Brown. You mentioned the pharmaceutical.
Mr. Gould. Yes.
Ms. Brown. And that was a good example. How many pieces----
and it was like 3 years, but I need to know about those
veterans that have lost so many limbs. What are we doing? You
are the Under Secretary. What else do you do, besides respond
to us?
Mr. Gould. Well, of course, our number one role in the
entire system is set up to stay focused on our mission, serving
the veterans, providing them with health care and benefits,
burial services that they have earned and that they deserve.
The bulk of our day and our desire is to be spent on serving
them. We start every day with a desire to help our veterans. We
hold our veterans' needs first and foremost in our mind and we
work to avoid the distraction as senior leaders and managers
while fulfilling our legal responsibility to submit to
oversight and appropriate oversight in a timely fashion.
Ms. Brown. Well, as a Member of Congress, obviously, we
want you to spend X amount of time with the veterans. But my
question, I know you are over the entire VA, how much time with
all of these requests that we have, like the pharmaceuticals--
--I thought that was a great example of just you needed a whole
staff just to deal with that, that issue, a whole staff.
Mr. Gould. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Brown. It was ludicrous. And many people have come up
to me that were at that hearing and have responded to it.
Because it was, you know, I got called on it, but it was just
what I called it, because it was ludicrous. Give us that
pharmaceutical response again.
Mr. Gould. Yes, ma'am. We provided 35,000 pages of
information to the Committee. I do not know how many folks are
on the professional staff here, but that is a whole lot of
reading to do the emails that were associated with it. I
imagine a great deal of work was taken up in the Committee as
well.
From the VA perspective, that took an enormous amount of
time of our counsel, of our employees. Look, if I have to come
up here and spend time, that is really not a problem. I am here
to serve the President and do what I must, but it, what really
bothers me when our line operators get drawn into a process
that pulls them away from serving veterans.
The Chairman. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Brown. She would gladly yield.
The Chairman. I just would remind Members of the Committee
that it was a unanimous, bipartisan subpoena that was voted on
in this Committee, because we were not able to get the
information that we were trying to acquire, and we knew that it
was voluminous, but that still does not discharge us from our
responsibility of requesting that information so----and then it
came in a pretty timely fashion after we----in fact, let me
give you one little interesting tidbit. I had no idea VA, if
Joan Mooney told me correctly, VA has never been subpoenaed in
40 years. That was the first time this Committee had ever
threatened to subpoena. And I find that good in a way, and it
may also say that we haven't done our oversight responsibility
as well.
Senator----
Mr. Gould. Mr. Chairman, if I could. Mr. Chairman could I
respond briefly.
The Chairman. Certainly.
Mr. Gould. It would just be to observe the following. When
we performed and provided the information that you requested,
35,000 pages, one theory is that we went back with the subpoena
and just threw that together in 3 or 4 days. What I would
submit for the Chairman's consideration was that was the end of
a very long process, which we had already taken your requests
very seriously and were working and then finally were able to
deliver. So the cause and effect there, sir, respectfully, is
out of joint.
The Chairman. And I would also say that it would not have
gotten to this Committee without the threat of a subpoena.
Mr. Donnelly. Congratulations.
Mr. Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to say in regards to the work that was
done on the pharmaceutical issue, which I was part of and
Members on both sides were part of, that the effort was to try
to make sure that every taxpayer dollar was spent wisely, that
rules were followed, and that we appreciated the VA's effort in
doing that and that the VA acknowledged that, hey, you know, we
have to make sure that those rules are being followed as well.
So I never considered it as ludicrous, I considered it as doing
our job and what we are on this Committee to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I was reminded by the Ranking Member that it was not my
time to yield.
Ms. Brown, your time has expired.
Ms. Brown. You took my time. That is what happens when you
are in the minority.
Congratulations, Senator.
The Chairman. Mr. Flores.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, panel, for joining us today.
I have a few questions. First of all, I am very concerned
about what we have here. This is, even though the point was
made we are talking about just part of 1 percent of what the VA
spends to try to take care of our veterans, what it did tell
us, though, is that there is a culture at the VA that doesn't
put the veterans first. I mean, trips to Italy and the food
parade we saw on the screen up there was very disappointing to
me. It reminds me of the pictures I saw of the GSA individual
that was in a hot tub in Las Vegas. He was unelected, he is
unaccountable, he is irresponsible with taxpayer dollars. It
almost seems like it is bureaucrats versus the veterans. And to
me the veterans come first, and I could care less about
bureaucrats.
Now, Mr. Gould, in your testimony you described one of the
responsibilities of the new RCE, or the responsible conference
executive, to ensure the conference was executed within 5
percent of planned budget.
My question is why is it 5 percent? Why isn't it exactly or
under budget as we go forward? One of the things I have looked
at, I have looked at a summary of the policy that you put
together to try to make sure that conferences, conference
dollars are spent appropriately, and I see that we have set up
a conference certifying official. We have got a corporate
training support office. We have to create an after-action
review report. Then we have got this responsible conference
executive. We just create offices and bureaucrats and reports
to try to offset the fact that we have got a broken culture.
So two parts to the question, with the fiscal situation the
country is in, A, why are we having these conferences to start
with? I think you tried to explain it, but we have got 3.8
million Americans today that are some, in some sort of online
secondary education or post high school education today. Why
can't we look at things like that?
Why can't we, part two, why can't we ensure that the
conferences are carried out on budget, not within 5 percent? It
should be on or under budget.
And then, number three, what are we going to do to fix the
culture so that this stuff doesn't come up in the beginning?
You don't want to be here testifying. I don't want you here
testifying about this kind of crap. I want you all to do your
job and take care of the veterans.
So please answer the questions.
Mr. Gould. Congressman, thank you.
Just let me start with the piece about our employees at VA,
320,000 of them, sir, I know that you do not intend to draw a
generalization from this instance to every one of the 320,000
people that show up to work hard at our organization every day.
I can tell you they are committed to our mission. They are
hardworking, and they are mortified at what happened in
Orlando. But it is not evidence of the character or the desire
to serve our veterans, in my view, one iota.
Your observation about having a single accountable
executive you are right, that is part of the new program, and
it is a response to a new question that Congress has asked us,
who is the single point of accountability? We have an answer to
that question. That is the RCE at the senior executive level.
A moment ago, you brought up a question about variance; why
wouldn't we have a tighter standard on that? Let me give you a
simple example. We design effective training. People hear about
it by word of mouth. The subscription rate goes up. Suddenly we
have a cost variance there, some extra seats and some extra
costs associated with that. So by no means are we saying that 5
percent is acceptable, our RCEs are going to work hard to make
sure that there is accountability in the process, but we don't
want to tighten down in a process that has some natural flow
due to operations that, at least in my perspective, we could
avoid.
And your last comment about the declaration of the travel,
excuse me, the training and support office, look, if we pursue
this kind of oversight and response to its logical conclusion,
it would be like operating a grocery store and having a
security guard next to every can of soup in the place.
I agree with you; we should not be going to that overkill
on oversight. That is why I believe it is terribly important
that today we balance both our active plan to improve
oversight, to address the issues that so concern you, but at
the same time avoid clamping down on important training,
valuable training, that I think we all agree our veterans need
and deserve.
Mr. Flores. I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Michaud.
Mr. Michaud. I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking
Member for having this follow-up hearing today, and on the
outset, I want to say that it is extremely important that
training does occur to make the department more efficient. I
think that is important. However, I do not appreciate wasting
taxpayers' money and not keeping a close eye on that. So I want
to thank the panel for being here this morning.
I have a couple of questions. I read the inspector
general's report, and part of the recommendations on page 22
and 23 is very similar for a lot of the different employees
that were involved. The Secretary's response to the
recommendations two through seven as far as hiring someone
outside the VA to look at and determine the appropriate
administrative action be taken against these employees; in the
Secretary's response, he agreed to all of them as it relates to
other employees, with the exception of the chief of staff,
which was not included in looking at outside groups to look at
appropriate actions be taken. Why was the chief of staff
separate from the other employees as far as the Secretary's
response to the inspector general's report?
Mr. Gould. Thank you, Mr. Michaud.
First of all, I want to join you again in acknowledging the
problems here that in our view is unacceptable that this money
was wasted, and we are hard at work in implementing the plan
that the inspector general has reviewed and has determined to
be fully responsive.
I would argue that our accountability mechanisms through
the entire chain of command, including the chief of staff, are
very much a part of our overall accountability efforts and let
me describe them to you, but to do that, I have to fix each
individual in a structure of accountability and responsibility
to start with. So to begin, this program that was conducted in
Orlando, Florida, was the suggestion of our Assistant Secretary
For Human Resources and Administration. In concept, it began
with a simple idea. We have done a survey; in 30 key areas of
competence, we see a gap in 24 of them.
So our employees are not trained where they need to be, and
we need to do something about it.
So at a very high level, the assistant secretary in
question goes to the chief of staff with a one or two-pager and
says, look, will you authorize my proceeding to design and
execute this event. The chief of staff did that, and then
subsequently, in my view, the execution went wrong. But it was
not the authorization to do, in my view, highly justified, well
justified training.
So as you look at the different roles, the chief of staff,
we have taken administrative action. The Secretary has
completed that. The inspector general has concurred that it was
appropriate. At the assistant secretary level, unfortunately,
Mr. Sepulveda has resigned directly connected with this issue.
And then, at a third level down, the senior executives and
career individuals involved under Title V, are entitled to a
due process, and that process is continuing.
So let me just state for the record that Chief Gingrich is
an extraordinarily talented public servant. He has worked
extremely hard. He authorized this program at a high level, and
the inspector general has concurred that the administrative
action taken was appropriate.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you. VA response also to recommendation
number eight mentions that the general counsel is developing a
comprehensive policy to address issues identified in the
report. Has that policy been completely finalized? Are you
still working on some parts of it?
Mr. Gould. I will turn to Ms. Anderson in just a moment to
give you some of the detail. But at a high level, we have
policy already, not wanting to wait. Our action plan is
published in the IG report. While the third party review is
conducted, we are going to get new information about how to do
this better and with greater accountability. We are going to
incorporate that work in. So this is clear action already taken
and additional action to follow.
Ms. Anderson. Thank you. The work group----I was a member
of a work group led by the general counsel. The work group was
charted on August 22nd of this year. We met for the first time
on September 6th, several days later. The work group included
representatives of VHA, NCA, VBA, the Office of Management
Acquisition and other staff offices.
We believe that the work group, the composition of the work
group included all of those stakeholders of interest in the
conference planning, conference execution, as well as the
budget process of conferences.
What we found, we found really no lack of policies and
procedures in the areas of the conference related policies and
procedures. There are many policies on travel, financial
management, acquisition and even conference planning. They were
in different spots, however. We decided that a comprehensive
policy is necessary, one-stop shopping, if you will, as well as
we found a gap in identifying or having identified one
individual or an individual responsible for the execution and
management of conferences.
In the IG report, the failures were in found in the
execution and management as the Secretary mentioned, not in the
concept. So that is where we focused our development of the
policy.
The two main features of that policy are, one, the
identification of a conference-certifying official. That
official is responsible, at the SES level, not to be delegated,
responsible for exercising due diligence in the development and
planning of the conference, presents it to the Under Secretary
or Assistant Secretary, and that concept is then certified and
provided to the reviewer and approver for the conference.
We didn't stop there. We also concluded that it was
necessary to have one individual responsible and accountable
for the actual execution and management of the conferences. And
we have identified that individual as the responsible
conference executive, again, an SES level. That person is
responsible for basically assuring that hopefully those
deficiencies that were found in the IG report, the use of the
purchase cards, going beyond the scope of the contract, that
that would not be done, that responsible----that official looks
at the conference from the beginning through the end,
accounting for what is done, the requirements, and the costing.
Fifteen days after the conference, that responsible
official is to certify that all of the laws, all of the
policies and regulations, they have been in compliance and
also, 30 days after, submits an after action report, and one
final, that that official is responsible for submitting the
costs. And so we are----again, we pointed out that we are
tracking the costs. So there is one individual now responsible
and accountable in addition to the certifying conference
official.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Flores.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to follow up. Again, I came from the real
world before I ran for Congress and I ran a company and was a C
level officer for 20 years. And I never would have tolerated, I
never would have participated in an organization that had a
culture like this. I would have tried to fix the culture. It
wouldn't need all the extra policies and procedures if we could
get just a culture where we followed the policies and
procedures and the law that exists. If we had, if it was
clearly----if it was clear from the outset that if you violated
law or violated statute or you violated policy, you would lose
your job. I think we would have a lot fewer problems of this
nature.
One of the things we talked about, let's say that we have
an RCE, and the conference goes over budget. What are the
implications if a conference goes over budget?
Mr. Gould. Sir, are you directing the question to me.
Mr. Flores. Whoever can answer it.
Mr. Gould. Let me take the first piece and then we can talk
about the specific remedies that are available if the RCE were
to surpass their authorities or other problem would emerge.
Like you, I come from the private sector as well, and I
understand and it resonates with me. Culture is all important
in an organization. That is why we have spent so much time
focused on our values, integrity, commitment, advocacy,
respect, and excellence. But we know in organizations as big as
an organization like the VA, you don't always get it right, but
the vast majority of the individuals we have and the culture we
are trying to create at VA to transform this organization
begins with that bedrock recognition that we are here to serve
our veterans and this is all about our values.
In fact, training itself plays a key role in that. Those
are just words on a piece of paper if they don't become real in
the field. One of the ways that you get that out there is by
doing the kind of valuable investment, holding the conferences,
bringing people together, getting the information, having the
discussions and translating those values into action so that
your organization becomes increasingly self-policing,
increasingly able----
Mr. Flores. Let's just cut to the chase. What are you going
to do if you have a conference go over? What happens?
Mr. Gould. I invite Ms. Anderson to describe what those
remedies are.
Mr. Flores. Fifteen seconds or less. What are you going to
do?
Ms. Anderson. We will review the cause, if the cause is a
lack of, that the RCE or the certifying conference official did
not exercise----
Mr. Flores. Let's just say they went out there and made a
bunch of videos, they bought a bunch of swag, and they ate a
bunch of food and went over budget, what are you going to do?
Ms. Anderson. We will go through the due process as we are
doing today. There is an administrative body that is, they are
reviewing the actions, and they will recommend action.
Mr. Flores. Okay so----
The Chairman. Mr. Flores, I apologize, if you could hold
your follow up, I accidentally recognized you, and it was Dr.
Roe's time, so I would ask you to hold if you would on your
follow-up questions. Dr. Roe.
Mr. Roe. Yes, sir. I thought you had forgotten about me for
a minute.
The Chairman. Never.
Mr. Roe. A couple of things that, and I agree with Mr.
