[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INVESTIGATING THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION AT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-45
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-278 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Louie Gohmert, TX Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Doug Lamborn, CO Jim Costa, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
John Fleming, LA CNMI
Tom McClintock, CA Niki Tsongas, MA
Glenn Thompson, PA Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Jared Huffman, CA
Dan Benishek, MI Raul Ruiz, CA
Jeff Duncan, SC Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Matt Cartwright, PA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Norma J. Torres, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Debbie Dingell, MI
Paul Cook, CA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Bruce Westerman, AR Lois Capps, CA
Garret Graves, LA Jared Polis, CO
Dan Newhouse, WA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Ryan K. Zinke, MT
Jody B. Hice, GA
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Thomas MacArthur, NJ
Alexander X. Mooney, WV
Cresent Hardy, NV
Darin LaHood, IL
Jason Knox, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
Sarah Lim, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
LOUIE GOHMERT, TX, Chairman
DEBBIE DINGELL, MI, Ranking Democratic Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Jared Huffman, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Ruben Gallego, AZ
Bruce Westerman, AR Jared Polis, CO
Jody B. Hice, GA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS Vacancy
Alexander X. Mooney, WV Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Darin LaHood, IL
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, May 24, 2016............................ 1
Statement of Members:
Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri.......................................... 4
Gohmert, Hon. Louie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Keable, Edward, Deputy Solicitor for General Law, Office of
the Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
DC......................................................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Questions submitted for the record....................... 12
Kendall, Mary, Deputy Inspector General, Office of the
Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC............................................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Questions submitted for the record....................... 9
Supplemental requested information submitted for the
record................................................. 17
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, March 24, 2016
Letter to Secretary Jewell, U.S. Department of the Interior 30
Connor, Michael L., Deputy Secretory of the Interior, April
29, 2016 Response Letter to Chairman Gohmert............... 31
Director Jarvis, June 11, 2015 Handwritten note to Secretary
Jewell..................................................... 32
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 32
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON INVESTIGATING THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
----------
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:50 p.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Louie Gohmert
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gohmert, Labrador, Hice, and Clay.
Mr. Gohmert. The Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
investigating the culture of corruption at the Department of
the Interior. I am very grateful for the witnesses being here
today, and I am so sorry for the delay in beginning the
hearing. You don't get paid extra to be here for a hearing, and
then to have to wait on us; but votes were scheduled, not
something that either of us could control. I appreciate your
patience.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
Member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record
if they are submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00 p.m.
today.
[No response.]
Mr. Gohmert. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIE GOHMERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Gohmert. This committee has, time and again, received
reports about employees at the Department of the Interior
acting in an unethical manner, including astounding violations
on the part of high-ranking officials in the National Park
Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We are meeting today
to hear testimony about these incidents, and to learn more
about how the Ethics Office operates at the Department of the
Interior.
Employees of the U.S. Government are bound by the highest
standards of ethical conduct, and this Administration has
painted itself as one that discourages unethical conduct, even
requiring its employees to take an ethics oath. However, in
practice, ethical misconduct, in what was supposed to be the
most transparent administration in history, has been treated
with a lack of accountability. Failure to make ethical conduct
a priority, or even a baseline expectation, has fostered a
culture in which serious violations have little consequence.
We know there are thousands of hard-working and honest
public servants throughout the agency. We are, however,
convinced that the problems coming to our attention are not
just isolated incidents. They are the result of a dismissive,
even contemptuous, response to the violations of legal and
ethical issues and rules on the part of the Department
leadership.
This committee issued a staff report in 2014 highlighting
the troubling fact that ethics officers at Interior have been
told not to provide advice to political appointees, and that
obtaining clear, consistent ethics advice in a timely fashion
was harder than it should be. The Administration further
diminished the authority of the Ethics Office by making the
head ethics official report to the Deputy Solicitor for General
Law, which is contrary to Inspector General recommendations.
Apparently, not much has changed since 2014. We know this
because ethics violations keep happening at every level. In
February, the Inspector General issued a disturbing report
about Jonathan Jarvis, the Director of the National Park
Service. Director Jarvis appears to have intentionally violated
ethics rules by using his position to obtain a book deal, and
then lied to the Secretary about it--that is the way it
appears.
Then he used the National Park Service logo on his book and
marketed it in the National Park Service stores. After
attempting to mislead the Inspector General in its
investigation, Director Jarvis eventually admitted that he
purposely chose not to seek guidance from the Ethics Office
because he would probably not have been allowed to publish his
book, which is still available for sale on the Park Service
Foundation Web site.
Funny that a book about values--its title is, by the way,
``Guidebook to American Values and Our National Parks''--was
written by a man who has shown so little regard for ethical
behavior. It should be no surprise that Director Jarvis was
heavily involved in mismanagement of a situation involving the
Superintendent of the Grand Canyon National Park, who is
retiring following an Inspector General investigation of sexual
abuse at the park.
Or let's look at the Director of the Bureau of Indian
Education. In March, the Inspector General found that Charles
Roessel improperly used his position to secure jobs for his
girlfriend and his niece at the Bureau of Indian Education, in
violation of several Federal laws. He even asked a human
resources officer to change a job description and interfered in
an interview panel, so that the unqualified individuals could
be hired. This man was entrusted with educating approximately
47,000 Native American students since 2012. Mr. Roessel's
conduct is certainly not the example we want to set for those
kids.
Misconduct at the Department of the Interior is not limited
to political appointees. In fact, some employees at all levels
seem to believe it is OK to benefit from their position.
The IG also recently found that Timothy Reid, Chief Ranger
at Yellowstone National Park, and now Superintendent of Devils
Tower National Monument, improperly used his Park Service
apartment at Yellowstone since 2008, and lied about it on his
housing paperwork.
Rather than live in his apartment, as required, Mr. Reid
instead had what the IG called ``a steady stream of guests''
stay there. On at least one occasion, his wife even offered use
of the apartment as an overflow space for their nearby bed and
breakfast operation, offering a French family use of the
apartment in a proposed exchange that would have allowed Chief
Ranger Reid to use their home in France. Unless Park Service
wants corruption in its agency, it makes no sense to then
promote this man to be Superintendent of Devils Tower National
Monument with full knowledge that he had acted in such an
unethical manner.
The Department of the Interior is entrusted with great
responsibility, and yet its leadership has failed to hold its
officials accountable for basic common-sense ethical behavior.
It is this type of behavior that has earned the outrage of
Americans across the political spectrum, and that erodes our
confidence that Interior can manage our natural resources
effectively.
I thank the witnesses again for coming today, and I look
forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gohmert follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Louie Gohmert, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations
This committee has, time and again, received reports about
employees at the Department of the Interior acting in an unethical
manner--including astounding violations on the part of high-ranking
officials in the National Park Service and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
We are meeting today to hear testimony about these incidents and to
learn more about how the Ethics Office operates at the Department of
the Interior.
Employees of the U.S. Government are bound by the highest standards
of ethical conduct and this Administration has painted itself as one
that discourages unethical conduct, even requiring its employees to
take an ethics oath.
However, in practice, ethical misconduct in the ``most transparent
administration in history'' has been treated with a lack of
accountability. The failure to make ethical conduct a priority--or even
a baseline expectation--has fostered a culture in which serious
violations have little consequence.
I want to make clear that by using the phrase ``the culture of
corruption'' we are certainly not impugning the work of all of the
employees at Interior. There are thousands of hard working and honest
public servants throughout the agency.
We are, however, convinced that the problems coming to our
attention are not just isolated incidents. They are the result of a
dismissive--even contemptuous--response to violations of legal and
ethical rules on the part of Department leadership.
This committee issued a staff report in 2014 highlighting the
troubling fact that ethics officers at Interior have been told not to
provide advice to political appointees, and that obtaining clear,
consistent ethics advice in a timely fashion was harder than it should
be.
And the Administration further diminished the authority of the
Ethics Office by making the head ethics official report to the Deputy
Solicitor for General Law, rather than directly to the Secretary--which
is contrary to Inspector General recommendations.
Apparently not much has changed since 2014--we know this because
ethics violations keep happening at every level.
In February, the Inspector General issued a disturbing report about
Jonathan Jarvis, the Director of the National Park Service.
The IG found that Director Jarvis intentionally violated ethics
rules by using his position to obtain a book deal--and lied to the
Secretary about it. And then he used the National Park Service logo on
his book, and marketed it in National Park Service stores.
After attempting to mislead the IG in its investigation, Director
Jarvis eventually admitted that he purposely chose not to seek guidance
from the Ethics Office because he would probably not have been allowed
to publish his book--which, I might add, is still available for sale on
the Park Service Foundation Web site.
Funny that a book about values--its title is ``Guidebook to
American Values and Our National Parks''--was written by a man who has
shown so little regard for ethical behavior.
It should be no surprise that Director Jarvis was heavily involved
in mismanagement of a situation involving the Superintendent of the
Grand Canyon National Park--who is retiring following an Inspector
General investigation of sexual abuse at the park.
Or how about the Director of the Bureau of Indian Education?
In March, the IG found that Charles Roessel improperly used his
position to secure jobs for his girlfriend and his niece at the Bureau
of Indian Education--in violation of several Federal laws.
He even asked a human resources officer to change the job
descriptions and interfered in an interview panel so that the
unqualified individuals could be hired.
This man was entrusted with educating approximately 47,000 Native
American students since 2012. Mr. Roessel's conduct is certainly not
the example we want to set for those kids.
Misconduct at the Department of the Interior is not limited to
political appointees--in fact, some employees at all levels seem to
believe it is OK to profit from their position.
The IG also has recently found that Timothy Reid, Chief Ranger at
Yellowstone National Park and now Superintendent of Devils Tower
National Monument, improperly used his Park Service apartment at
Yellowstone since 2008 and lied about it on his housing paperwork.
Rather than live in his apartment, as required, Mr. Reid instead
had what the IG called ``a steady stream of guests'' stay there.
On at least one occasion his wife even offered use of the apartment
as an overflow space from their nearby bed and breakfast operation--
offering a French family use of the apartment in a proposed exchange
that would have allowed Chief Ranger Reid to use their home in France.
Why would the National Park Service then promote this man to be
Superintendent of Devils Tower National Monument with full knowledge
that he had acted in such an unethical manner?
The Department of the Interior is entrusted with great
responsibility and yet its leadership has failed to hold its officials
accountable for basic, common-sense ethical behavior. It is this type
of behavior that has earned the outrage of Americans across the
political spectrum, and that erodes our confidence that Interior can
manage our natural resources effectively and responsibly.
I thank our witnesses for coming here today and I look forward to
your testimony.
______
Mr. Gohmert. At this time the Chair now recognizes Mr. Clay
for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. WM. LACY CLAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the
opportunity to talk about a very important issue: ethics in the
Department of the Interior.
