[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT AT EPA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 18, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-137
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-509 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 OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Columbia
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TED LIEU, California
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
KEN BUCK, Colorado STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MARK WALKER, North Carolina MARK DeSAULNIER, California
ROD BLUM, Iowa BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
JODY B. HICE, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Jennifer Hemingway, Staff Director
Melissa Beaumont Professional Staff Member
Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 18, 2016..................................... 1
WITNESSES
Mr. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Deputy Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Written Statement............................................ 8
Mr. Patrick Sullivan, Assistant Inspector General for
Investigations, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Accompanied by Allan Williams, Deputy
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, Office of
Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
APPENDIX
2016-02-26 Shelby, Sessions, Palmer to EPA re CERCLA............. 54
2016-03-29 EPA Response to Palmer re CERCLA...................... 57
RESPONSE Meiburg-EPA to Chaffetz QFRs 2016-07-13................. 59
EXAMINING EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT AT EPA
----------
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:02 a.m., in Room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Duncan, Jordan,
Walberg, Amash, Gosar, Massie, Meadows, DeSantis, Mulvaney,
Walker, Blum, Hice, Carter, Grothman, Palmer, Cummings,
Maloney, Norton, Connolly, Kelly, Lawrence, Watson Coleman,
Plaskett, DeSaulnier, Welch, and Lujan Grisham.
Chairman Chaffetz. The Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform will come to order. Without objection, the
chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time.
Today's hearing is entitled ``Examining Employee Misconduct
at the EPA.'' It is a topic we have addressed a few times, but
it doesn't seem to be getting better. So we will continue to
highlight this as long as it takes, because in my opinion, the
EPA is one of the most toxic places in the Federal Government
to work. If you don't get rid of the toxicity of the employees
there at the EPA, we are doing a great disservice to this
country.
Most of them are good, hardworking, patriotic people. They
care. They work hard. But you have some bad apples at the EPA,
and they are not being dealt with, and they are not being
addressed.
So I look forward to talking about this. The inspector
general has done some good, quality work, he and his team.
Again, we will continue to do this until we are convinced
that the EPA has actually taken care of its problem.
Today, the committee is exploring numerous cases of
employee misconduct at the EPA. As the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, in addition to the broad responsibility
for conducting oversight of the executive branch, we are also
the committee of jurisdiction for Federal employees, and it is
our duty to explore the problems in the Federal work force.
We have explored misconduct at the EPA before. Like I said,
we will continue to do so until we are convinced there actually
has been a change. Most notably, this committee examined the
extraordinary case of John Beale. John Beale was a senior EPA
employee--reporting to then EPA air office chief Gina
McCarthy--who for years falsely claimed to be a CIA spy. Right
under her nose, this went on for a long time. This person ended
up going to jail, one of the few people who has actually been
held accountable, having to go to jail, paying hundreds of
thousands of dollars in restitution.
But her supervisor got a promotion. She is now the EPA
Administrator, and I have serious questions about her ability
to actually administrate. When she had a small office, she
couldn't do it. And now that she has a large one, these
problems continue to persist.
Unfortunately, Mr. Beale's fraud is not isolated. The head
of EPA's Office of Homeland Security--this is the head of the
EPA's Office of Homeland Security--had a lengthy record of
sexual harassment that was not properly investigated.
EPA's Region 5 was mired in allegations of sexual
harassment and retaliation against those who tried to do
something about it.
Whistleblowers placed blame for Region 5's toxic culture
squarely on former Region 5 Administrator Susan Hedman, who
resigned under duress in the wake of the Flint water crisis.
Remarking on this situation, an EPA union representative
testified, ``There is a serious lack of accountability or
transparency at EPA when a manager is the problem.''
These incidents represent a systemic cultural problem and
failure at the EPA. Recently, the EPA Inspector General's
Office released details on investigations of more than 60--60--
cases of misconduct closed in the last several months. Many of
these cases contain disturbing details.
I recognize this is C-SPAN, and it's an early hour, but
parents, be forewarned, this is not a subject for young kids at
any hour. But nevertheless, we need to expose it in order to
solve it.
In one case, a convicted child molester--convicted child
molester--was on EPA's payroll for years, even after the EPA
learned of this offense. What is so terrible about this
situation, it just cannot explain or justify, is the EPA knows
that this person is a convicted child molester and yet the EPA
put him in a position to interact with the public.
He was out there literally interacting with the public.
This person was found to have police sirens placed on their
personal vehicle, on their personal car, lights and sirens,
handcuffs, a counterfeit badge. It wasn't until a probation
violation that it was actually highlighted and dealt with.
In another case, an EPA employee was found to have stolen
and pawned thousands of dollars of office equipment yet was not
fired. She admitted taking, seven times, equipment in the
office, taking it to a pawnshop, putting it in her pocket, and
she is not fired.
Mr. Meiburg actually oversaw this person, not directly, but
it was in his team.
It is just unbelievable this person was not fired after her
felony theft conviction. She is still employed at the EPA to
this day.
We have a lot of good, hardworking people who want and need
jobs, who will serve this country honorably. Why in the world
should somebody convicted of stealing from work, a felony
conviction, still enjoy the employment and being paid by the
United States taxpayers?
We have pages and pages of similar cases. One has to wonder
if the EPA's culture and lack of accountability is a
contributing factor to tragedies like the Gold King Mine spill
or the Flint drinking water crisis.
The status quo cannot continue, and the committee will
continue to investigate the EPA until cultural changes and
managers and employees are held accountable for their failures.
People are going to make mistakes. We understand that.
These are not mistakes. These are patterns of misbehavior that
are unacceptable.
I introduced a piece of legislation, H.R. 4360, which
actually passed this committee and passed the House, the
Official Personnel File Enhancement Act, which requires a
Federal agency to record any adverse findings from resolved
investigations into a separated employee's official personnel
file.
I hope this helps, so that these employees cannot just
toggle from one agency to another without having their
information shared with others.
The bill prevents an employee facing disciplinary action
from simply jumping ship to another agency that would not be
aware of their negative disciplinary record.
We have another case here, where there were devices and air
cards that were used excessively. In one case, a person in one
trip--I don't know how you do this--but in one trip, spent
$18,000--$18,000--on one air card traveling, and no
restitution, no paying back the government.
We have the devices. We have $4,500 in personal
international calls while on leave. What was the punishment for
that? $4,500, the taxpayers have to pay that. What was the
punishment? Counseling. Counseling was the punishment.
So we have a lot to talk about. The inspector general has
done a good job on this, and I look forward to a good, fruitful
hearing.
With that, we will now recognize the ranking member, Mr.
Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I do thank you for holding today's hearing
examining employee misconduct at the Environmental Protection
Agency. This is the third hearing our committee has held on
this topic this Congress, and I am encouraged that the EPA's
response to allegations of employee misconduct has vastly
improved.
I, like you, want to be effective and efficient. I do not
want to constantly hold hearings and hear about these problems.
At some point, we should be able to get them resolved.
Serious employee misconduct is, indeed, rare. But as this
committee has seen, too often agencies and the inspector
general responses to misconduct cases have taken far too long.
At the committee's hearing in April 2015, a little over a
year ago, I asked the EPA and the IG to work together to
improve their coordination in employee misconduct matters. I
did that, again, so we could be effective and efficient, to get
things done as opposed to going around in a circle.
I also directed my staff to work directly with the EPA and
the IG to help develop new protocols to improve their
disciplinary processes.
As a result, the EPA and the IG are coordinating their
efforts as they never did before. But as I often say, we can
always do better. They are holding biweekly meetings to share
information about investigations. We can do even better. They
are communicating more frequently about administrative actions.
They are sharing reports of investigations with agency managers
and senior officials at the EPA headquarters, but we can always
do better.
The EPA and IG have developed expedited procedures for
certain cases. The outcomes from improved coordination are,
indeed, promising. Both the EPA and the IG have stated that the
new procedures have decreased the time it takes for action on
reports of employee misconduct.
In his testimony, Mr. Meiburg from the EPA credits the new
information-sharing process with contributing to EPA's taking
action more quickly after the IG completes an investigation.
Similarly, Mr. Sullivan from the IG's office agrees, and I
want to thank you, Mr. Sullivan, for doing such a great job. He
concluded--that is, Mr. Sullivan said--and I quote,
``Misconduct cases are now being addressed faster and more
consistently by the EPA management.'' But ladies and gentlemen,
we can always do better.
As I said, serious misconduct is rare, but we have to take
it seriously. EPA reports that it has only 14 open employee
misconduct reports of investigations from the IG. For an EPA
work force of some 15,000, that is less than one-tenth of 1
percent, but we can to better.
This committee also has expressed concern about excessive
use of administrative leave. That has been a major concern of
the committee. In February, the agency issued a new policy on
administrative leave. Under the new policy, an EPA employee may
not--may not--be placed on administrative leave for more than
10 days without approval from the Assistant Administrator of
the Office of Administration and Resources Management. This
policy introduces a check that addresses our concern about
overuse of administrative leave, and the need for stronger
oversight of this type of leave.
Chairman Chaffetz indicated that the hearing today will
focus on approximately 20 old cases that have been closed by
the IG some years ago. As Mr. Sullivan states in his testimony,
and I quote, ``It is important to note that most of the
misconduct occurred at least 2 years ago.''
In some of these cases, the misconduct is, in fact,
egregious, and such behavior requires a swift and appropriate
agency response. But none of these cases are currently pending.
They are all closed.
I want to be clear. I don't see anything wrong with looking
back, because I think sometimes you have to look back so that
you can effectively and efficiently move forward. We can learn
from things that have happened, so I do not have a problem with
that.
According to the EPA and IG, all of these cases preceded
the improved coordination process between the EPA and the IG.
I hope that you, Mr. Sullivan, will address the difference
you are seeing and the impact. Of course, I am sure you have
your recommendations.
Mr. Sullivan states that the new coordination process
between the EPA and the IG should serve as, and I quote, ``a
best-practices model for the Federal Government.'' So I am
extremely pleased to hear that. It shows what we can do, if we
work hard with the agencies and investigators to improve their
procedures. This type of work does not always get the big
headlines, but it makes a real difference.