Michaud, that you do need continuing education and conferences,
there is no question about that. Having spent over 30 years in
the private sector and having requirements to be able to
continue to admit people to a hospital, there are requirements
there every year about CE, continuing education. Those things
occur in HR and various things. And what we would do is every
year, we would see what those requirements were for our
practices. And we would budget a certain amount of money that
would allow that person to go ahead because we were spending
our own money. And we have met those requirements, that is what
we did.
And the requirements were, number one, does this conference
that we are going to, is it a play thing in Orlando, am I going
to see Mickey Mouse, or am I going to learn something? And when
I get back, did it meet those needs? That is all we did and it
is pretty simple. We did that 30 years.
I also put on a continuing medical education course for 30
years, so I know exactly how it is done because I have done it.
The perception out there when you see this, if you are a
taxpayer in east Tennessee where I live, just barely getting
by, and you are paying your taxes and you see these silly
videos or you see these other things, even if it is a tenth of
whatever percent, it is hundreds of thousands and millions of
dollars, and to us where we live, that is a lot of money. And
the perception out there is if you have got one set of rules
for people in government, and the other perception is there is
the rest of us out there in the real world. And perception is
reality in politics. And so that is what I see here, and it is
embarrassing for me to go home and try to explain to people why
their money is being wasted.
Now if I am doing your continuing education, I am going to
know what HR people need, and I am going to look for creative
ways to use the Internet, to use distance learning, to use all
of those things that will help cut my costs. And you should be
able to tell us in 2 seconds how much money was spent on travel
for conferences. That ought to be pretty simple. I could tell
you in two seconds where in my practice, I could find it in 5
minutes, can tell you exactly what it was. If you give me a
phone call I can make that call and have that information in 5
minutes what we spent last year completely for 100 providers
and 450 employees. I can tell you that.
And I don't know why it is that you can't tell us how much
you spent, how much you spent on travel; how much do you budget
when you go to a meeting like in Orlando? Is it just a carte
blanche? You just get to, is there a certain per diem you get
to pay for each day, and how much money are you spending? Those
things ought to be fairly simple. Is that done?
Mr. Gould. Congressman, thank you for that question.
Your comment about perception is right on the money, and
that is why it is critically important that I think we hold two
ideas in our minds in this discussion today: On the one hand,
that the training that we do that is requirements-based; it is
focused on helping people do their jobs better and serving
veterans is done well; and at the same time, that we strongly
disapprove, we join you in condemning the activities, the
misconduct that led to the waste of this money. There is no
question those two things, those two ideas, have to be there to
have a balanced view of what has gone on in Orlando, so I might
just say, with all due respect, a 450-person organization is a
little bit different than a 320,000-person organization. That
is why it takes time to do that.
Mr. Roe. Look, I understand that, but checks are checks.
You have got to write a check at the end of the day, and people
are paying for this. And I have veterans that come up and say,
I can't get in the hospital down here, Doc. I am in a line 40
miles long, and then they show me this videotape where they
show me this plush event that occurred in Orlando. It is very
hard to explain that to people and do it with a smile on your
face. It is embarrassing.
I will I tell you who it is embarrassing for. It is
embarrassing for the 300-something-thousand hardworking VA
people who are then tagged with that, I can tell you that. I
know that what you said is correct. There are a lot of very,
very good people. Many of them are some of my best friends on
this Earth, who work hard every day for veterans, and it is
embarrassing for them.
I don't know whether you budget a certain amount, whether
you look at those needs, whether it has even been peeled down,
that is fairly simple stuff. The VA ought to be able to do
that. You know, there are 154 hospitals. You know what
requirements are needed to keep those folks certified. There
should be a budget for that and a policy to do that. I don't
know why that hadn't been done.
Mr. Roe. One other quick question, Mr. Chairman, if I can.
I will try not to run over my time.
Does the employment education system plan the conference
planning or funding? Can you explain to us how that works.
Mr. Gould. I am sorry. Say the question again, sir?
Mr. Roe. The employee education system?
Mr. Gould. Yes.
Mr. Roe. It does, it is part of the budget?
Mr. Gould. Yes, that is correct. We have essentially two
entities that do complementary aspects of training. Employee
Education Service, founded in legislation in the 1970s, focused
primarily on physician recertification, care, nurses, medical
and the like. And then VALU, the VA Learning University, that
is focused on the same kind of cost cutting and cost effective
measures you mentioned a moment ago, we do about 75 percent of
our training using the Web today. That number continues to
increase. One of the reasons why it has is the role that VALU
has played in making sure we do as much of it as we can.
Mr. Roe. Just one last comment. One of the reasons that we
switched to as much of the Internet distance learning as we
could was that it was a lot cheaper. Number one, it was much
cheaper. And secondly, you didn't have to travel away and spend
all the money at hotels and airports and cabs and all that. It
saved us a tremendous amount of money, and we got the same
value.
If there will be a second round, Mr. Chairman, I may have
some more questions. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Walz.
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to you,
too, on your appointment to the Chairmanship. Our veterans are
well served with that appointment. Once again, Dr. Roe hit the
nail right on the head. And I will continue his line of
thinking on this. As you know, Mr. Gould, I am the staunchest
supporter of our heroes in the VA. But because of that, I also
need to be the harshest critic. And I think the thing in here,
and the one thing I would say is a Wounded Warrior laying in
the polytrauma center in Minneapolis, which arguably getting
the best care in the world for those wounds, I would argue that
is the real word. I don't think we need to make the separation
in that. I would also make the case that two-thirds of Fortune
500 CEOs complained about ineffective professional development
for their people too. So this is an area that is plagued. That
doesn't excuse us not getting this right. And the thing as a
teacher that this worries me the most is that Dr. Roe is
exactly right, and everyone who has spoken is, the perception
amongst the public is this is a good time free-for-all on the
public's dollar, not to get anything out of this. The thing
that has always concerned me about professional development is
why aren't we back planning it from the results that Dr. Roe
talked about what we are going to get out of this? I have got
to be honest with you. If you are doing professional
development and the wait time on claims increases, your
professional development stinks. And that is the way it is. I
say this, I am looking at teachers that they did 1,300 studies
and a meta analysis of this, and what we found out in teaching
is of doing that is if there is of 49 core hours, 18 things
that teachers can work on that if they do these things they
boost student achievement by 21st percentile points. The cost
is almost irrelevant if you are boosting student achievement.
My question on this is what was the outcome gained? How are
we measuring that? How were we getting there? Yes, when the
average cost of a Fortune 500 conference is $1,300 a person and
yours is $3,300, you got to do better. You have got to think
about where this is at. And I am not talking about punishing
your employees or whatever. But it makes sense if you have got
a health care professional development going on, I would invite
you to come to Rochester, Minnesota. The rates are cheap in
January and February. It is at the home of the Mayo Clinic. And
you will get good things going on. It is that perception that--
--we are not asking people to live in poverty, to live in
working conditions that don't work. We are just asking to have
a measurement of what we are getting for this. And my biggest
fear is it is very hard for us to ask the public to continue to
justify giving you money for this professional development. And
we saw it in teaching. Before we started improving our
outcomes, we ended up cutting back on professional development.
And guess what happens is in the first 5 years we lose 61
percent of new teachers. And I would make the argument we don't
give them the skills to succeed.
So I would just ask you, Mr. Gould, and I know it is broad
and it is general, how do we do a better job of back planning
from the outcome that Dr. Roe was talking about and then
budgeting accordingly? Because I would make the argument on
this you might be able to justify $3,300 if you were able to
reduce processing times by 21 percent over an 18-month period
because of the training that happened there. I rarely get to
see what the training did for people. And that is what is hard
for me to make the case to my employees too. So please, if you
could, tell me how we address that.
Mr. Gould. Congressman, thank you. Clearly speaking from
both your experience as a leader and a teacher, you get that
vital connection between value, training, and mission outcomes,
which is exactly what led us to the decision to hold this
training in the first place. We had simple reasoning, which is
that a youngster that is a Wounded Warrior lying in a hospital
wants to know that the doctor that comes by, the nurse, the
orderly has been trained to do the job that will affect their
body, their counseling, and their recovery. So we began with a
simple notion that in order to get the right people in the
right place at the right time for medical care, we needed human
resources folks who knew how to recruit, train, retain
individuals in the first place. We then rewound the tape even
further. We asked ourself how ready are our people today to
meet those challenges of hiring the right person at the right
time and the right place on medical care? The answer was there
was a deficiency in 24 of 30 competencies that are required to
do that job well. We designed the program around that. We then
rolled that out in Orlando. The IG has not questioned the
legitimacy and value of that training. And we have gone and
calculated a return on investment, a calculation, a financial
calculation on the return that our organization has received.
And we have recovered even more money than we did spend. And
sir, if I might, just that apples to oranges comparison, we
have gone and done that analysis as well using ASTD data that
is available on their Web site and determined that our cost per
hour per employee was actually less than the private sector
average. So we are using new technology. We are doing our
training smart. It is an integral part of our strategy to get
the kind of mission outcomes that we are both fully committed
to.
Mr. Walz. Somehow together then we have got to do a better
job of articulating that and making sure the public knows.
Mr. Gould. Yes.
Mr. Walz. Because all of my colleagues are right, the
outrage is there. I got in trouble last time over in the GSA
when I questioned how in the heck could anybody eat a $47
breakfast. John Stewart corrected me and said in New York City
it is easy. So I think when you are looking just at the dollar
amount on this, we need to be careful what we are getting. And
I think that analysis of cost-benefit analysis for spending and
improved training and improved at the end of the day quality of
care to our veterans is a critical piece of this.
So I am grateful for that, and I appreciate you being here
again.
Mr. Gould. Thank you, sir. That is the bottom line.
The Chairman. Dr. Benishek.
Mr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to quote
a line from the statement of Mr. Gould. ``As Secretary Shinseki
said immediately upon the public release of the report, the
failures outlined in the report represent abdications of
responsibility, failures of judgment, and serious lapses of
stewardship.'' And yet when I was listening to your response to
Mr. Michaud's question, there has been one resignation. And as
far as I know, nobody else suffered from any of this abdication
of responsibility, failure of judgment, or serious lapse of
stewardship. Your answer suggested that there was some sort of
administrative process that was going on. And yet this was from
an IG report of 2011, and now it is near the end of 2012. So
nobody has suffered in over a year since this report is out?
Everybody is still working on the job despite the abdication of
responsibility, failure of judgment, and serious lapses of
stewardship? That is very frustrating to me.
Mr. Gould. Congressman, if I might just point out that
while you are correct that the events did occur in July and
August of 2011, the report was only issued on October 1 of this
year. So we have the benefits of the IG's insight and review.
And sir, as you may know, we also have obligations under Title
V to make sure that once those initial findings are determined
that we then go through an administrative review process, sift
through all the data, and make sure that every possible bit of
information, both problematic and otherwise, is revealed, and
that each individual has their rights under due process
respected.
So this testimony simply catches us at a time when we have
not completed that work. It will be completed. And there will
be consequences that come from that if they are warranted and
if they are upheld. And I just want to say that----
Mr. Benishek. It is just my experience in the short time I
have been here is that it seems that people who have problems
in the VA, and this happened in the Miami hospital colonoscopy
case where the person who was ultimately responsible was simply
transferred to another VA. You know, that type of thing doesn't
breed responsibility, it breeds sort of a bureaucratic
shuffling of papers. And you know, I just want to be sure that
somebody who was responsible for this abdication of
responsibility, failure of judgment, and serious lapses of
stewardship----
Mr. Gould. Congressman, if I might, Miami construction
would be a great example. We had four people suspended. Two
people are gone from employment at the VA. There were real
consequences at the VA. My only point, sir, is they take time.
They have got to be done fairly, they have got to be done well.
For the employees that are there, they trust us to handle that
well. But there is accountability, sir. And I can't think of a
greater accountability than Mr. Sepulveda's resignation, lost
his job; 3 days notice; wife that doesn't work; and, a 10-year-
old son. That is pretty hard stuff. Now, we are waiting to here
what happens with the career folks who were involved. But as we
all know, and I have counsel here that can explain that process
to you, under Title V there are due process that we have got to
follow. Had this hearing been held after the new year, we might
have answers for you at that point. We would certainly be
willing to share what they are when they occur. But the fact
that they have not happened is not indicative of any diminished
level on our part or the Secretary's part that we are
indignant, that this happened, that there was misconduct. We
are deeply concerned about that and apologetic, but we are also
moving on. We have a plan, and we are moving forward.
Mr. Benishek. I would like to see that report and the
responsibility efforts----
Mr. Gould. Yes, sir.
Mr. Benishek.----as soon as possible. I will yield back the
remainder of my time.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Benishek.
I would like to recognize the gentleman who graduated from
Choctawhatchee High School in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, Mr.
Green. Thank you for joining us today.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I greatly appreciate
this opportunity to serve with you today. And I thank the
Ranking Member as well from Florida, a long time friend. And
yes, I did graduate from Choctaw. I am amazed that you have
found that piece of trivia.
The Chairman. I am on the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. Green. Well, I thought it might have much to do with
this thing called the iPad. I just finished Googling you, and
found quite a few interesting tidbits as well.
I am honored to be here today, and I am also saddened that
I am here, because I have the DeBakey VA Center in my
congressional district. And as you can well imagine, I have a
kinship with the vets that will transcend, just simply knowing
that they exist. I frequent the facility. On an annual basis,
we go in sometime around the Christmas holiday, and we accord
each veteran a flag. And while it might seem like a very small
thing, it is something when you see tears well in the eyes of a
veteran who says you are the first representative of the
government to come in and say to me, I appreciate you for your
service. When you do this kind of thing, you develop a special
kind of bond with people. And when it comes to veterans, I have
concluded that I am really not a Democrat, I am a person who
respects people who are willing to risk their lives for us.
They go to distant places, and they don't always return the way
they left. And I just believe that we have to do as much as we
can to assist them. And I am a believer that when it comes to
these issues we can transcend party lines and work hard for
them.
Now, having said this, in terms of my position as a
neophyte with this Committee, the optics of this are quite
disturbing. I sense that you are contrite, I sense that you
want to atone, but I have to let you know the optics are quite
disturbing. The consternation created by the optics alone can
cause one to want to make sure that this never happens again.
And without going into all of the things that occurred, and
these things have been chronicled quite well, I do want to
know, and I have heard much of your testimony, but as
succinctly as you can put it, how do you stop this so it that
it never, ever happens again, so that we never have to face
veterans and give explanations about things that they don't
quite understand? They become very much discombobulated by
these kinds of things. So how do you give assurance, if you
will, please, that this would never happen again?
Mr. Gould. Mr. Green, thank you for that very heartfelt
remarks. I share that view with you, that partisanship should
stop at the water's edge. And we hope it does under the
Secretary's leadership at the VA and before this Committee.