Ensuring ethical conduct in the workplace is important for
everyone, but for those of us who serve the public, it is
especially critical. Certainly the three individuals we will be
talking about today did the wrong thing. Their actions are even
more inexcusable since they are all high-ranking officials.
They should not only follow the rules like everyone else, but
they should set an example for the people that work under them
and the American people that they serve. Everyone involved
needs to be held accountable, and I hope we make sure that is
the case while we are here today.
That said, the title of today's hearing took me a little by
surprise: ``Investigating the Culture of Corruption at the
Department of the Interior.'' I daresay it is catchy, but does
the wrongdoing of these three individuals warrant a title
worthy of a Maury Povich sweeps week episode?
I looked into these cases and into the agency in search of
evidence of a culture of corruption. I am here to tell you that
I found that evidence: one IG summary report found ``a culture
of ethical failure,'' and a ``culture of substance abuse and
sexual promiscuity.'' One employee pled guilty to a criminal
charge. Employees engaged in illegal drug use and sexual
intercourse with both subordinates and industry
representatives.
Employees accepted gifts and gratuities from oil and gas
companies and, as the report says, displayed no remorse, not
surprisingly, given their, shall we say, intimate involvement
with the industry. Contracts were manipulated and conflicts of
interest were rampant.
In another series of cases, the Deputy Secretary of the
Interior, the number two position in the entire Department,
landed in prison for 5 months. He lied to the Senate about his
relationship with a lobbyist who eventually went to prison for
his own indiscretions. The Secretary herself resigned as
investigations into the scandal began to heat up, and the
scandal took down a sitting Congressman.
Two different movies have already been made about it, but
here is the thing--the culture that birthed those headline-
grabbing scandals all happened during the previous
administration. Things seem to have changed. In contrast, the
IG described the Department of the Interior under this
administration, in her testimony, as ``a culture at Interior
that, for the most part, is one populated by individuals who
are committed to the mission and doing the right thing.''
This hearing seems to be the latest in a growing list of
attempts in this subcommittee to do little more than attack the
Administration. 'Tis the season, I guess.
We need to hear about the changes the Department is making
to ensure the three cases before us are not repeated. The
Department must have the resources and support it needs to
ensure employees seek ethical consult when needed, but let's
not pretend that a park ranger who let friends and family stay
in his government home for which he paid rent is the same as
Steven Griles, Gail Norton, Jack Abramoff, and the Minerals
Management Service.
We have seen a culture of corruption at the Department, and
this isn't it.
I yield back.
Mr. Gohmert. I thank you. I will now introduce our
witnesses.
Ms. Mary Kendall is the Deputy Inspector General for the
Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of the
Interior. Also, Mr. Edward Keable is the Deputy Solicitor
General for General Law for the Office of Solicitor at the U.S.
Department of the Interior.
Now, let me remind the witnesses that, under our Committee
Rules, oral statements must be limited to 5 minutes; but your
entire written statement will be part of the record, regardless
of whether or not you are able to complete it within 5 minutes.
When the light goes from green to yellow, you have 1 minute
remaining. When the light goes from yellow to red, your time is
up, and then I will help you conclude, if you have not.
The Chair at this time recognizes Ms. Kendall for her
opening statement.
Ms. Kendall, we are very grateful for your work and for
your appearance here today. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF MARY KENDALL, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Kendall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
the important issue of behavioral culture at the Department of
the Interior.
This hearing highlights the vital role of the Office of
Inspector General as an independent, objective body to
investigate matters that ultimately violate public trust.
Through our investigations we lay bare misconduct on the part
of Federal employees, so they can be held accountable; advise
those who are brave enough to bring this conduct to our
attention; encourage others to do the same; and make
transparent the consequences of misconduct.
As you know, the OIG has a great deal of experience
uncovering ethics and other conduct violations by Interior
employees and officials. In my experience, however, the
majority of Interior's 70,000 employees take the mission of the
Department and their individual responsibilities very
seriously.
I remain convinced that, as a whole, those who engaged in
wrongdoing are in the minority, although I do not diminish the
misconduct we recently found on the part of the Director of the
National Park Service, Director of Bureau of Indian Affairs, or
the Chief Ranger at Yellowstone National Park. Unfortunately,
misconduct by the few generates great notoriety and casts a
shadow over the entire Department.
With fewer than 80 investigators, we work with constrained
resources. We have addressed this in part by capitalizing on
Interior employees and others who are committed to the mission
and doing the right thing. In fact, they are often quick to
report wrongdoing to the OIG. Unfortunately, not all leadership
in DOI fully supports their employees contacting us.
There is a perception by employees in some of the bureaus
that contacting the OIG to report wrongdoing places them in
jeopardy of retaliation, and management often makes more effort
to identify the source of a complaint than to explore whether
the complaint has merit. More can be done at Interior to
address employee misconduct and provide a clear message of what
behavior is expected.
Inspectors General do not have the authority to compel
action within their agencies. To influence change, we rely
primarily on our audits and investigations. To this end, we
recently implemented a policy of making public our
investigative reports, whether allegations are substantiated or
not. Having nothing to hide and, as it turns out, much to gain
by making our investigative results more transparent, we now
publish all investigative results unless there is a compelling
reason not to do so.
To spur the Department into taking swifter and more
effective action, we have also reduced the time for posting the
results of administrative investigations on our Web site to 30
days after providing the report to the Department. This holds
the Department more accountable, and provides Congress and the
public with more timely notice of our investigative results.
These new practices appear to be having an impact. Working
with the Deputy Secretary, Chief of Staff, and Solicitor, we
have witnessed an increased effort to be more responsive and
decisive in their actions regarding employee wrongdoing, and an
improved tone at the top.
Recently a bureau head strongly condemned conduct in a
serious criminal matter, and encouraged bureau employees to
report any concerns of potential criminal or ethical misconduct
to ethics officials or the OIG without fear of retaliation for
doing so. Similarly, two other bureau directors implemented
policy requiring ethics training for all their employees in
response to analysis and discussion between the OIG, bureau
leadership, and ethics officials about allegations of
wrongdoing by bureau employees.
These are a few positive examples of efforts to curb
misbehavior, but more is needed before the impact is seen
throughout the Department.
I reiterate my thanks to the subcommittee for holding this
hearing, for giving these issues the attention they deserve,
and for recognizing the need for transparency and
accountability in this important arena. This concludes my
prepared testimony, and I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kendall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary L. Kendall, Deputy Inspector General, U.S.
Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, good afternoon. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify today on the important issue of
behavioral culture at the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). There
are too many examples of bad behavior. Not just at Interior, but
Government-wide. This hearing highlights the importance of bringing
into the public view the vital role of the Office of Inspector General
(OIG) as an independent, objective body to investigate matters that
ultimately violate public trust. Through our investigations, we lay
bare misconduct on the part of Federal employees so they can be held
accountable, advise those who are brave enough to bring misconduct to
the attention of the OIG or other responsible officials, encourage
others to do the same, and make transparent the consequences of
misconduct, providing deterrence from future misconduct.
As you know, OIG has a great deal of experience uncovering ethics
and other conduct violations by Interior employees and officials. For
many years, we have had a specialized unit dedicated to investigating
cases of ethical and other misconduct, particularly by high-ranking
officials and others whose positions of trust make their misconduct
particularly detrimental to the operations of the Department, the
morale of its employees, and the reputation of Federal Government
employees. Our specialized unit has investigated many instances in
which DOI employees have engaged in behavior that fails to meet the
standards of conduct that are expected of Federal Government employees.
You may wonder how widespread the ethical lapses are, and what
their impact is. In my experience, the majority of Interior's 70,000
employees take the mission of the Department and their individual
responsibilities very seriously. I remain convinced that, as a whole,
those who engage in wrongdoing are in the minority.
Yet after more than 16 years with the OIG, as much as I would like
to say that I have seen it all, I am continually surprised by the
variations of misconduct brought to our attention. Unfortunately,
misconduct by those few receives notoriety and casts a shadow over the
entire Department.
That shadow looms large, especially following the recent release by
the OIG of a series of investigative reports, including reports on
violations of law, rule, or regulation by high-level officials within
the National Park Service (NPS) and the Bureau of Indian Education
(BIE).
Blatant ethical violations by the NPS Director, made worse by his
admission that he intentionally avoided seeking ethics guidance,
conveys the message to employees that ethics rules are not important,
perhaps even optional. Another egregious example is the former BIE
Director who abused his position of authority to improperly influence
the hiring of relatives and personal acquaintances in violation of the
Merit System Principles. We learned that other employees knew of these
improper actions, but did not report the violations, thinking it was
accepted behavior, or if reported that nothing would be done.
Our investigative reporting of the pattern and practice of sexual
harassment at Grand Canyon National Park provided a glaring example of
NPS management failing to take proper action when employees reported
wrongdoing. Similarly, after receiving an investigative report on the
Chief Ranger of Yellowstone National Park violating the rules on the
use of Park housing, the Chief Ranger was transferred to another park
and named Superintendent. The appearance of rewarding bad behavior is
not the desired outcome--nor a proper deterrent.
With fewer than 80 investigators, we work with constrained
resources and can never detect all of the wrongdoing at Interior. We
have addressed this in part by capitalizing on a culture at Interior
that, for the most part, is one populated by individuals who are
committed to the mission and doing the right thing. In fact, they are
quick to report wrongdoing to the OIG. We were one of the first in the
OIG community to create a Whistleblower Protection Program, one that is
regularly referred to as a model by the Office of Special Counsel and
other OIGs. Our Whistleblower Protection Program helps to advise, and
thereby protect, those brave enough to shine a light on the wrongdoing
they observe. In 2015 alone, the Whistleblower Protection Program has
supported and protected well over 100 employees, contractors, or other
individuals willing to come forward with allegations of fraud, waste,
abuse, misconduct, or retaliation.
Unfortunately, not all leadership in DOI fully supports their
employees contacting the OIG to report potential wrongdoing. There is a
pervasive perception by many employees in some bureaus that contacting
the OIG to report wrongdoing places them in jeopardy of retaliation. We
often learn that management makes more effort to identify the source of
a complaint than to explore whether the complaint has merit. In some
instances, efforts have been made to restrict the ability of employees
to contact us. When we become aware of such incidents we have been able
to successfully intervene; however, we seldom see corrective action
taken against individuals who attempt to silence their employees or
identify whistleblowers.
More can be done at Interior to address employee misconduct and
mismanagement. A pattern and practice of accountability begins at the
top. Consistent messaging by senior leadership--or in other words,
``the tone at the top''--must provide a clear message of what behavior
is expected. We have encouraged Department leadership to demonstrate
more support for those who serve in gatekeeper roles, such as
contracting officers and human resource personnel. We are aware,
however, that many gatekeepers feel undue pressure from managers to
``make things happen'' regardless of rules and regulations.
