[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PHILADELPHIA AND OAKLAND: SYSTEMIC FAILURES AND MISMANAGEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-633 WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado CORRINE BRO WN, Florida, Ranking
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice- Minority Member
Chairman MARK TAKANO, California
DAVID P. RO E, Tennessee JULIA BRO WNLEY, California
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan DINA TITUS, Nevada
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas RAUL RUIZ, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio BETO O'RO URKE, Texas
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana KATHLEEN RICE, New York
RALPH ABRAHAM, Louisiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LEE ZELDIN, New York JERRY McNERNEY, California
RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American
Samoa
MIKE BOST, Illinois
Jon Towers, Staff Director
Don Phillips, Democratic Staff Director
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Page
Philadelphia and Oakland: Systemic Failures and Mismanagement.... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Jeff Miller, Chairman............................................ 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 80
Corrine Brown, Ranking Member.................................... 3
Prepared Statement........................................... 82
Hon. Ralph Abraham
Prepared Statement........................................... 82
Hon. Raul Ruiz
Prepared Statement........................................... 83
WITNESSES
Kristen Ruell, J.D., Whistleblower, Philadelphia Regional Office,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs............................ 6
Prepared Statement........................................... 83
Mr. Joseph Malizia, President, Local 940, American Federation of
Government Employees........................................... 7
Prepared Statement........................................... 84
Ms. Diana Blender, Whistleblower, Philadelphia Regional Office,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs............................ 9
Prepared Statement........................................... 87
Ms. Rustyann Brown, Whistleblower, Oakland Regional Office, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs................................. 11
Prepared Statement........................................... 90
Ms. Linda Halliday, Assistant Inspector General for Audits and
Evaluations, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs............................................... 43
Prepared Statement........................................... 92
Accompanied by:
Ms. Nora Stokes, Director Bay Pines Benefits Inspections
Division, Office of Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs
And
Mr. Brent Arronte, Director, San Diego Benefits
Inspections Division, Office of Audits and
Evaluations, Office of Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Danny G.I. Pummill, Principal Deputy Under Secretary for
Benefits, VBA, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs............. 45
Prepared Statement........................................... 98
Accompanied by:
Ms. Diana Rubens, Director, Philadelphia Regional Office,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs,
Ms. Lucy Filipov, Assistant Director, Philadelphia
Regional Office, Veterans Benefits Administration,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,
Ms. Julianna M. Boor, Director, Oakland Regional Office,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs,
And
Ms. Michele Kwok, Assistant Director, Oakland Regional
Office, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs
FOR THE RECORD
Mr. Ryan Cease................................................... 104
Letter From: Richard J. Griffin To: Jeff Miller, Chairman........ 110
PHILADELPHIA AND OAKLAND: SYSTEMIC FAILURES AND MISMANAGEMENT
----------
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Miller
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Lamborn, Bilirakis, Roe,
Benishek, Coffman, Wenstrup, Walorski, Abraham, Costello,
Brown, Brownley, Titus, Ruiz, Kuster, O'Rourke, Rice, McNerney,
Walz.
Also Present: Representatives LaMalfa, Meehan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JEFF MILLER
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Good morning, everybody. Welcome to our witnesses who are
here today, especially those brave whistleblowers who are
appearing on our first panel.
The title of our hearing this morning, Philadelphia and
Oakland: Systemic Failures and Mismanagement.
Now, based on the IG's reports describing the serious
problems processing claims in both Philadelphia and Oakland, I
think that the phrase systemic failures and mismanagement might
be a gross understatement.
The witnesses from the VA will have an impossible task
today. They will have to try to explain the inexcusable, a
pattern of malfeasance, abuse and incompetence by VA officials
that has led to waste of taxpayers' funds, a serious failure to
correctly process veterans' claims, and in Philadelphia, a
workplace environment so corrosive, so toxic, so abusive that
according to whistleblowers workers have even been driven to
attempt suicide.
In one tragic case, as one witness will testify, a worker
may have actually succeeded in taking his own life after being
bullied by VA management.
I also have serious questions about the cost incurred by VA
regarding the transfer of Philadelphia RO Director, Diana
Rubens, from the VA Central Office in Washington to the
Philadelphia RO.
The VA incurred over $300,000 in relocation expenses last
summer to move Ms. Rubens, one of the highest paid employees at
VA. Let me repeat. At a time when VA was telling Congress and
the American public that it needed more money for claims
processors, it authorized more than $300,000 in order to move a
federal employee less than 140 miles from Washington to
Philadelphia.
In fact, of the total sum of relocation expenses,
$84,643.70 was paid directly to Ms. Rubens for expenses such as
subsistence and temporary expenses, real estate expenses,
``relocation income tax allowances,'' income tax allowances,
permanent duty travel, permanent change of station meals,
shipment of household goods and personal effects, and storage
of household goods for the first 30 days.
While such an expenditure may have been totally legal, it
does not pass the smell test. Paying such an exorbitant amount
on behalf of a federal employee to move three hours down the
road is an outrageous abuse of taxpayer funds in this fiscal
climate or in any fiscal climate, for that matter. In this
situation, everyone wins except the taxpayer.
I would also note that a comparison of relocation expenses
for our servicemembers with those available to VA employees
shows a significant advantage to civilian employees.
I have asked the Office of Inspector General to investigate
not only the payments for Ms. Rubens' transfer but also whether
there is a more systemic problem with VA's use of relocation
expenses. Relocation expenses are intended to entice employees
to take hard-to-fill positions.
Now, from what I have learned, VA makes these benefits
available to every single RO Director who relocates. That is
hardly the kind of scrutiny such a large expenditure of
taxpayer funds deserves.
VA's problems are more than just an abuse of the relocation
program. VA asserts that it is making progress in resolving its
backlog, but the IG's findings that Philadelphia staff
deliberately manipulated claim dates in order to conceal the
true size of its backlog seriously undermines the VA's
credibility, at least where the Philadelphia RO is concerned.
Although the mismanagement and data manipulation detailed
in the IG's report on Philadelphia is as bad as I have seen in
a long time, we cannot ignore the serious problems that have
been discovered at the Oakland Regional Office. It is
absolutely inexcusable that the Oakland RO ignored more than
13,000 informal claims, some dating from the mid 1990s.
This committee will continue its oversight to ensure that
the VA actually holds the Philadelphia and Oakland management
staff accountable for the abuses and mismanagement outlined in
these reports. VA's actions, not words, in these two cases will
demonstrate whether the department is serious about cleaning up
yet another mess.
Merely requiring staff to attend training sessions is not
enough and shuffling poor performing managers to other stations
as was done with Mr. Gary Hodge, the manager of the Pension
Management Center who was transferred to the central office
literally hours after the release of the IG report, is simply
the old VA way of papering over a problem.
Further, VA's response to my request for all Equal
Employment Opportunity and Merit System Protection Board files
from the Philadelphia RO is another example of VA's lack of
transparency and seeming attempt to hide the truth about
working conditions in Philadelphia.
I asked for the files on December 19th last year, four
months ago. I also requested this information when I met with
Secretary McDonald February 25th. In addition, I specifically
asked VA's general counsel for these files during a committee
hearing on the 16th of March. And my staff has repeatedly
followed up on my request with the VA over the last four
months.
Finally, after months of delay, on April 14, we received
some documents including a disposition log of MSPB cases that
the VA claimed was complete, but in actuality is incomplete.
Since Friday evening of last week, the VA has since turned over
some additional files, but has failed to deliver all of the
files that this committee has requested.
For example, the committee has received seven of 22 files
for MSPB claimants, although there are believed to be more than
22 individual employees who have filed claims since 2008. To
date, VA has failed to deliver any EEO files. These continued
delays are unacceptable and inexcusable.
If all requested records are not provided by week's end, I
intend to ask my colleagues to join me in subpoenaing the
documents.
With that, I would like to ask unanimous consent of the
committee that Representative Meehan and Representative LaMalfa
both be allowed to participate in today's hearing. With no
objection, so ordered.
I now yield to our distinguished ranking member for her
opening statement.
[The prepared Statement of Chairman Jeff Miller appears in
the Appendix]
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER CORRINE BROWN
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for holding this hearing today. I am looking forward to working
with you and all of the other members to help our Nation's
veterans.
I would like to recognize and thank Representative Barbara
Lee and Representative Matt Thompson and Representative Jackie
Speier for all of the work that they have done in keeping tabs
on the Oakland Regional Office and Representative Chaka Fattah
for the Philadelphia Regional Office.
I also would like to recognize a veteran, Mr. O. Bobby
Brown, who is currently serving by the Philadelphia Regional
Office, sitting here today.
Mr. Brown, would you just raise your hand? I want to thank
you for your service to our country.
We all agree that providing veterans timely and accurate
benefits is an important focus of this committee. I for one is
very concerned about the facts before us today.
Today we are hearing from the Department of Veterans
Affairs' Office of the Inspector General and numerous
whistleblowers that will highlight two broken regional offices.
Individuals, employees, and some supervisors who have alleged
to have engaged in shameful activities, which at the end of the
day will hurt veterans. I know that I and the VA leadership
will not tolerate such actions.
Today, I hope to hear VA's plans to fix the office and
assure accountability for management and mid-level management.
I also hope to hear from our witnesses on what needs to be done
to resolve the problem. Our job is not only to find problems,
it is to offer solutions.
The Office of Inspector General highlighted in its report
``serious issues involving mismanagement, and distrust of
Veterans Affairs' Regional Office management, effectiveness in
operating and service to the veterans.''
To me, these sound like local cultural issues and it sounds
like the Philadelphia and Oakland offices are due for a
leadership shakeup at all levels if these allegations are
proven to be true.
I hope to hear from VA as to how you are coming to, along
with the 38 Veterans Affairs' Office of the Inspector General
recommendations between these two regional offices.
With that said, I think it is important that we keep
today's hearing in content. We are focused on two broken VA
Regional Offices. While VA as a whole has dramatically
increased their timeliness and quality adjudicating of claims,
VA still seems to be on track to eliminate the backlog by the
end of this year. In fact, VA has reduced the backlog from
611,000 claims on March 2013 to 188,000 today.
We are not there yet, but I believe we are on the right
track. I don't want a few bad actors taking away the progress
that has been made across the country for our veterans.
I ask Representative Lee and Chaka Fattah to stay on top of
the concerns of veterans who are supported by the Oakland and
Philadelphia Regional Office. I spoke with Representative Lee
this morning and it was confirmed that Secretary McDonald is in
Oakland today as we speak in the Regional Office.
I know for a fact for years Representative Lee has gone to
the Appropriations Committee and requested additional funds for
the Oakland office. The problem in the Oakland office are not
new problems. It is a problem that they have experienced for
years with the backlog.
Again, I am looking forward to this hearing and with that,
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member, Corrine Brown
will appears in the Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Brown. I appreciate
your comments.
As customary with our committee, I would ask that all
members would waive their opening statements and they will be
placed in the appropriate position in the record should you
choose to do so.
I now acknowledge our first panel that is seated and yield
to Mr. Costello for a brief introduction of the witnesses who
are here from the Philadelphia RO.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the
opportunity to introduce the whistleblowers from the
Philadelphia Regional Office.
I am proud to introduce Ms. Kristen Ruell, Ms. Diana
Blender, and I would also like to recognize Mr. Ryan Cease who
could not be here today but has submitted a statement for the
record. Mr. Joseph Malizia is also here today as the president
of AFGE Local 940 at the Philadelphia VA to shed light on his
experiences.
I commend each of them for their bravery in coming forward
to tell Congress and the Nation of the misconduct and
mismanagement by employees and managers at the Philadelphia VA.
It is because of them that we are here today at this hearing to
fully understand the gravity of the situation in Philadelphia.
And I just want to emphasize that. It is because of them that
we are all here today.
It is now our duty in Congress to ensure that they are
protected from retaliation. I have been to the facility and
have heard firsthand of the wrongdoings and ongoing concerns at
the Philadelphia VA. The VA must provide an environment that is
free of fear in order to create an environment of transparency
and accountability.
In the end, all the wrongdoings done at the Philadelphia VA
will fall on the backs of our Nation's veterans, especially the
825,000 veterans served at this facility, including so many
veterans from my district in southeastern Pennsylvania.