So simply put, briefly put, how does this never happen
again? First of all, it is a recognition that there is a
problem. We have recognized that publicly. We need a plan to
implement, to follow through at every stage to make sure that
this does not happen again. We have such a plan. It is
published. We are working to implement it now. And we need to
communicate effectively to our employees the tremendous
responsibility that they bear when they take public resources
and focus on service to veterans, that every step of the way
our oversight processes are functioning and we are willing to
follow up. At the same time, we do not want that desire to
bring the ability of our field personnel to their knees
providing paperwork and reports over and over again. So we are
looking to find that balance, sir, between clear, decisive
oversight and the ability to continue the training which just
about everybody in the room today has recognized we have got to
have, we have to do well in the future.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, you have been very generous. I do
greatly thank you, and look forward to continuing to serve with
you and the Ranking Member.
Ms. Brown. Would you yield----
Mr. Green. I will yield.
Ms. Brown.----your 9 seconds? Thank you very much for
joining this Committee, coming in today. At the beginning you
said that you were speaking not as a Democrat or Republican. I
have always felt that this Committee wasn't a Democratic
Committee or a Republican Committee. In the past, we have been
an American Committee. And we work together for the good of the
veterans. Just for your information, sometimes I am confused by
some of the directions, but we don't have time for some of the
stuff that goes on in other Committees on this Committee. I
serve on this Committee because I really feel that the veterans
have served their time, they have paid their dues, and we owe
something to them.
Mr. Green. Thank you very much. I have been properly
edified.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you for joining us today.
Mr. Stutzman.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
the panel for being here. I would like to, Mr. Chairman, if I
could, talk about a local issue in Fort Wayne just a little
bit, and the communication problems that we have had at the
Fort Wayne Veterans Hospital. Congressman, now Senator-elect
Donnelly and I, and Senator Coats have had conversations with
the administration at the local level at the VA, and also have
asked for an IG investigation of some of the problems that we
have had there. And to me, the reason I want to bring this up
is it seems to be systemic as far as communication from top to
bottom. And you know, whether you are a 450-employee entity or
whether you are a 300,000, it doesn't matter. Systems have to
work. If it is too large, then something needs to change. And
the situation that has happened with the Fort Wayne facility is
that there were positions that were not being filled. Then
there was retirements. Then there was a person that had to be
let go. And all of a sudden you don't have a staff at the
facility, and we had to close down, the VA closed down several
of the services provided to our veterans. And I mean you can
imagine what that does to the veteran community in northeast
Indiana, that it creates a lot of uncertainty, a lot of
skepticism. And we in our congressional offices were not even
notified of the closing. At first we were told that it was a
closing to upgrade facilities, do some remodeling. And once Mr.
Donnelly and I had a phone conversation, we found out that it
was really due to staffing problems. And to me, this is just--
--it is unacceptable that things can go on this long to that
point where all of a sudden we portray to the general public
that we are just going to close the facilities down so that way
we can upgrade the facilities when there is a larger systemic
problem behind the scenes where positions are not being filled.
And within such a large organization, I find it unacceptable
that those positions can't be filled in a timely manner. And
with the veterans seeing and not having services provided to
them because of this closing, what does that say to the
community? The local facilities are the face of the VA. And
that is where the services are to be provided.
I would just like, first of all, you to know our situation
and, that Mr. Donnelly and I have asked for an investigation on
why this has taken place. But how can these things be stopped?
And how can these things be communicated better to our offices
rather than us calling you? You know, could you be calling us
and saying this is what is happening? Because it just doesn't
go over well with myself, and it doesn't go over well in the
community.
Any comments?
Mr. Gould. Thank you, Congressman. And you all are leaders
in your community. Folks come to you with problems, and this is
part of our process at work. We hear from Members, we hear from
the media, we hear from our own data collection all across the
country. We learn that there are problems and we take action on
them. Our paramount responsibility is the safety and service,
the health of our veterans. And when we encounter a situation
where we feel that there are inadequate staff or there is some
problem with the volume of people that are using surgery
services and the like, we will take action to make sure that we
protect those veterans and provide them with another access
point for services.
And to your point, this is an example where having people,
good people in the right place at the right time with the right
skills is critical to being able to operate the largest direct
health care system in the country. That is why in Orlando,
Florida, we were focused on making sure that the HR specialists
who hire those individuals in the first place, to make sure
that those positions are filled. I couldn't think of a better
example of how critical the connection is between HR
specialists and adequate personnel in the field. And your
experience at the pointy end of the spear an example where we
don't have enough people in position. Part of the reason for
that is we don't have the systems yet in place to be able to
make sure that every single position across the country is
filled when it needs to be filled. And that is our goal to do
that.
Mr. Stutzman. I just find it unacceptable that we close
services because we don't have staff in place. If a Parkview
Hospital in Fort Wayne or if a Lutheran Hospital in Fort Wayne
did the same thing, they would lose patients. And the veterans
don't have another place to go. And for this to happen is
unacceptable.
Thank you all. I will return the balance.
Mr. Gould. Sir, if I might just say it, I accept the notion
that it is unacceptable that our veterans don't get services
that they have earned and deserve. I would point this out, that
safety is our number one priority. We would never want to
administer a service that we didn't feel we were prepared for.
And for each one of those individuals involved, we are out
there in the communities, purchase care if required, or sending
them. It is a little bit less convenient, but the access is
there.
Mr. Stutzman. Absolutely. I agree, I think safety is the
number one concern. But at the same time, we have to have
foresight in making sure that these services are provided, and
not because of a staffing problem that all of a sudden we have
to close facilities down.
Mr. Gould. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. I will yield back.
The Chairman. Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. First of all, thank you, Mr.
Chairman, concerning that issue in Miami as far as that clinic,
the hospital I guess, that we were able to get the moneys to
complete that operation facility. So I want to thank you.
And my question, I guess is to piggyback on what he was
saying, the amount of time that it takes for us to hire let's
say a VA nurse, or the amount of time we are losing it to the
private sector because of the amount of time, I don't quite
understand what is the problem. We could have a qualified
person that is a doctor in one area, and you need that service
in another area, and it could take a year to get them
transferred.
So can you tell us a little about that? And then of course
I want to know about the facility in Orlando. I am getting
personal and local. But when will that hospital open? And have
we straightened out some of the----I have toured it with the
Chairman, and there have been many news stories about it. Part
of the facility is complete and it is just sitting there. So
can you give me a status report on the Orlando facility?
Mr. Gould. Yes, ma'am. I will try to address all three
points that you raised. First, to thank you for a great example
of this Committee working together to fix a problem. Miami was
a great example. Both the Secretary and I extend our
appreciation for what you did here. We now have construction
moving forward. And we expect it will be completed by the third
quarter of this year.
Shifting quickly to Orlando, beautiful facilities, partly
constructed, ready to go. Another part, the hospital that has
grabbed the headlines, is not in position yet. This is a top
priority for us to resolve. I can share with you that the
current extended contract completion date is July of 2013. We
recognize that we are in a series of very sensitive contractor
negotiations right now, but we have directed the contractor to
provide a revised schedule to meet the current extended
contract completion date due to VA the first of the week in
December. That is next week. So we will be getting a reply from
the contractor. Responsibility now rests with the contractor to
make improvements to the work processes and to fulfill contract
requirements.
So we are moving forward, Congresswoman Brown. We are
moving forward, and we are expecting presently a completion
date of July 2013.
Ms. Brown. Just one thing. I don't understand, and I hope
as we move forward when we give the VA all of the money up
front, $615 million or what else, why is it that it takes so
long to get these projects done? We have a lot of veterans that
are elderly and they need the facilities. And I don't know why
we don't have a what is it, design-build, or, you know, I am
not an engineer. But we should be able to get it done. And it
shouldn't take----July, I wanted it open this October----
Mr. Gould. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Brown.----before the November elections, by the way.
Mr. Gould. Yes, ma'am. And I can understand why. It was
obviously a desire we shared, too, to do this as quickly as we
can. I think one of the specific challenges here is getting the
design documents fully up to speed, making sure that you are
ordering the equipment in advance so that they don't get there
and sit in a warehouse, but the warranties are still in place
when you go ahead and install that. And as the Chairman knows,
we have had some challenges on the contract side. So both VA
responsibilities and I would argue contractor responsibilities
together creating the delay. What I am reporting to you here
today before this Committee is that we now have a new deadline
in front of the contractor. They have an obligation to respond
to us. I would like to see them get a lot more folks there
working faster to get this done.
And earlier, ma'am, you raised the issue of how do we
compete effectively with, you know, getting the nurses and so
on? And one of the reasons why we made this investment in HR
training is again the criticality, you can see how our HR folks
do is directly related to our ability to compete for our fair
share of the best and brightest in the nursing community, vital
to our ability to deliver health care. And so one of the
reasons why we held the Orlando training conference is to
address that issue, how to help them be better in hiring,
training, and retaining nursing staff, among others, across our
system. So this is critically important that we continue to do
this training.
Ms. Brown. Well, I understand we are going to have
something like 1,800 positions in that Orlando area. And you
know, to me we don't have to wait until we open up. We could
partner with you are right there with the University of Central
Florida, other organizations and groups, private sectors. We
could have the training, we could have people when we open the
door ready to go. And there are other facilities there that we
could----and maybe you can't. But it doesn't make any sense
that we have those homeless facilities and those other
facilities sitting there and we are not doing anything until
July of next year.
Mr. Gould. Yes, ma'am. Just two quick points on that. Our
belief is that every single veteran in that community is
getting the service that they need today. What we both want is
that it be in a beautiful new state of the art facility. And we
can't wait to make that happen. But those veterans are getting
services. They are getting services in different locations now.
And we want them into the new facility just as quickly as we
can in Orlando.
Ms. Brown. I will continue to monitor it, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I share your concerns on
the completion date for the Orlando facility as well.
Mr. Runyan.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Deputy Secretary,
thank you for your testimony today. And I agree with Mr. Green,
the optics of this reek. Now, to go on to what my friend Mr.
Walz was saying, and I bring this point up no matter who from
the VA is here usually. And we talk about metrics. And we talk
about numbers. And to Mr. Walz's point, you know, there is
value to it. It is value added to it. But you bring up----I
just want to put this. In your testimony, you had 73 percent of
supervisors said that their people that work under them felt
more motivated, 87 percent learned new skills, and 74 percent
were more productive. Okay. Outcome. First of all, what was the
baseline that was measured against? And a number in the 70th
percentile, what was wrong with the last training session? I
find it mind-boggling for somebody to grow 70 percent. Where
did we drop the ball in the last session to get to this massive
amount of growth? And it just comes to these things I think
most of us, like we said with the case of Mr. Walz, we can
validate it if we have valid metrics. But where are we coming
up with these numbers? Because 70 percent improvement, it seems
great. But when you step back and look at it from past numbers,
we are dropping the ball somewhere. And we have to figure that
out. Can you kind of lead me there? Is there a baseline you
measured that from? At the end of the day, it is something
Secretary Shinseki talks about is accountability. And growth
like that is tremendous. But where did you drop the ball
previous to that?
Mr. Gould. Thank you, sir, for the question. I think
perhaps one of the most troubling aspects of the training that
we found ourselves in need of delivering to our HR specialists
is that it hadn't happened in years. So imagine an organization
of almost 4,000 people focused on the kinds of important
mission-oriented hiring, training, retaining personnel, and not
to have been out on the football field and had some walk-
throughs and some training. So we failed them. We let them
down. Now, what we did apply was state of the art measurement
for return on investment and training. It consists of four
parts. First part is student in the class at the end, was the
training good? Yes or no. Student again takes a test. Did you
get something out of it? Can we see that in measurable terms?
Third thing, individual gets back to their supervisor, we asked
the supervisor do you see a difference in performance? A year
later we come back, we asked the question did you see
performance in the mission? That is what we are after. We are
after that level of accountability. It is that measurement
process that resulted in our return on investment analysis, and
why I am so fully committed to continuing to do this training.
We will get better at the metrics piece. I would argue we are
doing it to standard, to an industry standard right now.
Mr. Runyan. And I will just leave you with this comment,
now that you brought up my past career. You know, you have the
saying that practice makes perfect. And I would argue that
perfect practice makes perfect. I have never had a perfect
practice, never played a perfect game. But if you are not
striving for perfection in the practice, when it comes to
execution of those skills you are never going to be there.
Mr. Gould. Thank you so much. I believe we have employees
that are really trying to do that. And as you say, nobody has
ever had a perfect practice. This is a case where we didn't
execute perfectly. There were mistakes. We have acknowledged
them. And what we have done is we have put a plan in place to
try to avoid that in the future.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Michaud, you have any follow up?
Mr. Michaud. Yes. Mr. Gould, will the VA provide the
Committee with a copy of the July 2012 report examining the
impact of the VBA training program as referenced in your
testimony? I think that will get to some of Congressman Walz's
earlier questions. If you can provide that.
Mr. Gould. I will.
[The information appears in the Appendix]
Mr. Michaud. Also, you mentioned the need to deploy highly
trained veterans service representatives and rating specialists
to regional offices in order to eliminate the backlog. You
talked about that in your testimony. How many have already been
deployed and where? And will there be additional VSRs and RVSRs
that will be deployed? And where will they be deployed? If you
don't have the answers to the last two questions, if you can
provide it for the Committee.
Mr. Gould. Mr. Michaud, thank you for that invitation. I
would say I will provide that information to you. I would say
quickly, that training is a key part of our strategy to get the
claims backlog down. You can't make that kind of progress and
ask people to do new things without training them how to do it.
Mr. Michaud. Great. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Huelskamp.
Mr. Huelskamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to ask some questions at this point in the
responses or lack of responses. And we will go through a few of
those. It has been 106 days since I asked some of these
questions, and have received a response to only one of those.
But let me go through those for the Committee.
I have asked the Department a number of the following
things. First of all, will you provide a list of attendees at
the July 2011 conference in Orlando? Will you provide a list of
attendees at the August conference in Orlando? Will you provide
a list of individuals involved in planning these conferences?
Did Mr. Sepulveda receive a severance package or exit bonus?
The VA stated that employees had misused taxpayer dollars.
What exactly does it mean when you say they will be held
accountable? Will you provide the names and titles of employees
who are being held accountable? Will you provide a complete
detailed list of all expenditures for the 2011 Golden Age
Games? Will you provide a list of those who actually attended
the games? Will you provide a list of individuals involved in
planning the games? Will you provide the number of veterans who
attended the games? Will you provide a list of each advance
trip to Hawaii ahead of the games? Will you tell us how much
you spent on these advance trips? Will you provide a list of
the staff attending these advance trips? Will you provide a
complete list of all event planners used for the games and
amounts paid for the VA services? And then what was the exact
process through which Alaska Destination Specialists was
selected to provide event planning services?
Now, of these 15 questions I want you to provide at least
an indication for me of why you have refused to answer all of
these.