DOI does not do well in holding accountable those employees who
violate laws, rules, and regulations. We see too few examples of senior
leaders making the difficult decision to impose meaningful corrective
action and hold their employees accountable. Often, management avoids
discipline altogether and attempts to address misconduct by
transferring the employee to other duties or to simply counsel the
employee. The failure to take appropriate action is viewed by other
employees as condoning misbehavior. I was recently briefed on a matter
in which an employee was detailed to another agency--at the expense of
Interior--in lieu of using proper performance management and
progressive discipline to correct performance and conduct issues. I am
told that in response to our inquiry concerning the paid detail, the
approving senior leader replied that she agreed with the action and
that it was ``expeditious and responsible.'' There is no question that
transferring an employee who is considered disruptive out of the agency
is more expedient than taking formal disciplinary action, but I do not
consider it ``responsible.''
Inspectors General do not have authority to compel action within
their agencies. To influence change, we rely mostly on our audits and
investigations. To this end, the OIG recently implemented a policy of
making public essentially all of our investigative reports, whether
allegations are substantiated or not. A little more than a year ago, we
were called out by the media on the relatively small number of
investigations that we did make public. In responding to that
challenge, we realized that we were simply practicing what had been
done in the past and following the practice of much of the IG
community. Having nothing to hide, and, as it turns out, much to gain
by making our investigative results more transparent, we reversed our
policy and now publish all investigative results, unless there is a
compelling reason not to do so.
To spur the Department into taking swifter and more effective
action, we have also recently instituted a practice of posting the
results of our administrative investigations on our Web site 30 days
after providing the report to the Department for review and action.
With a 30-day public release date, we hold the Department accountable
for prompt action and provide Congress and the public with more timely
notice of our investigative results.
These new practices appear to be having an impact. Working with
Interior's Deputy Secretary, Chief of Staff, and Office of the
Solicitor, we have witnessed an increased effort to be more responsive
and decisive in their actions regarding employee wrongdoing, and an
improved ``tone at the top.''
As recently as February of this year, after my office alerted the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation to a serious criminal matter
involving a Reclamation employee, he immediately issued a memorandum to
all Bureau employees condemning the criminal conduct. The memo also
encouraged employees to report and discuss concerns of potential
ethical lapses with ethics officials or the Office of Inspector
General, reminding them that they need not fear retaliation for doing
so.
Within the past year, both the Bureau of Land Management and U.S.
Geological Survey Directors implemented policy requiring ethics
training for all their employees in response to analysis and discussion
between the OIG, bureau leadership, and ethics officials about
allegations of wrongdoing by bureau employees.
These are a few positive examples of efforts to curb misbehavior,
but much more of this kind of action--as well as prompt, appropriate
disciplinary action in response to OIG reports of misconduct--is needed
before the impact is seen throughout the Department.
I reiterate my thanks to the subcommittee for holding this hearing,
for giving these issues the attention they deserve, and for recognizing
the need for transparency and accountability in this important arena.
This concludes my prepared testimony. I would be happy to answer
any questions that members of the subcommittee may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Representative Gohmert to Mary
Kendall, Deputy Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Question 1. You stated that you were working with the Designated
Ethics Agency Official to provide agency-wide ethics training. Please
describe any progress you have made in that effort.
Answer. OIG has regular discussions with U.S. Department of the
Interior (DOI) ethics officials. In those discussions, we encouraged
DOI to become the first cabinet-level Department to require ethics
training for all its employees. While we can encourage DOI to establish
comprehensive ethics training, OIG does not hold the authority to
implement such a program or to require the Department to do so. DOI
must take the initiative to support and implement such a comprehensive
ethics program.
Our OIG ethics officer meets monthly with other DOI ethics
officers, and ethics training is a frequent subject discussed at these
meetings. We have also met with senior Department officials to discuss
whether ethics training can be expanded to reach all non-seasonal DOI
employees. Under Office of Government Ethics requirements, only
financial disclosure filers are required to receive annual training,
but the Department's Ethics Office periodically provides ethics
training that is available to all Department personnel. Our concern is
that many employees do not avail themselves of this training because it
is not required.
In addition to the OIG, the following offices and bureaus have
stated that they require annual--or at least periodic--ethics training
for their employees, even those who do not file financial disclosure
forms:
Office of Natural Resources Revenue;
Bureau of Land Management (all employees except seasonal
firefighters);
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement;
Office of Surface Mining;
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; and
U.S. Geological Survey
The Department's Acquisitions and Property Management Division has
also proposed that all series 1102 and series 1105 contract specialists
be required to file a confidential financial disclosure form, which
would in turn require those individuals to receive annual ethics
training.
______
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you very much.
At this time the Chair now recognizes Mr. Keable for his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD KEABLE, DEPUTY SOLICITOR FOR GENERAL LAW,
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Keable. Chairman Gohmert and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today. My name is Ed Keable and I am the Deputy Solicitor
for General Law at the Department of the Interior.
I have been a career public servant for over 25 years,
beginning as a lawyer in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's
Corps. I have been the Department's Deputy Solicitor for
General Law since 2012. While serving in the Army, I learned
the value of public service and the importance of providing
high-quality and thoughtful legal counsel. Since my arrival at
the Department, I have proudly served both Republican and
Democratic administrations with equal dedication to excellence,
with the goal of ensuring that the Department pursues its great
mission in a lawful and ethical manner.
As the Deputy Solicitor for General Law, I am responsible
for managing the Division of General Law in the Solicitor's
Office, the Office of Ethics, and the legal work of the
Office's regional and field offices.
A part of my area of legal practice is also providing legal
advice to senior leaders in the Department in response to
reports of investigation from the Office of Inspector General.
In that capacity, I give counsel on whether and how subjects of
OIG reports of investigation might be held accountable, and
whether and how bureaus and offices might improve processes
addressed in those reports.
The Department's ethics program is also located within the
Office of Solicitor, and is sound, robust, and serves the
Department well. The Ethics Office has been recognized by the
Office of Government Ethics for leading a strong program. The
Department Ethics Office is made up of a talented group of
ethics attorneys and professional staff headed by the
Department's Designated Agency Ethics Officer (DAEO). It is
important to note that the Ethics Office is not an enforcement
or investigatory office, but one that provides ethics advice,
counseling, and education to the Department's employees.
Each bureau in the Department has the regulatory
responsibility to manage its own ethics programs. Bureau
directors are tasked with the responsibility of managing the
ethics programs in their bureaus, and they rely on dedicated
ethics professionals to assist them in this important work.
The Ethics Office works closely with the bureau ethics
programs to ensure that they are operating to the standards
established by OGE. The Ethics Office audits bureau ethics
programs. Using the information from these audits, from OIG
reports, and from day-to-day engagements Ethics Office staff
have with clients and bureau ethics professionals, the Ethics
Office continually looks for opportunities to improve the
Department's ethics program.
Some examples of improvements that the Department has made
to its ethics program in recent years include: the
establishment of full-time deputy ethics counselors, or DECs,
in every bureau at the GS-14 level or higher; elevating the
reporting level of the DECs in the bureaus; increasing training
opportunities for both ethics professionals and ethics
employees generally; increasing organizational ties between the
Ethics Office and bureau ethics programs; and strengthening
recusal processes, financial disclosure, and advise and
counseling processes.
The constructive relationship between the Ethics Office and
the Inspector General's office is critical to the success of
both organizations. The Interior DAEO has access to the
Inspector General's office for referral of possible ethics
breaches. The Inspector General's investigators have access to
the Ethics Office staff as subject matter experts in their
investigations that touch on ethics issues. Relationships like
these, between these critically important offices, serve to
strengthen the Department's ethics program.
The Department is committed to promoting a culture of
ethics within the Department and to providing its employees
with a strong ethics program.
I look forward to any insights members of the subcommittee
might have to assist the Department in meeting this important
goal. Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions you
might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keable follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward Timothy Keable, Deputy Solicitor--General
Law, U.S. Department of the Interior
Chairman Gohmert, Ranking Member Dingell, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Ed Keable and I am the Deputy Solicitor for General Law at
the Department of the Interior (Department).
I have been a career public servant for over 25 years, beginning as
a lawyer in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's Corps. I have been
the Department's Deputy Solicitor for General Law since 2012. While
serving in the Army, I learned the value of public service and the
importance of providing high-quality and thoughtful legal counsel.
Since my arrival at the Department, I have proudly served both
Republican and Democratic administrations with equal dedication to
excellence, with the goal of ensuring that the Department pursues its
great mission in a lawful and ethical manner.
As the Deputy Solicitor for General Law, I am responsible for
managing the Division of General Law in the Solicitor's Office, the
Office of Ethics, and the legal work in the Office's regional and field
offices. As would be expected by such a large agency with diverse
missions, the general legal work carried out in the Solicitor's Office
is equally as diverse, and includes providing counsel on administrative
matters that may include Departmental organization and delegated
authorities, appropriations law, information law, contracting and
procurement issues, grants, patents, copyrights, trademarks, property
management, land titles, records management, personnel and civil rights
matters, issues involving the Insular Areas administered by the
Department, and issues involving Native Hawaiians, to name just a few.
A part of my area of legal practice also includes providing legal
advice to senior leaders in the Department in response to reports of
investigation from the Office of Inspector General. In that capacity, I
give counsel on whether and how subjects of OIG reports of
investigation might be held accountable and whether and how bureaus and
offices might improve processes addressed in those reports.
The Department's ethics program is also located within the Office
of the Solicitor, and is sound, robust, and serves the Department well.
The Department Ethics Office (DEO) has been recognized by the Office of
Government Ethics (OGE) for leading a strong program.
The DEO is made up of a talented group of ethics attorneys and
professional staff headed by the Department's Designated Agency Ethics
Officer (DAEO). It is important to note that the DEO is not an
enforcement or investigatory office, but one that provides ethics
advice, counseling and education to the Department's employees. The DEO
also manages the financial disclosure reporting process.
Each bureau in the Department has the regulatory responsibility to
manage its own ethics programs. Bureau directors are tasked with the
responsibility of managing the ethics programs in their bureaus and
they rely on dedicated ethics professionals to assist them in this
important work. The DEO works closely with the bureau ethics programs
to ensure they are operating to the standards established by OGE.
The DEO audits bureau ethics programs. Using the information from
these audits, from OIG reports, and from day-to-day engagements DEO
staff has with clients and bureau ethics professionals, the DEO
continually looks for opportunities to improve the Department's ethics
program. Some examples of improvements that the Department has made to
its ethics program in recent years include: the establishment of a
full-time deputy ethics counselors (DEC) in every bureau at the GS-14
level or higher; elevating the reporting level of the DECs in the
bureaus; increasing training opportunities for both ethics
professionals and employees generally; increasing the organizational
ties between the DEO and the bureau ethics programs; and strengthening
recusal processes, financial disclosure, and advice and counseling
processes. The DEO maintains a general supervisory role in relation to
the bureau ethics programs, has review and concurrence authority for
the hiring the DECs, sets the performance standards for the DECs, and
has input in the performance ratings of the DECs.