I am grateful for Kristen, Joe, Diana, and Ryan for
exposing problems at the Philadelphia VA in order to protect
our veterans.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to introduce
them.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Costello.
I will now yield to Mr. LaMalfa for a brief introduction of
the witnesses who are here to speak about the Oakland RO.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very grateful to
be allowed to participate in today's committee. Very important
to northern California as well as the picture across the whole
country.
I am also very grateful and pleased that our witness and I
am able to introduce Ms. Rustyann Brown who has joined us
today. She is a veteran, a ten-year veteran of the U.S. Navy
and was employed at the Oakland VA Regional Office for five
years. She worked on the informal project team that was tasked
with sorting through the up to that point missing 13,184 claims
that were discovered in a file cabinet at the Oakland VA.
Rusty contacted my office in 2013 when she realized her
supervisor was not appropriately handling these claims. She has
a very compelling story to tell and I am pleased she is able to
be here, especially with the difficulty it is to travel from
the West Coast here.
And so thank you for joining us today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. LaMalfa. I want to
thank both you and Mr. Costello for your tenacity on this
particular issue.
And I would ask the witnesses, if you would, to please
stand. We are going to swear the witnesses in today. Please
stand and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
The Chairman. Thank you. Please be seated.
We do appreciate your attendance today. Your complete
written statements will be entered into the hearing record.
Ms. Ruell, it is great to see you again before the
committee. You are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF KRISTEN RUELL
Ms. Ruell. Thank you.
My name is Kristen Ruell. I am an authorization quality
review specialist at the Philadelphia Regional Office. My
primary job duty includes performing quality reviews on the
accuracy of benefit payments paid out from the VA to its
beneficiaries.
This August will mark my eighth year of employment with the
Philadelphia Regional Office at the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs. The agency has potential to be the greatest
place to work in the entire country. The feeling of being able
to give back to the American citizens that served our country
is truly satisfying.
Earlier this month, the Office of Inspector General's
report on the Philadelphia Regional Office was released. The
report confirms what whistleblowers have alleged for years,
that the managers at the Philadelphia Regional Office lack the
ability to appropriately govern and oversee the wide range of
benefits and services for which it is responsible.
To date, the VA has failed to hold any management official
accountable for the many deficiencies cited in the report. The
VA has stated that 95 percent of the problems cited in the
report have been fixed. I strongly disagree for the following
reasons.
Number one, the Philadelphia Regional Office has a large
number of EEO complaints against various members of management.
A large amount of taxpayer monies have been spent on
administrative costs, attorneys' fees, and settlements. For
every case settled, a new one is filed.
Without removing the officials making the bad decisions,
the number of claims filed will not decline. When the evidence
clearly indicates that the same decision makers are not making
the right decisions, they should no longer be in decision-
making positions.
Number two, I have personally reported erroneous and
duplicate payments since 2010. In 2012, I reported the
erroneous payments to the IRS, Department of Justice, OIG, OSC,
and the VA secretary. The duplicate payment problem has never
been fixed. Unless the computer is programmed to prevent a
duplicate payment, they will continue to occur.
The VA has stated that they have no way to identify and
prevent duplicate payments aside from a duplicate payment
report which Philadelphia Regional Office employees admitted
they were unaware the reports existed. Stopping an award that
is paying twice is not correcting the underlying problem which
is wasting millions of taxpayer dollars.
The VA also did not keep a list of people that were paid
duplicate awards and many were sent letters in which the
erroneous award was stopped without processing and noting the
overpayment. Creating a ledger of overpayments at this point
would be virtually impossible due to the lack of recordkeeping
regarding these payments.
Number three, although Fast Letter 13-10 was rescinded,
there is evidence that data manipulation continues. The data
manipulation will continue until the performance standards are
amended. The current standards are unreasonable and cause an
employee to do things to save their job that in turn can harm
the veteran. It's not fair to place an employee in that
situation. It's even less fair to the veteran whose claim may
be affected.
Fourth, an Administrative Investigative Board has been
charged with making a determination on certain issues regarding
the misapplication of Fast Letter 13-10 which pertains to dates
assigned to claims filed by veterans and their survivors. The
Administrative Investigative Board consists of VA employees who
determine whether there is intentional wrongdoing.
The OIG just finished their investigation on this issue. It
is confusing to me why the OIG suggested an AIB rather than an
outside investigation. An outside agency should be assigned to
eliminate bias.
Philadelphia Regional Office Director Diana Rubens used to
be in charge of 57 field offices and most likely knows most
management officials chosen to investigate on behalf of her
regional office. The VA should not be trusted to investigate
itself until it proves it's complying with VA core values.
Number five, employees are expecting management to be held
accountable for the deficiencies cited in the recent OIG report
regarding the Philadelphia Regional Office. The typical VA
solution for most every problem is training, committees,
meetings which do not fix managers who lack morals and
integrity.
The Philadelphia Regional Office needs new leadership.
Employees have lost trust in their managers and do not trust
the broken chain of command. I have lost trust in VA management
at all levels. I stopped sending emails to the VA Central
Office because I was informed that my and other employees'
emails were being rerouted to the regional office and were in
the hands of the people we reported.
The only way to rebuild trust at the Philadelphia Regional
Office is to hold those accountable that were responsible for
the many issues cited in the OIG report. Congress and the
American people need whistleblowers so they are informed as to
what happens inside the walls of federal agencies. Without
accountability in my office and at the VA, there will be far
fewer whistleblowers, if any.
Thank you for the invitation to be part of this hearing
today. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have
regarding my experiences at the Philadelphia office.
[The prepared statement of Kristen Ruell appears in the
Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Malizia, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH MALIZIA
Mr. Malizia. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Brown, and
members of the committee, for allowing me to address the
continuing problems at the Philadelphia Regional Office.
I am a 37-year employee of the Philly Regional--VA Regional
Office and have been the president of AFGE Local 940 for the
past 16 years.
I concur with Ms. Ruell's statement. AFGE Local 940
represents front-line employees who work on claims related to
disability and pension in the Philly and Wilmington regional
offices. A negative cloud has been hanging over all of the
front-line employees for the past nine months which is causing
everyone to feel so demoralized.
These are hard-working, dedicated employees. It has been
hard for them to function under the hostile work environment
that has been created by the combined management of Director
Diana Rubens, Assistant Director Lucy Filipov, Pension Center
manager Gary Hodge, Veteran Service Center manager Jeanne Paul,
and Human Resources Chief Lina Giampa.
Director Rubens is fairly new to the Philadelphia RO, but
clearly not new to VA. And she, therefore, should have been
well aware of the problems that existed in the Philadelphia
Regional Office. At first, I was very hopeful about working
with Ms. Rubens, but regrettably for the employees of the
Philly RO after Ms. Rubens arrived, things actually got worse.
For example, she did not properly handle a complaint raised
by the union about a hostile work environment in the Pension
Management Center training class. Even though Director Rubens
told me she would authorize an investigation outside of the PMC
and possibly even outside of the regional office, all she ended
up doing was reneging on her word and ordering a sham
investigation.
It appears that Director Rubens' management philosophy is
deny, cover up, and repeat. Given all the negative publicity
about the Philadelphia RO, I would have thought that Director
Rubens would have changed her behavior, but we have not seen
that and, in fact, she has told employees that morale is their
responsibility, not management's.
Last week, AFGE Local president and doctor, Maryann Hooker,
testified here before your committee and spoke about
psychological safety and workplace bullying. The very--these
very same practices are--are causing systemic problems in the
Philadelphia Regional Office and I would say throughout VBA,
that they are covertly used to retaliate against employees who
have the courage to speak up about problems or to question
practices.
Another serious problem in the Philadelphia RO which Ms.
Ruell spoke to is the manner in which reasonable accommodation
requests for employees with disabilities and equal opportunity
employee--employment complaints are handled. Many of these
cases involve veteran employees who--who have a service-
connected disability. VA's stalling tactics in handling these
cases cause unnecessary stress on employees, waste hundreds of
thousands of dollars through lost production, settlements, and
judgments.
Many employees also feel that Ms. Rubens' reimbursement for
relocation expenses is another example of special treatment.
Please don't be fooled by the rhetoric that VA management will
present today. They are playing the proverbial street hustler's
shell game, moving and manipulating data to distract you from
the real problems.
Don't let them make the employees the scapegoat for their
mismanagement. Employees are not the problem. It is my hope
that justice will be served and that this committee can help
stop this culture of deny, cover up, and repeat. The only way
the VA can restore its integrity is to remove the management
staff at the Philadelphia Regional Office.
AFGE is a valuable resource in VA that is drastically
underused. AFGE is ready, willing, and able to work with this
committee and the VA to restore the integrity of VA and,
therefore, the faith that the citizens of our country have in
the VA.
And like Ms. Ruell, I'm willing to answer any questions
that you have later and based on my testimony. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Joseph Malizia appears in the
Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Ms. Blender, you are recognized for five minutes. And if
you could, pull your microphone a little bit closer. There you
go.
STATEMENT OF DIANA BLENDER
Ms. Blender. Can you hear me?
The Chairman. Yes.
Ms. Blender. Okay. My name is Diana Blender. My story is
one of harassment, belittlement, discrimination that occurred
to me when I attempted to blow the whistle. Sadly for me when I
unearthed the true happenings in this department--it's not the
department I'm in now--I was sent on a daily journey of abuse,
mental cruelty, emotional torture, and undeserved corrective
job actions.
When I first came to triage, we had a manager that was
extremely knowledgeable. He knew what he was doing and it was
great to work for him because if we worked hard, he told us
that. And most of us were new, had to be trained, and it wasn't
easy.
Unfortunately, he--I'm not sticking to this because it's
the only way I can talk. Unfortunately, they got rid of him.
When I say got rid of him, they got rid of him. You know, when
all this started, I had no idea. I thought he was transferred.
But after a couple of years, I realized that this is what
management does. They discredit you and get rid of you because
maybe they want somebody else who's a friend in there.
Anyway, he was gone. We had somebody new who knew nothing
of what we were doing. I have my thoughts about that. She
didn't belong there, but she was there. Because she knew
nothing, she hid in her office a lot and she left it to the
people that were on the floor that knew what they were doing
supposedly.
They began to manipulate the mail. And I said to one of my
co-workers, wow, they're really fast at what they do. And--and
she said are you crazy? And I said why, what's up? What am I
missing? And she said they come in at five in the morning and
they take all the easy claims and leave the hard ones for us.
So, of course, we can't get our numbers.
So I said time to get in early. I came in one morning at
five o'clock in the morning and caught them. And I said what
are you two guys doing? And they had no answer. I said that's
mail manipulation. They said, well, we'll give you some easy
work today and they gave me the easy work. They followed
through.
And the next day, I went to my immediate supervisor. Later
on to find out that he was in cahoots with them. And so there
it began. They tore my work apart. Prior to that, I was--I was
a wonderful employee. I was doing my best to do a good job.
When I got the job for the VA, I was so proud of myself
because I came from a family of veterans and said, wow, if my
mother and father were alive today. My father was a POW. My two
brother-in-laws were Vietnam War veterans. We were tap dancing
in VA hospitals when I was maybe three or four years old
because my father who was a POW says it's the holiday, we've
got to go take care of the boys.
I was proud to be there, but I soon found out it was a
horrible place. Some of the things they did to me when I became
a whistleblower came to an end because this new woman came in
and I told her if this continues, I'm going to set myself on
fire out front so people know what's going on here.
So she started to work with me. They gave me
congressionals. Congressionals are very important. More and
more people were going to their congressmen because we couldn't
handle their work. At one point when I was doing
congressionals, they had 28,000 pieces of mail in shopping
carts that was unopened.
I kept saying to my supervisor can I go through that mail
and look for the congressionals. She said, no, it's not
allowed. I said you can see it right on the envelope who it's
from.
Anyway, one day when I had a day off, I came back. All that
mail was gone and I was getting phone calls. What do we got
congressionals for? I said to her call all the supervisors, the
coaches, get the congressionals back in here. You gave away all
that mail and it's filled with congressionals. And I'm going to
take the blame.