It also shows this committee what we can do through nuts-
and-bolts oversight.
While I am encouraged by the progress that has been made, I
believe that there are still challenges that we must and can
and shall address.
For instance, long investigations time in some cases may
suggest a need for more resources for the IG. I just don't
know.
You will have to address that, Mr. Sullivan.
There are certainly other cases that raise questions about
when employees are required to report criminal convictions.
Mr. Chairman, as we proceed, I hope that we can address
these challenges together in a truly bipartisan way, like we
have done over the past year, with input from the agency and
the IG and the other stakeholders, because it is a fact that if
we concentrate and try to get the IG and the agencies to work
more closely together, I think we can get the kind of results
that we are after. Again, we can be more effective and
efficient.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
We will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any
member who would like to submit a written statement.
Chairman Chaffetz. We will now recognize our witnesses. I'm
pleased to welcome Mr. Stanley Meiburg, who is the Acting
Deputy Administrator for the United States Environmental
Protection Agency. We also have Mr. Patrick Sullivan, Assistant
Inspector General for Investigations at the Office of Inspector
General at the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
He is accompanied by Mr. Allan Williams, the Deputy Assistant
Inspector General for Investigation, whose expertise may be
needed for specificity on certain topics during questioning.
We want to thank you all for being here. We are going to go
ahead and swear in Mr. Williams as well. Pursuant to committee
rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify, so we
will also swear in Mr. Williams.
If the three of you would please rise and raise your right
hand?
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
Thank you.
Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
You have testified here before. I think you know the drill.
We try to keep your verbal comments to 5 minutes, but we will
give you great latitude today. After that, we will go to
questions.
So, Mr. Meiburg, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF STANLEY MEIBURG
Mr. Meiburg. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings,
and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today before you about the Environmental Protection
Agency's efforts to address employee misconduct.
I am Stan Meiburg, and I have had the privilege of working
at the EPA for nearly 40 years, holding positions at our
headquarters in Washington, D.C., our regional offices in
Atlanta and Dallas, as well as Research Triangle Park in North
Carolina. For 18 years, I served as Region Four's Deputy
Regional Administrator before retiring in early 2014.
Since returning to the agency in October 2014, I have been
honored to serve as Acting Deputy Administrator, discharging
the duties of chief operating officer for the agency. Each day,
I am reminded of the excellent work EPA employees do on behalf
of the American people, from our engineers and scientists in
the field to our technical experts and our lawyers here at
headquarters.
I am proud to be part of the agency and its mission to
protect human health and the environment.
In all workplaces, there are employees who engage in
misconduct. Unfortunately, EPA is no exception. When such
unfortunate instances occur, we are committed to holding our
employees accountable. We have and will continue to work with
the powers granted to us by Congress and the administrative
tools at our disposal to ensure improper conduct is met with
appropriate penalties, and that, conversely, excellence is
recognized accordingly.
But I must stress that the isolated misconduct of a few
does not reflect and must not overshadow the dedication and
hard work of over 15,000 EPA employees who commit themselves
every day to the important work of the agency.
Since my appearance before the committee last spring, we
have made multiple positive changes to the EPA's management
policies and procedures. EPA has taken measures to support our
first-line supervisors who carry substantial responsibility in
ensuring that misconduct is addressed promptly and
appropriately.
We have updated the first-line supervisor's toolkit and
organized focus groups to ensure that we understand their needs
in an overall effort to ensure that supervisors are able to
take fair, legal, and effective disciplinary action for the
betterment of the agency as a whole.
In addition, earlier this year, as was noted in the ranking
member's comments, the agency revised its policy on
administrative leave, addressing a concern that this committee
has raised in the past. The agency now demands additional
justification and review for administrative leave requests and
limits the time period of leave to 10 days, with limited
exceptions, such as when an employee poses a danger to the
agency and its employees.
Finally, earlier this year, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy
issued an agency-wide elevation memo encouraging staff to raise
issues of concern to managers and instructing managers to be
receptive to these concerns. It is our hope that this
directive, in conjunction with providing training and tools to
our employees, will help our first-line supervisors to address
misconduct quickly and effectively when issues arise.
In addition to our own work, the EPA's Office of Inspector
General plays a critical role in addressing misconduct and
helping the agency operate at our best.
As a result of the work of this committee and especially
Ranking Member Cummings, we have improved our working
relationship with the Office of Inspector General, which has
enabled us to take more efficient administrative action. We now
meet biweekly to discuss the status of pending OIG
investigations into employee misconduct and have agreed upon
procedures and timelines for effective information-sharing.
These meetings and the improved bilateral communication
contribute to the EPA taking action more quickly upon OIG's
completion of its investigations and helps reduce the need for
additional fact-finding by the agency in preparing
administrative actions.
In closing, EPA and its employees have spent nearly 5
decades working to safeguard public health and the environment
for the people of this country. I am proud of what we
accomplish every day. On the rare occasions when misconduct
occurs, we must address it appropriately.
I look forward to discussing the progress that EPA has made
in this regard with you today. Thank you for the opportunity,
and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Meiburg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Sullivan, you're now recognized.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK SULLIVAN
Mr. Sullivan. Good morning, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking
Member Cummings, and members of the committee. I am Patrick
Sullivan, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations for
both the EPA and the CSB.
I'm happy to report that since I last testified before this
committee in April 2015, the agency's internal adjudication
process has dramatically improved. At the suggestion of both
Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings, the OIG and the
agency now meet biweekly about pending misconduct cases and
their adjudication. These cases are now being addressed faster
and more consistently by EPA management.
I believe that this process can serve as a best-practices
model for the Federal Government.
Many allegations lodged against EPA employees are
investigated by the OIG, and some are ultimately determined to
be unsupported. OIG investigations often clear an individual.
Our job is to collect and present the facts in a fair and
unbiased manner. We are just as proud of our work in the cases
that clear an employee as we are when our work leads to a
criminal conviction.
Now I would like to briefly discuss a few significant
cases.
In 2014, the OIG Seattle field office special agents
interviewed an EPA contractor who had previously worked for EPA
for the past 20 years. Stating he was addicted to pornography,
he admitted to viewing pornography on his government-issued
computer for the last 18 years. In the past year, he watched
pornography at least 1 to 2 hours per day.
He avoided detection for many years because he used
commercial software to scrub his computer. He also accessed
pornographic sites using search engines hosted in a foreign
nation.
The contractor was fired by his company. The OIG was
successful in recovering $22,000 in repayments, the amount of
time that the contractor viewed pornography. And the OIG made
EPA aware of network vulnerabilities that enabled the
contractor to avoid detection for 18 years.
In 2013, the OIG was notified by the U.S. Attorney's Office
in Connecticut that a special agent assigned to the EPA's
Criminal Investigation Division in New Haven may have been
engaged in a Ponzi scheme. The special agent's name had
surfaced on the prosecution of the ringleaders of a four-level
pyramid scheme involving gifting tables. New participants in
this scheme would pay a $5,000 gift to the person occupying the
top level.
The OIG investigation determined that the EPA CID special
agent had made a false statement on a required financial
disclosure form wherein she concealed the fact that she had
received $2,500 in cash from her participation in the scheme.
In 2015, the special agent retired from the EPA. She
subsequently pleaded guilty to one felony count of making false
statements, and she was sentenced to 1-year probation and
ordered to pay $8,000 in fines and restitution.
In 2013, an OIG Special Agent in the Atlanta field office
proactively checked a list of EPA property reportedly lost or
stolen through a law-enforcement database. This search resulted
in a hit on an EPA digital camera pawned in Decatur, Georgia.
The subsequent OIG investigation revealed that, on several
occasions, an EPA employ pawned EPA cameras and camcorders at
the pawnshop, resulting in a loss to the government of $3,117.
The U.S. attorney declined Federal prosecution. However, we
were successful in presenting the case to a local prosecutor,
and the employee pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 3 years of
probation and ordered to pay restitution. This was a felony
conviction.
The employee's supervisor proposed suspension of the
employee for 120 days. Following an appeal by the employee, the
Region Four Deputy Administrator downgraded the suspension to
30 days.
In 2006, the OIG Dallas field office was informed that a
civilian employee was cited by the Dallas police for improper
use of emergency lights on his personal vehicle while also
being a registered sex offender. He had previously been
convicted in 1997 for indecent acts with a minor. The EPA
employee also possessed an imitation badge, which accompanied
his CPA administrative credentials, which were displayed by the
employee to the police officer.
In 2006, the U.S. attorney declined to prosecute the EPA
employee for false impersonation of a Federal officer and for
possession of the imitation badges. The EPA then imposed
discipline in the form of a 60-day suspension.
In 2013, the Dallas police sex offender unit requested
assistance from the OIG in arresting the same EPA employee for
violation of probation. He was arrested on a probation
violation charge.
The OIG also developed information that the employee may
had viewed and possessed child pornography on his EPA computer.
However, an examination of his computer revealed no evidence of
this.
The employee was terminated from his employment with the
EPA. Subsequently, the Merit Systems Protection Board
overturned the employee's termination and ordered that he be
rehired by the EPA.
In 2015, the employee entered into a settlement agreement
in which he agreed to resign from the EPA in exchange for
certain considerations.
In closing, I would like to say that we in the OIG pledge
that we will continue to work closely with the agency, the
Department of Justice, and Congress to ensure that allegations
of misconduct are quickly and properly addressed. We appreciate
your continued interest in the work of the OIG.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I'll be
happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much sir.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. I will now recognize myself
for 5 minutes.
Let's go back to that most recent case with the child
molester. Conclude that part about the Merit Systems Protection
Board. I mean, based on the brief evidence that you shared with
us, the scenario of the case, what were the other
considerations that he got in order to resign from the EPA?
Mr. Sullivan. He received a cash settlement of $55,000, I
believe. I will have to check ----
Chairman Chaffetz. The American people paid him $55,000 to
walk away?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. But the IG is not part of those
negotiations.