The constructive relationship between DEO and OIG is critical to
the success of both organizations. The Interior DAEO has access to the
OIG for referral of possible ethics breaches. The OIG investigators
have access to the DEO staff as subject-matter experts in OIG
investigations that touch on ethics issues. Relationships like these,
between these critically important offices, serve to strengthen the
Department's ethics program.
The Department is committed to promoting a culture of ethics within
the Department and to providing its employees with a strong ethics
program. I look forward to any insights members of the subcommittee
might have to assist the Department in meeting these important goals.
Thank you and I am happy to answer any questions you might have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Representative Gohmert to Edward
Keable, Deputy Solicitor for General Law, Office of the Solicitor, U.S.
Department of Interior
Question 1. You stated that you had a meeting scheduled the day
after the hearing with OGIS to discuss the FOIA issues and you agreed
to provide information about that meeting. Please provide about the
purpose and goals of that meeting. Please describe discussions held
during the meeting, and the outcome of the meeting.
Answer. OGIS Deputy Director Nikki Gramian and I met telephonically
on May 25, 2016. The purpose of the meeting was to address concerns Ms.
Gramian had raised with me about the responsiveness of the Department
of the Interior's (DOI) FOIA Appeals Office to OGIS and the anticipated
length of time for finalizing the appeals. During the meeting, I
explained that the FOIA Appeals Office had recently undergone staffing
challenges that I was working with the FOIA Appeals Officer to address.
I explained that I expected OGIS's concerns regarding responsiveness to
be resolved by that effort. DOI did address the FOIA Appeals Office
staffing and that did help to resolve OGIS's concerns. I had a follow-
up conversation with Ms. Gramian on or about October 19, 2016, to
confirm that she was getting the information she subsequently sought
from the FOIA Appeals Office and she confirmed that she was pleased
with their responsiveness.
Question 2. What day did you decide to schedule that meeting?
Answer. Beginning on May 19, 2016, OGIS Deputy Director Nikki
Gramian and I had an email exchange discussing an opportunity to meet
telephonically. We settled on a meeting time of May 25, 2016, on May
23, 2016.
Question 3. Please provide, as you agreed to do in the hearing,
written responses from your Department to OGIS.
Answer. As indicated in the prior answers, OGIS and I discussed the
issues raised and I believe that we have addressed those issues. No
written response to the incoming letter was sent to OGIS.
Question 4. Please provide detailed information about ethics
training programs and requirements now in effect at DOI.
Answer. The DOI Ethics training program meets and exceeds the
Office of Government Ethics (OGE) requirements. OGE requires all
financial disclosure filers (OGE Form 278e and 450) to receive annual
ethics training and all new employees to receive ethics orientation
training. DOI provides annual ethics training, ethics orientation
training, and specific ethics topic training on-line, in-person and via
webinars on a regular basis.
______
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you very much. We appreciate both your
testimonies here today. To begin questioning, I recognize
myself for 5 minutes.
[Slide]
Mr. Gohmert. Ms. Kendall, Director Jarvis sent a
handwritten note to the Secretary after his book was published.
We can see from the screen there that his note states that he
wrote the book ``at the request of the publisher, Eastern
National.'' To your knowledge, is that true?
Ms. Kendall. To my knowledge, Mr. Jarvis was the one who
came up with the idea for the book, not Eastern National.
Mr. Gohmert. How did your team determine that Director
Jarvis lied about approaching Eastern National to obtain the
book deal?
Ms. Kendall. I believe that they made this determination
through interviews with Mr. Jarvis, with representatives at
Eastern National, and a review of email messages between the
two.
Mr. Gohmert. And his note says, ``I wrote this on my own
time,'' but was that statement true?
Ms. Kendall. I don't believe we found that statement not to
be true, because we found that he did not write it on work
time. He wrote most of it at home.
Mr. Gohmert. OK. Then Director Jarvis wrote in there to
Secretary Jewell, the head of Interior, that there are no
ethics issues. Is that statement true?
Ms. Kendall. I believe that is not accurate. It was his
assumption, but we found differently.
Mr. Gohmert. And what did you find?
Ms. Kendall. We found that, really, he should have started
his whole process by consulting the Ethics Office about the
propriety of writing this book, about any number of issues,
including copyright and publication issues. Again, he should
have consulted the Office of Ethics, and probably the
Solicitor's Office generally, in terms of the appropriateness
of writing, publishing, and partnering with Eastern National in
distributing the book.
Mr. Gohmert. Do you know why he did not consult with ethics
folks first?
Ms. Kendall. I believe he told our investigators that he
intentionally chose not to consult the Ethics Office, because
he was afraid it would either slow down or thwart his efforts
to write the book.
Mr. Gohmert. Does it concern you that that book was then
made for sale through the Park Service, of which he is
Director?
Ms. Kendall. It was made available for sale, as I
understand it, through Eastern National, which is a
concessionaire of the Park Service.
Mr. Gohmert. Let's touch on that. Eastern National, you
mentioned they are a concessionaire. What does that entitle
them to do, and how do they obtain that position?
Ms. Kendall. I may be mistaken about the term
``concessionaire.'' They are associated with the National Park
Service, and my understanding is that they make the book
available maybe through a concessionaire or someone who sells
things on National Park property.
Mr. Gohmert. So the Park Service, then, has authority to
make contracts with individual contractors, individual
companies, to allow them to sell or provide services or goods
on Park Service property. Is that correct?
Ms. Kendall. That is my understanding, yes.
Mr. Gohmert. And so, as Director of the Park Service, it
sure would appear that he could have a lot to do with who gets
contracts, who doesn't get contracts; and yet he used that
position to get Eastern National to publish the book, and it
raises other issues.
Mr. Keable, let me ask you. Director Jarvis is quoted in
his report acknowledging the risk he was willing to take going
around the Solicitor's Office. From what we can see, there was
no risk because he was caught and there have been no real
consequences. Has Director Jarvis affected the credibility of
the ethics program at Interior, in your opinion?
Mr. Keable. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. I
disagree with the statement that there were no consequences for
what he did. The Director was disciplined for----
Mr. Gohmert. And how was he disciplined?
Mr. Keable. He was issued a letter of reprimand. His
authority to manage the National Park Service ethics program
was removed from him, and he is required to take ethics
training on a monthly basis for the rest of the term.
Mr. Gohmert. OK. Well, from what I understand of people
involved in supervising ethics, it is a thankless job and most
folks are delighted to get rid of it.
My time is expired. The Chair recognizes the Ranking
Member, Mr. Lacy Clay, from Missouri.
Mr. Clay. Ms. Kendall, can you please tell us how your
office was made aware of the alleged violations in each of the
three cases we are discussing here today?
Ms. Kendall. In Mr. Jarvis's case, the information was
brought directly to my attention by the Chief of Staff, the
Secretary's Chief of Staff, and the Ethics Office.
In regard to Mr. Roessel, we received a complaint from an
employee within the Bureau of Indian Education.
And, my recollection in terms of the Chief Ranger at the
Grand Canyon is that we also received a complaint from inside--
complainants in the park.
Mr. Clay. So you are saying that all three cases were
reported by another DOI employee.
Ms. Kendall. I can say that with assuredness relative to
Mr. Roessel and Mr. Jarvis. That is my recollection regarding
Mr. Reid.
Mr. Clay. OK. If DOI employees are the ones who are
bringing ethical violations to the Inspector General's
attention, that sounds more like a culture of doing the right
thing to me. You don't have to answer that; it was rhetorical.
Anyway, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, under the
previous administration, Mr. Steven Griles, spent 5 months in
prison because he lied to Senate investigators about his
involvement with convicted lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. In addition
to Mr. Griles's indiscretion, Secretary Norton herself resigned
from the Department before investigations into her involvement
could begin.
We have seen time and time again that an organization's
culture is shaped at the top. In your testimony, you mention
that the current leadership at Interior, including the Deputy
Secretary, has been working with you to be more responsible,
more responsive, and decisive in their actions regarding
employee wrongdoing. What kinds of things are you working on,
and are you moving toward or away from a more ethical
Department of the Interior?
Ms. Kendall. Well, I would hope that we are always working
toward a more ethical department at Interior. As for the things
that I referred to in my testimony, we have had a much more
open and engaging relationship at the Deputy Secretary, Chief
of Staff, and the Solicitor's Office level, where we do share
information and concerns with the Office of Ethics. I raise
issues to the Deputy Secretary and Chief of Staff when I am
aware of them, and they feel comfortable doing it for our
office, as well.
Mr. Clay. Do you get many executive-level inquiries about
what are best practices--I mean which way they--or those that
are seeking direction from your office, do you see more of
that?
Ms. Kendall. I can really only speak to one conversation
that I had with the Secretary herself when she came on board,
quite early in her tenure. She asked me my advice as to what to
do, she, coming from the private sector, to deal with all the
rules that applied to Federal Government employees. My very
simple answer was to make best friends with the ethics
department.
Mr. Clay. Good response. Despite the three incidents we are
discussing here today, would you agree that the vast majority
of the employees at Interior take the mission of the Department
and their individual responsibilities very seriously?
Ms. Kendall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clay. OK. All right. You have answered all of my
questions. Mr. Chair, I will yield back.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Labrador
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Kendall, Director Jarvis admitted to your team that he
had been in trouble many, many times for not asking permission.
In 2008, the IG found that then-Superintendent to Mount Rainier
National Park, David Uberuaga--I think it is Uberuaga--had sold
his home at an inflated price to a park concessionaire in an
obvious conflict of interest. You referred his case for Federal
prosecution.
When the sale was arranged, who was Mr. Uberuaga's boss in
the region and his predecessor at Mount Rainier?
Ms. Kendall. I do not know that, sir.
Mr. Labrador. It was John Jarvis.
Ms. Kendall. OK.
Mr. Labrador. When the case was referred for prosecution,
who was the regional director in charge of Mr. Uberuaga?
Ms. Kendall. I am going to venture a guess that it was Mr.
Jarvis.
Mr. Labrador. Correct. To your knowledge, was Mr. Uberuaga
ever prosecuted?
Ms. Kendall. He was not prosecuted.
Mr. Labrador. Was he fired by Mr. Jarvis?
Ms. Kendall. No.
Mr. Labrador. In fact, after the incident, he was promoted
to Superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park, one of the
most coveted positions in the Park Service. Who was the
Director of the Park Service that approved this prestigious
promotion?