Long story short, they killed the messenger, took me off
congressionals, and I became a victim again. That's as quick as
I can say it. I really need a half hour, but that's fine with
me. When I was victimized, they would drop heavy things in back
of me and I'd say, you know, I'm 68 years old at that time. I'm
going to be 73 now. I said, you know, you could have given me a
heart attack.
They would file charges against you for murder. And he
said--I was crying because I had it up to here. Things were
missing from my desk. I couldn't go to the ladies room without
throwing everything in a cart and taking it with me. They
thought it was a big joke, but I was being victimized like no
woman should be.
And I'll tell you the truth. When my kids saw some of
this--I never told my children what was going on because I
didn't want them to be upset--they were extremely upset that
their mother was treated this way.
When all this was coming down--you can tell I'm emotional--
I was in the hall one day and I ran into the two directors. And
I said how do you feel about all this stuff that's on
television now? And nobody answered me. I said I'd like an
answer. Well, this could make us go forward and do a better
job. I said, yes, but you can't do that until you clean up the
past.
There's a lot of victims. All--I was the only one of the
seniors that survived. That mail manipulation taking the easy
work for themselves and giving the hard work to people like me,
I named it setting you up for failure. They made sure you got
all the new claims because they take longer to develop. They
made sure you got that hard work so you couldn't make it.
And as much as I begged them to stay--we got to fight I
would say. We got to fight. This is not right. This is not the
first government agency I worked in. I worked in the Department
of the Army where they developed ammunition. I worked for
Social Security. Whenever you worked hard, you were
appreciated. Some more than others, but I never knew that it
was management that was instigating for people they didn't want
there.
And I also found out two days before my--my--what do you
call that--arbitration, because I was filing all these things,
somebody came at night and she said to me don't you realize
what you're up against? And I said what are you talking about?
Now, this woman used to be my supervisor and she had said
to me--I told her when she came--she said something to me
negative. I said you know what, I'm not your problem in this
place. They already have you marked. Their words are they're
going to get rid of you. Worry about yourself.
[The prepared statement of Diana Blender appears in the
Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Blender. I apologize, but we
need to----
Ms. Blender. That's okay.
The Chairman [continuing]. Go to our fourth witness. Ms.
Brown, you are recognized for five minutes. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF RUSTYANN BROWN
Ms. Brown. Good morning, committee members. I'm Rustyann
Brown. I'm a retired federal employee who served ten years in
the Navy as a hospital corpsman and then years later continued
my federal service at the Veterans Benefit Administration
Regional Office Oakland.
I quickly realized that we were being instructed to do
things that were not in the best interest of the veteran, but
instead good for the employee and management numbers. It
started with returned mail piling up in huge tubs and no one
assigned to research and locate current addresses.
Letters regarding claims issues that were sent to veterans
always included the 800 number and we were never allowed to
give out our personal numbers. Elderly and terminal veterans'
claims would not be moved or acted upon. Just no sense of
urgency for them.
I began to voice my opinion to my supervisors and other
employees because we were not doing the right thing. This was a
regular visit to my supervisor's office. Sometimes as I
approached, I could see him roll his eyes at me and then
dismiss me with just do what you're told to do.
Then one day, this supervisor brought me into his office
and told me that per the director, I could no longer do
volunteer work with the Oakland Vet Center. I had been
volunteering to help veterans understand the forms and which
ones were needed for their situations. When I asked why I was
being restricted, I was simply told the director believed it
was a conflict of interest.
In July 2012, I was promoted to veteran service
representative and sent to San Diego for what should have been
eight weeks of training. Instead, after only three weeks, my
training group of five was brought back and placed on a special
project, informal project. We were never given an answer as to
why we were doing this work that was part of our--our previous
role and why we were not allowed to fulfill the remainder of
our training requirements.
This project consisted of 13,184 informal claims which had
never been reviewed. We realized that a substantial portion of
these veterans were now dead and their claims had never been
answered. Nothing had been done to help them. If we determined
they were dead or had never filed a formal claim, we were
instructed to mark them NAN, ``no action necessary'', our
initials, the date, and set aside.
We began to ask management why nothing was being done to
take care of these claims as required by policy and also why
their criteria for screening these claims was not the normal
screening practices.
I would go home on a daily basis telling my husband of the
heart-wrenching letters I had read that day and how many--so
many of these veterans and dependents were now dead before
anyone had even looked at the claim. Even among the ones still
living, it had been years, sometimes more than 10 or 12 since
they made the request.
After several months of screening these claims, we were
taken off the project and relocated to a different team. Our
team continued to do other special projects for our previous
department, IPC, and we were also finally given claims to begin
developing in our new position. This was new work for which the
San Diego training was supposed to prepare us.
I began to see military sexual trauma claims show up in my
work assignments. These claims are supposed to be developed by
the special OPS team because of the sensitive nature of the
claim. But when I would take the claim to my mentor or
supervisor and tell them what I had, that it needed to be moved
to special OPS, I was told to just do the next action and move
it on.
This was a huge problem for me as I am a survivor of
military sexual trauma and service-connected for PTSD due to
this. For me, simply reading the statements would bring back
all the memories I had tried for years to forget. I would spend
time in the restroom crying or hiding in a stairwell so no one
could see me and the physical reaction I would have to these
claims.
A reasonable accommodation request was initiated in May
2013 to remove MST and certain other PTSD claims from my claim
files I reviewed, those that provoked my PTSD symptoms. Under
the VA's rules, I should have had--I should have received a
response within 30 days, yet I did not even receive a request
for additional medical documentation for over 60 days and did
not receive a final determination for five months.
During this time, I continued to review files and my own
PTSD reactions intensified in part because of the fears I would
have to review these files. I took FMLA in September to remove
myself from the situation. While I was on leave on October the
30th, 2013, five months after the request was initiated, I
received a letter from the regional office denying my request
without good justification.
During this entire time, no one at the agency had engaged
in the required interactive process with me as a disabled
employee. No one asked me about the details of which files I
could review and they believed with a simple accommodation.
Thus, they never learned that it was a smaller group of files
than they believed with a simple accommodation which would
allow me to continue as a veteran service representative.
With my accommodation denied and in order to maintain my
employment and protect my retirement, I agreed to take a
downgrade in pay and status and was sent back to IPC.
In April 2014, a cart showed up in my work area and when I
looked at the cart, it was some of the informal claims from
2012. I saw my initials on the very first page. I didn't
understand why they were still hanging around. I took a picture
of the cart and I forwarded it to Congressman LaMalfa.
Two other employees and I hand carried approximately 120 to
140 claims to the OIG office in the building per Congressman
LaMalfa's instructions, all of which required actions.
OIG came in and took 16 days to do an investigation in
June, July 2014. After months of being referred to as snitch
and NARC by other employees and being isolated within my
department, I put in for early retirement.
From that day, I have fought to get the word out regarding
these claims and the veterans who were ignored. So many of
these veterans had letters or personal notes attached and
begging for help. And we, the VBA Oakland, did nothing.
I do not have general or CEO on my resume, but I know what
was done to these veterans was not right. I will carry those
memories of those letters for the rest of my life. And I ask
the committee to do everything in their power to do the right
thing for these veterans, their families, and the employees
that truly want to do the right thing without fear of
retaliation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Rustyann Brown appears in the
Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Brown.
Thank you to all the witnesses on our first panel. I will
start the questioning.
And, Ms. Brown, if I could just go directly back to you. In
your written statement, you talked about 2012, you were placed
on a special team that processed more than 13,000 previously
unprocessed informal claims that had been allowed to languish
at the Oakland office for as long as 20 years; is that correct?
Ms. Brown. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Moreover, you described a process by which
you were instructed to mark a claim with the notation no action
necessary if the veteran were dead or had never filed a formal
claim.
So I think the committee needs to know; were the
instructions that you received consistent with normal practice
in processing informal claims, and what survivor benefits would
be lost by marking a claim ``no action necessary?''
Ms. Brown. Well, first of all, if--if the claims were not
done appropriately--if--if--say the veteran was dead and we
marked it no action necessary, they'd put it aside. Data
integrity was not--it was not taken care of properly. So
information about the veteran was not put into the system. So
if the widow ever came in to file a claim for DIC, there's
nothing there. There's no information about her husband
previously putting in the system. Okay. You have to excuse me.
I'm----
The Chairman. That is okay. That is fine. Do you know what
happened to the informal claims----
Ms. Brown. We----
The Chairman [continuing]. After you were reassigned?
Ms. Brown. We were told that another team was going to come
in behind us and finish them all and yet on a daily basis we
were seeing piles of them set aside, the ones that said no
action necessary.
Now, you have to understand even though they were marked no
action necessary, there was still action that was necessary. If
they had not filed a formal claim, it was our obligation to
send a letter to that veteran telling them exactly what they
did need to do to fix that claim and make it a formal claim. We
didn't do that. We didn't do anything.
If they--once again, if they already passed away, it was
our obligation to contact that family. We should have. We
didn't.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Malizia, since Ms. Rubens came to Philadelphia to
become the RO Director, have you ever heard her state that she
wanted to work at the Philadelphia RO for a long time prior to
when her transfer took place?
Mr. Malizia. Well, there was discussion and--and rumored
information being spread throughout VBA that Ms. Rubens was
destined to be the director at Philadelphia two years prior.
That was ultimately filled by Robert McKendrick.
So getting back to Philadelphia was something that was
rumored to have been something she was interested in. And then
once she actually came to Philadelphia, she had made statements
that she's glad she's here. She's been wanting to get here for
a while.
The Chairman. Ms. Ruell, in your written testimony, you
described a systemic failure which has led to erroneous and
duplicate payments which has resulted in veterans and their
families receiving improper payments. In fact, you state that
you reported some of these payments to the IRS, to OIG, OSC,
and to the secretary in the central office.
And my question is, has the VA effectively corrected the
system error which allows for duplicate payments to ensure that
veterans and their families are receiving only the payments
that they are entitled to receive?
Ms. Ruell. Apparently not. The VA when they went from
VETSNET to VBMS, there are statements on the record that the VA
has known about this problem for a very long time. When they
created a new computer system, that allows for duplicates as
well. So to my knowledge, the system has never been fixed. I
saw one just the other day at work.
The Chairman. Ms. Ruell, you know the assistant director,
Lucy Filipov, correct?
Ms. Ruell. Yes.
The Chairman. Are you aware that there was a dinner party
hosted in June of 2014 for RO employees including the PMC
manager, Gary Hodge, and his wife and Ms. Filipov and Mr. Hodge
are both GS-15 level managers? But allegedly many of the
employees at the party were GS-13s, 14s, and I think there were
some GS-9s.
But I understand Ms. Hodge is a medium and offered her
services to attend these to share messages she received from
their deceased loved ones. And I understand that she may have
charged people as much as $30 to have their deceased loved ones
contacted. Have you heard these reports?
Ms. Ruell. I have heard all about that party. I was not
invited to that party, but I heard from people that were not
invited to the party either and they did tell me that they were
in meetings and there was talk about the party and that they
had to pay $30 for Mr. Hodge's wife to give them a fortune
telling experience.
The Chairman. Do you know if any of the attendees fell
within either Ms. Filipov or Mr. Hodge's chain of command?
Ms. Ruell. Definitely. Most of--most all of them did. A lot
of the people that went to the party, to my knowledge, from
what I've heard around the office, they were Pension Center
employees that were under Gary Hodge and ultimately under Lucy
Filipov. She's one of his bosses.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown of Florida. I am going last.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Kuster.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you. I want to particularly thank the
whistleblowers who are with us today and, Ms. Brown, thank you
for sharing your story which probably only exacerbates your
feelings about your experience. So I just want you to know that
we certainly care and appreciate you coming forward.
I am trying to get at where we go from here, how we can
change the culture at either Philadelphia or Oakland. And I
know there have been attempts.
One of the issues I am particularly concerned about is how
the data manipulation--and let's start with you, Ms. Ruell. You
mentioned that there is data manipulation because of the way
performance criteria are kept.
Can you just expound on that and what type of changes would
be required in the criteria, in the performance criteria that
would help to get the job done for our veterans to make sure
that their applications are processed in a timely way?