Chairman Chaffetz. I'm not blaming you. You are the ones
who actually highlighted this.
Mr. Meiburg, it is hard to hold you personally responsible
for that, but we had to pay $55,000 to this person?
Mr. Meiburg. Mr. Chairman, in this particular case, which I
am generally aware of, the case, as Mr. Sullivan noted, was one
where we had proposed removal and, in fact, took removal action
and were reversed by the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Chairman Chaffetz. How do you lose that case?
Mr. Meiburg. It is a complicated case. I'm not going to try
to go into all the details. But the Merit Systems Protection
Board found that the basis for the removal was not sustained,
so they reversed it.
Chairman Chaffetz. I mean, it is just pretty stunning,
isn't it? I mean, what needs to change?
You both are close to this situation. What needs to change?
How do we need to change the Merit Systems Protection Board?
What is not happening is we are not protecting the American
people and the taxpayers, and we are not protecting the
employees that have to sit by this freak of a pervert. We are
not protecting them.
So how do we protect the employees of the EPA and the
American taxpayers? What do we need to do at the Merit Systems
Protection Board to get them to make the changes?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I would simply note a couple
things. One is that we share your desire to protect our own
employees from any adverse actions by other employees, so that
is a clear area where there is agreement.
Chairman Chaffetz. And how is it that this person can
operate in this atmosphere for so long? In the case of Dallas,
how is it--Mr. Sullivan, you have looked at this case closely.
How is it that this goes undetected for so long and it wasn't
in our system?
Mr. Sullivan. It didn't go undetected. It was just that it
was not reported to the IG.
In 1999, our investigation revealed that the management in
Region Six in Dallas, the EPA management, found out about his
conviction. At that time, he was stopped again by the police
for using lights and sirens. I don't know about the sirens. I
know about the emergency lights. That was brought to the
attention of EPA management. He was counseled and told not to
do that again, but it was never brought to the attention of the
IG in 1999.
Chairman Chaffetz. What was his position back in 1999? What
was he doing?
Mr. Sullivan. He was an enforcement officer doing civil
inspections for the EPA.
Chairman Chaffetz. So his job would be to do what?
Mr. Sullivan. To go out to a site to determine if there are
any environmental violations.
Chairman Chaffetz. So we are putting him out there,
interacting with the public.
Mr. Meiburg, how does this happen? If you know that this
person has to register as a sex offender, why do you put them
in a position to have to interact with the public?
Mr. Meiburg. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe there is any
particular rule that says that if an employee is convicted of a
crime, in general, that they then have to report that to the
agency.
Chairman Chaffetz. Should that be the case? Should they
have to report, ongoing?
Mr. Meiburg. Mr. Chairman, I think that is an important
issue. We are happy to work with you and the Office of
Personnel ----
Chairman Chaffetz. I am just asking your personal opinion.
Do you believe, if you are convicted of a felony ----
Mr. Meiburg. Mr. Chairman, again, I am here in my official
capacity.
Chairman Chaffetz. Okay.
Somebody who is convicted as a sex offender, is there an
internal policy to prohibit those types of perverts from
interacting with the public in person?
Mr. Meiburg. Mr. Chairman, we have asked that question, and
we do not believe that we have the authority to institute a
policy to that effect. We are not different from other agencies
in that regard.
But it is an important issue, and we agree with you on
that.
Chairman Chaffetz. All right, somebody here on this panel
better sponsor a bill to get rid of perverts interacting with
the public, because this is not acceptable. If somebody comes
with the authority of the EPA badge, and then they have sirens
or lights on their car, and they are a registered sex offender,
I mean, can you see the disconnect, why people would be
outraged if they showed up at your place of business or work or
some mom with her young child, and suddenly you encounter this
person? How do you stand for that?
Mr. Meiburg. Mr. Chairman, again, certified badge law
enforcement officials have special responsibilities, even more
so than ordinary EPA employees ----
Chairman Chaffetz. I cannot believe you lost that case.
Part of me thinks we are going to have to work here--let's get
the Merit Systems Protection Board up here to start explaining
themselves, how in the world they think this is in the best
interest of the United States of America.
My time has expired. We will now recognize Ms. Watson
Coleman for 5 minutes.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you for being here.
A lot of these cases, all the cases that we are discussing,
were either resolved in 2014 or 2015, so these are kind of old
cases, right? So since then, we have had changes in our
policies and practices at the EPA that would at least address
allegations of misconduct that come before them in terms of
resolving them and as well as administrative leave policies. Is
that not correct?
Mr. Meiburg. Yes, Congresswoman, that is correct. We feel
like, in the last year, we have made considerable progress
moving forward.
I would agree with the ranking member that we can always do
better, but we feel like we have made considerable progress in
having better communication with the Office of Inspector
General and clearer policies on the use of administrative
leave.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Could you explain sort of briefly what
specifically has changed that you have informed the rank and
file, and the supervisors, and what is the process for holding
them accountable, aside from just interacting with the OIG?
Mr. Meiburg. The interaction--it is in so many ways all of
one piece. We discussed with all of our employees the
importance of first-line supervisors and their responsibilities
in conduct and discipline cases.
We also again, as I mentioned, on the administrative leave,
made sure that this cannot be used. And the use of
administrative leave has been curtailed for more than 10 days,
which was a concern of this committee.
But the interaction involving the inspector general has
been tremendously important because we refer cases to the
inspector general when we have evidence of misconduct, and ask
the inspector general to investigate them. It is very helpful
in the course of that investigation to have the interaction we
now do, so that we can be clear that when we get information,
as quickly as possible, we can move on it.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Mr. Sullivan, are you feeling that this interaction is
helping to create a better environment, a more protective
environment, and a more accountable environment in the EPA?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Once you do an investigation, once
something has been referred to you and you do an investigation,
in addition to your findings, do you make any recommendations
back to the EPA about the employee that has been investigated?
Mr. Sullivan. As the head of investigations for the EPA, we
do not make recommendations in our investigative reports.
However, our auditors and evaluators make recommendations as
part of their job. But that is a different part of the IG.
So in a typical misconduct investigation, we report the
facts and just the facts, and we would not make a
recommendation.
Ms. Watson Coleman. So you would report the facts to the
EPA, plus the auditing?
Mr. Sullivan. It depends. If we saw a systematic problem or
a problem that was crosscutting, for example, in the Beale
investigation, we determined that, from the investigator's
standpoint, that there were some safeguards that were not being
followed. For example, they were batch approving Mr. Beale's
T&A, time and attendance, every week, which was a
vulnerability. So we reported that to our auditors, and they
did an audit.
But normally, in our investigations, ma'am, we just report
the facts concerning the specific allegation before us.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Do you feel that we have sufficiently
moved in the right direction with the EPA holding people
accountable and developing the kind of information-sharing
system and accountability system that will mitigate these kinds
of cases in the future?
I'm not talking about the one about whether or not the
individual who was a convicted sex offender should be hired and
if so, under what conditions, but otherwise.
Mr. Sullivan. Otherwise, I could tell you that in the past
year, as Mr. Meiburg alluded to in his testimony, and in mine,
by meeting biweekly, we have streamlined the process and we
have broken down some barriers, and we have touched each other
as human beings and managers addressing a problem.
Again, I want to make it crystal clear what our role is and
the IG Office of Investigations. We just report the facts. We
have nothing to do with the ultimate disciplinary process.
Ms. Watson Coleman. I just have one quick question. Both of
you can answer quickly, hopefully.
Are there other things that should be happening either the
EPA, on your side as a manager of the organization, or from
your observation as the IG looking into the organization? Have
you discussed those things? Are there things in the works now?
Mr. Meiburg. Yes, I will cite one thing that we have in the
works. We are trying to get additional employee labor relations
support to our first-line supervisors and make sure they have
good information on cases that may have come up in the past
that are similar to ones they might face, because fortunately
for most of our first-line supervisors, a conduct and
discipline case is a very rare thing. So when one comes up, we
want to make sure they have a context for whatever action they
may take.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Mr. Sullivan, do you have anything to say to that in 2
seconds?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, ma'am. We do not have enough agents to
do the investigations. In the past 5 years, we have gone from
360 FTE authorized to 289. I personally lost 15 to 20 agents
that can no longer work cases. So I'm always trying to play
catch-up.
Ms. Watson Coleman. I hope you have less cases that you
have to investigate. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gosar. [Presiding.] I thank the gentlewoman.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to hold this
hearing and review some of the conduct of some of the employees
of the EPA with important responsibility in that agency to
carry out.
I had the opportunity to chair civil service on this
subcommittee on this panel some years ago. I am a supporter of
the civil service system, and it was set up decades and decades
ago to protect civil servants, public employees, from abuse,
being politically abused, being relieved of their positions.
Isn't that pretty much the case, Mr. Meiburg and Mr.
Sullivan?
Mr. Meiburg. Yes, Congressman, it is. That is very
important that we make sure that the system is not subject to
----
Mr. Mica. Not rigged to take hardworking people and cast
them out on some political basis. I think that should be
protected.
However, the reports we have here, I have 12 pages of some
of the most egregious abuses. I can't find any instance in
which anyone was fired.
Did you say there were 15,000 EPA employees? Is that
correct? More than that?
Mr. Meiburg. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Mica. Did you say, Mr. Sullivan, you have 280
investigators?
Mr. Sullivan. No, sir. We had a 360 5 years ago. Now we are
down to 289.
Mr. Mica. Two hundred eighty-nine staff. What do they do?
Mr. Sullivan. We have investigators.
Mr. Mica. So they investigate ----
Mr. Sullivan. Some auditors and evaluators.
Mr. Mica. They are looking at and reviewing the conduct of
the 15,000 EPA employees?
Mr. Sullivan. I have 50 agents right now with that ----
Mr. Mica. Fifty, okay. Last year, 2015, how many people
were fired from EPA?
Mr. Sullivan. I would have to defer to Mr. Meiburg.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Meiburg, how many were fired?
Mr. Meiburg. I don't know.
Mr. Sullivan. Were any ever fired for misconduct?
Mr. Meiburg. Yes.