Mr. Gould. Mr. Huelskamp, just listening you to go through
that list is instructive I think for everybody sitting here.
First of all, your commitment to doing oversight and doing it
well, we respect and appreciate. But just going through that
list, you can see that times every Member on this Committee and
the Senate and the House side that it might be a bit
challenging to field all those. What we are doing is working
very diligently to respond to each of those. If I am not
mistaken, some that you mentioned have already been responded
to. So was it your intent to say that none of those had been
responded to or that some had and some had not?
Mr. Huelskamp. You might be confused, but those were all
ignored, some of them for 106 days. Do you know the individuals
that helped plan the Golden Age Games? Do you know that answer?
Mr. Gould. I do not know who----
Mr. Huelskamp. Does anybody know over there who planned the
games?
Mr. Gould. Sir, we will certainly find that information
out.
Mr. Huelskamp. When will you find it out? In another 106
days? You want to wait 106 days? These are simple questions.
And I don't want to be brutal here, but this is not an issue of
perception, this is an issue of competence. This is an issue of
competence, the failure to either know the answer or refuse to
answer them. It is not about me personally, it is about 700,000
constituents that want an answer. It is about a gentleman in
Syracuse, Kansas, who had to drive 522 miles to the nearest VA
Hospital. In that time you can fly folks to Orlando for a great
conference. And you won't even tell me who they are. You won't
even tell the American people who attended, who planned those
conferences. How do you hold folks accountable for the budget
when you won't even tell us what the budget was? Was there a
budget for these conferences? I will ask Ms. Anderson that
question. Was there a budget for these conferences? I am asking
Ms. Anderson the question, who raised that. Ms. Anderson, if
you can answer that question. Is there a budget for these
conferences? Was there?
Ms. Anderson. Which conference are you referring to?
Mr. Huelskamp. Well, how many you have ever had in 2011
that apparently we are still trying to figure out. You claim
that you are going to hold folks accountable if they exceeded
the budget. Was there an actual stated budget for these
conferences?
Ms. Anderson. I was referring to the new policy. And I
think Mr. Grams could address the budget issue on conferences.
I think he has done that in the testimony, that we don't budget
conferences.
Mr. Huelskamp. Thank you for answering that question. But
Mr. Grams sat there on September 20. As the CFO, I asked
numerous budget questions, and never once, Mr. Grams, did you
offer any information, any indication of what the answer is. We
are trying to answer. These are not complex questions. Who
went? I don't know. One hundred six days later. I think, again,
this is an issue of incompetence or failure to disclose. Either
you are trying to hide something or it is total incompetence.
This is unacceptable. I know the Committee has asked question
after question after question. We see new things, more
questions come up every time you might answer one of those. But
those are 15 outstanding questions. But in particular there is
one in particular that really grates many folks is you spent a
million dollars to hire somebody in Alaska to run the Golden
Age Games and plan that. Was that a bid process? Was that
competitively bid to spend a million dollars for someone to run
the Golden Age Games? That planner exceeded the cost of every
other game before that, I believe.
Mr. Gould. Congressman, it strikes me that you may not have
been here at the beginning of the testimony when I did answer
more thoroughly what is going on with respect to our
responsiveness. Number one----
Mr. Huelskamp. No, I can catch that. Answer the question.
The question is a million dollars. Was that a competitively bid
contract?
Mr. Gould. I would like to answer your question, sir, if
you will allow me. Just give me a minute, and I will----
Mr. Huelskamp. I waited 106 days. Go ahead. I can wait
another----
Mr. Gould. We understand we have an obligation to respond
to Congress through its appropriate oversight, number one.
Number two, we have delivered truck loads of information. In
the specific example of PPV, 35,000 documents, 6,000 policy
questions, 100 hearings, 1,100 staff briefings. Sir, you can
sit here and shake your head, but the reality is that there is
a tremendous amount of information that flows to this Committee
and others on a daily basis by a very competent team at VA.
Now, there are items on your list that we have yet to
respond to, but we will. You have my firm commitment that we
will do that. We have directed our Assistant Secretary for
Congressional Affairs. We have gathered teams of people to go
through emails and data and records. What may sound simple is
in fact quite complex. And when we come into environments like
this, and there is an edge to litigate on each issue, you can
expect us to go through that with a great deal of care so that
we can provide accurate information to the Committee. So I just
ask----
Mr. Huelskamp. But you didn't answer the question. Did you
answer the question? No, you didn't. Could you answer the
question I just asked?
Mr. Gould. You just asked me are we going to respond to
those requests? My answer is yes.
Mr. Huelskamp. No, I asked you was the contract for the
event planner in Alaska for the Golden Age Games in Hawaii, was
that a competitively bid contract?
Mr. Gould. I would be happy to provide that information to
you.
Mr. Huelskamp. Does anybody here know? Mr. Grams, do you
know? A million dollar contract. Do you know the answer? You
are the CFO.
Mr. Grams. Yes, sir, I am the CFO. The question you are
asking is in the VA pool, but it is not in my swim lane. It is
an acquisitions question.
Mr. Huelskamp. Do you have any of your staff here that can
answer that? That is just one question that I ask a specific
answer.
Mr. Gould. Congressman, you have asked. It is on your list.
We will provide that information to you. I want to do that
accurately.
Mr. Huelskamp. I will make it part of the official record.
And you have any idea how long it would take to figure that
out? It is just one phone call I would guess.
Mr. Gould. Sir, one among thousands.
Mr. Huelskamp. When will you answer it?
Mr. Gould. Respectfully, we will get that information to
you as accurately and as quickly as we can.
Mr. Huelskamp. Oh, as you wish. It is one phone call. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Gould. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Gould, in August you provided us, the VA
provided the Committee a list of what was supposed to be all VA
conferences held from 2005 to date. In looking at the
information that was provided, it showed that some major
conferences, including many of the senior VHA leadership
conferences, were left off of the list. We have been asking,
through the Committee staff, for the information on those
missing conferences since October 4, information that I would
think would be readily available.
So my question to you, are you aware that certain
conferences were omitted from the list that was provided to
this Committee?
Mr. Gould. No, sir, I was not. It goes to the point of the
need to submit accurate information to the Committee and, as we
just discussed, the need to be careful, to exercise due
diligence on that point.
The Chairman. I find it a little confusing that we should
be getting to a much smaller pool, if you will, of conferences
with VHA and leadership. So I would think it would be a much
smaller number of answers. So much like Mr. Huelskamp, I would
hope that we could get a response to that soon. But
interestingly enough, because we hadn't gotten that
information, we have been, as you might expect, perusing VA's
new media, Twitter accounts and Facebook pages. And the VA's
own Facebook account showed in 2010 that a senior VHA
management conference was held at the Venetian hotel in Las
Vegas. And I just am trying to figure out why it was left off
of the list that was provided to the Committee.
Mr. Gould. Sir, I don't have any explanation other than
that there are literally thousands, since 2005, of conferences.
We have a lot of work do to pore through information and data.
We are doing our best to get it to this Committee. And we
recognize fully that you have a right to it. We want to make
sure that it is accurate when it is provided.
The Chairman. Just again, we had asked for all VA
conferences that were held from 2005 to date. So if you would
take that for the record as well.
I would ask if any other Members have any other questions.
Mr. Flores?
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to go
ahead and close the loop on where we were going before. But
before I do that, let me start here. This is a quick question.
Can we get a copy of the September 16 revised conference policy
for the record?
Mr. Gould. Yes, sir.
[The information appears in the Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Okay. Very good. I want to go back to what Mr.
Walz and Dr. Roe were saying. And it has to do with culture. I
agree with Dr. Roe, whether the organization has four employees
or 320,000 employees, if you get the right culture you can have
fewer policies, you can have fewer procedures and so forth. If
employees are properly disciplined because they don't exercise
the proper amount of gray matter in making a decision, then the
other employees are not damaged, their reputations aren't hurt
in the process. So what we have here at the VA is a situation
where a few folks made really bad decisions. And it has sort of
impugned the reputation of the other 320-some-odd thousand that
are out there working hard for our vets. That is not what we
want to have happen to any of our folks. The reason this is so
critically important to me is because in my district, in the
Waco VA regional office, we have got the worst claims
processing record in the country. That is not directly on point
with what we are talking about here today. However, a vet sees
the VA as the VA, all of it, whether it is wasting money on a
Dash Dawson video or whether it is spending millions of dollars
to go to Orlando, or to stay at the Venetian, or whatever. They
see this waste, they see their grandchildren's money being
borrowed from the Chinese because people are making classically
bad decisions.
So I want to come back to the question I had before. Under
the new policy that you are going to have, if an employee is
found to have violated either statute or policy or procedure,
are you going to discipline and/or fire that employee? Yes or
no.
Mr. Gould. Sir, you know that I am constrained just a
little bit by law on my answer here. Let me answer personally
and then in my formal role. On a personal basis, should there
be accountability for this behavior? You betcha. In my
professional role I have an unbending obligation to make sure
that the individuals involved have due process.
Mr. Flores. Yeah, I didn't say----I wasn't taking away due
process. Assuming you have gone through due process and you
have found that they violated statute, policy, procedure, are
they going to be disciplined? Are the American people going to
know that they----is the taxpayer going to know they were
treated fairly? And is the veteran going to know that they were
treated fairly out of this process?
Mr. Gould. I believe they will. And sir, you started out
just a moment ago with perception. And I agree with you most
strongly that a few have tarnished the reputation of the many.
But when we started off this hearing we had pictures put on the
flat screen around the room. And it included pictures of a
vacation in Italy. What was implied is that something untoward
had happened here, that public funds had been used, that this
was a junket paid for by government. Now, we have been doing a
little bit of research as I have been sitting here, and this
was a personal vacation. And it shouldn't have been posted on
the Web site, but no VA funds were used. I think that we need
to think carefully when we talk about culture that there are
320,000 hardworking employees at VA that don't like having
their reputation damaged and sullied by this kind of activity.
That explains why we take so seriously the problems, and we are
dead set on fixing them. But at the same time, we have got to
hold onto the idea of their reputations and hard work in this
process.
The Chairman. Mr. Flores, if you would yield for just a
minute.
Mr. Flores. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Gould.
Mr. Gould. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Why was it on VA's official Facebook page?
Mr. Gould. Clearly, an individual must have posted it
there. We will get to the bottom of that.
The Chairman. Is that correct, should it have been or not?
Mr. Gould. We will get to that. No, my view is that it
shouldn't have been on the Web site. It will be taken down
immediately.
The Chairman. It already was taken down. The minute that we
brought it up it disappeared.
Mr. Gould. Terrific. But sir, I hope you understand that
putting that kind of information up is a slap at the employees
who work at VA every day. And respectfully, sir----
The Chairman. Mr. Gould, let me tell you something. No, no.
No, no. You and I had a very civil conversation yesterday
afternoon.
Mr. Gould. Yes, we did.
The Chairman. I have not one time slapped at any of the
300,000 VA employees. I have slapped at the leadership. And
your responses in the last 15 minutes have just raised what we
call the hackles on the back of my neck again. The truce is
over. It lasted less than 24 hours. Expect much more oversight
from this Committee. Don't you ever accuse a Democrat or a
Republican on this Committee of slapping any of the hardworking
300,000 VA employees. Rest assured it is the leadership that we
are concerned with. And with that, expect more questions from
this Committee, this hearing this morning for the record,
because they are coming in great volumes.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Chairman Jeff Miller
Good morning, this hearing will come to order.
We are here to examine, in detail, VA's conference spending,
particularly following the VA Inspector General's report highlighting
the wasteful spending that occurred at HR conferences in Orlando,
Florida in 2011. We will also examine VA's response to Congress
regarding its conference spending. Fundamentally, this hearing is about
accountability . . . accountability to veterans, to taxpayers, and to
this oversight Committee. I am concerned on all fronts. Let me briefly
share the reason why.
On August 16, 2012, the Ranking Member and I sent a letter to the
Secretary asking a series of questions related to VA's conference
spending. In that letter we referenced the conflicting testimony we
received over the course of the 112th Congress regarding VA's total
expenditures. First we were told $20 million was spent in FY2011 on
conferences; then we were told it was a little over $100 million;
finally we were told that no accurate, reliable figure on conference
expenditures exists. Because of these discrepancies, we asked for
clarification of VA's total conference spending for that year and prior
years, as well as a breakdown of all individual conferences.
Rather than receiving a coherent response clearly explaining these
discrepancies and answering all of the questions we posed, VA produced
a data dump of information to the Committee under the cover of a letter
by Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Joan
Mooney, on August 24, 2012. Even though I discussed what I believed was
the lack of a response to our letter at the Committee's September 25,
2012, hearing, we were not informed by Ms. Mooney until a week later
that her letter, and the information provided along with it, served as
the Secretary's official response.
But even assuming what was provided in August was the Secretary's
official response, our questions still weren't answered. And those
questions that were answered conflicted with prior VA testimony. For
example, when we tallied up the total VA conference expenditures for
FY2011 based on the information VA provided it came to $86.5 million.
This represents the fourth answer provided to the Committee this
Congress on VA conference spending in FY2011: First $20 million; then
over $100 million; then no reliable number; and now $86.5 million.
The confusion over what VA's actual conference spending is reminds
me of the Inspector General's report on the Orlando conferences in
which they found VA's reported expenditures were wrong. Absent any
clear response, I am left to wonder whether VA, at best, has no
reliable controls on its spending or, at worst, is hiding something
from this Committee. I plan to get into this more during questioning.
Further, after reading that VA Chief of Staff John Gingrich would,
going forward, be approving all overseas travel on behalf of VA, I
asked staff to inquire about VA's spending on foreign travel. I wanted
to know how much was spent on overseas trips over the last three years,
what the purposes of the trips were, and who attended. This
straightforward request was made in late August and repeated multiple
times. Yet I still have no answers.
I have no answers which would help us understand whether the
pictures posted on the VA Canteen Service's Twitter feed and Facebook
page of a European field trip, which everyone can see here [point to
television monitor], represents evidence of a boondoggle or not. At
best, these are pictures of a privately funded vacation posted on a
government Facebook page. At worst, this was a taxpayer financed trip
with no known legitimate purpose. The point is that if VA refuses to
respond timely to requests for information, we have no way of knowing
except by exercising the extraordinary step of the Committee issuing
subpoenas.
Unfortunately, lengthy delays or not responding to requests at all
has become the norm. I have asked staff to compile a list of all
outstanding requests I or my staff has made since our accountability
hearing in September. Of the 91 total requests of VA made by letter,
email, over the phone, or in meetings, VA has only answered 16 of them.
75 requests are outstanding and 66 of those are either past two weeks
old or beyond VA's agreed date of delivery. In a touch of irony, VA's
testimony for this hearing was almost 8 hours late.