Ms. Ruell. Yes. Most employees, especially anyone who does
production work, VSRs, people who review, those are people who
process claims and the people who review the claims are on
production. There's some--I don't know how the production
system was set up, but every claim gets--gets points associated
with it.
So it's very hard to, when you look at a claim, to know how
long that claim is going to take. A lot of things are
electronic. Some folders are in other offices. You get the same
amount of points to, for instance, do someone--someone whose
claim has passed as you do to do a live vet that has different
issues that you'll need to get information for.
So people will cherry pick the work. They are worried that
they won't get their points. It's kind of like a batting
average. So if you need 16 points today and you only get 14,
you have to get 18 tomorrow. So--and if you don't get your
points, they put you on a performance improvement plan which is
exactly the opposite of what it's called. It's not to improve
your performance.
Usually when you go on one of those, the next step is out
the door. So people get very worried that they're going to get
fired and they do things that they probably wouldn't normally
do if this point system was not there.
Ms. Kuster. So can you give examples of how they would
handle a claim?
Ms. Ruell. There's all kinds of things. They could failure
to prosecute it if we needed a piece of evidence and say that
we didn't get it when it might be sitting in the mail room and
not scanned in for a few days. They can skip over cases.
They--there's a way that employees can run reports called
VOR reports and they can pick out all the end products of the--
for the claimants that have passed away. And so if you need
points, usually if you do one of those, that's a very fast
claim.
So it's--in my opinion, most of the problems are results of
horrible managers and this production system that you can set
an employee up to fail.
Ms. Kuster. Okay. That is very helpful. Thank you.
Any of the others? Ms. Brown, do you have a similar
situation out in Oakland with the way those points are kept and
the way the production criteria are applied to employees'
performance?
Ms. Brown. Absolutely.
Ms. Kuster. Could you give us some examples?
Ms. Brown. Well, in--just in--in bringing and screening
claims and--and getting them initiated, once again, you're
talking about addresses and checking addresses and--and whether
the vet was even still alive or just simple things, connecting
the mail to pieces, you know. It was a constant--an employee
was always worried about making their points. If they didn't
make their points like Kristen said, you were setting yourself
up for failure and you were--you were halfway out the door
already.
So if you try to do the right thing and slow down and do it
right by the veteran, you were getting yourself in trouble. And
that was every day. All the employees talked about this and it
was a huge problem, huge.
Ms. Kuster. Well, we appreciate you bringing this forward
to us today. And, you know, we are one of the more bipartisan
committees on Capitol Hill. We share your outrage and concern
and this is something that we will take up with the next panel
and take right up to the top of the VA. So thank you again for
coming.
And I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Kuster.
Dr. Roe, you are recognized.
Dr. Roe. Thank you.
I want to just start by thanking all the witnesses for
being here. And there seems to be an ethical bankruptcy at the
VA in some instances. And I want to start by, it is sort of
hitting me because of what I did this weekend.
This $309,098, Mr. Chairman, to move. Well, I went this
weekend and moved my 92-year-old mother with my two sons
because I was spending my own money and we moved 55 years of
being in a house with a $350 U-Haul-it and about 80 bucks worth
of gas. And we moved her, all her belongings for less than
$500. That was a lot of sweat equity on my part and my two sons
and we moved 350 miles, I might add, and we didn't spend
$309,000 of the taxpayers' money that could have been spent on
healthcare for veterans.
And we see this at the VA and Aurora and Orlando and over
and over again. And I am about sick of it to see the money that
is being wasted that could go to veterans' healthcare.
Ms. Brown, you brought up a point that really hit home to
me. I don't see how in the world as an employee of the Veterans
Administration you could sit there and see these claims piled
up, basket loads of letters, because I hear it all the time
when I go home, `I haven't heard from the VA, Dr. Roe.' And I
start looking into it. I don't know why.
And then I hear what you just said when you have no action
necessary. And these are little details that we don't know
because you are the experts on that, that there might be a
spouse out there that missed out on something that could keep
her or him above water. These are not rich people and they are
folks I see that are just getting by barely. And it may be
their service to this Nation that allows them to do that.
Am I correct in that? Are there bins of letters that have
been sent in and a person has a reasonable expectation to hear
back from their government in a reasonable length of time?
Could you just walk me through that again because it really lit
me up when I heard that because I get these phone calls all the
time at home?
Ms. Brown. Well, regarding the 13,000, these were in a--in
a cabinet that had been stored for years and very organized.
And when we got put on the project to review them, we began to
realize the very first ones especially that were the older
ones--the oldest one I saw was 1996 personally. We reviewed
them. They had not been acted upon. They had not had any
letters sent. They had not had anything.
And--and the one that I think probably tore me up the most
was a elderly woman and she's writing in about the wonderful
service her husband did during World War II. And--and he loved
his country and he just knew when he passed that the VA was
going to take care of her. Baby, don't worry, they're going to
take care of you.
She was dead six years by the time we read that letter.
She'd been gone and we didn't do anything for her. And I can't
tell you how many there were like that. There were a lot like
that. And to mark on a piece of paper NAN, no action necessary,
restricts that surviving spouse from receiving any benefits.
Dr. Roe. That is what I hear and especially what you just
said. I get calls not infrequently of a veteran who has cancer.
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Dr. Roe. And, you know, as a physician, I can't tell you
how long, whether it is three months or five months or
whatever. It is unpredictable. But I do know it is going to be
fairly soon. It is not going to be three years. I do know that,
that this veteran may not survive. And it is critical that we
get those claims adjudicated before that length of time.
And what I am hearing from you is that many of those were
put over in the bin. And I hear, well, the veterans are saying,
well, maybe they are just waiting for me to die so they don't
have to do anything. And maybe that is the case it sounds like
at least in Oakland.
Ms. Brown. Well, a lot of the older vets that I've talked
to doing volunteer work simply believe, especially the World
War II and the Korean and Vietnam guys, they--they believe that
there's somebody out there that must need it more than them.
There must be a--there must be a reason why I didn't get this.
There must be a reason. I must have been denied because this
guy was more deserving than I was.
So they just don't follow through. They think that they
were just denied, just dropped off, you know.
Dr. Roe. But has this changed at Oakland?
Ms. Brown. Well, I retired in September. I've kept pretty
close communications with people there, very close
communications. And it doesn't appear that anything has really
changed a whole lot.
There's not a lot of mail hanging around anymore, but
basically all they've done is scoop it up, sent it to the scan
center, and dump it off. So it's in a virtual folder someplace
and unless you work that specific veteran's claim, you won't
know about that piece of paper.
Dr. Roe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Rice, you are recognized.
Ms Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So if I could just ask all of you if you could again, and
forgive me if I didn't get these dates down correctly, but for
each of your individual testimony and the behavior that you
described, when did that first start? When was that first
something that you noticed for each of you in terms of like a
time frame, a year?
Ms. Ruell. I noticed bad behaviors from the first day I
started working there in orientation when they told us that if
we accepted this job and it was in paper, in writing that we
would get a GS level of a 7, a 9, and then an 11. And in
orientation, they came into the room and they said, oh, I'm
sorry, there's--and people moved here in reliance on this paper
and they said we're sorry, there's a mistake. You're not going
to get a GS-11. You have to get a GS-10 first.
So I said, oh, that--that's strange, let me look--let me
check into this. So I asked a few questions and I was told to
my face I wouldn't pursue that. It's your first year here and
you're on probation for the first year. And if you cause a
problem, they'll fire you. And I had just relocated here from
Maryland, but I----
Ms Rice. What year was that?
Ms. Ruell. 2007.
Ms Rice. And you started working----
Ms. Ruell. 2007.
Ms Rice. That was for the VA? That was your first----
Ms. Ruell. The VA was my first experience and that was----
Ms Rice. That is 2007?
Ms. Ruell. Yes, and----
Ms Rice. And, Mr. Malizia, how about you?
Mr. Malizia. The problem is--is an ongoing one. I don't
know that I can kind of put a start date on it, but these
problems that the OIG is investigating, that the committee has
been investigating, that's been ongoing for about the past two
to three years.
Ms Rice. For you, about the past two or three years?
Mr. Malizia. Yes.
Ms Rice. And, Ms. Blender, how about you?
Ms. Blender. You know, I started in--I think it was 2008.
Ms Rice. 2008.
Ms. Blender. And almost immediately----
Ms Rice. Okay.
Ms. Blender [continuing]. I noticed----
Ms Rice. What you----
Ms. Blender [continuing]. Mail all over the place. And the
new mail was 28,000 pieces because they used to take the count
every day.
Ms Rice. Yes.
Ms. Blender. And I was sitting near there, so I would hear
them. But there might have been double that or more on return
mail.
Ms Rice. Yes.
Ms. Blender. And when you say return mail, there's a thing
called EVRs when you are making sure that the veteran still has
monetarily an entitlement. These never got opened and how many
people did we cut off because if you don't respond within a
certain time----
Ms Rice. And you are out of luck.
Ms. Blender [continuing]. You're not responding----
Ms Rice. You are out of luck.
Ms. Blender [continuing]. Boom----
Ms Rice. Right.
Ms. Blender [continuing]. You're gone.
Ms Rice. Ms. Brown, how about you?
Ms. Brown. Immediately.
Ms Rice. But what time frame? Give me a year.
Ms. Brown. Well, this was in September of 2009.
Ms Rice. 2009.
Ms. Brown. Was hired, yes.
Ms Rice. Now, for all four of you, I am going to ask just
the two same questions. Did you ever get a sense during the
time period that you talk about, the 2007, 2008, 2009, and Mr.
Malizia over the last couple of years, that when there was a
change at the top, a different secretary of the VA or a change
in maybe the management structure that oversaw you directly,
did you ever get a sense that there was a change in attitude,
behavior, or culture?
Ms. Ruell. Never, because the people promoted would never
have been somebody that would change things.
Ms Rice. Okay. Mr. Malizia, how about you?
Mr. Malizia. What I would like to add to that is that when
Secretary Shinseki was the VA secretary and he implemented the
125-day processing time frame, I think that was a big trigger
for a lot of these actions because that was a very ambitious
goal to get to and in my opinion very un--and many others, very
unrealistic.
And I think that's been the driving force behind a lot of
activities in VA, the implementation, the need for mandatory
overtime, the need for all these other things and--and the
pressures that everybody is feeling. To me, I think that was--
that was one of the key triggers.
Ms Rice. Okay.
Mr. Malizia. And it's still in effect now and it's still
driving, you know, the--the problems in VA now.
Ms Rice. My time is running very short, so I just have one
final question. Have any of you ever seen an instance where a
retaliator was held accountable, yes or no?
Ms. Ruell. Never.
Mr. Malizia. No.
Ms. Brown. No.
Ms Rice. Okay. Thank you all so much for coming here today.
And I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. [presiding]. Thank you.
Dr. Benishek, you are recognized for five minutes.
Dr. Benishek. Thank you.
Ms. Ruell, one of the things that you testified to or I
heard about is this episode of a possible suicide of an
employee due to harassment.
Could you tell me, do you know anything about this, the
harassment and undue stress that you witnessed that may have
resulted in a suicide?
Ms. Ruell. Yes. I honestly don't know his final cause of
death. I asked a bunch of times and was told that I would not
be allowed to find that out. However, I was the mentor for that
employee. I worked closely with him for about three months.
This man was such a hard worker and was in fear of being
fired every single day. I became his personal psychiatrist at
times to try and pump him up to remind him that, come on, you
got to learn this job. You can't worry about this. We have to--
we have to help veterans. We need to--we need to get you to
learn this job the best way you could.
He would spend lunches trying to learn the job even better.
And there was a threat and intimidation in our building. From
the beginning, they warn you if you don't get these points,
then you're not going to make it. This job might not be for
you.
This man had moved here from Maryland. He relocated for
this job and he left his whole entire life to come work here.
So I felt as his mentor if--if he doesn't make it, I in part
might have failed him. So I got to know him very well and found
out that right before Christmas he was dead.
Dr. Benishek. All right.
Ms. Ruell. And I know that stress contributed to whatever
happened to him.
Dr. Benishek. All right. Thanks.