Mr. Mica. Can you supply--do you think it is more than just
my fingers and my toes?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I want to be clear about my
answer.
Mr. Mica. I tell you, nobody here got fired. The only one
actually dismissed was a contractor.
What is troubling is some of the offenses. I just heard the
deal cut to pay $55,000 in a settlement.
Is that true, Mr. Sullivan? You said you were not involved
in the settlement.
Mr. Sullivan. That is correct. From my ----
Mr. Mica. Was that the pedophile?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. That was child molester.
Mr. Mica. So we are paying child molesters $55,000. Nobody
gets fired.
Now here's one, an EPA official in Washington, GS-15. GS-15
in D.C., he's getting a minimum of $125,000 a year.
This guy sat around for years, the past several years, and
watched porno, getting $125,000. Actually, I think he is still
on the job. It must be a great job where you can just sit
around and collect $125,000 a year.
Here's a $90,000 GS-13, at least $90,000 a year in D.C., a
search of the employee's EPA-issued computer found 507
pornographic images as well as a graphic pornographic story
written by the employee containing description of--I won't go
into all that for public consumption here.
The employee was issued a notice of proposed removal but
retired.
So nobody gets fired. The way out is most people retire.
The civil service was not set up to protect these folks. It
was to protect folks against political manipulation.
This has to be demoralizing to thousands and thousands of
hardworking EPA officials to see these people who either are
involved in misconduct, misappropriate--they were stealing
money. And I can't find a single instance in which anyone was
fired. They mostly retired.
And when they retire, they get a pretty good retirement,
don't they? They get their regular retirement. There is no
penalty to their compensation when they retire, is there?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, under current law, there is no
penalty. People can retire or resign ----
Mr. Mica. That is the M.O. You steal. You sit around and
watch porno. You get convictions outside. And you either
voluntarily resign and go to retirement, but nobody gets fired.
I yield back.
Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
I recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me try to understand, Mr. Sullivan. There are 14 open
cases. Is that right?
Mr. Sullivan. That is not 100 percent accurate, Mr.
Cummings. We have 14 cases pending at the agency in which we
have already submitted the report of investigation. We have
many, many more in the pipeline that we have not yet written a
report of investigation, so we have approximately 90 pending
misconduct cases right now.
Mr. Cummings. Okay. The reason I asked that is because I
said to myself, you talked about the agents that are available
to investigate, and I was saying to myself, with 14 cases, I
know it takes a lot of manpower--but you have about 90 cases
that you are actually involved in?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Mr. Cummings. But we also have an excess
of 150 additional cases, 97 fraud cases, contracting grant
fraud, plus we have a number of threat investigations, a number
of theft investigations, some assault investigations. So it
runs the spectrum.
But for the misconduct, we have currently 90 pending cases,
14 of which have already been presented to the agency and are
awaiting adjudication. The other 76 are in various processes of
us investigating.
Mr. Cummings. Now when we have a situation where somebody
is hired and then commits a serious felony, do they have a duty
to report? Now, they are already hired.
What is the situation there? And where do we draw the line
there?
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Cummings, it is my understanding that for
most EPA employees, there is no requirement to report either an
arrest or conviction. Obviously, if you are a law enforcement
officer like myself, you must report. If you are an attorney,
you must report. If you work for the IG, you must report. Or if
you have a security clearance, you must report an arrest or
conviction.
But short of that short list, I do not believe there is any
requirement for any EPA employee to report either an arrest or
conviction.
Mr. Cummings. Do you have an opinion on that? I am just
wondering, because I know one of the cases had a situation
where somebody was convicted after they were hired, with no
duty to report.
It is very interesting because when I practiced law, I saw
a lot of cases, not government cases, but others, where people
failed to report and they were immediately fired when they
found out.
Are there other agencies where the list is longer than that
three?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Mr. Cummings. For myself, I have been a
Federal enforcement officer my entire adult life, and I have
worked for the FBI and Secret Service and the Federal Air
Marshals. In those agencies, you absolutely have to immediately
report an arrest and certainly a conviction. Whether you are
carrying a gun or you are a civilian employee in those
agencies, you have to report.
So I was little bit surprised when I came to EPA and I
learned that rank-and-file EPA employees did not have to do
that. I've accepted that as the rule, but I was a little
curious as to why, just for the sake of knowing--if you put
trust and confidence in a particular employee, it may affect
your judgment or your decision-making if you knew the person
was just convicted of, say, theft or embezzlement in their
private life.
Mr. Cummings. Tell me this, we were just talking about a
case where somebody received some kind of counseling. When you
look at the counseling situation there at EPA, do you think it
is helpful? Did you think it is strong enough?
And maybe Mr. Meiburg can answer this. What triggers
counseling? In other words, how do I determine whether somebody
should have counseling and that be a part of keeping them on?
I know you do not have a lot to do with the final say, Mr.
Meiburg.
Mr. Meiburg. Thank you, Ranking Member.
The short answer is it depends on the case and what the
nature of the offense is. If it was an offense that was created
out of ignorance or simply the employee did not know what a
rule was, then counseling may be appropriate. But each one of
those cases has to be evaluated on its own merits based on the
facts of the case and the applicable law and regulations.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Sullivan, time is running out, but Ms.
Coleman asked you all about where we go from here.
Tell me clearly, what would you like to see done so that we
can be effective and efficient and so that we can basically put
you out of a job?
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Cummings ----
Mr. Cummings. I am not trying to get rid of you, but you
understand what I'm saying.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
I am concerned that when we have an investigation and
because I don't have enough special agents to expeditiously
investigate allegations, we eventually get to them, but the old
saying of ``justice delayed is justice denied,'' I am very
concerned that I do not have enough agents to adequately and
immediately address some of these allegations.
That is why I have so many cases in the pipeline. If you do
the math, in my Office of Professional Responsibility, which is
a special unit I have at headquarters doing essentially GS-15
and SES and political appointees, they average 9.5 cases each.
The agents in the field average approximately seven cases each.
A lot of those cases in the field are multimillion-dollar fraud
investigations that are very involved.
So I simply do not have enough agents to expeditiously
investigate every case that I have on my plate.
Mr. Cummings. Will you continue to work with us to try to
come up with solutions to the problems? I got the money piece.
I agree with you. But you and Mr. Meiburg have been wonderful
with regards to sitting down and trying to work out things.
Will you continue to do that, sir?
Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely. It is beneficial to both my
office and to the agency as a whole because we can move things
down the field much quicker.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Maryland.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Several of the cases of employee misconduct that have been
reported from the IG took place in the Region Four, where you,
Mr. Meiburg, were the administrator.
One of the cases in particular that is on my mind took
place on your watch, referring to a GS-12 employee making over
$100,000 a year who was found to be stealing thousands of
dollars of property from the EPA. In fact, the individual pled
guilty to felony theft and was placed on 3 years' probation
but, astonishingly, only received only 30 days' suspension by
the EPA.
Mr. Meiburg, my obvious question is, how in the world can
an employee be found guilty and admit to felony criminal
charges of stealing from the EPA and not be fired?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I will speak to that case since,
as you note, I was the deciding official.
I want to be clear that there is not a question that what
the employee did was wrong. What the employee did was wrong,
and she needed to be held accountable for doing something
wrong.
When a case comes forward ----
Mr. Hice. It was criminal.
Mr. Meiburg. The criminal conviction, the settlement in the
court case, occurred after we took disciplinary action. There
are two paths, as you probably know, whereby you can go on
this. One is the path of administrative discipline, and the
other is potential referral to either the U.S. attorney or to
local authorities, which occurred in this case.
At the time we took administrative discipline, the question
before us was what was appropriate administrative discipline,
given the information we had from the investigation report,
which we did.
Mr. Hice. So it is astonishing to me that a 30-day
suspension is all that someone gets for even pleading guilty of
felony theft.
We have the taxpayers on the hook for this type of
behavior.
So you were the administrator. Were you involved in the
determining the disciplinary action?
Mr. Meiburg. Yes. I was the deciding official in that case.
Mr. Hice. So in deciding on that case, you are saying that
you were not aware of the criminal charges when you made the
final decision?
Mr. Meiburg. I was generally aware that there was a
possibility of a proceeding, but I did not know what the
outcome of that was.
Mr. Hice. But you were aware of thousands of dollars that
had been stolen?
Mr. Meiburg. I was aware of approximately $3,000 in camera
equipment had been pawned and then lost to the agency through
that transaction.
Mr. Hice. And in your determining decision, that was only
worth a 30-day suspension?
Mr. Meiburg. There were many factors. In any individual
case, there are many factors that the deciding official uses.
They are generally referred to as the Douglas factors. But
there are many factors that the deciding official uses in
deciding what an appropriate penalty would be. I am obligated
by law to consider all of those in reaching a decision on the
penalty.
Mr. Hice. It is just amazing to me that the agency doesn't
do more to punish people who are stealing from the agency, who
even plead guilty to criminal theft, and they still have the
right and privileges on the shoulders of taxpayers to continue
working for the agency. I just cannot wrap my right mind around
this.
This committee has heard time and again of the EPA
literally plagued with constant employee misconduct. And yet at
the same time, the EPA routinely goes after businesses across
this country for much less serious offenses and throws fine
after fine after fine to businesses that often are doing
virtually nothing in comparison.
I mean, we hear stories of businesses all the time for
slight infractions getting serious fines. Yet here we have the
EPA in a double standard, having employees involved in criminal
behavior, and they just get 30-day suspensions or less. It is
an absolute hypocritical double standard.
It is disgusting not only to me to hear these kinds of
things, but the American people are fed up with this kind of
stuff. They get slapped time and time again with fines because
a ladder is in the wrong place or whatever the slight
infraction may be. Yet you guys are putting up with this.
The state of affairs at the EPA is totally unacceptable,
Mr. Chairman. I just believe that if the EPA wants the trust of
the American people and this committee, they have a long way to
go to get their house in order.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sullivan, in March 2014, an EPA employee was arrested,
jailed, and indicted for marijuana possession. It is my
understanding that this particular employee had a grow
operation and was arrested on felony possession charges.