Ms. Kendall. I don't know for a fact, sir, but I am going
to guess that it was Mr. Jarvis.
Mr. Labrador. Yes, it was. I guess we see a pattern here,
right?
Recently the IG revealed the disturbing pattern of sexual
harassment that was known to leadership at Grand Canyon
National Park. Who was the Superintendent of Grand Canyon
National Park at the time the harassments occurred?
Ms. Kendall. Mr. Uberuaga.
Mr. Labrador. Has he been fired?
Ms. Kendall. No. As far as I know, he resigned effective
last week.
Mr. Labrador. OK. Effective last week, but was he offered
before that a transfer to Washington, DC?
Ms. Kendall. I do not know.
Mr. Labrador. My information is that he was. Do you know
who offered that transfer?
Ms. Kendall. I don't.
Mr. Labrador. Mr. Jarvis. And, as you just indicated, he
has decided to retire instead of accepting the transfer.
Ms. Kendall, in 2008, who was the Regional Director over
Point Reyes National Seashore when, as the IG reported, the
Park Service misrepresented research in order to kick a
historic oyster farm out of the park?
Ms. Kendall. I believe it was Mr. Jarvis at the time.
Mr. Labrador. To your knowledge, did Mr. Jarvis fire anyone
for the deception at Point Reyes?
Ms. Kendall. I don't have any recollection of that
happening, sir.
Mr. Labrador. I believe the answer is no, as far as we can
tell.
Who was the Director of the Park Service that ultimately
kicked the oyster farm out of the park, using the fictitious
data?
Ms. Kendall. I believe it was Mr. Jarvis who terminated the
lease with the oyster farm.
Mr. Labrador. Correct. Ms. Kendall, did your investigation
determine whether or not Director Jarvis worked on his book
while staying at Brinkerhoff, the exclusive National Park
Service VIP lodge in the Tetons?
Ms. Kendall. I don't believe our investigation determined
that he worked on it while he was there.
Mr. Labrador. OK. Ms. Kendall, can you tell us about any
other investigations you have conducted that involve Director
Jarvis?
Ms. Kendall. None come to mind directly, sir, but I would
be glad to get back to you on that.
Mr. Labrador. I am concerned about this pattern of ethical
lapses and lack of accountability. I think it is very
disturbing to our constituents. I am concerned--you know, this
is the second hearing that I have today about unethical
behavior in an administration office; and many people say,
``Well, worse things happened under previous administrations,''
and I think that is true.
But what is really interesting is that a lot of those
investigations happened in Republican administrations, and it
was Republicans that were willing to actually investigate the
unethical relationship. It is interesting to me that Democrats
do not seem particularly interested in investigating unethical
behavior on the part of their administration.
Has the Department of the Interior fired anyone, to your
knowledge, because of this unethical behavior?
Ms. Kendall. The ones we are talking about today, as far as
I know, the answer is no.
[Information requested by Rep. Labrador from Ms. Kendall
follows:]
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Washington, DC 20240
July 8, 2010
Memorandum
To: Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, Office of
Inspector General
From: Daniel N. Wenk--for the Director
Subject: Jeffery Burton, OIG Case File No. OI-NM-1O-0299-I
This is in response to your May 27, 2010, Management Advisory
recommending a broader ethics training policy at the National Park
Service and the implementation of a conflict of interest and non-
disclosure statement prior to the commencement of financial assistance
evaluation panels. These recommendations stem from an alleged conflict
of interest pertaining to Jeffery Burton, Archeologist, in the Pacific
West Region, who served on a grant review panel for the Intermountain
Region.
While the Service forwarded to your office the alleged conflict of
interest matter as required by 28 U.S.C. 535, your office noted it was
not expeditiously done. The holdup was due to the gathering of
background information surrounding the allegation which resulted in the
unfortunate delay.
In the intervening period, the Service took steps to mitigate the
concerns stemming from the alleged conflict of interest by rescoring
the grant proposal without Mr. Burton's input for the project,
``Multidisciplinary Research and Education at Honouliuli Interment
Camp'' where he was listed as a consultant by the University of Hawaii.
Furthermore, the University of Hawaii, who was awarded the grant, was
informed by the Service that no Federal funds could be used to pay for
Mr. Burton's work on the grant.
As a result of Mr. Burton's case, your office raised a concern
about employees' understanding of the ethics rules and regulations and
whether they could benefit from increased training. The Service is
aware of the ethics training regulations at 5 CFR 2638 and the
requirement for initial ethics orientation of employees coming to the
Service and the mandatory annual ethics training requirement for
financial disclosure fliers as this training data is reported in the
annual Office of Government Ethics questionnaire.
Every year the Service uses several training methods to train not
only those employees with a mandatory training requirement as a result
of being a financiaI disclosure filer, but encourages non-filers to
attend as well. This year, the Service released into the DOI Learn
training system several on-line ethics training modules it had
developed to help educate employees. Furthermore, a senior member of my
ethics staff was involved with the making and taping of the ``DOI New
Entrant Ethics Orientation.'' A DVD copy of this taping was sent to all
field ethics offices for use in meeting the orientation requirement and
is attached for your information.
The Service is also actively participating with the Department
Ethics Office on several of its efforts to develop a stellar ethics
program as envisioned by Secretarial Order 3288, ``Enhancing and
Promoting an Ethical Culture within the Department of the Interior.''
To date, this has included attending the Assistant Ethics Counselor
Summit meeting on June 15-17, 2010, to brainstorm program ideas and
volunteering to participate in the first Departmental assessment next
month in Denver, Colorado, where assistance will be given to local
ethics officials on running their programs and where employees can
express their ethics concerns at ``town hall meetings.'' The Service
will have its ``town hall meeting'' on July 20, 2010. While the Service
assesses the vitality of its ethics program through these avenues, it
will revisit your recommendation that all employees must receive ethics
training.
The Service is adopting your recommendation to develop processes
and a conflict of interest and non-disclosure statement prior to the
commencement of financial assistance evaluation panels and this
undertaking is being headed by the Associate Director, Business
Services. A draft copy is attached for your information. In the
meantime, the Intermountain Region has already implemented steps to
help prevent what occurred with Mr. Burton from happening again and a
copy of their requirements is attached for your information. Please
note such procedures are already in place for contract panels.
The Service is committed to fostering the highest ethical standards
for our employees. If you have any questions, please contact my office.
Attachment
*****
To: Peggy Moran-Gicker, Ethics Program Manager
From: Greg Kendrick, Assistant Regional Director, Partnerships and
External Relations
Re: Review Panel Protocols
The NPS, Intermountain Region (IMR), in an effort to ensure that
grants are awarded in a fair and ethical manner, has implemented
protocols for all regional review panels involved in the evaluation of
grant applications. These protocols, outlined below, were implemented
prior to the 2010 Japanese American Confinement Sites (JACS) Grant
Program Review Panel, which convened at the NPS Intermountain Regional
Office during the week of March 15, 2010. The protocols are:
Required Ethics Training Session for all Review Panels
Each review panel meeting must begin with a one-hour training
session on DOI ethics laws and regulations. As occurred with the 2010
Japanese American Confinement Sites review panel, an Employees
Relations Officer, with appropriate level of ethics training, will
conduct this ethics training session for the review panelists, which
will be held before the review panelists begin their review of the
project proposals. The session will provide an overview of ethics in
the federal government, clarify the roles and responsibilities of the
review panelists, and specifically address how panelists can identify
and avoid a potential conflict of interest in their review of the grant
project proposals. The session will discuss how DOI regulations
prohibits employees from using their public office for private gain or
for the private gain of family or friends. The training will include a
discussion of 18 U.S.C., Sec. 208 as well as 5 C.F.R. Section 2635.502.
As part of that training, the panelists must agree to recuse themselves
from reviewing any proposals for which there may be a potential
conflict of interest. As in the case of the 2010 JACS review panel,
each review panelists will be provided a copy of the Department of the
Interior Ethics Guide (November 2008) as part of the training, and must
sign a ``Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Certificate'' prior
to the beginning of the review process.
Required Ethics Training for all Grants Program Staff
All NPS staff involved in the implementation and management of
grants must have annual training in ethics. In the case of the JACS
program, JACS Program Manager, Kara Miyagishima; JACS Program Staff
Member, Alexandra Hernandez; Heritage Partnerships Program Manager,
Christine Whitacre; and Assistant Director, External Relations and
Partnerships, Greg Kendrick have completed such training.
Enforcement of Ethics Rules during Review Panels
The Grants Program Manager, or a qualified member of the program
staff, must be in attendance during the entire review panel process, to
ensure that ethics laws and regulations are being followed. In the
event of an ethics violation--for example, a review panelist failing to
recuse himself/herself from the review of a project in which there may
be a potential conflict of interest--the Grants Program Manager will
stop the proceedings, and confer with an Employee Relations Officer as
to the appropriate course of action.
*****
Memorandum
To: NLC
From: Associate Director, Business Services
Subject: Financial Assistance Evaluation Panels
It has come to my attention that there are inconsistencies in how
evaluation panels for financial assistance are managed. Henceforth, the
following guidance will be used in addition to all other legal
requirements when any evaluation panel is used. Unless specific
permission is sought and approved, all panel members will be government
employees.
Grants Manager or Technical Evaluation Panel Chair:
1. Establish the criteria for the award based on the authorizing
legislation and as included in the Funding Opportunity
Announcement.
2. Assign values to each of the criteria.
3. Select evaluation panel members with the expertise to provide
an informed judgment of the applications.
4. Prepare an evaluation sheet for each panel member.
5. Require that each evaluation be reviewed by a minimum of two
panel members.
6. Require each panel member to complete a Non-disclosure
Agreement prior to starting the evaluation process.
7. Require each panel member to sign an Ethics form prior to
starting the evaluation process.
8. Inform all panel members of their roles and responsibilities.
9. Attend all meetings of the panel to assure all applicable
ethics laws and regulations are followed.
10. Document the selection proceedings including the scoring of
each application.
11. Maintain the rating sheets in the grant files and apply the
Records Management standards for retention, archiving and
disposal.
Evaluator duties:
1. Review each application separately using the criteria written for
the award.
2. Sign the Non-disclosure and Ethics forms; identify any potential
conflicts if they occur.
3. Assign a rating based on the criteria and the evaluation sheet.
4. Participate in discussions regarding disparities in panel
members' ratings and reach a consensus on the rating.
5. Maintain confidentiality regarding the proposals, the proceedings
and the discussions leading to the decisions.