Ms. Blender, in your written testimony, you described a
situation involving 28,000 pieces of mail. How did this
accumulate over a period of time without being processed? Do
you know how that happened?
Ms. Blender. We couldn't get to it. The department I was in
was called triage. That name triage sounds like an emergency.
That's the first stuff coming in. If we can't handle these
important responses from the vets, if we can't get them right
to where they have to go, it's done.
Dr. Benishek. Right, right.
Ms. Blender. If--if--if--as--as a VSR, if somebody is
waiting for your--for your DD214 and it's sitting in a mail bin
for three or four months, well, they're going to close the
claim.
Dr. Benishek. Right.
Ms. Blender. We could not handle the amount of work that
was coming in in the mail.
Dr. Benishek. Were those ever resolved or are they still
sitting somewhere?
Ms. Blender. When everything was gone--the day I came back
to work, everything was gone. My phone was ringing. I was
worried about the congressionals. And I said where's the work?
They said, oh, it's all over the building. I said, all over the
building? What about the congressionals?
Anyway, by sending this work all over the building, they
had little team things that you could win. So for--if you--if
you developed a certain amount of claims a day as a VSR, that
team would get maybe, I don't know what, a Dunkin Donuts card
or what. And I followed it and you know how much it came to,
13,000 pieces of mail was done in that. What happened to the
other mail? Where is it?
Dr. Benishek. Yes, I don't know either.
Let me ask a question about these managers that have been
doing this. Was anybody ever punished? Did you ever see anybody
change? In Philadelphia, did anybody ever lose their job over
any of this, any one of you?
Ms. Blender. Recently somebody was transferred out.
Dr. Benishek. Transferred out?
Ms. Blender. Of our building.
Dr. Benishek. Ms. Brown, are you aware of anything in
Oakland that somebody lost their job over----
Ms. Brown. Not that I'm aware of.
Dr. Benishek [continuing]. This mismanagement?
Ms. Brown. Not at all. We had heard one supervisor had been
suspended for a couple of weeks, but he came back and said he
was on vacation, so don't know whether that was true.
Dr. Benishek. One more question. Ms. Ruell, about these
double payments, you talked about these duplicative payments to
some veterans, did they resolve this problem of how this
occurs, these duplicate payments? Has there been a systemic
change in the way they do business then to find these claims?
Ms. Ruell. No, there's no change. I mean, the VA will tell
you to fix them because they probably got a list from the
inspector general or one of my many lists I sent them that
these are paying twice or these are--have multiple PID numbers
and could pay twice.
So the way that it works is if we put your name in, your
name is Al Bundy and we spell your name A-L-B-U-N-D-Y and then
you come in again and we misspell your name with two LS, A-L-L
Bundy, you could get two--two payments. So the problem is
they'll clean up a record and fix it after there's a problem,
but they don't eliminate the initial problem from happening.
Dr. Benishek. I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Dr. Ruiz.
Dr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Ranking Member.
And thank you also to the whistleblowers testifying today
who have persistently worked to expose misconduct at your own
personal risk.
Congress must demonstrate the same diligence in fulfilling
their duty to veterans and we must rid the VA of the systemic
wrongdoing and those who perpetrated it. I am especially
concerned that despite repeated assurances from VA officials
that the recommendations of watchdogs and whistleblowers are
taken seriously, allegations continue to emerge from employees
within these regional offices.
The recent IG report suggests that even after two prior
hearings calling attention to problems at regional offices and
a comprehensive investigation beginning last June, some
regional offices' employees maintain that those problematic
conditions persist today or have even gotten worse.
So in the interest of finding long-term solutions, in the
interest of shifting the conversation to ideas that we can help
enforce, let me ask some questions that hopefully can get to
that point.
Are there any committees within the regional offices that
include front-line staff in the decision-making process of
formulating goals or metrics that you know of?
Mr. Malizia. No. No, there are not.
Dr. Ruiz. No? In terms of your governance or oversight
committees in your regional offices, are there any front-line
staff involved in those discussions or on advisory boards or
anything like that?
Mr. Malizia. There--there may be some. I'm not sure exactly
what your--your question is you want to--you want to get at. I
mean, sometimes there are employees that potentially are hand
picked by managers to serve on a committee to kind of validate
a predetermined outcome that they want. It's not that those
kinds of committees are open to any employee, you know, or--or
certain kinds of employees perhaps.
And, I mean, the union is involved in some things at--at
local facilities or should be involved in some things, but many
times the opinions of the union are just summarily dismissed
and not--not taken into account.
Dr. Ruiz. What I am getting at is I am drawing from my
experience as an emergency physician in a hospital-based
setting. And in the hospitals, they form committees on patient
quality control, on what is on the formulary, what kind of
medicine the hospital is going to use or have the options to
use.
And oftentimes they save a seat for different departments
and different regions within the hospital to come in and have a
committee-based discussion as to what are going to be the best
practices, what are the best policies, what are doable and not
doable based on the people that are on the front lines.
And this model can be used in the regional offices and
other institutions so that when a goal is set or issues of
morale or harassment come up that everybody has a voice at the
table and then it is carried on in the governance structure all
the way up the ladder to the secretary of the VA.
So what do you think is needed to change the culture within
the VA regional offices enough so that the employees can feel
that they have a voice and have a responsive, respectful
supervisor who takes the necessary action and feels listened
to? What do you think needs to happen in your facility
specifically and then systemically?
Mr. Malizia. Well, Dr. Ruiz, I'm--I'm familiar with what
you're talking about in VHA and there are many of those
committees that exist. That would be a great idea if VBA
adopted them, but VBA is well aware of those types of
committees and has refused to participate in those kinds of
things including quality--they have quality teams or quality
review things and they--they look at--through the Care and
Quality Program, the National Quality Program to apply for
those things and review--internally review themselves. VBA has
refused to participate in any of those from----
Dr. Ruiz. Do you have any other ideas, anything specific
that we can push to implement, Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. Well, the--the employee standards, the
production requirements like Kristen said, when you--when you
have the employees held down by you got to get this done, you
got to get this done, they're not taking the time that they
need to do the right work by the veteran. So they got--they
need to stop that. They need to take the pressure off the
employees. Do the right thing by the vet whether it takes you
15 minutes or an hour before you go on to the next one.
Dr. Ruiz. The motto is take care of the veteran and make it
a veteran-centered, high-quality institution.
My time is up. I yield back.
The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you very much.
Mr. Coffman, you are recognized.
Mr. Coffman. Mr. Chairman, I just have one quick question
and then I want to defer the balance of my time to Mr.
Costello. And that concerns the issue of bonuses and if the
panel could answer quickly so that I could give the maximum
amount of time to Mr. Costello.
Do you think that the data manipulation and other
misconduct apparently allowed by the VA's managers at these
offices was driven by the desire to meet performance goals and
earn a bonus? Start with you, Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown. Personally I don't know it, but I believe it,
yes.
Mr. Coffman. Okay.
Ms. Blender. One hundred percent.
Mr. Malizia. Yes.
Ms. Ruell. Yes.
Mr. Coffman. Mr. Costello.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Coffman. Greatly appreciate
it.
I understand things take time, but I want to share a
perspective, Ms. Ruell, for your consideration. Agree, add to
it, expand upon it, disagree. In terms of a whistleblower at
the Philadelphia VA and what they are enduring and how they go
about working in that environment, here is the perspective.
It is troubling the long lapse of time between
whistleblower reporting and the present posture we are in
today. We have a damning IG report. We have no naming of names.
You had a broad and deep systemic set of problems at the VA.
We now have a separate board constitute to investigate
further. We have recommendations from the IG, most of which are
common sense and deal with work flow and basic administrative
practices that any large organization would undertake without
need for an IG report.
We have no acknowledgment that people need to be fired
which, calls into question whether everyone is just covering
each other's hide because if we started pointing fingers, we
would really start to know who actually is culpable, which
calls into question whether there is really a disincentive for
future whistleblower activity at the VA to really hold people
accountable and really take meaningful corrective action.
We have a slow walking and an obfuscation when we start
talking about misinterpretations, to Mr. Coffman's question,
misinterpretations of a letter rather than purposeful overt
misapplication which has enabled folks to not allow an audit
trail to occur which means we don't even know how much data
manipulation occurred.
It calls into question--let me say this, something else to
remember here. Your allegations go back to at least 2010 and in
2012, whistleblower allegations were either ignored or they
were determined to be inaccurate. So now we are here in 2014.
They have proven themselves to be accurate. You are now saying
that some problems continue. In some cases, they may be
worsening.
And so I think it is important that as we hear these major
problems may have been resolved or they are all being addressed
in their entirety that that may not be the case. And you being
sort of a conduit for many anonymous whistleblowers, share with
me the frustration that many have with where we are in this
process and with whether corrective action has actually taken
place and the frustrations that you are hearing from those who
are reporting to you at this point in time.
Ms. Ruell. I probably get 20 phone calls a day whether it's
on my work line or my cell phone from employees. They want to
give me information. They want me to be a voice for them. I try
to explain to them that they need to report things themselves.
It looks better if it's coming from them rather than--than me.
They tell me they're petrified. They would never. Even
management officials are in the same boat. Many people in
Philadelphia feel that because this inspector general
investigation took ten months that they would never blow the
whistle because from the day you blow the whistle, you could be
targeted. And if you know it's going to be over in 30 days,
that would be great, but there is no statute of limitations or
time limit for the IG to produce this report.
So you have to walk around the building for ten months with
the same managers that are tormenting you or ignoring you or
shunning you or getting other people to treat you a certain way
and you never know when it's over. It's kind of like being on
death row and not knowing when you're getting executed.
Mr. Costello. And no one has been held accountable by the
observation of those who have been whistleblowing, has there
been?
Ms. Ruell. No. So people have told me I would never report
anything. What's the purpose? You're just setting yourself up
to have a horrendous work experience. And I would agree with
them because I've seen nothing done to change in our office
from years of information I turned over.
Mr. Costello. And so the reason why you are here as one
voice and there may not be as many other whistleblowers who
have actually been identified isn't because there are not
problems, it is because they don't want to subject themselves
to the risk because they don't see any accountability flowing
to those who have caused the problem in the first instance?
Ms. Ruell. Yes. There's tons of information out there
that's probably worse than what we've already heard, but those
people will not release their information or their names in
fear of being fired.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Coffman.
The Chairman. Mr. O'Rourke.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thought I would begin by asking Ms. Ruell and Ms. Brown
about how pervasive some of these problems are throughout the
organizations in Oakland and Philadelphia. You certainly spent,
I think, an appropriate amount of time focusing on management
and failures there which I think is a really important place to
start.
But, Ms. Brown, when you mentioned veterans' VBA requests
languishing since 1996 or when I read the OIG report from
Philadelphia and I see that one employee hid four bins of
unprocessed mail, I mean, some of these decisions are happening
at all levels within the VBA.
And so I wanted to get your confirmation of that or if you
would like to add some additional color to it and then your
recommendation on the best way to address that issue. Again,
appropriately we talked about management. What are the courses
of accountability for employees who are making some of these
decisions at their levels to pass this on or to hide this piece
of mail or to not act on something that needs to be acted on?
Ms. Ruell, I will begin with you.
Ms. Ruell. I find it hard to believe that most of the
employees, at least in my office, would make those type of
decisions. There might be a few bad apples. But if someone is
doing that, it's probably a result of an order being given to
them or out of fear that they're going to lose their job.
Mr. O'Rourke. Yes.
Ms. Ruell. In general, most employees in my office really
do want to help veterans. They'll even leave our office and say
I thought I came here to help veterans, but I can't take this
anymore. So there might be a few bad apples, but I truly
believe the employees are acting out of fear or orders from
someone higher up.
Mr. O'Rourke. Yes. And just to be clear, I am not
suggesting that every employee or most employees. My question
is, how pervasive is this and is this simply a management issue
or do we have a lack of accountability throughout the system
and an inability when you do have an employee who hides four
bins of mail to hold that employee accountable?
So, Ms. Brown, I would direct the same question to you in
terms of what recourse to accountability we have throughout the
system at every level of employment.