We clearly have a problem here and I intend to get to the bottom of
it, both with respect to conference spending and VA's relationship with
this oversight Committee. As an aside, I asked Ms. Mooney to testify
today regarding these and other matters but was told she would be on
vacation. She said that all of her official actions could be addressed
by the Deputy Secretary in her absence. Mr. Gould, I trust you are
prepared for that.
I yield now to the Ranking Member.
Before I yield to the Deputy Secretary for his opening statement
I'd like to ask the panel to rise and raise their right hands so they
can be sworn in. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth? Thank you. Please be seated.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Corrine Brown,
Acting Ranking Democratic Member
Good morning everyone, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing on VA's conference spending. I'm sure our veterans and the
American people are anxiously waiting to hear from the VA about the two
multimillion-dollar conferences.
This is not the first scandal involving lavish conference spending
by a Federal agency. The General Services Administration (GSA) spent
more than $800,000 at a Las Vegas conference in which they paid $6,000
for commemorative coins, $58,000 for audio-visual services, $146,000 on
food, and included a clown and mind reader, a yearbook. At the time, we
thought this was an example of outrageous and wasteful spending.
GSA was supposed to ensure good stewardship of the taxpayer dollar
and be the prime model of transparent government for other agencies,
but it failed miserably, primarily because it did not have adequate
oversight over its own policies and procedures.
Unfortunately, not long after their debacle, we learned about the
VA's own conference indiscretions. By now we are all too familiar with
the details; reportedly two lavish VA training conferences that cost
over $6 million dollars and included the now famous Patton parody
videos, unnecessary promotional items, travel expenses, and much more.
Our witnesses today may not have been involved in the conference's
financial and planning decisions, but they were in positions of
authority to approve the conference budget. I truly hope that these two
conferences are not just the tip of an iceberg of misjudgment and
wasteful spending, but rather, are found to be two isolated incidents
from which the agency can learn.
We already know that VA's processes, and the oversight mechanisms
that were in place were insufficient, and that management failed to
review and monitor the expenses of the conferences. The question is,
how do we fix that? And how do we ensure that it doesn't happen again?
We are looking to be assured that, going forward, VA senior leadership
approaches spending taxpayer dollars with the same care and attention
they would approach spending their own money.
The Department of Veterans Affairs Office Inspector General report,
Administrative Investigation of the FY2011 Human Resources Conferences
in Orlando, Florida, identified several problem areas and outlined
recommendations. Following the report, Secretary Shinseki agreed with
the recommendations, and his Chief of Staff, Mr. Gingrich, took
responsibility for his role in allowing these excesses. Therefore, I
hope that today's hearing will focus on how the VA will modify their
procedures and implement policies to establish budgetary control and
ensure that future conference budgets are appropriate.
I look forward to hearing today's testimony. Thank you and I yield
back.
Prepared Statement of W. Scott Gould
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, and Distinguished Members
of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs: thank you for the
opportunity to be with you today to discuss VA's commitment to
transparency, oversight, and the training of its employees to deliver
the highest quality service to our Nation's Veterans, family members,
and survivors, while ensuring accountability. I want to thank the
Committee for their ongoing partnership in our common commitment to
serve our Nation's Veterans.
I know that many of you are especially interested in talking about
VA training conferences--about the issues identified by the VA
Inspector General (IG), and about what our department is doing to
ensure that such issues do not occur again.
At a time when the physical, mental, and emotional health needs of
our Veterans are so acute, and when the demands on VA health budgets
are so great, there is no justification for the spending of public
funds outside the legitimate needs and missions of this department.
The IG report on the 2011 Human Resources and Administration (HRA)
conferences in Orlando identified several examples of such wasteful
expenditures. To call the report findings deeply disappointing would be
an understatement. As Secretary Shinseki said immediately upon the
public release of the report, the failures outlined in the report
represent abdications of responsibility, failures of judgment, and
serious lapses of stewardship.
VA's mission--to serve our Veterans--must be at the core of our
work all the time, including when we are planning, attending, and
managing training conferences.
ORLANDO HR CONFERENCES
The VA's HRA held two training events for VA employees in Orlando
during the summer of 2011 featuring nearly 100 classes and workshops.
The training was required to address gaps in the capabilities of HR
employees that were identified in 2010. HR employee performance is
important because they make sure that the right people are hired and
trained - people who will directly deliver health care and benefits to
Veterans. The evidence gathered suggests that these sessions had
significant return on investment. One year later, 74 percent of the
responding supervisors of conference participants agreed or strongly
agreed that the attendees had been more productive on the job following
the conference, and 73 percent agreed or strongly agreed that their
employees were more motivated at work as a result of participating in
the conference.
More significantly, 78 percent of responding supervisors of
conference attendees reported that they had seen evidence that their
employees had used new skills or knowledge on the job as a result of
conference attendance. Seventy percent of supervisors stated that their
employees' job performance had improved after the conferences. We must
factor these results into our assessment of these training conferences
and improve on them in the future, even as we redouble our efforts to
prevent the kinds of issues described in the IG report.
VA is aggressively addressing the execution and oversight failures
outlined in the IG report. This includes taking appropriate action with
regard to personnel found to be responsible for those failures, as well
as establishing new policies and procedures, which are discussed in
more detail below, to help ensure that such failures do not occur
again. Regarding IG recommendations relating to named career employees,
to ensure due process, the Secretary has appointed senior officials to
review evidence of wrongdoing and to recommend and take appropriate
administrative action. Much of this testimony will be devoted to
discussing these new policies and procedures in greater detail.
IMPROVEMENTS IN OVERSIGHT
It is VA policy to determine whether the Department will see a
quantifiable improvement in operations for investments in training. As
part of that approval process, offices must prepare a detailed business
case analysis. They must also ensure that the conference or training
event is part of a rational strategy to develop VA employees' skill
sets in the optimum way. The requirement to measure outcomes for
training events has enabled us to capture and evaluate
performanceperformance data that will lead to more relevant and focused
training.
Since January 2009, VA has issued several increasingly restrictive
policies regarding the planning and execution of training conferences.
In August 2011, the Department began requiring all offices to submit
for approval any training event or conference attended by 50 or more
employees. Additionally, VA issued several memoranda and regulations
incorporating Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance on
training conference planning and execution.
On September 21, 2011, OMB issued Memorandum 11-35, ``Eliminating
Excess Conference Spending and Promoting Efficiency in Government,''
which instructed all agencies ``to conduct a thorough review of the
policies and controls associated with conference-related activities and
expenses.'' On May 11, 2012, OMB expanded that effort to mitigate the
risk of inappropriate spending, issuing Memorandum 12-12 (OMB M-12-12),
``Promoting Efficient Spending to Support Agency Operations.'' M-12-12
outlined a series of policies and practices for conference sponsorship,
hosting, and attendance to ensure that Federal funds are used
appropriately on these activities, and that agencies continue to reduce
spending on conferences wherever possible. VA incorporated this policy
in its July 3, 2012 memoranda.
After issues at the 2011 HR National Training Conferences came to
light, it was clear that we needed to go further still in order to
ensure that we leave a lasting culture of accountability VA. In early
August 2012, after being briefed by the VA IG's office on its
investigation of the Orlando conferences, the Secretary immediately
ordered a range of strict measures to ensure tougher oversight:
full Departmental cooperation with the IG investigation;
the removal of purchasing authority from employees in the
unit under investigation;
an outside, independent review of all training policies
and procedures and the execution of all training conferences;
an outside, independent review of conference planning and
execution, and oversight policies and practice;
ethics training for all VA personnel involved with the
planning or execution of conferences; and
an internal examination of existing VA policies as they
relate to Administration policy, departmental policy, and Federal law
and regulation on conferences.
As a result of this internal examination, on September 16, 2012, VA
issued a revised conference planning and oversight policy. The new
policy regarding the approval and planning of conferences was further
developed and communicated in a revised memorandum on September 26,
2012. VA conference process now has four phases: concept, development,
execution, and reporting. Each phase has objectives, metrics, and
standards of execution. Once an organization has a concept for a
conference, that concept is to be developed and included in the Concept
Authorization Briefing as part of the quarterly Conference Planning and
Execution Briefing Cycle. Starting in December 2012, more detailed
briefings on any conferences VA proposes to host or co-host, or Federal
or non-Federal hosted conferences VA employees will be conducted on a
quarterly basis.
Conferences estimated to cost between $20,000 and $100,000 require
approval by an Under Secretary, Assistant Secretary, or equivalent
senior official in the proponent organization. Conferences estimated to
cost over $100,000 but less than $500,000 require approval by the
Deputy Secretary. Conferences over $500,000 are generally not permitted
under OMB Memo 12-12 and may only proceed if the Secretary approves a
waiver. To help implement these reforms, VA has established a corporate
Training Support Office, which helps coordinate quarterly Conference
Planning and Execution Briefings.
Conferences that receive conceptual approval proceed to the
development stage. To provide better oversight and single points of
accountability from the event's planning through its execution, the
Department now requires each Administration and Staff Office to
designate a Conference Certifying Official (CCO), who must be a Senior
Executive or SES-equivalent. The CCO, who must be familiar with all VA
and Executive Branch training conference policies and procedures, will
certify that the proposed event complies with all regulations and
policies. The CCO also certifies that the proposal, which includes all
anticipated costs, provides a detailed business analysis for the
planned conference and travel investment.
If a conference is approved, and planning commences, each
conference estimated to cost VA over $20,000 will require the
appointment of a second official, the Responsible Conference Executive
(RCE). The RCE will ensure the conference is executed according to the
plan approved by the CCO and adheres to all applicable regulations and
policies. The RCE's responsibilities continue through and after the
event. The RCE must certify, within 15 days of the completion the
conference, that due diligence was exercised in the execution of the
training conference and ensure the conference was executed within 5
percent of the planned budget.
``Due diligence'' includes: prior approvals of any conference-
related spending; bans on entertainment and promotional item spending;
and restrictions on spending in accordance with OMB Memo M-12-12 and
VA's financial policies and procedures. To further assist in executing
future conferences in a more efficient manner, the Responsible
Conference Executive must also submit an After-Action Review Report.
The designation of a Conference Certifying Official and a
Responsible Conference Executive for every large conference will
clearly identify the specific individuals responsible for ensuring
appropriate conference planning and overseeing conference management
and execution.
Additionally, the Department currently has a central conference
tracking repository and is developing an electronic portal that will
contain materials to help Administrations and Staff Offices develop
their conference business case and associated planning documents. This
portal will also help track information for the Department to report
training conference spending in accordance with OMB Memo M-12-12 and
Public Law 112-154, the ``Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for
Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012''. This law requires VA to track and
report to Congress quarterly conferences that are sponsored or co-
sponsored by VA and attended by at least one VA employee, or estimated
to cost VA at least $20,000 - and to provide estimates for the next
quarter.
The Department has instituted sound policies and has provided clear
guidance to individuals within VA responsible for the approval,
planning, and execution of conferences. We recognize that insufficient
oversight has resulted in the misuse of some taxpayer dollars. This is
unacceptable. We will continuously review our policies and procedures
to ensure we are using our resources effectively and appropriately
while providing the training that is so critically necessary for VA
employees..
VALUE OF TRAINING FOR VA'S MISSION
While we must address the specific issues by the Inspector General
and the systemic problems they implicate, we must also be very
conscious of the continued value of VA training conferences.
As this Committee is well aware, this is a time of rapidly growing
challenges for VA. To meet those challenges across the vast network of
VA hospitals, clinics, benefits offices and national cemeteries, it is
necessary that our personnel train and consult with VA colleagues and
outside authorities on new and best practices across an enormous
spectrum of subjects, ranging from electronic-records administration to
suicide prevention. The progress we have made in the last few years to
transform the Department into a 21st century organization would not
have been possible without a highly trained workforce. Our employees
need to be trained to ensure they stay current to deliver on our
mission. We will make maximum use of technology to meet most
efficiently meet those training needs, however conferences will remain
essential to VA's efforts to meet the rapidly evolving needs of our
Veteran population.
In 2009, VA recognized that the changing needs of Veterans required
improving and enhancing the training of its employees. At that time, VA
training programs were scattered, siloed, and underutilized. The need
for improved performance was clear in the midst of increased demand due
to ongoing combat operations and the expected retirement of a high
proportion of the VA workforce in the near future. If VA did not invest
substantially in its employee training, the Nation faced the prospect
of an underprepared, undertrained VA at precisely the moment when the
needs of our Veteran community were greatest.
One of VA's four strategic goals requires us to invest in our
employees so that they can improve service and customer satisfaction
for Veterans and their families. Consequently, the Department
identified transformation of our human-capital management as a main
element in our Strategic Plan. We have been working for the past three
years on providing our employees with the training they need.
Training requirements are based on identified competencies for each
employee. We have worked to define management and technical
competencies for all our key service areas. At the forefront of these
efforts is the policy requiring that there be ``line-of-sight'' from
the Department's strategic goals and capabilities, through
organizational missions and functions, to the individual employee's
personal performance and development plans. Through this ``line-of-
sight'' approach, we can identify the employee-level competencies
needed to achieve the Department's strategic goals. We can then
identify gaps in these competencies, and develop training programs to
fill them.
VA's training programs - including, but not limited to, our
training conferences - follow a cyclical model. The cycle begins by
identifying the critical knowledge, skills, and behaviors an employee
requires to better serve our Veterans. These defined competencies and
our organizational values are linked to training. Training needs are
then compared to available resources and a final plan developed to
correct gaps across the entire organization on a priority basis.
Through this process the course offerings in our training programs,
including training conferences, are identified. As training courses are
developed, we give strong consideration to ensuring that courses are
available to the largest population of employees, and are carried out
in a cost-effective manner - with a preference for using available
technology to provide virtual training where feasible.
Once conducted, courses are rigorously evaluated to assess
participant satisfaction, on-the-job behavior change, and
organizational impact. The feedback from this evaluation is used to
inform future course-development and to continually improve our
training methods.
To facilitate high quality, cost-effective continuous learning, VA
established VA Learning University (VALU) in 2003. Further, VA created
centralized training centers for specific fields, such as the VA
Acquisition Academy and the Veterans Benefits Academy.
VA's Human Capital Investment Programs (HCIP), have demonstrated a
positive return on investment (ROI). HCIP initiatives are designed to
build a healthy and engaged VA organization where employees deliver
high-quality services. VALU applied industry best practices to analyze
the ROI for HCIP initiatives, yielding a positive 5%. These findings
are being used as the foundation for deeper insights into new
initiatives with the ultimate goal of demonstrating the future value of
HCIP as well as driving investment decisions moving forward.
Advances in technology have made distance learning a more feasible
option for many kinds of training. VA has already made extensive use of
technology to provide training nationwide, and we are aggressively
looking into new ways in which we leverage it even further. However, as
a result of the Department's diverse and complex missions, there are
occasions, which are outlined below, when travel to conduct face-to-
face meetings for training is most effective and efficient.