______
Jon Jarvis Cases as requested by Rep. Labrador
Investigations
1. OI-CA-07-0297-I (W) Opened 05/01/2007 Closed 04/16/
2009
In April of 2007, Kevin and Nancy Lunny wrote to us requesting an
investigation into the actions of Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS)
Superintendent Donald Neubacher. Specifically, the Lunny family, which
owns and operates the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) and the G Ranch,
both located within the PRNS, alleged that Neubacher had undermined and
interfered with the Lunny family's businesses and had slandered the
family's name. Further, they believed there was a movement by Neubacher
and local environmentalists to shut down the family's oyster farm by
crippling the family financially. We opened an investigation shortly
after receiving the Lunnys' allegations.
Our investigation determined that PRNS published a report on Drakes
Estero, where the Lunny family farms oysters, containing several
inaccuracies regarding the source of sedimentation in the estero. After
receiving complaints from Corey Goodman, a neurobiologist, NPS removed
the report from its Web site on July 23, 2007, and 2 days later, it
posted an ``acknowledgement of errors'' in its place. Our investigation
determined that in this report and in a newspaper article, PRNS Senior
Science Advisor Sarah Allen had misrepresented research regarding
sedimentation in Drakes Estero completed in the 1980s by U.S.
Geological Survey scientist Roberto Anima. In addition, we determined
that she failed to (1) provide a copy of a germane e-mail message
between Anima and herself in response to a FOIA request that
specifically sought such correspondence and (2) stated in a public
forum that NPS had over 25 years of seal data from Drakes Estero when
in fact that was inaccurate.
While Allen denied any intentional misrepresentation of Anima's
work, our investigation revealed that Allen was privy to information
contrary to her characterization of Anima's findings in the Sheltered
Wilderness Report and other public releases, and she did nothing to
correct the information before its release to the public.
Additionally, Neubacher and Allen made concerted attempts to refute
Kevin Lunny's disputed portrayal of oyster farming as beneficial for
Drakes Estero. Our investigation revealed that although Neubacher
intended to bring the potential negative effects of the DBOC operation
to the public's eye to counter what he considered ``misinformation,''
in several instances he could have exercised better judgment and
expressed NPS' position with greater clarity and transparency. Further,
he exaggerated the Marine Mammal Commission's role in responding to
DBOC's impact on the harbor seal population in Drakes Estero when he
spoke before the Marin County Board of Supervisors (MCBS).
Although the complainants provided numerous examples of what they
perceived as disparate treatment by Neubacher, our investigation
revealed no indication that Neubacher treated the Lunny family with any
disparity regarding either of their businesses in the park. We found no
indication that Neubacher was planning to shut DBOC down prior to 2012,
when DBOC's Reservation of Use and Occupancy (RUO) expires. Further, we
found that Neubacher did not have the authority to extend any RUO. In
addition, an extension of DBOC's particular RUO would violate a
congressional mandate that the oyster operation be removed as soon as
the RUO expires in order to manage Drakes Estero as wilderness.
Conversely, our investigation revealed that, until April 22, 2008,
Kevin Lunny had been operating DBOC without a Special Use Permit since
he bought the oyster operation in 2005 and had refused to sign a permit
despite ongoing negotiations with PRNS, the Pacific West Region of the
National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and
the San Francisco Field Office of the DOI Solicitor's Office.
Similarly, his parents had been operating the G Ranch without a signed
Special Use Permit since it came up for renewal in 2004 despite efforts
by PRNS to bring him into compliance with federal regulations.
According to the Code of Federal Regulations, engaging in any business
within a national park is prohibited without a ``permit, contract, or
other written agreement with the United States.''
We referred our investigative report to NPS Director Mary Bomar on
June 21, 2008, for information only. No response was required.
We also sent a Management Advisory (MA) to Director Bomar on
December 2, 2008, relating our finding that the Point Reyes National
Seashore's methods for peer review and standards for conveying
information to the public were haphazard and ineffectual. We made a
number of suggestions to improve that situation in the MA.
On April 9, 2009, then Acting Director Daniel Wenk, responded to
the suggestions in the MA, stating, in part that it agreed with some
suggestions and had already taken actions to address the issues noted
in the MA.
2. PI-PI-08-0508-I (W) Opened 08/26/2008 Closed 03/17/
2009
On August 22, 2008, the Department of the Interior, Office of
Inspector General (DOI OIG), Program Integrity Division, received
information from a confidential source alleging that there was a
possible conflict of interest regarding a real estate transaction
between Dave Uberuaga [Seller], Superintendent, Mount Rainier National
Park (MRNP), and Peter and Erika Whittaker [Buyer], part owners of
Rainier Mountaineering, Inc. (RMI), a concessioner at MRNP.
During this investigation, we determined that Uberuaga originally
bought the property in 1992 for $84,000, sold it in December 2002 for
$425,000, and subsequently financed the sale of his property to
Whittaker over the course of 63 months. Uberuaga was interviewed and
denied that there was a quid pro quo based on the sale of the property
to Whittaker and subsequently passed a polygraph examination regarding
this issue. Based on the appearance of a conflict of interest, we
reviewed several documents submitted by Uberuaga and determined that he
made false statements or concealed material facts on his Office of
Government Ethics (OGE) form 450; an e-mail he sent to the NPS
reviewing official, who requested additional information of the nature
of the transaction; and by signing the conflict of interest
certification for MRNP's contract process.
Our findings were presented to the United States Attorney's Office
for the Western District of Washington. That office declined any
prosecution of Uberuaga. The results of this investigation will be
forwarded to the Director of the National Park Service for review and
appropriate action.
We referred our investigative report to NPS Director Mary Bomar on
December 10, 2008, with a request that NPS respond to the findings in
our report.
On or about March 9, 2009, Jonathan Jarvis, then Director of the
NPS Pacific West Region, reported that he had issued Uberuaga a written
Letter of Reprimand on February 24, 2009.
Drakes Bay Oyster Company Cases
1. OI-CA-07-0297-I (W) Opened 05/01/2007 Closed 04/16/
2009
In April of 2007, Kevin and Nancy Lunny wrote to us requesting an
investigation into the actions of Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS)
Superintendent Donald Neubacher. Specifically, the Lunny family, which
owns and operates the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) and the G Ranch,
both located within the PRNS, alleged that Neubacher had undermined and
interfered with the Lunny family's businesses and had slandered the
family's name. Further, they believed there was a movement by Neubacher
and local environmentalists to shut down the family's oyster farm by
crippling the family financially. We opened an investigation shortly
after receiving the Lunnys' allegations.
Our investigation determined that PRNS published a report on Drakes
Estero, where the Lunny family farms oysters, containing several
inaccuracies regarding the source of sedimentation in the estero. After
receiving complaints from Corey Goodman, a neurobiologist, NPS removed
the report from its Web site on July 23, 2007, and 2 days later, it
posted an ``acknowledgement of errors'' in its place. Our investigation
determined that in this report and in a newspaper article, PRNS Senior
Science Advisor Sarah Allen had misrepresented research regarding
sedimentation in Drakes Estero completed in the 1980s by U.S.
Geological Survey scientist Roberto Anima. In addition, we determined
that she failed to (1) provide a copy of a germane e-mail message
between Anima and herself in response to a FOIA request that
specifically sought such correspondence and (2) stated in a public
forum that NPS had over 25 years of seal data from Drakes Estero when
in fact that was inaccurate.
While Allen denied any intentional misrepresentation of Anima's
work, our investigation revealed that Allen was privy to information
contrary to her characterization of Anima's findings in the Sheltered
Wilderness Report and other public releases, and she did nothing to
correct the information before its release to the public.
Additionally, Neubacher and Allen made concerted attempts to refute
Kevin Lunny's disputed portrayal of oyster farming as beneficial for
Drakes Estero. Our investigation revealed that although Neubacher
intended to bring the potential negative effects of the DBOC operation
to the public's eye to counter what he considered ``misinformation,''
in several instances he could have exercised better judgment and
expressed NPS' position with greater clarity and transparency. Further,
he exaggerated the Marine Mammal Commission's role in responding to
DBOC's impact on the harbor seal population in Drakes Estero when he
spoke before the Marin County Board of Supervisors (MCBS).
Although the complainants provided numerous examples of what they
perceived as disparate treatment by Neubacher, our investigation
revealed no indication that Neubacher treated the Lunny family with any
disparity regarding either of their businesses in the park. We found no
indication that Neubacher was planning to shut DBOC down prior to 2012,
when DBOC's Reservation of Use and Occupancy (RUO) expires. Further, we
found that Neubacher did not have the authority to extend any RUO. In
addition, an extension of DBOC's particular RUO would violate a
congressional mandate that the oyster operation be removed as soon as
the RUO expires in order to manage Drakes Estero as wilderness.
Conversely, our investigation revealed that, until April 22, 2008,
Kevin Lunny had been operating DBOC without a Special Use Permit since
he bought the oyster operation in 2005 and had refused to sign a permit
despite ongoing negotiations with PRNS, the Pacific West Region of the
National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and
the San Francisco Field Office of the DOI Solicitor's Office.
Similarly, his parents had been operating the G Ranch without a signed
Special Use Permit since it came up for renewal in 2004 despite efforts
by PRNS to bring him into compliance with federal regulations.
According to the Code of Federal Regulations, engaging in any business
within a national park is prohibited without a ``permit, contract, or
other written agreement with the United States.''
We referred our investigative report to NPS Director Mary Bomar on
June 21, 2008, for information only. No response was required.
We also sent a Management Advisory (MA) to Director Bomar on
December 2, 2008, relating our finding that the Point Reyes National
Seashore's methods for peer review and standards for conveying
information to the public were haphazard and ineffectual. We made a
number of suggestions to improve that situation in the MA.
On April 9, 2009, then Acting Director Daniel Wenk, responded to
the suggestions in the MA, stating, in part that it agreed with some
suggestions and had already taken actions to address the issues noted
in the MA.
2. OI-HQ-11-0052-R Opened 11/09/2010 Closed 06/06/2011
We received information from Corey Goodman reporting that in 2007,
the Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS), National Park Service (NPS),
set up a camera overlooking Drake's Estero within PRNS to record Drakes
Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) employees disturbing harbor seals without
telling the OIG at the time when OIG had an ongoing investigation
concerning DBOC. Goodman alleged that NPS kept the camera secret
because photos taken disproved their contention that DBOC employees
disturbed the harbor seals.
We referred the complaint to NPS Director Jonathan Jarvis on
November 9, 2010, with a request that he respond to the allegations.
On May 2, 2011, Peggy O'Dell, NPS Deputy Director, responded that
NPS requested the DOI Office of the Solicitor (SOL) to review the
complaint. SOL reported that it found no criminal violations or
scientific misconduct; however, it also found that NPS employees made
mistakes that may have eroded public confidence in the way NPS
addressed the matter. NPS did not take any further action.
Management Advisories
PI-PI-09-0443-I Issued January 28, 2010 Response Received May
7, 2010
OI-NM-10-0299-I Issued May 27, 2010 Response Received July
8, 2010
PI-PI-10-0690-I Issued February 3, 2011 Response Received
August 1, 2011
OI-PI-14-0695-I Issued Nov. 16, 2015 Response Received Feb.