Ms. Brown. I've got to agree with Kristen. Most of the
employees in Oakland wanted to do a good job. They--they really
did. Now, there were a few that--that couldn't make their
numbers and for whatever reason, management would--would take
care of them. They were never in trouble. They were always good
to go. And yet the next person over, if they didn't make their
numbers, they were gone.
So there were a few bad apples, so to speak, but the
majority, it came from--it came from up above. It came from the
managers telling us what to do. We were just the minions. We
were just the bottom of the totem pole. They told us what to do
and then we tried to do the best we could by doing the right
thing, but a lot of times we couldn't do that.
Mr. O'Rourke. And it sounds like from your testimony and
the answers to Ms. Rice's questions about how long we have had
these kind of problems at these VBA regional offices--you know,
Ms. Blender, you mentioned 2008. We know about this one case
that has been held since 1996 in Oakland.
Mr. Malizia, you mentioned that it has been going on. You
said there is no start date, but then you said, you know,
perhaps something happened when Secretary Shinseki sought to
implement this 125-day goal and that that was such an
unrealistic expectation. And there were not the systems or
staff or capacity to adequately process this and so you were
basically setting something up to fail or to hide the truth.
And, you know, the people within that system acted accordingly.
If that is the case, what is the best way forward? How do
we fix this? Certainly it is leadership. Certainly it is
accountability. Certainly you have raised some issues with
management, but structurally, statutorily, systematically, how
does this get fixed?
Mr. Malizia. Well, that's a great question and I think that
really gets to the core of a lot of--a lot of the problems. And
that is I think that the production standards, the performance
standards really came on production where talking about the
point system, you get so many points for this and the time
allotted to work a claim needs to be reevaluated and readjusted
because that's the--the--kind of the preset and maybe not
necessarily realistic, especially since a lot of the claims now
are very complicated and very involved.
There's many different issues, conditions that have to be
addressed, and that takes time, certainly time to do it right
so there's not a lot of rework and appeals and--and those kinds
of things. So I think that if the production part of the
standard can be waived, reevaluated, I think that would go a
long way to help them resolve some of these issues.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Dr. Wenstrup, you are recognized.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank you all for being here.
I think one of the things that just astounds me through all
this process is there could be that many people that are okay
with bad behavior. It just floors me that there is such a lack
of caring for the person, the human being that is on the other
end of the issue, at the other end of the paperwork or whatever
the case may be.
You know, I serve in private practice. Every once in a
great while, you might have an employee that didn't put the
patient first, but it was pretty rare. But to see this and to
see that it is so robust is incredible.
So one question I have, and it was alluded to in some of
the other questions, you know, how widespread is this? You
know, you are within your RO, if you will. Do you have contact
with people from other regions that say the same things? I
mean, is it truly across the country? You know, I know you
represent different areas today, but I would really like to
hear what your thoughts are on that and if you have contact
with other people in a similar situation. And you can just go
down the line.
Ms. Ruell. After I testified in July, I--many people
emailed me from other offices. I've made a lot of contacts in
other places and I hear the same horrible stories all over the
country. And I think it's just based on people not being honest
about the workload. They want to make numbers to get bonuses.
If they were honest about the amount of claims and how long
they take at all levels, people could get the work done the
right way. We could hire more staff.
Mr. Malizia. And I would add that I think that there are--
there are good quality managers and directors in the VBA system
nationwide and some offices are--are probably much better at--
at doing those things than not. So it's not a hundred percent
that is in this situation.
But it just seems odd that it pops up in certain places and
why is that? There has to be some similarities to what's going
on in some of these places and I think that we're talking all
about those kinds of reasons why it's popping up in a place
like Philadelphia or in Oakland or something like that.
So that definitely, I think, needs to be looked into and
explored a little bit more. Excuse me. So--but I do think that
there--there are some personal issues like, you know, people
have their own personal way of handling a situation and how
they interact with their employees and how they interact with
their labor partners and do things like that and how honest
they are about actually moving the work and their concern for
the veterans.
Like we said, it's--each piece of paper or claim is a
person or a family that's there. And our employees, I think,
are extremely dedicated and--and cognizant of that mission and
they take it very personal that this piece of paper or this
claim is, in fact, a family and represents a veteran who served
our country and deserves our--our attention however long it
takes to get that done and get it done right. And we're not
afforded that opportunity to do that.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
Ms. Blender. I think I'll just give you a little thing. A
woman was walking into my office to Social Security because we
had it in our building. And I slipped and she went to pick me
up. She was a little old lady about 80 pounds. And I said why
don't you just take my pocketbook and I'll get up? And I--and
she says do you work in here? And I said, yes, I do. She said I
worked here for 30 years. I couldn't wait to get out of here.
The place is a cesspool and she was talking about 30 years ago.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
Ms. Brown. I've had--since I left the VBA and I've become
fairly vocal, I've had employees from across the country
contact me through Facebook and through phone numbers talking
about the same things that we're talking about. It's
widespread.
And the biggest thing that they talk about is the hiding of
the claims. You have some that are segregated to one group,
another group that's segregated into a 400 series, and then you
have 930 series. Put them all together, count them out, see
what you've got, put the people on it that you need.
Dr. Wenstrup. It almost sounds like there was a more
universal method about going about things inappropriately which
is really a shame. It almost sounds also that there is very few
people in leadership above you that you felt you could go to to
trust which is very difficult to imagine as well, but obviously
the case.
I hope that through all this we can make some changes and
make things that are positive, to put the veteran first and
maybe people will be more evaluated on the satisfaction that is
achieved for the veteran and their families that are involved.
And with that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me thank each of you for your services.
When you hear a lot of talk about whistleblowing, sometimes
people want to think that is negative. I think it is very
positive. I think it is very important that we get your
feedback and we know what is going on.
I want to start with Mr. Malizia, we started out with
611,000 claims in 2013 now we are down to 188,000. Part of the
pressure is coming from us. We want you all to expedite those
claims. Mr. Bilirakis has a Regional Office in St. Petersburg
with the same kind of problems. When you receive a
congressional, yes, you are going to process that veteran's
claim immediately. I guess they put those above some of the
others.
My question is, what are your recommendations. The system
that we have in place is not working. You have been there for
34 years. What are some of your recommendations because we do
want these claims processed?
Mr. Malizia. Absolutely. And like I said earlier, I think
that the production standards or the performance standards,
specifically the production element in the performance standard
needs to be changed.
I don't disagree that the--the backlog of claims has been
reduced. There's certainly been a lot of emphasis placed on
that. And one of the reasons that we were able to accomplish
that is through the hard work of the employees and also the
mandatory--enforcement of mandatory overtime for the past five
years.
I mean, I think that needs to be looked at as far as
staffing requirements are concerned. I think VA is--VBA is
definitely understaffed.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Yes.
Mr. Malizia. If you look at the production requirements of
the performance standards, I think major improvement can be
done there.
Ms. Brown of Florida. One of the things, in a hearing,
someone mentioned some of the claims that were simple and they
could put them on some kind of system and we could process
those quickly. And then they have claims that are more
complicated.
Mr. Malizia. Yes, that's correct.
Ms. Brown of Florida. I am trying to figure this out, you
are saying that the system in place, how do we improve the
system?
Mr. Malizia. Well, it's the--it's the time associated with
working specific claims and the point value that's assigned to
those specific claims. Management is responsible for delegating
or designing the--the allocation of claims to specific teams.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Yes.
Mr. Malizia. They're responsible for the mail processing
and the emphasis placed on that and when I mentioned it earlier
in my opening statement about a shell game, management will
move mail around and say to employees, we only want you to
focus on certain end products this week so don't work on this--
just work on all of these.
So meanwhile, certain claims get attention and everything
else backs up and then it's crisis management. Now you've got
all these problems over there. Stop doing all of this and work
on these other claims to reduce that. They keep moving the work
around and and--in so doing, things fall through the cracks or
they forget where the work is or is that a deliberate attempt
to have the work fall off the radar? You guys be the judge of
that. OIG was the judge of that.
I mean, I think there are some practices that just don't
make sense. Like Congressman Costello said, the answers coming
back from the VA to address the IG report are basically we're
going to do our job which is what they should have been doing
all along.
Ms. Brown of Florida. As you said earlier, part of the
problem is that, the amount of work, workloads in different
offices don't have enough people or maybe a system in place to
process it.
Mr. Malizia. It's a variety of reasons. There's--I don't
think there's one magic answer that's going to resolve all of
the problems. I think there needs to be a lot of attention paid
and a lot of changes made across the board in various areas.
Ms. Brown of Florida. I know that the Congresswoman from
Oakland, Ms. Barbara Lee, for years has been trying to get
additional funding for that office because it was understaffed.
Have you seen any additional people hired in the office to help
with the processing, Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown. As I saw people come in I saw people leave.
Because there was, there was such a turnover in, personnel. I
mean, it was a, it was a constant. So there wasn't, we were
not, we were not getting above staffed, we were just evening
out.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Do you think it has something to do
with the pay level? What did you come in as a seven, then you
were supposed to have gone to an 11, and you went to a ten?
Ms. Ruell. You were supposed to go to a nine, and then an
11.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Is that based on performance? Or what
is that based on?
Ms. Ruell. Yes. You have to meet your quality and your
performance to move up to the next grade. But time and grade is
a big problem too, I think. To be a certain position at the, at
least at the VA, you need to have time in grade. So as you are
hearing all these stories of what we go through as employees
there, you have to weather the storm for a lot of years to make
it to a 13 or a 14. Most people that have any other
opportunities once they are there a year or two they look for
another job, because they don't want to deal with this for the
rest of their life till they retire. So the problem is we are
always having new employees. We have a new training class every
couple months of 40 and 50 new employees, and maybe half of
them will survive what we call this boot camp experience. So
it's kind of like if we treated employees the right way, and we
ran this like a real business, they would stay. And the job
takes two to three years to learn. So you cannot drive people
away from this place after the first year because then you're
always going to have the GS-7, brand new employees working all
of these claims.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Do you think it is best that we try
to outsource some of this work?
Ms. Ruell. I don't think it has to be outsourced. I think
it would be best just to have people in charge that know how to
treat humans with dignity and respect and appreciate the work
that they do, and employees love to help veterans. And if they
are not under pressure they'll do a great job and they'll want
to stay there. I can do claims faster than the person who I
just trained last month. But I mean----
Ms. Brown of Florida. You have been there for how long?
Ms. Ruell. Right. I've been there seven years, almost
eight. So a lot of people that I came in with aren't there
anymore. If we could keep these people we could, I can do a
claim twice as fast as someone who just started a year ago. So,
and I don't mind doing claims. I enjoy it. But the problem is
when you move up you don't touch the claims anymore. You get a
different job. So the people always working on the claims are
brand new. And there's no incentive for them to stay at that
job because in the government you just want to move to the next
level, move to the next level. So I think that's a huge
problem.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Ms. Walorski.
Ms. Walorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank
you, the panel, for coming. I think we have learned, I will
speak for myself on this committee. I think we have heard so
many reprehensible stories which is why America from New York
to California stood up last year and said enough is enough.
Hearing real stories from front line people, they are willing
to put their job on the line. And as we have sat here over the
last several months and whistleblowers come in and then
whistleblowers come back and the retaliation, the things that
happened to people that put their job on the line I think is
reprehensible.
I think what you are saying today, I find it heartbreaking.
I think it is heartbreaking number one for the sake of our
veterans, for the sake of many of you that went to work and to
do good for those who have done the best sacrifice in our
nation, our brave men and women. And then secondly because they
come back and not only is the government not providing the
things we promised to our finest, but when they do come back
they are in a bureaucratic, a large bureaucracy that has run
amok. And we have been sitting here now for months, and I know
some folks for years, trying to figure out how to get to the
bottom of this. But you know, I have never heard, I will say
today this is the first time I have ever heard of charging
money for mandatory parties of palm reading. I mean, I think
that when the American people hear this tonight there is going
to be another move from New York to California that stands up
and says this has to stop. People have to be fired.