We must avoid falling into a mindset that reflexively denies the
value of in-person meetings. Such meetings certainly have their place.
But we clearly have to do a better job of monitoring our costs and
improving oversight. In accordance with Administration directives and
internal policies, VA has instituted a multi-tiered approval process
for all training conferences that cost VA over $20,000. Recognizing
that resources are limited and that further efficiencies can be found
in our operations, VA continues to find ways to implement the
Administration's guidance to reduce spending while continuing to
provide high quality training.
Our Administrations and Staff Offices have adapted their training
programs to better improve employees' ability to provide high quality
service for Veterans. I would now like to turn to some of the
individual administrations and staff offices within VA, to talk about
how these programs - including, where necessary, in-person conferences
- are resulting in better support for America's Veterans:
VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
In perhaps no part of VA is personnel training of greater
significance than in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), which
must not only contend with the complex health care challenges facing
the Veteran community, but must also do so while competing with
private-sector companies for health care and administrative talent.
VHA is the Nation's largest integrated health care system,
providing quality clinical care to more than 8.4 million enrolled
Veterans at more than 1,400 points of care across the country. VHA's
mission is to honor America's Veterans by providing exceptional care
that improves their health and well-being. To do this effectively,
training and competency development is critical as we work to maintain
statutory, regulatory or VA-required licensure, certification and
qualifications.
Providing these opportunities for clinical skills development is
essential to recruitment and retention as we work daily to address the
emerging issues unique to the large and diverse Veteran population
including: Polytrauma from multiple war related injuries; disease
positively associated with exposure to various chemicals during
conflict; traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder;
suicide prevention and other mental health diagnoses; women's health
and military sexual trauma; cancer and other age-related diseases of
Korean-era and Vietnam-era Veterans; and elimination of Veteran
homelessness.
Consider our increasing investment in telehealth training.
Telehealth is and continues to be a key driver in maximizing access to
primary and specialty services for all Veterans, including those in
rural or remote areas. The implementation of this telehealth
infrastructure requires training for an overall understanding behind
the vision of how this program can change care and delivery to Veterans
as well as providing skills and competency for utilizing the necessary
equipment and technology.
In 2011, 160 participants acquired the knowledge and skills to
manage telehealth programs and facilities. Students participated in
hands-on training and evaluation of technology support for over 380,865
patients who used telehealth services last year alone.
Another example of the direct and tangible results of training
programs throughout VHA is the Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT)
Collaborative and Learning Center. PACT is central to VHA's strategy to
implement a medical home model and team-based care. 1,233 VHA
participants utilized this collaborative to better equip the VHA health
care teams to provide coordinated and holistic care with streamlined
delivery of services. After completing the training, participants
reported a 27% increase in Veterans contacted within 48 days and
visited within 7 days of transition from the hospital.
VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION
Now let's turn to the Veterans Benefit Administration, or VBA. One
of the most significant areas in which VA's commitment to training has
shown results is the Challenge training program utilized by the
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) to train its Veterans Service
Representatives (VSR) and Rating Veterans Service Representatives
(RVSR). VBA seeks to eliminate the disability claims backlog and
process all claims at a 98% accuracy level.
Central to meeting this goal is investing in the training of VBA's
personnel. Under its comprehensive Transformation Campaign Plan, VBA
redesigned and enhanced the Challenge training program in July 2011.
Redesign of the centralized Challenge program grew out of VBA's need to
make new claims processors more proficient and productive at the start
of their careers, while minimizing the impact on experienced staff
called on to provide follow-on training at the local regional offices.
A July 2012 report examined the updated training's impact after nearly
a year of use. This report is a prime example of VA's thorough
examination of the return on training investments. The training,
centralized at VA's Benefits Academy in Baltimore, creates efficiencies
in training delivery by collocating the new employees at one site. On
balance, the expenditure of sending new VBA employees to Baltimore for
an eight-week period of training is outweighed by the gains in accuracy
and productivity those employees receive from being assembled to
receive training from knowledgeable and effective instructors
delivering a long, complex curriculum. Further, the shared learning
experience enables employees with diverse backgrounds who work in
different regional offices across the country to develop a shared sense
of mission. Finally, common training standards and methods lower
variance in quality and productivity around the Nation.
The new model demonstrated success in 90 days. Under the legacy
model, at the end of the six-month training period trainees averaged
one-half case per day and 60% accuracy prior to review. In contrast, by
the end of just over three months under the revised Challenge model,
graduates were able to complete more than a case per day with greater
than 95% accuracy. When employees returned to their home stations, they
continue to learn through additional on-the-job training. This focus on
training helped VA complete a record- breaking 1 million claims per
year the last two fiscal years, delivering faster, better decisions for
Veterans.
As VA continues to receive more disability claims, deploying highly
trained and competent VSRs and RVSRs to the Regional Offices is a main
focus in the Department's goal of eliminating the claims backlog by
2015.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
Training is focused not only on the ever changing technical aspects
of the medical and benefits offered to Veterans and their families but
the rapidly changing management environment, as well. VA continues its
transformation by creating a highly skilled workforce that supports all
operational and management functions. That's where VA's Office of
Management comes in.
For example, the Office of Finance was tasked with training
approximately 6,800 VA employees in financial management positions
within VA. The FM Training Conference is the principal platform by
which all VA employees who perform financial management related duties
come together to share knowledge and learn essential skills in the
areas of auditing, accounting, budget analysis, and financial
management.
These conferences offered 27 courses including Appropriations Law,
Federal Financial Management Overview and Federal Accounting
Fundamentals. With other improvements we have made, VA achieved a 75%
reduction in material weaknesses in our FY 2011 annual financial audit.
OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY
The VA Office of Information and Technology (OIT) delivers
available, adaptable, secure, and cost effective technology services to
the VA and acts as a steward for all VA's IT assets and resources.
To ensure exemplary execution of this mission, it is vital that IT
staff at all of the VA facilities are aware of policy changes and how
to implement and communicate changes to the customer base of over
300,000 VA employees.
For example, OIT has used the Project Management Training Summit to
convene IT project managers to ensure that they are all aligned on the
profound changes in the way OIT delivers its services to the VA
workforce. Summit facilitators were able to evaluate the training
summit and capture significant metrics regarding the validity and
usefulness of the training: 76% of participants felt better informed
about system processes; 72% reported a better understanding of budget
execution; and 81% had a better understanding of operations and
maintenance planning.
Through this training summit and other training conferences that
OIT has held since 2009, OIT has been able to ensure that our highly
dispersed, nationwide IT staff is consistently provided the training
and information IT need to ensure high-quality customer service to
Veterans as technology continues to advance.
As VA moves forward to implement the Secretary's vision for a
highly skilled workforce, training remains a vital and important way
for VA employees to continually improve their service to Veterans.
Training conferences featuring face-to-face education and
practical, hands-on instruction help to develop a robust workforce in
all sectors of business. They are necessary to stay on the leading edge
of processes and technology, so VA can continue to provide Veterans
with exemplary service. As we continue to harness technological
advancements, VA will critically reexamine training opportunities with
a commitment to implementing further efficiencies by reducing, where
appropriate, administrative spending - while also providing excellent
training to keep our employees certified in their field and equipped
with the tools necessary to serve those who have already given so much
in serving us.
QUALITY AND TIMELINESS OF INFORMATION TO CONGRESS
VA values the oversight of our Congressional committees and
Members. Partnering with Congressional offices to provide information
to better serve our Nation's Veterans is a goal of the Department. In
this spirit, Secretary Shinseki notified Congressional leaders of the
investigation into the Orlando HR training conferences after the
Secretary was notified of the investigation by IG personnel.
VA provided detailed information to this Committee and other
committees after we learned of the IG investigation into the Orlando HR
training conferences. In August, the Department, provided multiple
Congressional committees with thousands of pages covering VA's
department-wide policies and procedures relative to training
conferences generally; Orlando-specific contract and acquisition
documents; Orlando conferences specific documents, including agendas,
activities, training course evaluations, and speeches; and over 33
hours of video produced for and during the conferences on DVDs. Since
August, VA has received approximately 125 inquiries spanning a range of
issues related to training conferences. Many of these inquiries have
required customized data collection efforts involving all
Administrations and Staff Offices. In order to provide consistent and
accurate information, thousands of man hours have been spent processing
these requests.
VA believes that greater transparency and partnership can be
improved by providing thorough, accurate information. Providing
complete, verifiable information is contingent upon gathering and
circulating the requested data among a number of stakeholder offices in
VA. This is especially the case when the requested data comes from
every Administration and Staff Office. This process, while detailed and
lengthy, helps ensure that there is consistent and accurate information
provided to Congress.
VA employees regularly interact with and provide information to
committee and Member staffs on VA programs and policies. During the
last two fiscal years, VA senior leaders participated in 118 hearings,
conducted over 1,142 briefings to Members of Congress and staff;
responded to 3,204 questions for the record and processed approximately
40,000 constituent casework inquiries. Additionally, VA responded to
over 6,000 specific policy-related requests for information.
VA also supports the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its
investigative mission to Congress. During last fiscal year, VA
participated in 43 entrance conferences and 41 exit conferences. VA
provided information during the conduct of each of these GAO reviews.
VA also gave information on 65 draft GAO reports and 72 final GAO
reports, representing a 35 percent and 52 percent increase respectfully
over the previous fiscal year's numbers.
As these figures indicate, VA is committed to supporting Congress
in its oversight mission and I assure you, VA will continue to provide
Congress with accurate and complete information.
CONCLUSION
Our Department's mission is to honor and serve the Nation's
Veterans; this is a sacred obligation for both the Department and the
Nation. Incumbent in serving Veterans, their dependents, and survivors
is the need for us to manage our resources carefully and ensure there
is appropriate oversight of and accountability for our acts. We look
forward to working with our partners in Congress to help ensure that
our new policies on training conference planning, approval, and
execution effectively address the issues identified by the IG, our
internal review, and pending third-party reviews, while preserving the
ability to train our personnel to deliver high quality benefits and
services in a rapidly changing environment.
Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to answer any questions you or the
other Members of the Committee have.
Question For The Record
To Hon. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs, from Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member
November 28, 2012
The Honorable Eric K. Shinseki
Secretary
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
Dear Mr. Secretary:
In reference to our Full Committee hearing entitled, ``VA
Conference Spending Accountability'' that took place on November 28,
2012, I would appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing
questions by the close of business on January 7, 2013.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for materials for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively and single-spaced. In
addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the
answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please email your response in a
word document to Carol Murray at [email protected]. If you
have any questions, please call 202-225-9756.
Sincerely,
BOB FILNER
Ranking Democratic Member
DT:cm
1. Will the VA provide a copy of the July 2012 report examining the
impact of the VBA training program referenced in your testimony?
2. In your testimony you highlighted the importance of the training
provided to VA HR employees at the two conferences held in Orlando,
Florida in 2011 and the importance of hiring health care professionals.
Of the 1,600 Human Resources employees that attended the 2011
conferences, how many are directly responsible for hiring the much
needed positions for VA Northern Indiana Health Care System at the Fort
Wayne, Indiana campus that have led to the closure of vital services to
veterans?
3. Your new policies require that conferences that exceed a certain
budgetary amount will require approval by a Deputy Secretary, Under
Secretary, Assistant Secretary or other senior officials. I would
consider Mr. Gingrich a senior official, given that he authorized the
budget for the multimillion dollar conferences. Who will oversee that
leadership?
4. According to the VA OIG report, the conference planner lacked
the authority to commit governments funds for much of the expenses
associated with the conferences, yet these individuals continued to do
so.
a. Why weren't these activities monitored?
b. Why wasn't VA leadership questioning accounting expenses?
5. According to the VA OIG report, there seems to be a complete
lack of awareness from management of who was involved in the planning
of the conferences, who committed to governments funds for expenses
associated with the conferences, and overall confusion of roles. It
seemed that no one really knew who did what. This allowed lower-grade
employees take on a bigger role then they should have. Why did this
occur?
a. Why didn't management take responsibility?
b. Why would management delegate authority to lower-grade employees
and remain uninvolved with the planning of the conferences?
c. Is this hands-off approach encouraged throughout the Department?
6. In your written statement, in reference to the ``Challenge
training program'' you reference a July 2012 report that ``examined the
updated training's impact after nearly a year of use.'' Please provide
copy of this report.
7. In your written testimony you reference the VA's ``comprehensive
Transformation Campaign Plan.'' Since the Committee's June 19, 2012
hearing on the VBA Claims Transformation Plan we have been requesting a
copy of this detailed plan that is not in a PowerPoint format. In a
June 22, 2012 e-mail exchange with a VA Congressional Relations Officer
we were assured that the VA was ``working on a version that provides
additional detail, in word format'' and that this would be provided
``as soon as possible.'' We have followed-up on this request a number
of times, since at the June 22, 2012 hearing and at a subsequent
hearing the Under Secretary for Benefits referenced a more detailed and
comprehensive plan than a PowerPoint demonstration provided to
Committee staff. Please provide the Committee immediately with such a
detailed plan, or at least a firm date upon which the Committee may
expect to receive such a plan.
Responses to Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member from Hon. Eric
K. Shinseki, Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
1. Will the VA provide a copy of the July 2012 report examining the
impact of the VBA training program referenced in your testimony?
VA Response: The requested report and associated press release are
publicly available at http://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/
pressrelease.cfm?id=2352.
2. In your testimony you highlighted the importance of the training
provided to VA HR employees at the two conferences held in Orlando,
Florida in 2011 and the importance of hiring health care professionals.
Of the 1,600 Human Resources employees that attended the 2011
conferences, how many are directly responsible for hiring the much
needed positions for VA Northern Indiana Health Care System at the Fort
Wayne, Indiana campus that have led to the closure of vital services to
veterans?
VA Response: In 2011, seven Human Resources (HR) Specialists from
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Northern Indiana Health Care
System attended the HR conference in Orlando, Florida. Hiring Managers
are directly responsible for hiring health care professionals, and the
HR Specialists provide the expertise necessary to support the Hiring
Managers.
3. Your new policies require that conferences that exceed a certain
budgetary amount will require approval by a Deputy Secretary, Under
Secretary, Assistant Secretary or other senior officials. I would
consider Mr. Gingrich a senior official, given that he authorized the
budget for the multimillion dollar conferences. Who will oversee that
leadership?
VA Response: VA issued a Conference Oversight Policy Memorandum on
September 26, 2012, that identifies the levels of leadership and
oversight required of any conference attended by VA employees. The
specific level of leadership oversight is a function of the estimated
cost of the conference. For conferences estimated to cost less than
$20,000, a Senior Executive Service (SES) employee or equivalent
provides the leadership and oversight of the conference, and must use
the same stringent procedures mandated for the larger conferences. For
any conference estimated to cost over $20,000, a Conference Certifying
Official (CCO) and Responsible Conference Executive (RCE), both SES-
level employees, provide the leadership and oversight for the
conference.