In fact, I believe you highlighted this in your November
2015 report on the EPA's use of taxpayer dollars for extended
administrative leave for employees who had been suspended for
misconduct.
According to that report, this employee was placed--Mr.
Meiburg, are you listening?
According to that report, this employee was placed on
administrative leave for 7.5 months. Is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir, Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter. Tell me that is not correct.
Mr. Sullivan. No, it is correct, sir.
Mr. Carter. It is correct?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Carter. Okay. Again, he was charged with felony
possession. He had a grow operation, and he was put on
administrative leave and paid for 7.5 months.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carter. As I understand it, the EPA policy only allows
for 10 days of administrative leave when employees committed a
crime for which they could be imprisoned. Is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan. That is correct, but that is the new policy,
Mr. Carter. I will defer to Mr. Meiburg. The 10- day ----
Mr. Carter. I will get Mr. Meiburg.
Mr. Sullivan. It is a new policy.
Mr. Carter. A new policy implemented after this?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Carter. Okay, so it didn't apply then?
Mr. Sullivan. No. The 10-day limit did not apply then.
Mr. Carter. So that is why we paid him for 7.5 months.
Mr. Sullivan. Well, I cannot explain why. Again, we were --
--
Mr. Carter. I'm sure. Even if you could, I could not
understand why.
Mr. Meiburg, what would the EPA do this? Explain to me
that. Why would you do this?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I cannot speak to the particulars
on this case and what judgments were made on an individual ----
Mr. Carter. Well, who can? We need them here.
Mr. Meiburg. That would have to be the regional office
where this event occurred. I will say ----
Mr. Carter. Who makes these decisions? Do you know who we
need here? We need somebody who we can fire. That is who we
need here. Who makes this decision? Who made that decision?
Mr. Meiburg. Decisions on conduct and discipline are taken
by proposing officials who usually are the employee's
supervisor or their division director in the region. Then a
final decision is made usually by a deputy regional
administrator, who is a career appointee.
Mr. Carter. And who do they answer to?
Mr. Meiburg. The answer to a regional administrator.
Mr. Carter. I think you said the magic words, ``career
appointee.'' I think that was probably the answer to the
question. ``Career appointee.''
Let me ask you, Mr. Meiburg, I've been sitting here
listening, and it seems, with all due respect, sir, it seems
that you are just matter of fact, ``Yes, that's right. And
that's the way it's supposed to be.''
In the report, the November 2015 report, Mr. Sullivan, did
you not indicate that EPA needed to change some of their
policies and protocols?
Mr. Sullivan. To be correct, that was an audit report, but
yes, recommendations were made.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Meiburg, have you done that?
Mr. Meiburg. Yes, indeed, we have.
Mr. Carter. Are they ready?
Mr. Meiburg. They are being implemented.
Mr. Carter. They are being implemented. When will they be
implemented?
Mr. Meiburg. No, they are being implemented now.
Mr. Carter. Now? So they are in place now?
Mr. Meiburg. Yes. On the policy, to be specific, the policy
on administrative leave, to limit administrative leave in any
case to 10 days, unless there is approval by the Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Administration and Resources
Management under very, very ----
Mr. Carter. Okay, I am okay with that, because this is the
only time something like this happened. It only happened once,
and then we corrected it. Is that right, Mr. Sullivan?
Mr. Sullivan. No, there was massive abuse with
administrative leave prior to the changing of the rules. Our
audit report pointed that out.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Meiburg, have you ever worked in the
private sector?
Mr. Meiburg. Not for many years. I thought I was going to
have that opportunity following May 2014, but it didn't work
out that way.
Mr. Carter. I suspect there is a story there.
Seriously, do you think they would tolerate this in the
private sector?
Mr. Meiburg. I cannot speak to comparability in the private
sector. I know in the ----
Mr. Carter. I can because I am in the private sector, or I
was. I guess I'm not now. But I was.
But you know, I mean, my colleague just made the point. You
go and fine people--we got the answer today as to why they are
being fined, because we have to pay people on administrative
leave who have been charged with felonies. That is why you are
getting fined for that ladder being in the wrong place.
I got the answers I needed today. Thank you, both. That is
exactly what I needed to know.
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
I recognize Ms. Lawrence from Michigan for her 5 minutes.
Ms. Lawrence. Thank you.
We have heard discussion today about the new process for
information-sharing at EPA and the dramatic improvement in
management's response to misconduct. I want to applaud the
agency and the IG for your work to streamline the disciplinary
process.
Our hearings on the Federal work force often focus on,
especially in this committee, on the negatives, so it is good
to hear about the positive changes that are occurring. Many of
the failures that we have been hearing about were prior to the
changes, so I do applaud you.
I want to focus on another policy change that took place in
EPA regarding administrative leave.
I also want to note that this is the sixth hearing that
this committee has held over the past two Congresses on the
management of employee misconduct issues at EPA.
Mr. Meiburg, I am saying that right?
Mr. Meiburg. ``Meiburg.''
Ms. Lawrence. ``Meiburg.''
I am pleased to hear that the new policy increases
oversight over the placement of employees on administrative
leave during misconduct investigations and adjudications. The
new EPA policy also requires managers to document alternatives
to administrative leaves that were considered and why they were
deemed not feasible. Is that correct?
Mr. Meiburg. Yes, that is correct, Congresswoman.
Ms. Lawrence. So would you tell me today and enlighten us,
what alternatives should managers consider before placing an
employee on administrative leave?
Mr. Meiburg. Managers should consider alternatives about
what other kind of work the individual could be doing instead
of their regular duties, if it turns out that the investigation
will impede their ability to conduct their regular duties. So
that would be the first place that you would like, to find work
that they can do while the proceeding is occurring.
Ms. Lawrence. Do you expect this new policy to reduce the
amount of time that employees are placed on administrative
leave? Is that the goal?
Mr. Meiburg. Yes, indeed, it is. We have been very
sensitive to the comments from members of this committee about
concern about the abuse of administrative leave, and we want to
curtail that practice.
Ms. Lawrence. Okay, so now this policy has been in place
since February. Am I correct?
Mr. Meiburg. That is correct.
Ms. Lawrence. So have you seen any difference? Has there
been a reduction?
Mr. Meiburg. We have seen a pretty dramatic difference.
Since the policy was put in place, we have had only two
requests that have come forward. The fact that requests are not
coming forward by itself is a good sign that the policy is
going into place.
Of the two requests that came forward, one was approved
because of a risk to the safety of EPA employees and the other
was denied.
Ms. Lawrence. I often like to interject into these
conversations that I served in a Federal agency and was in
H.R., labor relations. And you really have the responsibility
of looking at how you deal with separating inappropriate
behavior, but respecting the rights of an employee. It is a
delicate mix. You have to hold employees accountable.
I can tell you, sitting here today, I want employees held
accountable. It is our expectation of our public. But every
employee is a citizen of these United States. They have rights.
And the agencies should have, and I am glad to hear that you
reviewed these processes to make sure they are consistent, that
they are not up to the whim of the manager, and that we hold
people accountable, basically, who are there to do the work
that my tax dollars and every other American expects to happen
in this agency.
So I will continue--I hope we do not have to have six more
hearings on this. But I will continue to stay focused in
looking at what we are doing.
Mr. Meiburg, I expect you to continue to monitor this and
be proactive and make sure that EPA, with all the budget cuts
that we are doing here, that EPA is doing the work that we need
them to do to protect our environment.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Meiburg. Thank you.
Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentlelady from Michigan.
I recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meiburg, I think we have pretty well covered some of
the problems at the EPA regarding sexual misconduct, but there
are other forms of employee misconduct that I want to address,
specifically about an investigation that is going on in the
Birmingham, Alabama, area involving the EPA, in which EPA
employees I think have acted improperly in conducting the
investigation, specifically, seeking access to property without
getting the permission of the owner and actually intimidating
people who are occupying houses on the property.
I have an affidavit here, which one of these people who
reside on the property made these allegations: Officials at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, approached me to
seek permission to test the property. The EPA officials
presented me with a document to sign to allow them to sample
the yard. The EPA representative was acting very intimidating
and informed me that I needed to sign the release even though I
did not own the property, which is a clear violation. I felt
very intimidated and compelled to sign the release even though
I did not want to do so. Upon signing the release, I asked the
EPA official what was so urgent in trying to obtain access to
my yard. The EPA officials responded that they are in Tarrant,
Alabama, which is a suburb of Birmingham, to shut down the ABC
Coke plant.
Does the EPA discipline employees who act in such an
overzealous manner?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, anytime we have an allegation of
misconduct, we investigate it. If the investigation shows that
misconduct has occurred, then we will take action to hold the
employee accountable.
Mr. Palmer. So do you punish that or do you encourage it?
Mr. Meiburg. Again, Congressman, when an allegation occurs
of misconduct, we investigate it. As Director Sullivan
specified, one of the things that occurs on many investigations
is the investigation does not find any wrongdoing. When it
does, we take appropriate follow-up action to hold the employee
accountable.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I would like to point out that this is
not the only affidavit like this. There are several others.
We're not going to release them. We're not going to enter them
into the record or use their names at this time.
But do you believe it is appropriate for the EPA personnel
to pressure and intimidate citizens into endorsing the EPA's
agenda?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I am not familiar with the
specifics that you are referring to. I would be happy to take
that back.
Mr. Palmer. The specifics here are the EPA employee forced
this renter to give access to property they didn't have legal
access to in an intimidating manner. And then afterward told
them the whole point of the investigation was to shut down a
legal business.
Is that how the EPA does business? Do you encourage your
employees to do that? Do you allow them to intimidate? Do you
allow them to operate outside the law? Are you aware that this
goes on?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, again, I'm not familiar with the
specifics of the cases ----
Mr. Palmer. I am asking you in general.
Mr. Meiburg. In general, we ask employees to behave in
accordance with good, solid standards of professional conduct.
Mr. Palmer. Well, they don't always.
Do you believe it is appropriate for EPA employees to seek
to shut down a legitimate business that employs many people?