You know, most of us come from places, I come from the
State of Indiana, in Northern Indiana, and we have issues with
our CBOCs and our VAs as well and have had Inspector Generals,
and all kinds of things happening. But I guess I just want to
see this, I feel like, and Ms. Blender, you made the comment
about one of your supervisors saw it on TV, saw this whole
thing, and you said, you know, well how does that make you
feel? I feel like since we have been doing this and digging
into the weeds on this issue that these bad actors are doubling
down. Almost of I dare you to find me, I dare you to be able to
cut through the bureaucracy and fire me. Do you find that in
this, in this realm that you are all working in?
Ms. Blender. Always. Always.
Ms. Walorski. That there is a double down after Congress
has really made this visible?
Ms. Blender. And, and for myself, I don't see these people
walking the halls anymore. I don't see management. Occasionally
I've seen Diana. She comes around to talk to us and things. But
management from before? Forget it. They're hiding. And the
other things is nepotism. At our office the one person that was
crucifying me I found out a couple of days before my hearing
that that was the big shot's son-in-law, our director's son-in-
law. And I saw the director after he retired, and I said why
was your son-in-law here just to torment, just to torment me? I
said that to him. Why he wasn't here when I was there. I said
oh yes, he was. You should be ashamed of him.
Ms. Walorski. Let me ask you this. Because I really feel
like in these areas that are geographic hot spots, I really
feel like the double down effort has, has really started to
happen in this country. I really feel like it is almost us
against them in some of these hot areas. When, when these
people see themselves on TV or in the newspaper and, and the
staff knows it, right? And you are reading about it in your
local paper. And then they come back in, does it just affect
the morale in the little department? Or is the morale regional
office wide affected by the fact that these people believe that
they are above the law?
Ms. Blender. It's throughout the building----
Ms. Walorski. Mister, yes, I appreciate it. Mr. Malizia?
Mr. Malizia. It's regional office-wide. That's what I'm
saying, the employees feel really demoralized by this
especially if the management staff, the leadership is going to
get up and, and not be honest and truthful about what really is
happening and what they are really going to do about it or
those kinds of things. So when you're being fed that kind of
misinformation and misdirection about what the issue is, or
trying to make the, make it seem like employees are the problem
when employees are not the problem, that's very demoralizing to
them. So the cloud that I spoke about for the last at least
nine months in the Philadelphia office has been growing. And
it's, and like Kristin said, employees are looking for some
accountability, somebody to be held responsible. Because when
employees do something wrong, they're held responsible for it
almost immediately. And they, but they don't see that
accountability at the higher level, at the management level and
above. So----
Ms. Walorski. I appreciate it. And I appreciate your
honesty and appreciate the sacrifice you are under. Ms. Ruell,
do you want to add anything?
Ms. Ruell. I mean, employees I represent they will be on a
performance improvement plan because they might have missed
their points, the precious points by maybe a half of a point,
okay? And they're all, they might have worked here five years
and now they're no good and they can't do this job anymore. But
we have managers who can't read a fast letter and interpret
what that means. And nothing is happening to them. Why aren't
they are PIPs? Why isn't there, I think they should have a
standard. If there's this many EEO complaints filed against
you, and there's a settlement, or the person prevails, I think
you should be, how do you get outstanding at the end of the
year for these kind of things?
Ms. Walorski. I appreciate it. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. McNerney, you are recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate
your indulgence for me going in and out to other committee
hearings.
I want to thank the panel for coming forward. This is
pretty hard to do. I appreciate that. Ms. Brown, in your
testimony you highlighted some of the difficulties that you had
in bringing negative information forward. Did you speak
directly to the director or the assistant director or to
General Hickey when she came to Oakland for the employee town
hall?
Ms. Brown. Well first of all, I wasn't allowed to get
anywhere near Allison Hickey. They had me pretty much out of
the way. And only certain people were allowed to go down. As
far as the director and the----
Mr. McNerney. So it was not really a true town hall, then?
Ms. Brown. No. No. No. It wasn't a true town hall.
Mr. McNerney. And that is echoed in Philadelphia as well?
Ms. Blender. Yes.
Ms. Ruell. General Hickey has been to our office. I've
never met her. And you would think if you were coming forward
and complaining and there's a luncheon, and my friends are
like, oh, I had lunch with General Hickey today. I knew I would
never be invited. But the point is if they truly wanted to
correct problems and cared about veterans, they'd ask the
people that know about the problems to help out. There's
meetings about fixing duplicate records. There was one a week
and a half ago. And Ryan Cease and I have been very vocal in
this problem. We know how to fix them. We've been asking to
help. We weren't even invited to the meeting.
Mr. McNerney. Okay, thank you. The Oakland RO had a program
of systemic training a couple of years ago. They shut down all
operations except for training, do you recall that?
Ms. Brown. No, sir.
Mr. McNerney. Yes, 33 has there been a big effort to train
seasoned employees or anything like that at the Oakland RO?
Ms. Brown. Well speaking for myself, I, I didn't even get
the required training that I was supposed to get. So, you know,
they occasionally will throw in a class here or there to fill a
requirement, but nothing more than that.
Mr. McNerney. So when, what was your dates of service
approximately?
Ms. Brown. At the Oakland VBA? I was hired September 15,
2009. I retired early on September 15, 2014, exactly five
years.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. Mr. Malizia, you described a shell game
a minute ago of moving a case work around. Was that an attempt
to hide problems, or was it an attempt to get bonuses, or was
it just a flat lack of resources to actually do the work that
was needed?
Mr. Malizia. I, I wouldn't characterize it as a lack of
resources because the workforce was there, ready, willing, and
able to do the work. It was a management prerogative of how
they assigned the work or priority that they put on the work.
And what, I can't really speak to their motivation as to why
they did it, but the end result looked like, you know, they did
it for self-serving reasons and if one of the those reasons was
for them to get bonuses, well, all the better.
Mr. McNerney. Well okay, Ms. Ruell, you sort of described a
situation where the training was maybe okay but the folks
weren't motivated to stay long enough to really get out
competent or really get capable of doing the casework. Is there
a different management plan that would ease that and make it so
that people would stay longer and get the, get the, you know,
get the experience they need to be very effective at their
jobs?
Ms. Ruell. I think that if someone comes out of the
training class after they've, the training is only, it used to
be maybe nine months, now it's down to only three months. So
they are lessening training, which I think is a bad idea. They
are putting the people on live claims immediately, which causes
a lot of rework. So if, if I was in charge I would have, if you
are a GS-7 and you come out of training, you'd go serve a shift
in triage and learn how that all works. You would do the easier
things because that's what you're capable of doing at that
learning stage. When I do quality, if I'm on a quality team for
an employee, I do the same questions on a GS-11 as I do on a
GS-7. So that new person is expected to know how to do just as
much and all the types of claims as someone who's worked here
forever. I would, instead of having teams of people with random
GS levels, I'd have a team of GS-7s, I'd have a team of GS-9s,
I'd have a team of GS-11s, and depending on how long you've
been there would depend on the type of difficulty of the cases
you should do.
Mr. McNerney. So there, I mean, there are approaches then
that would put, put the same, people there long enough to learn
how to do the job and to keep them motivated and keep them in
the system, in your opinion?
Ms. Ruell. Yes. If they were treated correctly, if they
were treated appropriately.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Malizia, do you agree with that?
Mr. Malizia. Yes, I do. I think the quality of, of the
training and the consistency of the training is important. And
that hasn't, in Philadelphia that hasn't always been, in the
pension center that has not been the case.
Mr. McNerney. Okay.
Mr. Malizia. So I think it's better on the service center
side because most of the service center employees now are going
to some kind of a national training or are under a national
training plan, and that's what, I'm sorry, Rusty, Rusty was,
was under. But it has to be, they have to be good quality
instructors, there has to be consistency in what's going on.
And then as Kristen points out when you come back to your
office you have to be working those kinds of things that you
were just trained on. And if you're not doing that work you're
going to lose that knowledge base of it. And then when it comes
time when you get that case, you're not going to have the ready
resources to be able to process it. It's going to take you
longer because you're going to have to research it a little bit
longer. But you're not afforded the time to do that.
Mr. McNerney. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Dr. Abraham.
Mr. Abraham. Well let me echo the committee in saying thank
you so much for coming here. It's been both heart-wrenching
and, you know, I've become filled with anger when I see the
problems. How tragic is it in today's VA system that the same
veteran that we entrust our national security to, and even our
lives to, that same veteran can't trust our VA system to take
care of them.
Dr. Wenstrup mentioned that he was in private practice, as
I have also been for almost 20 years. And if we had an employee
that was rude, even rude once to a patient, they got a warning,
and if they were rude twice they got fired. And this is
something that, you know, we will look into as to we can remedy
this system.
It is bad enough that the $300,000-plus on the moving
thing. That was a mismanagement of funds. But what I'm hearing
today is a mismanagement of lives from our VA system. And you
know, it just goes to the very core of what this nation is
supposed to be about.
My staff tells me about the hostile environment that is
problematic at every level. I have requested VA to send us
copies of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the EEO
findings. We, like the chairman, we have not received those
records yet. So we are waiting patiently and becoming more
impatient.
The question I have is, Mr. Malizia, I will address this to
you. And I am very concerned about the veteran that with known
PTSD that was bullied in one of these sessions to the point of
maybe taking his life. Can you expound on that a little bit for
me? I mean, I just have a hard time wrapping my head around
something so terrible.
Mr. Malizia. I, unfortunately I do not have any more
specific details about that. I mean, Kristen had some personal
working relationship with, with that employee. I really did not
know him. I only found out about it after it happened when his
coworkers in the training class came to me because they were
very upset and distraught about what had happened. I took it
directly to the director and said there's a problem here.
Mr. Abraham. Did she do anything?
Mr. Malizia. Well after, she wouldn't do anything initially
until the employee made a written statement which I actually, I
got from the employee. And then she said she would conduct an
investigation potentially outside, well definitely outside of
the pension center where it occurred, and perhaps even outside
of the regional office. But what happened was she had pension
center supervisors do the investigation against one of their
own coworkers and essentially against their boss for what was
happening, the oversight of the training program. And that was,
you know, I thought was just very atrocious and indicative of
some of the, the shell game problems and the coverup problems
that we, we're, we're here with and what IG was looking at.
Mr. Abraham. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Costello.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple questions,
but before I do that let me just thank all of you again, and
also Mr. Cease who could not be here. I just want to read
something real quick in his testimony. His testimony is very
precise in terms of what he recognizes as are some ongoing
problems in terms of the processing of claims.
But he says this towards the end. A lot of our coworkers
would just say keep your mouth shut, no matter what you do it's
going to get covered up. Well, we made it this far. I really do
hope our efforts will bring some changes not only for our VARO
but the whole nation. For the record, the Philadelphia VA
Regional Office has a lot of amazing employees who would go
above and beyond for a veteran in need. And I say that because
we recognize that there are a lot of good, hardworking
employees at the Philadelphia VA. And I think it is important
that that is said to you here today. And please impart to many
that you work with who are not part of the problem but want to
be part of the solution.
With that said, Ms. Ruell, a couple of quick questions for
you. I will get through as many as I can. With the anonymous
whistleblowers to you, you said you may get as many as 20 phone
calls a day. Repeated trends that stick out in phone calls to
you about the problems that are still persisting there? Could
you share with me what, what are some common themes that you
are hearing in, in folks saying things to you?
Ms. Ruell. They'll call and they'll say I'm not sure what
to do because my supervisor is doing this to me, and I know if
I go to the union and I file a grievance the decision makers
are those supervisors. So that's the main problem. I feel that
if there's different claims that you can file when something is
wrong. If it has to be discrimination for an EEO. It has to be
an adverse action for MSPB or you're stuck going the union
grievance route. And why I say stuck is because anytime that
happens the decision maker is the person----
Mr. Costello. Right.
Ms. Ruell [continuing]. You would be reporting.
Mr. Costello. That's on the retaliation side. What about on
the implementation of these recommendations, and
representations that 95 percent of them are being addressed or
have been satisfactorily addressed? Have you received feedback
that that may not in fact be accurate?
Ms. Ruell. Definitely. I mean I, I still work there
everyday and----
Mr. Costello. Share with me some substance there if you can
on common things you are hearing specifically.