For approval purposes, conferences estimated to cost under $20,000
require approval by an SES employee or equivalent. Conferences
estimated to cost $20,000 to $100,000 require approval from the
appropriate Under Secretary, Assistant Secretary, or their equivalent.
Conferences estimated to cost $100,000 up to $500,000 require approval
from the Deputy Secretary. For conferences estimated to cost $500,000
or more, a Secretarial waiver is required.
4. According to the VA OIG report, the conference planner lacked
the authority to commit governments funds for much of the expenses
associated with the conferences, yet these individuals continued to do
so.
a. Why weren't these activities monitored?
VA Response: The VA Conference Oversight Policy Memorandum issued
on September 26, 2012, established CCOs and RCEs at the Senior
Executive Level for all conferences exceeding $20,000. The RCE is
responsible for ensuring that an approved conference or training event
is executed with strict adherence to all applicable regulations and
policies. As part of the review, the RCE will ensure that only properly
warranted Contracting Officers make modifications to existing
conference contracts, and that such modifications are made only when
appropriate and within the overall spending limits set in the
conference's approved spending plan. VA is also providing new training
to program officials so they understand their roles in the procurement
process.
b. Why wasn't VA leadership questioning accounting expenses?
VA Response: The VA Conference Oversight Policy Memorandum issued
on September 26, 2012, established CCOs and RCEs at the Senior
Executive Level for all conferences exceeding $20,000. The CCO and RCE
are responsible for tracking all conference spending from proposal to
completion, and the RCE must certify that all spending was in
accordance with all regulations and policies.
On November 13, 2012, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Finance
and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition and Logistics issued a
memo requiring the names of all purchase cardholders with single
purchase limits greater than the micro-purchase threshold be matched to
a list of valid warrant holders. Any cardholders who could not be
matched were to have their single purchase limit reduced to the micro-
purchase threshold. Additionally, the memo stated that any exceptions
to this policy would have to be approved by the VA Senior Procurement
Executive. This exception processing better aligns granting of this
authority to the executive responsible for those activities. Although
not a change in policy, it should be noted that any transaction above
the micro-purchase threshold must be in compliance with Federal
Acquisition Regulations.
5. According to the VA OIG report, there seems to be a complete
lack of awareness from management of who was involved in the planning
of the conferences, who committed to governments funds for expenses
associated with the conferences, and overall confusion of roles. It
seemed that no one really knew who did what. This allowed lower-grade
employees take on a bigger role then they should have. Why did this
occur?
a. Why didn't management take responsibility?
b. Why would management delegate authority to lower-grade employees
and remain uninvolved with the planning of the conferences?
VA Response to 5 and sub-questions a and b: The Secretary accepted
the OIG's recommendations for appropriate administrative action
regarding the individuals involved; that process is underway. The VA's
Conference Oversight Policy Memorandum issued on September 26, 2012
established its updated policy. The policy requires a waiver from the
Secretary for conferences that are projected to cost VA more than
$500,000. The Deputy Secretary is the approval authority for
conferences costing VA in excess of $100,000. Conferences projected to
cost more than $20,000 but less than $100,000 must be reviewed by the
appropriate Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary. The memo also
established two new roles in the conference planning process: the CCO
and the RCE, each of whom must be a Senior Executive or SES equivalent.
The CCO reviews all conference proposals and certifies compliance with
all regulations and policy before moving forward for clearance. In
addition, each individual conference expected to cost over $20,000 now
has an RCE, whose role is to oversee the day-to-day planning and
execution of such conferences and to ensure that the conference is
executed in accordance with regulation and policy.
c. Is this hands-off approach encouraged throughout the Department?
VA Response: VA has consistently stated that misuse of federal
funds is unacceptable, and that is why VA acted quickly to implement
rules that reflect a continuing commitment to safeguarding federal
funds. VA's Conference Oversight Policy Memorandum, dated September 26,
2012, responds to the oversight gaps identified in the OIG report and
the internal reviews conducted in the wake of the 2011 HR Training
Conferences by identifying roles and responsibilities of senior-level
leadership to ensure proper accountability and oversight of federal
funds. An SES level employee must review and approve any conference
estimated to cost under $20,000. Two SES-level employees, a CCO and RCE
will be appointed for each conference projected to cost in excess of
$20,000. Their roles are to ensure adherence to all applicable
statutes, regulations, and policies when planning and executing the
approved conference. As the single point of responsibility for
conference execution, the RCE will oversee and manage all execution-
level activity for the assigned conference. The memorandum also
requires the respective Under Secretary, Assistant Secretary, or their
equivalent to act as the approval authority for a conference projected
to cost from $20,000 to $100,000. The Deputy Secretary is responsible
for approving conferences estimated to cost from $100,000 to $500,000.
Conferences estimated to exceed $500,000 require a waiver by the
Secretary.
6. In your written statement, in reference to the ``Challenge
training program'' you reference a July 2012 report that ``examined the
updated training's impact after nearly a year of use.'' Please provide
copy of this report.
VA Response: Please see the response to question 1.
7. In your written testimony you reference the VA's ``comprehensive
Transformation Campaign Plan.'' Since the Committee's June 19, 2012
hearing on the VBA Claims Transformation Plan we have been requesting a
copy of this detailed plan that is not in a PowerPoint format. In a
June 22, 2012 e-mail exchange with a VA Congressional Relations Officer
we were assured that the VA was ``working on a version that provides
additional detail, in word format'' and that this would be provided
``as soon as possible.'' We have followed-up on this request a number
of times, since at the June 22, 2012 hearing and at a subsequent
hearing the Under Secretary for Benefits referenced a more detailed and
comprehensive plan than a PowerPoint demonstration provided to
Committee staff. Please provide the Committee immediately with such a
detailed plan, or at least a firm date upon which the Committee may
expect to receive such a plan.
VA Response: The VA Strategic Plan to Eliminate the Compensation
Claims Backlog was provided to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
on January 25, 2013.
Materials For The Record
Deliverables for VBA from Rep. Michaud
Deliverable 1: Requested the July 2012 report issued concerning the
effectiveness of the VBA Challenge Training as referenced in the
written statement.
Response: The requested report and associated press release are
publicly available at http://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/
pressrelease.cfm?id=2352.
Deliverable 2: Requested information concerning the number of
Veterans Service Representatives (VSRs) and Rating Veterans Service
Representatives (RVSRs), and how many have already been deployed and
where.
Response: Please see the attached spreadsheets. The FY13 VSR and
RVSR onboard spreadsheet shows the number of employees onboard as of
the end of November. The VBA RVSR and VSR hires spreadsheet reflects
the VSRs and RVSRs that we hired in fiscal years (FYs) 2011, 2012, and
2013. Both spreadsheets are sorted by Area and regional office.
Deliverable 3: Will there be additional VSRs and RVSRs deployed and
where will they be deployed?
Response: VBA's current FY 2013 funding request includes 14,355
direct Compensation and Pension employees. This is an increase of 35
direct FTE over FY 2012. Currently, VBA is fully staffed to the FY 2013
funded levels and any hiring will be a result of replacing FTE losses.
Throughout the FY, staffing losses will be monitored and filled to
ensure regional offices are operating at full claims processing
capacity.
Regional office staffing allocations are determined by a
performance-based "Resource Allocation Model". Directors must ensure
they are staffed to their approved ceilings throughout the year, and
fill VSR and RVSR roles as necessary in order optimize output.
The additional deployment mentioned refers to VBA's approximately
1,200 claims processors who were dedicated to Nehmer claims processing
throughout FY 2011 and into FY 2012. The last of the live Veterans'
Nehmer claims were completed in April 2012, and the last survivor claim
in October 2012. These claims processors have been re-deployed to focus
on the oldest claims in our inventory and other specialized missions,
such as Benefits Delivery at Discharge, Quick Start, and appeals
workload.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VSR RVSR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern Area 1459 607
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore 56 41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston 82 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo 49 26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland 138 95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit 95 44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hartford 43 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indianapolis 92 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manchester 21 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York 77 41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newark 45 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia \1\, \2\ 498 121
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh 62 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providence 74 65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Togus \1\ 100 41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White River 12 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilmington 15 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Area 1747 934
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta 168 85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia \1\ 177 99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington \1\ 98 45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson 89 43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisville 87 54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montgomery 96 57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nashville 150 94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roanoke \1\ 158 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Juan 53 25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Petersburg \1\ 392 184
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston-Salem 278 167
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Area 1898 840
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago 89 47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Des Moines 41 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fargo 20 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Houston 180 91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln \1\ 100 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Little Rock 67 44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee \2\ 306 68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muskogee \1\ 155 92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Orleans 61 33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sioux Falls 20 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis \1\ 134 66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul \2\ 349 101
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waco \1\ 339 180
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita 37 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Area 1445 767
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albuquerque 38 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchorage 20 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boise 30 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver 102 55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheyenne 12 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Harrison 25 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honolulu 29 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles 119 39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manila 39 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oakland 120 54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix \1\ 136 77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland 86 41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reno 37 19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salt Lake City 114 94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego \1\ 269 127
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seattle \1\ 281 178
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMC 102 48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Regional office with a Resource Center
\2\ Includes Pension Management Center
VBA RVSR & VSR Gains
FY11-FY13 (To date)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2012 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RVSR VSR RVSR VSR RVSR VSR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EASTERN AREA 39 63 11 115 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOSTON 2 21 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROVIDENCE 25 1 10 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUFFALO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTFORD 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWARK 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHILADELPHIA 1 42 42 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PITTSBURGH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BALTIMORE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLEVELAND 11 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDIANAPOLIS 4 15 8 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DETROIT 9 1 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANCHESTER 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOGUS 3 7 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHT RIVER JCT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILMINGTON
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTHERN AREA 67 49 11 58 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROANOKE 6 11 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUNTINGTON 5 7 3 2 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATLANTA 6 7 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST PETERSBURG 1 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WINSTON-SALEM 53 16 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLUMBIA 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASHVILLE 1 4 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MONTGOMERY 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JACKSON 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISVILLE 2 10 4 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN JUAN 5 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON DC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENTRAL AREA 32 75 16 105 2 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW ORLEANS 3 2 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHICAGO 6 9 5 6 1 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILWAUKEE 8 7 15 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST LOUIS 4 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DES MOINES 1 3 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINCOLN 2 4 13 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST PAUL 12 2 20 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WACO 12 27 7 26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LITTLE ROCK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUSKOGEE 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSTON 1 11 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FARGO 2 1 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIOUX FALLS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WICHITA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERN AREA 35 68 21 124 3 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DENVER 15 7 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALBUQUERQUE 6 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SALT LAKE CITY 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OAKLAND 3 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOS ANGELES 5 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHOENIX 2 5 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEATTLE 4 19 13 53 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOISE 2 1 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PORTLAND
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RENO 4 2 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANILA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN DIEGO 13 17 22 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FT HARRISON 1 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HONOLULU 3 3 2 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANCHORAGE 5 4 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMC 15 6 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memorandum
Department of Veterans Affairs
Date: September 26, 2012
From: Chief of Staff (00A)
Subj: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Conference Oversight
(VAIQ# 7280489)
To:Under Secretaries, Assistant Secr--etaries, and Other Key
Officials
1. This memorandum supersedes all memoranda previously issued by
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Chief of Staff concerning
conference oversight, and provides updated guidance on the planning,
review, approval, and execution requirements for conferences. See
Attachment 1. The Department standard is clear: we will strictly adhere
to statutes, regulations, policies, and procedures concerning
conference planning, approvals, acquisitions, and execution. This
standard requires robust oversight and management controls by our
leaders as outlined in this memorandum and the attached documents. VA
leaders and employees must continue to comply with Public Law 112-154,
Section 707- Quarterly Reports To Congress on Conferences Sponsored By
The Department, and OMB M-12-12, dated May 11, 2012 "Promoting
Efficient Spending to Support Agency Operations." See Attachment 3.
2. The Secretary has directed two external, independent reviews:
one focused on VA's training and another on conference policies,
principles, and procedures. The review related to training will assess
the adequacy of VA's current controls over training requirements
determination and approach, trainee selection, effectiveness measures,
and whether those policies, principles and procedures are implemented
effectively and consistently throughout the Department. The review
focused on conferences will examine the adequacy of VA's controls over
conference planning and related acquisition processes and how those
controls are implemented throughout the Department. Both reviews will
examine our internal policies as well as look for best practices from
other government agencies, as we seek to implement the Administration's
guidance to reduce expenses. After the conclusion of the third party
reviews of VA's conference planning execution and oversight policies
and practices, a "Conference Planning, Execution and Oversight"
directive and handbook will be published in third quarter of Fiscal
Year 2013.
3. Background: Standards for determining when and how federal
agencies execute conferences are evolving. OMB recently provided all
federal agencies guidance that sets a standard with regard to the need
for collocation of employees during meetings and conferences.
Specifically, OMB states that, "agencies must confirm that physical
collocation of Federal employees in a conference setting is a necessary
and cost-effective means to carry out the agency's mission." OMB
guidance further states that "agencies should begin their reviews by
presuming that physical collocation as part of a conference is not
required in the majority of cases." OMB indicates their expectation
that professional development needed to keep skills current for human
resources, accounting, procurement, or other government professionals
be done by VTC, webinars, or other electronic means. VA recognizes
electronic means are useful tools, but also that not all clinical
training and professional development can be accomplished through these
mediums.
OMB also requires that agencies ensure that appropriate policies
and controls are in place to limit food, beverage, or other refreshment
costs at conferences sponsored or hosted by the agency, as well as
lodging costs for employees attending conferences and fees paid to
subject-matter experts to speak at conferences. They also remind us
that agencies should look to host or sponsor conferences in space
controlled by the Federal Government where possible in order to reduce
costs. OMB also emphasizes entertainment-related expenses are expressly
prohibited, including paying for motivational speakers, as contrasted
to speakers with specific subject-matter expertise in the topic of the
conference. OMB also specifically mentions that promotional items are
an unallowable expense. (Danny Werfel, Aug 31, 2012, Controller Alert-
Federal Conferences and Real Property Data Quality)
4. Definitions: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will adhere
to the definition of "conference" included in OMB Memorandum (M-12-12),
which uses "conference" as defined in the Federal Travel Regulation
(FTR): "[a] meeting, retreat, seminar, symposium or event that involves
attendee travel. The term "conference" also applies to training
activities that are considered to be conferences under 5 CFR 410.404."