18, 2016
(Distribution of Letter and Declarations sent to Secretary Sally
Jewell)
OI-PI-14-0695-I Issued Nov. 16, 2015 Response Received Feb.
18, 2016
(Hiring of Bryan Edwards)
______
Mr. Labrador. But you, Mr. Keable, believe that they have
held some people accountable?
Mr. Keable. Yes, sir. The Department has followed due
process in following through with each of these Inspector
Generals' investigations, assessing how and whether to hold
people accountable.
Mr. Labrador. And holding them accountable, according to
you, is taking some jobs away from them. But no one has been
fired because of these actions, correct?
Mr. Keable. No, sir. Holding people accountable is
following due process. It is looking at the IG investigations
and assessing how we can fashion charges that can be sustained
if litigated.
Mr. Labrador. Are you not bothered by the pattern of
unethical behavior?
Mr. Keable. I believe the Department has a culture of
compliance. I believe that----
Mr. Labrador. I am not going into that. Are you not
bothered by this pattern of unethical behavior?
Mr. Keable. I believe the Department has a culture of
compliance.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you for not responding to the question.
That is really outrageous.
Mr. Gohmert. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Hice, for 5 minutes.
Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you calling
today's hearing on examining this culture of corruption at the
Department of the Interior. I certainly regret that a few
political appointees at the Department have taken advantage of
public service for their own personal gain.
Mr. Keable, let me begin with you. Obviously, the purpose
of this hearing is to stress the importance of ethical behavior
and accountability at the Department of the Interior. Right at
the heart of that is transparency.
It is extremely important for the Inspector General to
report its findings to Congress in a timely manner. Likewise,
it is important that the Department, as a whole, respect the
fact that it is impossible to hold people accountable without
fostering a culture of openness and transparency.
First question. Do you believe, and do you agree, that
transparency is a very important part of accountability?
Mr. Keable. Yes, sir.
Dr. Hice. Well, then, Mr. Keable, I hope you can explain
why the Solicitor's Office is stonewalling a number of FOIA
requests. As you know, FOIA gives the public the right to
access certain types of Federal agency information. Just within
the past 2 weeks, the Office of Government Information Services
sent a letter to you requesting half a dozen delayed FOIA
requests. They actually said in that letter, ``Over the last
few months OGIS has contacted the DOI Office of the Solicitor,
seeking information about the status, including the tracking
number for these appeals. But we have received no substantive
response to these inquiries.''
So, can you tell this subcommittee again how you take
transparency and accountability so seriously?
Mr. Keable. Sir, as it happens, I have a meeting scheduled
with OGIS tomorrow to talk about those matters. And I would say
that the Department's FOIA program does its level best to
provide timely services to the public who are seeking
information before the Department, and we----
Dr. Hice. Does the fact that we are having a hearing today
have any impact on why you happen to be having a meeting
tomorrow?
Mr. Keable. No, sir. This hearing is about ethics
compliance and OIG reports. It has nothing to do with
transparency.
Dr. Hice. Well then, can you explain why your office has
been ignoring these FOIA requests?
Mr. Keable. Sir, I don't believe our office has been
ignoring these FOIA requests. I think that we have been
processing FOIA requests as quickly as we can with the
resources we have.
Dr. Hice. Well, that is not the feeling of OGIS. They feel
very much ignored; and I think your excuse is, quite frankly,
rather lame.
So, let me ask you this. Are you stating today in testimony
that you will make it a commitment to deal with these FOIA
requests?
Mr. Keable. Yes, sir.
Dr. Hice. Will you, likewise, send a copy to this
subcommittee of your response to OGIS?
Mr. Keable. If I have a written response. As I said, I have
a meeting scheduled tomorrow with the Acting Director at OGIS.
Dr. Hice. We would like the information from that meeting.
We want to make sure that these requests are being taken care
of. Will you commit to do that?
Mr. Keable. I am happy to follow up with the committee.
Dr. Hice. OK. Ms. Kendall, I understand that you recently
changed your policy and decided to only give the Department 30
days to review a report before releasing it publicly. What is
the reasoning behind that decision?
Ms. Kendall. Part of the reasoning was that we found that
giving 90 days was sort of both not enough time and too much
time--not enough time, if the Department needed to take
administrative action against an employee, because that can
take a fair amount of time, just procedurally; but it was too
much time, in our view, for getting the information both to
Congress and out to the public.
So, we changed our process to issue our reports and post
them on the Web site within 30 days of providing them to the
Department, whether we have a response from the Department or
not.
Dr. Hice. Have you seen a change in how the Department
responds?
Ms. Kendall. To a certain extent, I would say, yes. In a
couple of instances we have had much quicker responses. But I
would also say that in others, where the need to take the time
to make sure the administrative action is proper, we simply
issue the report and provide it to Congress; and they continue
to take the administrative action and then ultimately report it
back to us.
Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gohmert. I thank the gentleman. We will commence a
second round of questioning.
Ms. Kendall, when the current Administration went against
your advice and reduced the authority of the Ethics Office, and
shifted back that authority under the supervision of Mr.
Keable, did you say anything about that? Did you have any kind
of response expressing concerns?
Ms. Kendall. Mr. Chairman, this happened quite some time
ago. Mr. Devaney was still the Inspector General.
Mr. Gohmert. This was when you were Deputy, though,
correct?
Ms. Kendall. Right. Yes. Oh, no, and I am aware of the
time. The Office of the Solicitor and I think the Department
may have had representatives and did brief us on this.
The complicating factor, and what we found back in 2004,
was the Ethics Office was outside of the Solicitor's Office but
it was not staffed by attorneys; and the Solicitor's Office had
an attorney in its office that would provide sort of ad hoc
ethics advice, but it was not binding. Therefore, our
recommendation was really to empower the Ethics Office.
That it was placed in the Office of the Solicitor, in my
view and, at the time, Mr. Devaney's view, did not diminish its
power; it just put it over where it could be overseen by
attorneys and staffed by attorneys.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, we know, as Mr. Keable indicated, that
Director Jarvis suffered the excruciating punishment of being
removed from being in charge of the Ethics Office, which I have
never heard anybody that ever enjoyed being in charge of an
ethics office. It is about as thankless a job as you can have--
but we are always grateful when somebody with a conscience is
in charge.
But Director Jarvis is still at the top of the National
Park Service. Let me ask you about Mr. Reid at Yellowstone. He
was the Chief Ranger and the Chief Law Enforcement Officer
there. What is he doing now?
Ms. Kendall. He is the Superintendent at a park whose name
I am blanking on right now.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, Superintendent is an elevated title from
where he was before, isn't it?
Ms. Kendall. It certainly has the appearance of an
elevation. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gohmert. I mean he was Chief Ranger before, and then he
goes to, as I understand, the Devils Tower National Monument.
Ms. Kendall. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Gohmert. Which is, I understand, a plum assignment
within the Park Service, an amazing place. That is not exactly
a punishment, either. And I would bet that if you asked Mr.
Jarvis, ``Which of your responsibilities previously would you
like to get rid of ?,'' it would be getting rid of the Ethics
Office.
There are so many other issues, but I want to go back and
be clear for the record. With regard to Director Jarvis'
statement that it was Eastern National that made the request
for him to write the book, and he failed to disclose the
request he made of Eastern National; wouldn't you characterize
that as his lying to the Secretary directly?
Ms. Kendall. It was certainly not true. You are right.
Mr. Gohmert. Are you aware of anyone in any supervisory
capacity that has lied to the Secretary of the Interior that is
still in their same position?
Ms. Kendall. I am not aware of anyone else who has lied or
is in the same position.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, Director Jarvis admitted to your team,
as I understand it, he had been in trouble ``many, many times''
for not asking permission. Is that your understanding?
Ms. Kendall. That may well be in our report, sir. I am not
familiar with that statement.
Mr. Gohmert. Do you have any recommendations, at this time,
based on what you have found through your investigations as to
who should be in charge of ethics at the Department of the
Interior?
Ms. Kendall. Certainly the Designated Agency Ethics
Official, who is appointed and is in the Office of the
Solicitor. The other thing that we have engaged in discussion
with her about is providing ethics training to all DOI
employees, not just the filers of the public and the
confidential disclosure forms.
Mr. Gohmert. OK, thank you. At this time, I recognize,
again, the Ranking Member from Missouri, Mr. Clay, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Kendall, your office investigated the incident at the
Grand Canyon?
Ms. Kendall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clay. And you identified over 30 employees who had
experienced or witnessed incidents of sexual harassment from
boatmen working in the river district. These findings were
extremely troubling to me and my fellow committee members, and
we signed a bipartisan letter to Director Jarvis urging the
Park Service to expand this investigation to the entire agency.
I do hope the agency takes this issue very seriously.
But since we are here, I would like to explore this
assertion from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
that any ethical lapses at Interior are a product of what they
think is a flawed Department-level Ethics Office structure.
So, Mr. Keable, can you tell me what responsibility does
the Ethics Office have in enforcing ethical conduct and
behavior in the workplace?
Mr. Keable. Certainly. Let me start by saying that, with
respect to the 2004 Office of Inspector General report to which
Members have referred, that report had 13 specific
recommendations, and the Department has met all 13 of them.
The Designated Agency Ethics Official heads the Ethics
Office of the Department. She is a direct report to me. She
manages a staff of, I believe it is 10 people, 6 of whom are
lawyers. They give ethics advice and counsel to employees in
the Office of the Secretary. They oversee the bureau ethics
programs. They provide training to employees across the
Department.
Mr. Clay. What type of training, sensitivity training or
ethics training?
Mr. Keable. They provide ethics training. They train to the
standards of conduct for employees of the executive branch.
They also train on Hatch Act-related issues.
Mr. Clay. In this case, let's pretend that the victims of
the boatmen, who sexually harassed women in the river district,
decided to seek ethical advice. Would they go to the Solicitor
General or the DOI?
Mr. Keable. Sir, the bureaus each manage their own ethics
program; so if they were seeking ethics advice, they would go
to the bureau ethics officials.
Mr. Clay. OK. So the choice of which office at DOI to
report to sounds pretty much irrelevant in the case of one of a
very serious problem the Department is currently faced with.
From my perspective, it seems safe to say that restructuring
the Department-level Ethics Office may not be the only answer
to resolving issues of misconduct in Interior. Would you agree?
Mr. Keable. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clay. OK. In your opinion, could the National Park
Service be doing more to attack the culture in the now-defunct
river district that led to the sexual harassment and assault of
victims----
Mr. Keable. Sir, it is also my understanding that the Park
Service is addressing those challenges.
Mr. Clay. OK. Could they be doing anything else to
understand whether there is a similar problem in other sectors
of the Park Service? How can you help them identify problem
areas?