Mr. Meiburg. Again, Congressman, our job is to go out and
to enforce the law to make sure that people are protected and
the laws are followed. That is what we do.
Mr. Palmer. Let me tell you, I have a number of issues with
the EPA, how they do business, how they handle their
investigations.
Senator Richard Shelby, Senator Jeff Sessions, and I sent a
letter to Administrator McCarthy and Regional Administrator for
Region Four Heather McTeer Toney back on February 26 of this
year, asking for information about the EPA's investigation of
this area and got a letter back saying: With respect to your
concerns about the EPA's enforcement approach and/or theories
of liability against any PRP associated with the site,
unfortunately, the EPA cannot engage in any level of
discussions with third parties, including Members of Congress,
as articulated in memorandum--and I have the memorandum here.
That seems to me to undermine our oversight ability.
I intend, Mr. Chairman, to look into this further. I would
like to enter my letter and the EPA's response into the record,
if there are no objections.
Mr. Gosar. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Palmer. I yield the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Alabama.
The gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Kelly, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Meiburg and Mr. Sullivan, thank you for being here.
Misconduct from a few bad apples gives all the other
hardworking Federal employees a bad name. As elected officials,
we can relate to that, too.
Our goal is to ensure that agencies act swiftly and fairly
in cases like these. This committee has worked with agencies to
improve and streamline their internal procedures while
preserving employee rights.
Today, we have heard about the new policies and
information-sharing processes at EPA and the IG.
Mr. Sullivan, in your testimony, you state that since the
committee's hearing on EPA misconduct in April 2015, the
agency's internal adjudication process has, and I quote,
``dramatically improved.'' Is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Ms. Kelly, that is correct.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Meiburg, these improvements at EPA have occurred
through changes in administrative policy and process, not
through legislative change. Is that correct?
Mr. Meiburg. Yes, Congresswoman. That is correct.
Ms. Kelly. Mr. Meiburg, in your opinion, do managers at
your agency have sufficient tools under current law to deal
with allegations of misconduct like the ones we heard about
today?
Mr. Meiburg. Congresswoman, I do, in fact, believe that. It
is always the case, as Ranking Member Cummings said in his
opening statement, that we can always do better, and we strive
to do that. But we believe we have the tools we need in the
agency to execute effective conduct and discipline.
Ms. Kelly. It is important to remember that due process
protections in our Federal civil service laws are there for a
reason. In May 2015, the Merit Systems Protection Board issued
a report that stated, and I quote, ``More than a century ago,
the government operated under a spoils system in which
employees could be removed for any reason, including membership
in a different political party than the President or publicly
disclosing agency wrongdoing. The result of such a system was
appointment and retention decisions based on political
favoritism. Constitutional due process protections arose in the
law that Congress enacted to fix that broken system.''
Mr. Meiburg, is removing due process from civil service
laws necessary to address serious misconduct?
Mr. Meiburg. Congresswoman, we believe that we can address
the serious misconduct through the application of our processes
that do, in fact, protect due process.
Ms. Kelly. Mr. Sullivan, do you agree that without a
legislative change, it is possible that improvements can be
made within agencies that streamline the disciplinary process?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Ms. Kelly, I agree with that.
Ms. Kelly. Are the changes at EPA an example of such an
improvement?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. I can say, from my personal experience,
the biweekly meetings have dramatically improved the process.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
It seems to me that agencies currently have the tools to
deal with allegations of misconduct, but they sometimes do not
use them as efficiently and effectively as they could. I think
that is exactly when this committee, through its oversight
function, can help agencies improve their procedures.
Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois.
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sullivan, thank you for the testimony and for the
dedicated work of your Office of Inspector General within the
EPA. I would like to thank you especially for the work of the
OIG in cooperation with this committee to shed light on the
misconduct at the EPA and efforts to bring about accountability
and reform within that agency.
We recognize your progress while still acknowledging there
are still many ongoing challenges within the agency's personnel
and management. We know long-term reform and improvements to
personnel management requires more than just new procedures and
updates to manuals. It requires active support from leadership
top to bottom to foster a culture of integrity, accountability,
and best practices.
Would you agree, Mr. Sullivan?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Meiburg, you are currently serving in one of
the top leadership posts at the EPA, right?
Mr. Meiburg. Yes, sir. That's right.
Mr. Gosar. It seems from our discussion today, you are
pretty astute about the law, right?
Mr. Meiburg. I am not a lawyer and would not make that
claim.
Mr. Gosar. But you have been very articulate about banter
from both sides in regards to this claim or that claim. You are
pretty articulate about that, right?
Mr. Meiburg. Thank you. That is not for me to judge.
Mr. Gosar. Well, I mean, Mr. Hice actually engaged on you
because you are the administrator that actually made the
decision on that case, so you are pretty familiar with
personnel management, right?
Mr. Meiburg. Yes, over the course of my career, I had a
number of conduct and discipline cases come before me, as the
deciding official.
Mr. Gosar. Could you please briefly describe and summarize
your job description today?
Mr. Meiburg. My job description is, I am the agency's chief
operating officer, and I perform such duties as are assigned to
me by the Administrator.
Mr. Gosar. Now, let's go through that. You are serving as
the Acting EPA Deputy Administrator, and you should understand
the law, right?
Mr. Meiburg. I, again, am serving ----
Mr. Gosar. No, but you should understand the law. I mean,
you are predicating this based on understanding the law, and
all those underneath you should be following you.
You have also been nominated by the President to serve as
the EPA Deputy Administrator. Under the Federal Vacancies
Reform Act and recent case law, do you realize you cannot serve
in an acting capacity for an office that you have been
nominated for?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I am aware of the legal case that
you are referring to and have been assured by counsel that my
service is lawful.
Mr. Gosar. Whoa. Moreover, do you realize that, in such a
situation, your actions have no force or effect under the law?
What I am actually talking to you about is you are the CEO.
You are applying these laws. So they basically go away.
I would like to have the name of the counsel that gave you
that information, because it is in total violation of Federal
statute and law. Will you provide that to the committee?
Mr. Meiburg. Yes, we will be happy to do that.
Mr. Gosar. Have you ever discussed with anyone at the EPA
the fact that, under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, you
cannot serve as the acting deputy director after you have been
nominated to serve in the same office? Are you concerned that
your actions can and will be challenged, given that they have
no force or effect under the law?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I have been in consultation with
our counsel and have been assured that the ----
Mr. Gosar. I would like to have all names of individuals
that gave you that, because that is contradictory to Federal
law.
Do you believe that you should step down as the Acting EPA
Deputy Administrator, given that the law says that your actions
have no force or effect?
Mr. Meiburg. Again, Congressman, I have been consulted with
counsel that all of my ----
Mr. Gosar. I want all individuals that gave you that
consultations, names and titles.
Your actions in defiance of the law by your agency and this
administration baffles me. Moreover, it does not surprise me.
The EPA under this President has a long history of blatant
disregard for the law and disrespect for the oversight
authority of Congress. Your boss, EPA Administrator Gina
McCarthy, committed perjury and made several false statements
at multiple congressional hearings trying to defend the fact-
defying Waters of the United States regulations.
On numerous occasions, Administrator McCarthy not only
broke the law by lying to Congress, but, in doing so, she also
lied to the American people in order to force misguided and
overreaching regulations that have no scientific basis down our
throats.
Perjury before Congress is perjury to the American people
and an affront to the core principles of our republic and the
rule of law.
You actually sitting here impersonating the CEO and being
offered to that office by the President is an affront to that
as well.
That is why I have introduced articles of impeachment to
remove Administrator McCarthy from office.
But before you get too excited, Mr. Meiburg, thinking that
you may get another astronomical promotion in McCarthy's place,
I think you should step down as well. You cannot serve as the
acting official when you are nominated to fill that post
permanently. It is against the law. It is plain and simple.
The personnel management within the EPA is a mess, but that
is no surprise when the agency's top officials are willful
lawbreakers themselves. You create that culture, and that is
why you were set up accordingly. That is why it is going to be
really nice for me, because we have figured a way to make sure
that those impeachment proceedings go to the floor and make
somebody atone for their actions.
It is actually a mess, and it is sad that we have to bring
this, particularly when you should know the rules better.
That goes along with the counsel, so I will expect those
names of all those counsel and their titles immediately to this
committee for review.
I thank you, and I am disgusted.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Meiburg and Mr. Sullivan, for being here.
To get back to one of the themes of this hearing, I have
been interested to hear about the testimony given on improved
coordination between EPA and the IG. The reason that interests
me is that we obviously want to reduce the time that employees
spend on administrative leave when obviously not doing anything
for the agency.
So I am interested in the investigative process. I
recognize that it takes time. You can't cut corners. You can be
sued. And I also understand that some of these investigations
can be very complex.
Mr. Sullivan, I am interested in the funding available for
the agency to do the job that needs to be done in
investigating. Can you tell me what the staffing levels are for
the team that investigates misconduct allegations?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, ma'am. I can tell you, in general. The
current authorized FTE for the Inspector General's Office as a
whole is 289 employees. That has dropped in the last 5 years
from 360. In my office, I had an authorized FTE strength of 76
5 years ago. I am now down to 61. Because of the uncertainty in
the budget, I haven't been able to hire back up to 61. I now
have 55 full-time employees, 50 of which are special agents.
The rest are professional support staff or scientists or
computer forensic people.
I have five agents assigned to our Office of Professional
Responsibility here in Washington, D.C. Those agents work
exclusively misconduct investigations on GS-15s, SES, and
presidential appointees or political appointees.
In the field, I have another 34 agents that work not only
misconduct investigations, they also work most of the grant and
contract fraud. The fraud cases are the bread-and-butter of the
IG. Most of our criminal investigative work goes into trying to
recoup the government's money, people that have stolen money,
the grant money, the contract money that EPA has put out.
So to answer your question, ma'am, I have five full-time
agents working nothing but misconduct in headquarters and
approximately 34 other agents working a combination of fraud
cases, theft cases, threat cases, and misconduct cases in the
field.