Therefore, conferences covered by these guidelines include all
conferences, training sessions, meetings, Advisory Committee meetings,
rehabilitative sporting events, orsimilar events where travel is
involved that are VA hosted or co-hosted, or other Federalor non-
Federal entities host, without regard to number of attendees or dollar
value. In addition to activities included in the definitions above,
activities such as Federal Executive Institute; senior leader courses;
administrative board hearings, e.g., Board of Veterans' Appeals
hearings; and award ceremonies will be treated as conferences. While we
recognize that an administrative board hearing, for example, may not
meet the threshold levels for approval, the entity hosting the activity
is responsible for the same degree of scrutiny and oversight as with
any conference or training event hosted by VA. All thresholds
referenced in this memorandum are inclusive of travel and non-travel
costs.
5. Approval Authorities: Approval authorities, which shall not be
re-delegated, for conducting conferences which VA-hosts or co-hosts, or
other Federal or non-Federal entities host are as follows(See
Attachment 2):
a. where the projected costs to VA are in excess of $500,000,
conferences are generally prohibited. Any waivers of this restriction
must be approved by the Secretary. (See Attachment 6). Requests for a
waiver will be reviewed by the Deputy Secretary and the Chief of Staff
who will make recommendations to the Secretary no later than 60 days
prior to the event;
b. where the projected costs to VA are in excess of $100,000 but
less than $500,000, the Deputy Secretary and the Chief of Staff will
continue to review. (See Attachment 5). The Deputy Secretary will
approve proposals no later than 60 days prior to the event;
c. where the projected costs to VA are at least $20,000 but less
than $100,000, the conference must be approved by the Under Secretary,
Assistant Secretary or equivalent of the organization proposing to
conduct the conference no later than 60 days prior to the event; and
d. where the projected costs to VA are less than $20,000, the
conference may be approved in accordance with the sponsoring
Administration or Staff Office's established approval process no later
than 30 days prior to the event. The Administration or Staff Office is
responsible for ensuring that the approving authority is a Senior
Executive or SES-equivalent.Administrations and Staff Offices will
ensure that the same appropriateguidelines, statutes, policies, and
regulations are followed for the review and approval process for a
conference costing the VA less than $20,000 or having less than 50
attendees.
e. For a graphical depiction of budgetary thresholds, please see
Attachment 3.
f. Approval is required when exhibiting (display booths,
recruitment fairs, etc.) or participating at conferences hosted by
other Federal or non-Federal entities. Further guidance on approval
requirements will be provided by October 15, 2012.
g. Commitment of any funds or obligation to the government is
prohibited priorto the review and approval of the specified Approval
Authority.
h. Waiver of timelines may be granted by the specified Approval
Authority with sufficient justification to request an exception.
6. Process: VA's conference process will have four phases: Concept,
Development, Execution, and Reporting. (See Attachment 4). Each phase
will have objectives, metrics, and standards of execution. Starting in
October 2012, VA will begin a quarterly Conference Planning and
Execution Briefing Cycle.
Each Administration and Staff Office will be responsible for
briefing the Chief of Staff quarterly on any anticipated conferences VA
proposes to host or co-host, or Federal or non-Federal hosted
conferences VA employees will attend, during the next twelve months.
All planned conferences costing VA over $20,000 each will require a
concept plan. The format for the concept plan will be posted on the
portal (to be developed) and will be the same as the format currently
utilized for current fiscal year submissions. However, all planned
conferences costing VA less than $20,000 each will be submitted in a
lump-sum estimate as part of the quarterly briefing to the Chief of
Staff.
a. Conference Planning Cycle: Ninety days prior to the start of
a fiscal quarter, the Chief of Staff will host a meeting of the
Administrations and Staff Offices to review and authorize planning and
business case development for all conferences proposed to cost VA
$20,000 or more in funds or resources.After the Chief of Staff performs
an initial review of the fiscal year plan, each Administration and
Staff Office are required to brief the Chief of Staff on their
individual fiscal year conference plan. Each Administration and Staff
Office must ensure that their budget officer is fully integrated into
the decision process of all four phases to ensure fiscal discipline.
Deviations of more than 5 percent above the approved conference budget
require notification back to the approving authority and will require
additional approval if budgetary thresholds are crossed.Templates for
information required will be contained in the conference
portal.Byexception, with appropriate justification, a conference can be
submitted for approval out of cycle as long as all planning
requirements have been met.
b. Concept Phase: VA will establish a disciplined conference
approval process, which will begin with the concept phase. Once an
organization has a concept for a conference, that concept will be
developed and included in the Concept Authorization Briefing as part of
the quarterly Conference Planning and Execution Briefing Cycle.
c. Development Phase: This phase includes the development of the
businesscase and the guidance for the planning and execution of the
potential conference, and certification by the Conference Certifying
Official (CCO).
d. Execution Phase: This phase covers the period after the
conference has been approved and the Administration or Staff Office has
begun to execute the fully developed plan.
i. Site visits are authorized but must be approved by the
Responsible Conference Executive (RCE). The use of any site visit
should be limited to situations where all other reasonable alternatives
such as Web searches, use of Internet, phone conversations and
teleconferencing have proven insufficient with the proposed conference
site vendors. All approved site visits will minimize days of travel and
travelers.
ii. In accordance with the Office of Acquisition and Logistics
InformationLetter (IL-049-12-12) located at: http://www.va.gov/oal/
docs/library/ils/il02-- 12.pdf, Legal and Technical Review of Proposed
Contracts for Conferences, all proposed contracts for conferences,
where VA's commitment, expenditure and liability combined exceed
$25,000, require legal and technical review prior to signature by a VA
Contracting Officer.
e. Reporting Phase: This phase covers the period after the
execution of theconference. Administrations and Staff Offices will
ensure that conferences were executed in accordance with applicable
policies and regulations, and they must also conduct After Action
Reviews. (See Attachment 13). Administrations and Staff Offices will
assist in VA's continuing duty to track and report conference
attendance and spending in accordance with Public Law 112-154 and OMB
M- 12-12.
7. Responsibilities: Each Administration and Staff Office must
develop internal supervisory controls for oversight of the execution of
the conference, including appropriate checks and balances.
a. Each Administration and Staff Office shall appoint in writing
at least one CCO. (See Attachment 7). The CCO shall be a Senior
Executive or SES-equivalent. The designee shall be familiar with the
regulations and policy related to the conduct of conferences, training,
and meetings. All conference proposals where costs to VA are expected
to exceed $20,000 must be reviewed and certified by the CCO as being in
compliance with regulations and policy.
b. A Senior Executive official shall be designated in writing as
the RCE for anycovered conference estimated to cost at least $20,000
(See Attachment 10). The RCE is to be responsible for ensuring
adherence to all applicable statutes,regulations, and policies when
executing the approved conference. The RCE will nominate an
appropriately qualified person to serve as the Program Manager (PM).
(See Attachment 14).
c. The RCE must certify that due diligence was exercised during
the execution stage of a conference within 15 days of the conclusion of
the conference. Examples of due diligence include, but are not limited
to, requiring prior approval of any conference-related expenditure,
including any use of purchase cards, and the RCE ensuring that there is
a rational basis for the approval of lodging upgrades. This also
includes ensuring that no conference includes expenditures for the use
of entertainment (videos, music, etc.), motivational speakers, the
purchase of SWAG ("Stuff We All Get") or promotional items, or the use
of funds to emboss or otherwise imprint the name of the organization or
event on any supplies, mementos, or other handouts. Further, within 30
days of the completion of the conference, the RCE will ensure that an
After Action Review is conducted.
d. The Under Secretary, Assistant Secretary, or equivalent
official's recommendation or approval of a conference validates that
appropriate due diligence was conducted and that the business case for
the event justifies the venue and the use of resources (financial,
time, and people). Additionally, the Under, Assistant Secretary or
equivalent is confirming that the Conference Certifying Official (CCO)
(See Attachments 8, 9), and RCE (See Attachments11, 12), and all other
planning personnel have adhered to all published guidance.This is an
essential element of VA's oversight and conference execution practice
to ensure VA maintains the public trust in the expenditure of public
funds and that all possible measures have been taken to ensure
compliance with applicable policies and regulations.
8. Reporting Requirements: VA will continue to track and report
conferences in accordance with Public Law 112-154, Section 707 and OMB
M-12-12, datedMay 11, 2012.
a. The data to be reported includes, but is not limited to:
transportation and parking; per diem payments; lodging; rental of
halls, auditoriums, or other spaces; rental of equipment; refreshments;
entertainment; contractors; and brochures or other printed media. All
current reporting requirements will continue to be based on established
employee participation and dollar thresholds established above. Along
with reporting prior fiscal quarter conference data, PL 112-154 also
requires information on conference costs for VA sponsored or co-
sponsored conferences above $20,000 that are planned during the fiscal
quarter in which the report is submitted.
b. To accomplish the data collection and reporting activities
associated with conference activity, the VA Chief Information Officer
(CIO) will create a Web- based portal with initial operational
capabilities (IOC) by October 1, 2012. Final system (after IOC) will
include capabilities to allow for the capture, certification, and
generation of standard and special purpose reports. The CIO will
outline a plan with requirements and milestones to achieve full
capability in 2013.
c. This portal will allow for the capture of data elements
required for reportingpurposes. Organizational CCOs and RCEs will be
responsible for entering and certifying the accuracy of the data within
15 days following the conclusion of each conference.
9. Mandatory Individual Training: Leaders will ensure all employees
and supervisors complete required training.
a. All employees involved with the planning and implementation
of conferences, including training events, are to undergo mandatory VA-
approved ethics training. This requirement is also extended to all
contract specialists. This training is available in VA's Talent
Management System (TMS). The employee must view one of two videos, view
the VA Ethics Contact list, and self-certify completion of both steps.
The two videos are entitled "Inside Ethics" (TMS ID# 7505) and "Ethics
Most Wanted" (TMS ID# 31726). Supervisors at all levels will ensure
designated personnel within these categories complete training.
b. VA's financial policy provides that all purchase card holders
are required to take purchase card training every 2 years and pass a
test upon completion of the training. This training (available in TMS)
covers the proper use of the purchase card, following appropriation
law, and specifically outlines prohibited uses, such as buying employee
food or refreshments and splitting purchases. VA policy provides that
if the cardholder's training is not current, the cardholder's Agency
Organization Program Coordinator is required to immediately lower the
card limit to $1 and request suspension of the cardholder's purchase
card. Supervisors will ensure that purchase card approving officials
have completed their required training. Senior leaders have the
latitude to direct any subordinate having responsibility for the review
and approval of funds for conferences or training sessions to complete
this training. Supervisors at all levels will ensure designated
personnel within these categories complete this training.
c. VA financial policy also requires that all VA travel
cardholders take travelcard training every 3 years and pass a test upon
completion of the training. This training in TMS covers the appropriate
use of the travel card and consequences that may result from
inappropriate/misuse of the travel card. The policy provides that if
the cardholder's training is not current, the credit limit is
established at $1 until training has been completed. The travel card
may be suspended or revoked for inappropriate use or misuse.
10. Staffing: VA must ensure appropriate staffing for departmental
oversight and reporting. The Office of Management, Office of General
Counsel, Office of Acquisitions, Logistics, and Construction, and
Office of the Secretary staffs will develop a concept of operation for
combined efforts with recommendations for a joint organizational
solution for these offices to ensure that public funds are being
expended in the most efficient and appropriate manner possible as we
execute our required training to better provide quality services and
benefits to Veterans, their families, and survivors. This
recommendation will be presented to the Chief of Staff no later than
October 15, 2012. Administrations and Staff Offices will develop a
concept of operation for implementation, and management and oversight
of conferences to include staffing and resource requirements to be
briefed to Chief of Staff no later than October 31, 2012.
11. All conferences scheduled but not yet executed, regardless of
any previous approvals, from this date forward will be reviewed to
ensure compliance with these established standards for execution. Until
organizational CCOs and RCEs are appointed, Senior Executive or SES-
equivalent leaders will perform the duties required and certify each
conference. Approval timelines will be adjusted to ensure conferences
within 90 days of the memorandum are appropriately approved at the
correct levels.
12. Lest we forget, we are guided by our VA I-CARE core values
(Integrity, Commitment, Advocacy, Respect, and Excellence) as we
conduct our daily duties serving Veterans. We are not immune to the
mistakes made by those in the past. All conferences, meeting and
training events are to be planned and executed to the highest ethical
standards and in compliance with our values. We must be diligentto use
our training resources prudently to carry out VA's sacred mission to
serveVeterans.
13. The points of contact for this policy and oversight memorandum
are Dave Thomas at (202) 461-4873 and Jack Kammerer at (202) 461-4845.
John R. Gingrich
Attachments:
1. VA Hosted or Co-Hosted Conference Request Guidance. This
document provides guidance on the planning and execution phases,
applicable references and resources. It is to be used by conference
planners, CCOs, and RCEs.
2. Conference Approval Process Flow Chart. This is a visual
approval flow chart on theproper reviews and approvals needed to
execute a conference based on established thresholds. This form should
be used by all approving officials.
3. Reporting and Approval Matrices for Conferences Hosted or Co-
Hosted by VA (or otherFederal or Non-Federal Entities). This form
assists offices in understanding the various approval and reporting
thresholds
4. Conference Briefing and Reporting Milestones. This form assists
offices with the various milestones associated with conference planning
and reporting.
5. Conference Request Memorandum Template. This form that will be
used for Chief of Staff review and Secretary or Deputy Secretary
approval. This form is to be used by staff members who are planning the
conference.
6. SECVA Conference Approval Waiver Template. This form is used for
requestingapproval of any conference that will cost VA at least
$500,000.
7. Conference Certifying Official Appointment Memo. This form is
used by Administrations and Staff Offices to appoint their CCO.
8. VA Hosted or Co-Hosted Conference Proposal Checklist for
Conference CertifyingOfficials. This form is used by the CCO as a
nonexclusive list of items to ensure that the conference planning has
been conducted in accordance with all applicable statutes, regulations,
and policies. This is used in conjunction with the Conference
Certification Form.
9. Conference Certification Form Template. This form is used by the
CCO to certify theconference's planning was conducted in accordance
with all applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.
10. Responsible Conference Executive Appointment Memo. This form is
used byAdministrations and Staff Offices to appoint their RCE for
appropriate covered conferences.
11. Guidelines for Responsible Conference Executives. This form is
used by the RCE as anonexclusive list of items to ensure that the
approved conference is executed in accordance with all applicable
statutes, regulations, and policies.
12. Post-Conference Certification Form. This form is used by the
RCE to certify that due diligence was exercised during the execution of
the conference.
13. Conference After Action Review (AAR) Report Template. This form
is a suggestedtemplate to be used by the appropriate personnel for a
formal review of the conference's planning and execution.
14. Program Manager Appointment Memo. This form is used by the RCE
to appoint a PM.