Mr. Keable. My understanding is that the Park Service is
looking at those kinds of questions.
Mr. Clay. OK, and they just started doing that?
Mr. Keable. Well, I believe what they have done is they
have looked at the IG report of the Grand Canyon and they are
assessing how to address procedural issues to ensure that those
kinds of situations do not repeat.
Mr. Clay. Do you think it is Department-wide? Is there a
culture there, or----
Mr. Keable. No, sir. I do not. I think the Park Service is
taking very seriously the information in the IG report on the
Grand Canyon and are very seriously addressing the issues
highlighted by that report.
Mr. Clay. So, from what you know, this is an isolated
incident?
Mr. Keable. From what I know. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clay. OK, all right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Gohmert. Since we are so limited in Members, I would
like to recognize myself.
Ms. Kendall, in your written statement--and I realize 5
minutes is so limiting that you did not have time to cover
everything that you provide in your written statement. It is
part of the record.
But you had stated, ``DOI [Department of the Interior] does
not do well in holding accountable those employees who violate
laws, rules, and regulations. We see too few examples of senior
leaders making the difficult decision to impose meaningful
corrective action and hold their employees accountable. Often,
management avoids discipline altogether and attempts to address
misconduct by transferring the employee to other duties or to
simply counsel the employee. The failure to take appropriate
action is viewed by other employees as condoning misbehavior.''
That was in your written remarks. You do stand by that,
correct?
Ms. Kendall. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Gohmert. You mentioned that you were briefed on a
matter in which an employee was detailed to another agency at
the expense of Interior, in lieu of using proper performance
management progressive discipline to correct performance and
conduct issues. How did you find out about that?
Ms. Kendall. Yes. This is in an ongoing investigation, but
the individual who was detailed actually came to us with a
complaint, or actually through another employee, about the
manager of that unit.
During the course of our investigation, we learned that the
manager had complaints of his own about the complaining
employee, both in terms of conduct and in terms of performance;
and rather than addressing the performance and the conduct
issues straightaway, he chose to use a detail to another
agency.
Mr. Gohmert. All right. And just to make clear, going back
to the book deal with Eastern National, this contractor with
the Park Service--so, Director Jarvis not only misrepresented,
I believe you said, the situation to the Secretary of the
Interior, but your team of investigators asked him specifically
about that, didn't they?
Ms. Kendall. My recollection is that they did, yes.
Mr. Gohmert. And the response was?
Ms. Kendall. It was----
Mr. Gohmert. Basically the same as was to the Secretary of
the Interior, that he did not request it, Eastern National
requested the book, correct?
Ms. Kendall. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Gohmert. Yes. So it was misleading, misrepresentation,
or an outright lie, even to your own team, correct?
Ms. Kendall. Correct.
Mr. Gohmert. Do you know who that was on your team that
questioned him about this?
Ms. Kendall. I remember one of the agents, yes. I do not
remember both the agents.
Mr. Gohmert. I have no further questions.
Mr. Clay. I do.
Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Clay is recognized.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Keable, the implication from my colleagues is
that restructuring the Ethics Office is the solution to the
ethics problem at the DOI. But a commitment to improving the
ethical culture with concrete changes by this Administration
has already yielded clear results.
For example, the Minerals Management Service, once plagued
by scandal, was reorganized by Secretarial Order, which
reassigned the responsibilities of the agency to a new Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management, Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement, and the Office of Natural Resources Revenue. Has
the reorganization helped combat the corruption that was once
so rampant?
Mr. Keable. Sir, I believe that those three organizations
are well-run organizations, if that is what you are asking.
Mr. Clay. Yes. Has it changed the culture of the agency?
Mr. Keable. I believe there is a healthy culture in those
bureaus and offices.
Mr. Clay. Well, can you point out any other changes that
the Department has implemented?
Mr. Keable. Sir, going back to that 2004 IG report, as I
said earlier, the Department has implemented all 13 of the
specific recommendations in that report, starting with the
point that the Inspector General made that there needs to be a
singular voice of authority on ethics in the Department.
Prior to that report, there were two components in the
Department that were providing information regarding ethics.
The Ethics Office, at that time, was a small organization in
the Office of the Secretary, and there were lawyers in the
Solicitor's Office in the Division of General Law who, when
legal issues came up, gave legal advice.
Even before that IG report came out, the Department
established the Ethics Office in the Solicitor's Office, and we
started staffing that office with attorneys. As I said earlier,
we now have 10 employees in that organization, 6 of them
lawyers.
There was never a point at which the Ethics Office was a
stand-alone organization in the Department of the Interior. It
was initially, as I said, an organization within the Office of
the Secretary. In 2003, we moved it into the Solicitor's
Office, pursuant to a Secretary's Order, and then we enshrined
that in the departmental manual.
Mr. Clay. Just a final question. In your testimony, you
mentioned that the Department Ethics Office has been recognized
by the Office of Government Ethics. Can you go into more detail
about that recognition?
Mr. Keable. Certainly. Our current Designated Agency Ethics
Official started in the Department in 2007. We hired her from
the Defense Department. She was highly recommended with a
tremendous background in ethics. Specifically, the Director of
the Office of Ethics gave her very high recommendations when we
hired her.
From 2008 to 2011, the Department's ethics program received
a lot of recognitions. Those recognitions stopped when OGE
stopped giving awards. But, nevertheless, it is the same
leadership team in managing the Ethics Office now that received
these awards.
For example, they were recognized for outstanding
achievement in developing education and communications products
that fostered an ethical climate in 2008. They were recognized
for outstanding achievement in managing the ethics program in
2010, for excellence and innovation in 2011, for program
excellence and innovation in ethics events in 2011, for program
excellence and innovation for a product that gives rise to
awareness, and others.
So again, this is the same ethics team in place now in the
Solicitor's Office that was in place in the Solicitor's Office
when they were receiving these awards at a time when the Office
of Government Ethics issued awards.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response. Sounds like a job
well done.
And I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Gohmert. We thank the witnesses for being here. We
appreciate your testimony. We hope that in the future the issue
of ethics will be one not so much that gets awards, but
actually deals with ethical behavior and corrects it.
Each side will have 5 additional days in which to provide
additional material for the record.
And I do want to point out that ethics problems normally
come from the top. Department senior leadership needs to set a
good example, and we hope that is what will happen.
I would ask unanimous consent that the following items be
submitted into the hearing record: a letter from Mrs. Dingell
and myself to Secretary Jewell regarding the IMARS system dated
March 24, 2016; the response to that letter from Deputy
Secretary Connor dated April 29, 2016; and a handwritten note
from Director Jarvis to Secretary Jewell dated June 11, 2015.
[The information follows:]
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations,
Washington, DC
March 24, 2016
Hon. Sally Jewell, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Secretary Jewell:
On March 17, 2016, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
of the Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing to shed light on
the Department of the Interior's (``DOI'') Incident Management,
Analysis, and Reporting System (``IMARS''). We write to request more
information about the implementation of IMARS, DOI's law enforcement
database.
The Department has been in the process of implementing IMARS since
2002--and has spent in excess of $65 million on the program \1\--but it
is still not fully functional and has not been fully deployed
throughout DOI. The Department's inability to implement IMARS after
expending so much time and resources on the project is troubling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO reports that DOI had spent $64.75 million on IMARS through
September 2012. U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-13-524,
Information Technology: Additional Executive Review Sessions Needed to
Address Troubled Projects 17 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order for the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee to
obtain a better understanding of the costs associated with IMARS, as
well as DOI's failure to fully implement the system, it is requested
that the following information be provided no later than 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday, April 7:
1. Please provide the total spending associated with IMARS from 2002
to the present.
2. DOI's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Safety, Resource
Protection, and Emergency Services testified that issues
involving the FWS's implementation of IMARS are currently
being evaluated, and also that DOI would ``continue to work
with the FWS to identify solutions'' regarding
implementation of IMARS. It has been fourteen years since
DOI first began to implement the system. What potential or
possible solutions for FWS's implementation of IMARS have
been identified and are being considered?
Please deliver your response to the House Committee on Natural
Resources at 1324 Longworth House Office Building and 1329 Longworth
House Office Building. Please have your staff contact Rob Gordon and
Vic Edgerton of the Committee staff with any questions.
Sincerely,
Louie Gohmert,
Chairman.
Debbie Dingell,
Ranking Member.
______
The Deputy Secretary of the Interior,
Washington, DC
April 29, 2016
Hon. Louie Gohmert, Chairman,
House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your letter dated March 24, 2016, to Secretary Jewell
regarding the Department of the Interior's (Department) Incident
Management Analysis Report System (IMARS). Secretary Jewell asked that
I respond to you on her behalf.
This supplements the information I provided on March 11, 2016, in
response to Chairman Rob Bishop's request letter dated February 23,
2016. Since 2002, the Department has obligated $49,534,697.86 on the
implementation and operation of IMARS, which includes amounts necessary
for personnel, information technology (IT) equipment and hardware, rent
for physical space, hosting of system data, maintaining the software
environment, and training law enforcement officers who use the IMARS
system.
As I explained in my previous letter to Chairman Bishop, the
Department is evaluating concerns raised by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) as to whether IMARS can fully meet its law enforcement
needs. In your letter, you asked me to elaborate on the Department's
work with FWS to address these concerns and integrate FWS into the
Department's IMARS solution while ensuring that FWS's unique law
enforcement needs are met. The issues and challenges are technical in
nature, and the Department's Office of Law Enforcement and Security,
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), and FWS are working
together to craft an effective solution. We will certainly keep the
Subcommittee apprised as we work through these issues and make
decisions over the coming months.
We appreciate your interest in this matter. If you or your staff
have any questions, please contact Mr. Jason Powell.
A similar letter is being sent to Representative Debbie Dingell,
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, who
cosigned your letter.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Connor
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Gohmert. The members of the committee may have some
additional questions for you. They would need to be submitted
in writing, and we would ask that you respond to those. Under
Committee Rule 4(h), the hearing record will then be held open
for 10 additional business days for the responses after the
questions are submitted.
If there is no further business, and without objection,
those entries were made to the record, and the committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
1. An investigatory report issued by the Department of the
Interior's Office of the Inspector General
concerning the conduct of Deputy Secretary J.
Steven Griles. PI-SI-02-0053-I Report of
Investigation.
2. An investigatory report issued by the Department of the
Interior's Office of the Inspector General
concerning the conduct of Mr. Gregory W. Smith,
Program Director of the Royalty in Kind Program,
Mineral Revenue Management, Mineral Management
Service in Lakewood, Colorado. (August 2008)
3. A Letter from the Office of Government Information
Services addressed to [Name Redacted] regarding the
status of their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request to the Fish and Wildlife Service. (March 3,
2016)