Ms. Norton. When I hear staffing levels like this, it
reminds me of what we are all seeing on television with TSA. I
can't believe this is all because everybody has decided to get
on a plane.
I think, at some point, Congress has to understand that if
you want people to do the job, there have to be a certain
number of people to do it. TSA is one thing. They have been
under great criticism because they have not always been able to
keep, according to the GAO, weapons from getting through. That
is an interesting case.
This, of course, is another level of complexity. I'm going
to have to ask you, candidly, how can these investigators keep
from cutting corners with these kinds of staffing levels you
described that apparently have changed during your time at the
agency?
Mr. Sullivan. Ma'am, I see no evidence of any of my agents
cutting corners, but what I have testified to previously
earlier in the hearing is that I am concerned that cases take
way too much time to come to conclusion, because, frankly, it
is like the analogy of planes that are circling and when do the
planes land? The planes land, using that analogy, when the
investigation is complete.
Ms. Norton. Investigating employee misconduct isn't the
only responsibility of the IG.
Mr. Sullivan. That is correct, ma'am. We have the fraud
cases and threat cases. We have quite a few threat
investigations that we have right now. So we are constantly
juggling.
And, obviously, we prioritize every day. Almost like an
emergency room, you triage. We investigate and handle the most
important cases first, but you still have to take care of the
other cases that are in the pipeline.
Ms. Norton. What about the nonemployee misconduct-related
investigations that the IG conducts?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. Most of our cases are, in fact, not
misconduct. Approximately ----
Ms. Norton. Not employee.
Mr. Sullivan. Approximately 60 percent of our cases are a
combination of the fraud cases, threat cases, assault cases, or
theft. When I say theft, not theft by employees, theft by
outsiders, somebody getting into a Federal facility and
stealing computers or stealing other equipment.
Ms. Norton. There is a limit. I think we are beginning to
see what the limits are.
I wish you luck with the appropriations process.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman.
I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg,
or 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to the panel.
Mr. Meiburg, this isn't the first time this committee has
looked to the EPA for its questionable FOIA practices. That is
an issue I would like to address.
EPA has been notorious for having extremely long delays in
responding to FOIA requests. In fact, one of our recent
witnesses in a previous hearing here, Mark Edwards, a water
expert, a professor at Virginia Tech, testified that he waited
several years for his FOIA request to be completed. In fact,
many of his requests were filled the day after he appeared
before this committee on the Flint water issue.
This case, as well as others, I believe very clearly and
should diminish the public's confidence in EPA's ability to be
open and transparent.
So could you tell us why it takes EPA so long for these
FOIA requests to be filled?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I will just speak very generally
to this on a couple matters. One is that we take our FOIA
responsibilities very seriously, and we have found in recent
years there has been a substantial increase in the number of
FOIA requests that we have received.
In responding to that, we tried to put together a FOIA
expert assistance team to assist us in searching through
documents and making sure we are fully responsive.
Mr. Walberg. When was that team initiated?
Mr. Meiburg. That team was initiated within the last year
or so.
Mr. Walberg. Are we seeing improvements on that that you
can tell us about?
Mr. Meiburg. We are working very hard. I don't have any
statistics for you today, but we will be glad to get back to
you with more information.
Mr. Walberg. I appreciate that, because I know that you
have to get a lot of requests, undoubtedly. When we are dealing
with very emotional issues, substantive issues, Waters of the
U.S., the Flint water crisis where government failed at all
levels and people have been hurt, there certainly are emotional
issues dealing with the requests that go on.
But there are reasons why EPA has been brought in front of
us on several occasions dealing with FOIA, and I hope that
would be addressed.
Going on to purchase cards, that was introduced I believe
in the chairman's opening comments, how can EPA keep better
track of the purchase cards and usage of those cards by your
employees?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, we have made a number of changes
in response to interest from the Inspector General's Office and
this committee and our own management concern about this to put
in place better systems for keeping track of activities that
occur on purchase cards and flagging anything that would be
suspect. So we feel like we have made considerable progress on
this over the last couple years.
Mr. Walberg. Has there been an audit done relative to the
employees to make sure we are not missing things?
Mr. Meiburg. On the financial audit, we have had a clean
audit opinion for the last several years, but we are always
continuing to follow up to make sure we have appropriate
systems in place to detect any misconduct.
Mr. Walberg. Then why is it that EPA employees who spend
thousands of dollars of EPA taxpayer money on personal expenses
can get away with not having to reimburse the agency?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, obviously, we share your concern
about that. The cases that are before us today are cases that,
as Director Sullivan specified, were over a couple years ago.
We feel like we have made progress going forward to identify
those cases and address them.
Mr. Walberg. The particular individual that expended over
$22,000 in international roaming charges while vacationing--and
I think we make that clear, while vacationing abroad--will that
the employee be required to reimburse the agency?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I am glad you brought that
particular case up, because we are going back and trying to
make another effort to recover the costs.
Mr. Walberg. What is the challenge?
Mr. Meiburg. The challenge is going to determine which
calls--even an employee on vacation may have made work-related
contact back to the agency, even while they were on vacation.
We need to make sure we can separate those out and make a
credible claim.
Mr. Walberg. Mr. Sullivan, can you add any information to
that, relative to that specific individual?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Mr. Walberg.
The individual actually resigned before we presented our
findings to the agency. Then as a follow-up, the agency
preliminarily determined it was too difficult to decide, of
that $22,000, how many may have been work-related.
Recently, though, as Mr. Meiburg said, the agency came back
to us, I believe in April, last month, and said they are taking
a second look at it and trying to present a bill to that former
employee.
Mr. Walberg. I hope a second look would be taken. I applaud
that effort and want to see that completed. But in the end, if
there is fraudulent or criminal involvement with this employee,
I would hope that we could get after them. If not, we would
appreciate you telling us how we can assist you in making law
in place where we can take employees who are ruining the
credibility of other good government employees attempting to do
the job the best rate possible, and yet a cloud is put on them
because of people who are willing to misuse their purposes and
the cards and tools that they have. So help us out with that.
I yield back.
Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
Mulvaney.
Mr. Mulvaney. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Meiburg, I want to go back and follow up on a couple
questions that were raised during your discussion with Mr.
Palmer. He was talking specifically about a circumstance in
Alabama, where, to use his language, there was an allegedly
overzealous EPA employee. We hear this all the time. It ranges
from the terms ``overzealous'' to ``shakedown,'' depending on
who you're talking to.
I guess the question that didn't get asked, because we sort
of ran out of time, is this. Has anybody ever been fired for
doing that?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I cannot cite a specific example.
I'm going to interpret your question, and I need to know if I
am hearing it correctly, been fired for ----
Mr. Mulvaney. Overreaching, using their position to
intimidate somebody, using their position--enforcing the law is
what we hire you folks to do, right? But occasionally, I guess
it is possible that a bureaucrat, a government employee, might
overreach. They might not like the person they are dealing
with. They might not like what they are doing. They might not
approve of the business that person is in.
I used to be a real estate developer, and I can assure you
that there are a lot of folks who like to hug trees who don't
like what I used to do for a living, so the temptation might be
there for an ordinary human being to sort of use that power
that the government gives to them as an employee of the State
to say, ``You know what? I'm going to push a little harder
here. I'm going to stick it to this person.''
Do you remember a single circumstance of anybody at the EPA
ever being fired for that in your 40 years there?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, first of all, I appreciate your
observation that the job of law enforcement is oftentimes not a
popular job or designed to make everybody like you.
I am not aware, in my own experience, of a case that is
similar to what I am hearing you say is someone who overused or
abused their authority and was subsequently terminated solely
for that reason. But I will ask the staff to go back and look
and see if there such a thing.
Mr. Mulvaney. Mr. Sullivan, if there are allegations of
that like in the example Mr. Palmer mentioned, that someone had
been overzealous and perhaps exceeded their authority--let's
use that term. Maybe that is a little bit more neutral. Would
that rise to the level of something the OIG would look at?
Mr. Sullivan. It could. But this is the first time I am
hearing of it, when Mr. Palmer brought this issue up. It has
not been, to my knowledge, referred to the Inspector General's
Office as an allegation of misconduct.
Mr. Mulvaney. Got it. Again, I am using his as an example.
He knows much more about his example in Alabama than I ever
will.
So my question is more general. Have you ever investigated
allegations of overreaching authority on the part of an EPA
employee?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Mulvaney. Do you recall anybody ever being terminated
for that action?
Mr. Sullivan. Off the top of my head, I can't recall
specifically how the cases were adjudicated, but, for example,
we had allegations of people using their position to get a
favor, something that is not readily available to an average
citizen, those types of instances. We also had instances where
people may have used government property for their personal
gain, misused a government vehicle, let's say, misused
government funds.
Mr. Mulvaney. Okay, there actually was a fairly high
profile--at least, it's high-profile to us, because it is in
our briefing materials--about an employee in I guess the San
Francisco area who lent out a trailer or piece of equipment to
an environmentalist group or something like that.
Are you gentlemen familiar with those facts and
circumstances?
Mr. Sullivan. I am familiar with that case.
Mr. Mulvaney. Again, the person wasn't fired.
Mr. Sullivan. He was not fired.
Mr. Mulvaney. Maybe my question is this, in my last minute,
give me a couple examples. What does it take to get fired from
the EPA? What do you have to do? Do you have to kill somebody,
or is it a little short of that?
Mr. Meiburg. It can be a little short of that.
There are cases where we have done terminations. In my
experience, I have done terminations. The kinds of behaviors
that are involved are pretty unpleasant and not the kind of
things that you would certainly want to ever have an employee
engage in.
But when they engage in those kinds of things, on a case-
by-case basis, considering employees' due process rights and
making sure that, as the deciding official, you have all the
facts, the allegation is proven, that you've followed the
regulations in the process, that you do, in fact, terminate
employees.
Mr. Mulvaney. Help me understand, Mr. Meiburg, and I
recognize the fact that we are speaking in generalities, but if
you had to sort of estimate, when you're dealing with
allegations of impropriety, and they are serious allegations,
and you determine them to be valid allegations that actually
have some substance to them, what percentage of people quit or
retire versus get fired under those circumstances?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I do not have an exact
percentage, but it is not uncommon that people who find
themselves faced with a proposed termination will make an
election to retire or resign.
Mr. Mulvaney. And if they retire or resign, they get to
keep their benefits, right?
Mr. Meiburg. We have no authority under law ----
Mr. Mulvaney. I am not saying that you do. The answer is
yes, they do get to keep their benefits.
Mr. Meiburg. Except in some very limited cases that involve
treason or espionage or aiding terrorist groups.
Mr. Mulvaney. So let me close with this, as a manager,
which is what you are--you manage people. I used to do it. You
do it. You have done it for a long time with EPA. Would it
actually make your job easier if we gave you that additional
tool to, on a case-by-case basis, or perhaps expand the
existing case-by-case basis, to deny people who have been found
to have acted improperly, to deny them some or all of their
benefits, even if they choose retirement or resignation over
termination?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I think I would answer that
simply by saying that I think we have the abilities under our
existing administrative tools to appropriately address
misconduct and to hold employees accountable. I want to make
sure we are using those tools as effectively as we can.
Mr. Mulvaney. But if we gave you this additional tool, it
would help you, wouldn't it?
Mr. Meiburg. That would be speculation, Congressman. I
really couldn't say.
Mr. Mulvaney. We do it all the time. Thank you very much,
Mr. Meiburg. I appreciate it.
Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands,
Ms. Plaskett, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning.
Mr. Meiburg. Good morning.
Mr. Sullivan. Good morning.
Ms. Plaskett. During last April's hearing on the EPA's
management issues, Chairman Chaffetz highlighted what he
called, and I quote, ``management failures at the EPA.'' I am
not sure if that characterization is an appropriate one. It
appears that we are still in discussion about this today.
But I wanted to discuss what has occurred since last April.
It is my understanding the EPA has taken significant steps to
address weaknesses in the disciplinary process. I don't think
necessarily firing a bunch of people means that you are a good
manager. That may be the sign of a poor manager that constantly
has to fire people rather than bring them up to speed and make
them an appropriate worker.
But, Mr. Meiburg, your testimony described the progress EPA
has made. And you state, and I am quoting here, ``As a result
of the work of this committee, and especially Ranking Member
Cummings, we have improved our working relationship with OIG,
which has enabled us to take more efficient administrative
actions.''
Would you care to elaborate on that, sir, on that
statement?
Mr. Meiburg. Only to say, again, that this has been a two-
way street, and we feel that we have reached out to the
Inspector General's Office, and the Inspector General's Office
has reached out to us, in pursuit of a common objective, which
is we want to make sure that employees are held accountable,
and the misconduct cases are dealt with appropriately, while
also making sure that we do that in a way that protects ----
Ms. Plaskett. So how is that different than your
relationship previously?
Mr. Meiburg. I really couldn't say for the agency as a
whole from before the time I got here, but I think there has
been reaching out on both sides, and it is really commendable.
Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Sullivan, would you agree with that?
And your statement, I'm going to quote from you, that ``the
agency's internal adjudication process has dramatically
improved.'' Is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Ms. Plaskett. I will explain the
difference.
Prior to us having this biweekly meeting, for example, if
we had a misconduct investigation in Denver or San Francisco,
the folks at headquarters had very little visibility on that,
and it may languish for months or years. Whereas now, every
misconduct investigation that is pending across the agency, Mr.
Meiburg's staff, the attorneys at EPA headquarters, the labor
and employee relations folks, meet biweekly. And that case
heretofore that may have been languishing in San Francisco or
Seattle or wherever is no longer allowed to languish. The folks
at EPA headquarters have visibility on it, and they are pushing
it along to make sure that those cases are addressed
appropriately and expeditiously.
Ms. Plaskett. And you would say that the cases are moving
at a much faster pace to closure than they were previously?
Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Plaskett. And you have evidence of that, quantitative
evidence of that?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. I could tell you that, within the past
year, we have successfully closed or the agency has determined
what disciplinary action to take, if any, and we have
successfully closed our cases out at a much higher rate.
We can't close our case until we hear back from the agency
as to what they are going to do.
Ms. Plaskett. Okay, and have you been satisfied with the
recommendations that the agency has made on those cases?
Mr. Sullivan. Ma'am, that is something that--our job is to
collect facts in a fair and unbiased manner. It is not
relevant, in my opinion, whether I think discipline is
appropriate or not. I defer completely to the agency in that
regard.
Ms. Plaskett. Got you. You said about the process that you
are describing, Mr. Sullivan, and quote, ``I believe this
process can serve as a best-practices model for the Federal
Government.'' Is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, ma'am. I spoke to Mr. Cummings' staff
and Mr. Chaffetz' staff. They are taking an effort to reach out
to the entire IG community using the EPA as a model to educate
the rest of the IG community that maybe there is a way to get
these cases moved faster governmentwide.
Ms. Plaskett. I think that would alleviate this committee
maybe having to have as many hearings as they have for these
other agencies, and we can get on with the actual work of
Congress, if we were to do that.
But would you support efforts to encourage then
governmentwide adoption of this? And your office would be
willing to work with this committee to do that?
Mr. Sullivan. We certainly do support that, and we have
worked with the committee.
But one caveat, the EPA, we are unique, somewhat unique in
that we don't have any subcomponents. There's just one EPA, and
there is one IG. If you take DHS or the Department of Justice,
they have multiple subcomponents and the model that we have at
EPA probably wouldn't work in a department that has multiple
subcomponents, just to put that out.
Ms. Plaskett. And have you thought about what would work in
agencies like that?
Mr. Sullivan. No, ma'am. I really haven't given that much
----
Ms. Plaskett. We have to get you thinking on this, Mr.
Sullivan.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you.
Ms. Plaskett. So it seems to me that EPA and the OIG have
shown that better coordination and communication can help
agencies take administrative action more quickly in misconduct
cases. And I'm really grateful for the work that you have done
since April, from our first hearing, to actually address many
of these issues, move these cases along to closure.
I don't believe, having managed many people, working at the
Department of Justice, with the Deputy Attorney General's
Office managing 9,000 attorneys, that necessarily firing people
is the measure by which one determines that you have done a
good job, in terms of dealing with misconduct. So I am grateful
for the work that you all have done.
I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman.
A couple housekeeping matters.
Mr. Meiburg, Mr. Mica would like to know for the record,
and to have you answer back to the committee, how many
employees of the EPA get bonuses.
Mr. Meiburg. We will supply that.
Mr. Gosar. We would appreciate it.
I also want to make sure that we have a date certain for
the names and titles of the people who gave you the permission.
I would expect that in 2 weeks. It can't be very many. I would
expect them in 2 weeks. I am a taskmaster, okay?
One last thing, Mr. Sullivan, are you aware of the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act?
Mr. Sullivan. In general terms, not in specificity.
Mr. Gosar. Are you aware of anybody that had a plausible
conflict that has been made aware of today in this committee
with Mr. Meiburg?
Mr. Sullivan. No, I'm generally aware of the issue
involving Mr. Meiburg, but we were told by the agency that it
is not an issue, based on their counsel's opinion.
But we have not investigated that issue, to my knowledge.
Mr. Gosar. Could we also have the names from the people
that you consulted at the EPA that gave you the talking points
----
Mr. Sullivan. Our counsel office, I know I was briefed that
there was an issue, but I will get back to the committee on
that through our counsel's office, and I will let you know.
Mr. Gosar. I guess we have a gentleman here.
Mr. Duncan from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. That is all right, Mr. Chairman. Since I just
got here, you can go ahead.
Mr. Gosar. With that, I would like those names within 2
weeks as well, the counsel that talked to you about that and
any other cases in regards to ----
Mr. Sullivan. I didn't speak directly to anyone from the
EPA's counsel. I was just briefed in my office by my counsel's
office, I believe, or at a meeting that this issue came up.
According to the agency's general counsel, it is not an
issue. That is what I was told.
Mr. Gosar. Yes, I would like to know from your counsel, the
counsel from the EPA that actually instructed that it wasn't a
problem.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Gosar. I mean, you do see the conflict, because
according to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, anything that
Mr. Meiburg may be implementing may be null and void, based
upon the premise that is actually in place there.
So the culture that we are building here is predicated on
the culture that exists at the top levels, because you do lead
by example. That is what the problem is in this application.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir. I understand the task, and we will
get back to you.
Mr. Gosar. I will acknowledge Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry I was over on the floor
and didn't get to hear some of this, but I am curious. I have
read some of the material here about some of these employees
who have been watching all of this pornography for hours at a
time, and then employees who have admitted stealing thousands
of dollars from the EPA.
Have all these employees or have any of these employees
been fired?
Mr. Meiburg. Mr. Congressman, again, of the cases that we
looked at here, many of the employees are no longer with
agency. There were cases where people were proposed for
termination and then resigned.
Mr. Duncan. They resigned.
Mr. Meiburg. Yes.
Mr. Duncan. So you do not have any employees now at the EPA
who have been found to have stolen money or spent hours
watching pornography and so forth? They have either left or
resigned?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, there are employees who have
resigned or been terminated, and there are employees who have
been disciplined in other means than resignation or
termination. Some of them are still with agency.
Mr. Duncan. Disciplined. In what ways do you discipline
somebody like that?
Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, there is a wide range of
disciplinary actions that are available to a deciding official
based on a consideration of all the factors, such as how long
the employee has been with agency, the severity of the crime,
or the severity of the misconduct.
They include all the way from--they can go all the way from
reprimands to suspensions for a period of time to a reduction
in grade.
Mr. Duncan. And I am assuming you have changed some of
these policies to make sure that this type of activity doesn't
continue in the future?
Mr. Meiburg. Yes, we've changed a number of policies. I
think the staff came up and briefed the committee staff on
policies and changes we made, specifically with respect to the
viewing of pornography, so, yes.
Mr. Duncan. All right, thank you very much.
Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
If there is no further business, I thank the witnesses for
their appearance here today.
Without any further business, without objection, the
committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:47 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]