Ms. Ruell. The last month I received too many emails to
count with claim numbers, which I have since reported to the
Inspector General's Office. We have an assistant manager in the
pension center who has been making claims ready to rate that
are not ready to rate. So there's cycle times for a claim and
when a claim goes to the rating board there, I think changes
the suspense for this claim. So there's claims that are already
rated and this manager is going in there, manipulating the
data, and making them ready to rate again for no reason to do
something with the numbers. That's been happening for the last
month and a half. I have over 100 claims I've reported with
that.
Mail, someone came to me with a picture and they said, oh,
the Inspector General said that the mail needs to be stamped or
processed within six hours. This mail sat overnight, again. And
I'm really upset and I don't know what to do. I said, well,
we're not allowed to take pictures. I really don't know how to
prove this. So I don't really think, someone told me there was
a request to change a date stamp back just two weeks ago. So
anything that I've ever reported, I have not seen any of it
stopped and I'm seeing it all continue. And I just feel like I
have so much, so many people coming to me and I don't know what
to do anymore.
Mr. Costello. I continue to think that we need an outside
set of eyes to sort of make this course correction there. A
question for you, are we asking some of those culpable for the
problems to now make the reforms necessary----
Ms. Ruell. Yes.
Mr. Costello [continuing]. In order to course correct?
Ms. Ruell. Yes.
Mr. Costello. Are administrative reforms without cultural
changes sufficient?
Ms. Ruell. No.
Mr. Costello. I think the answer is no. It's sort of a
rhetorical question. Are any recommendations missing from those
35 in the IG report that you think should be included in order
to resolve the outstanding problems at the VA? Any big picture
things that were not contained in the IG report that you feel
are missing?
Ms. Ruell. The IG report recommendations in my opinion are
very broad. It leaves it up to the agency to interpret it the
way that they would like. I believe there should be words like
these people should be fired, not administration action. That
can be a slap on the wrist.
Mr. Costello. Right.
Ms. Ruell. So this AIB business to me is bizarre because
that's the VA investigating itself.
Mr. Costello. Has the AIB ever interviewed you?
Ms. Ruell. Never. And the problem is the AIB is
interviewing employees based on proving if someone
intentionally manipulated data, but we don't have the evidence
anymore.
Mr. Costello. Right.
Ms. Ruell. When the IG came in we gave them everything we
had because we thought they were the people doing the
investigation. Now when AIB is coming in and people are coming
to me saying I don't know what to do, I have to get interviewed
and I don't have any more claim numbers. I gave them all to the
IG. And I, you know, I tried to contact the IG and say what can
we do about this. But, I mean, there's no solution. The AIB is
here and they're probably getting half the information they
need and I'm the one that reported this originally for our
office and they've never even spoken to me.
Mr. Costello. Do you have any observations on EEO
complaints? There seems to be a larger volume at the
Philadelphia VARO than elsewhere in terms of the number of
complaints, in terms of how people are treated after complaints
are issued. I know my time is up. Thank you.
Ms. Ruell. The EEO complaints in our office are unreal.
It's the biggest waste of taxpayer money I've ever seen.
Employees will file an EEO complaint and they are not resolved
timely. It takes years to do that and it's, and it costs tons
of money. And some, some of the complaints are so minor that
there's no reason to waste money on an EEO complaint. Somebody
wants their seat changed because cold air is blowing on them
and they can't breathe. And the resistance in that type of
situation is just ridiculous. Some people just want to work
from home because they have medical problems that can't permit
them to work in the office. And that takes a good year to
accomplish. So, I mean, nothing happens the way that it should.
The EEO program is supposed to save money. It's supposed to not
flood the court system and have a mediation process. I don't
see, I think it's a waste the way that it is in our office.
Dr. Roe. [presiding.] Thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr.
LaMalfa, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. First of all, let me preface this
here that, you know, in the heat of this discussion here
sometimes it is lost that those of us doing our oversight
making these inquiries do not like the employees or do not like
the VA or things like that. And for me, for being on the
record, I know there might be some people in Oakland who are
upset with me. But for those employees that are there grinding
it out at the grunt level, using a military term, we appreciate
you. The problem is systemic, starting in Washington, D.C.,
dropping down to the director level and sometimes those floor
managers as well. But we appreciate anybody that is willing to
do this work, that wants to serve the veteran, and wants to do
the quality of work, not on a time basis but actually getting
the veterans' work processed. So again, Ms. Brown, I really,
really appreciate you being here and you being willing to come
forward at the, at the cost it has been for you.
A couple disturbing things I heard about earlier was the no
action needed file on old claims. And I can refer to a couple
things that were in the paper here. There was one by a Mrs.
Stafford, I think you mentioned that. It was a 2004 claim that
the, she and her husband, who had since been deceased seven
years ago, from a July, 2014 letter, he was being thanked for
his service many years after the claim and having been deceased
for seven years. It has got to be really frustrating for that
veteran, for the spouse, to have that be in a no action file
and then to receive a letter backhanded like that much later
on. And for that to be a no action needed, we do not know what
the situation would be for Mrs. Stafford who, where she would
say, said in this article I have here that she was not even
aware there would be widow benefits. And even if it was a
modest $400 a month it may help her, and referring to one other
lady as well. This is the one that she, that you had mentioned
in an article, that a note came in from a woman on flowery
stationery. You can just visualize that. She wrote, I know that
the VA is going to take care of me because my husband served in
the Battle of the Bulge. Now when you hear that and you see
that in your mind, in your mind's eye, a little lady writing
that down on a piece of flowery paper, and we have seen some
emotional reactions on this in a previous panel. Heck, I could
get emotional myself. If I was the Speaker maybe I would be,
but do not tell the Speaker I said that. But that breaks your
heart. We have real people out there that are suffering from
lack of attention, lack of even an answer on that. And so Ms.
Brown, where did that order come from that on these old claims
like that that they would go into a no action needed file in
your office?
Ms. Brown. Those, that direction came directly from our
supervisor, the training supervisor at the time, Rochetta
Luster.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes.
Ms. Brown. And she disseminated to us that that was given
down from management that this is exactly what we were supposed
to do.
Mr. LaMalfa. How high does management go?
Ms. Brown. The director.
Mr. LaMalfa. The director. Was that, who----
Ms. Brown. Douglas Bragg at the time.
Mr. LaMalfa. Mr. Douglas Bragg. And he has since taken an
early retirement?
Ms. Brown. He's gone.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, why do you think that happened?
Ms. Brown. It got a little warm.
Mr. LaMalfa. Did it get a little warm? Maybe my office and
a few others making a little too much heat?
Ms. Brown. Maybe a little bit.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. Well, we are kind of proud of that
actually. So Ms. Brown, when you hear about that, no action
needed, and the, or let us say, let us say, what does it look
like that a claim would be termed processed? Now I think it is
one standard for people inside the organization that you have
moved the piece of paper from here to there, and they call that
processed, and maybe it is turned into a 400 series file, or a
930 series file, or something like that. Does processed look to
you to mean like it has been moved one, one step? Or does it
look more to you like that the veteran has actually gotten an
answer to their question of what benefit they should have and a
timely disbursement of that benefit? What does process, what is
the language inside and what does the language look like to you
what it should be?
Ms. Brown. Well once again when they tell you no action
necessary and items were put aside, nothing was done to protect
these claims. Nothing was done to put them into the system.
Nothing was done to send letters to survivors to cover for DIC
benefits. Nothing was done. So you had a whole group of
individuals, especially in the first couple of, the first month
especially, the older ones that were dead were just put aside.
And they never even talked about them again.
Mr. LaMalfa. We are probably going to hear a lot of happy
talk later from VA management saying we processed all these
claims. And they have been moved along and now we are, our
backlog is way down now. How do you feel about that?
Ms. Brown. A lie.
Mr. LaMalfa. What you will potentially hear? A lie you
hear?
Ms. Brown. A lie.
Mr. LaMalfa. You say? We are going to hear about probably
that it is all fixed because the lost mail process is going to
be better because we are doing it electronically now. Now this
sounds to me like they are trying to blame the Postal Service
for losing mail. But isn't this actually mail that has actually
come inside the door and is lost inside the Oakland and
Philadelphia and other centers?
Ms. Brown. Some of it is lost inside the building. We used
to laugh that there was a black hole and we didn't know where
stuff went. But, but now it's, it's gathered up, it's boxed up,
and it's sent to the scan center without ever even looking at
it.
Mr. LaMalfa. In Wisconsin.
Ms. Brown. And it might be, it might be two, three months
before that piece of paper shows up at the scan center.
Mr. LaMalfa. Because you have to scan it half a country
away?
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, awesome. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. LaMalfa. Mr. Meehan,
you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Meehan. Thank you----
The Chairman. Thank you for being with us.
Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for
the privilege of sitting with you here today. Ms. Ruell, has
the VARO and Philadelphia, have they completely stopped the
manipulation of data regarding veterans' claims?
Ms. Ruell. No. I mean, this ready to rate thing that's
going on, I can't fathom why an assistant manager would be
making claims ready to rate when they are already rated. So to
me that's data manipulation.
Mr. Meehan. Explain that to me.
Ms. Ruell. When you need to, when you want to enhance
benefit of aid and attendance you would to have something
service connected, it must go to the rating board. We get a
claim, we, if we do not have all the evidence we need for the
rater to make a decision a development letter is sent out. If
we have it it goes ready to rate. The VSRs, the people who
process the claims, make this claim ready to rate. They get a
production point for doing that. It goes to the rater, the
rater looks at it, grants it, denies it, or says we need more.
At that point we get more or we process the case.
Most times the claims that I was seeing are ones where
they're for service connected death and many of them, and the
claim is not ready to rate. We're rating, some of them we're
waiting on STRs, we are waiting on a request to verify that
this veteran served in Vietnam. And she's making the claims
ready to rate for some reason when they're not, which is
causing, employees are fed up, they're mad. Lists come out, we
think claims are ready to be processed and the employees get
them and they say I can't process this, I'm still waiting on
the STR.
Mr. Meehan. Is, there any identification that those that
are coming up from some employees are rules ready to rate while
others are not ruled ready to rate? Does it relate across the
table or do some coming from certain employees get treated
differently than others?
Ms. Ruell. No, it's just that I think what she's doing is
there must be something with the cycle time to actually stop
the clock on these claims so they don't look like they're
pending longer than they are. Because when we need information
to verify service we don't have that in our building. We have
to reach out through this program. And if that program takes a
long time it makes our office look like we're taking a long
time.
Mr. Meehan. Is this working to the benefit or the
detriment of the veteran?
Ms. Ruell. Detriment, because overall employees think that
this claim on their desk is ready to process because if an
assistant pension center manager made it ready to rate you'd
think she'd know that it's ready to rate. And so we're looking
at these claims and they're not ready to rate. So what does the
employee have to do? They have to go change the suspense in the
computer, move along to another----
Mr. Meehan. So does that work to the detriment of that
employee then who has to----
Ms. Ruell. Of course----
Mr. Meehan. Mr. Malizia, what is your opinion on this?
Mr. Malizia. Yes, the same thing that Kristen is saying.
That this supervisor is doing this to these cases, providing a
list to the employees and saying here's this list, I've
completed, I've reviewed these cases, I've made them ready to
rate. They're ready to go. Now here you go, work them. And they
can't work them. So it creates a whole bunch of rework----
Mr. Meehan. So they're being set up to fail, though, in
addition to the, to the ability for the case to be handled
accurately it is also setting up a situation in which the
employee is going to have a difficult time meeting the
requirement of turning that around.
Mr. Malizia. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. Ruell. And then when, when the claim is actually ready
to rate two weeks later when the records come in, the service
treatment records, the employee takes credit for actually
looking at them, seeing that they're here, and sending it to
the rating board. And there's a supervisor that actually took
their credit out of the production system and said you didn't
make this ready to rate, this assistant manager did. You can't
get the points for this. So now the worker did their job the
right way at the right time and they, and this, they got no
credit for doing it.
Mr. Meehan. Are there bonuses associated with this kind of
ability to perform?
Ms. Ruell. I believe throughout the VA there are bonuses
based on performance of a regional office but I can't say for
sure that that actual individual got a raise. I'd be interested
to see what her rating was for last year because with acts like
this it makes her look a lot better.
Mr. Meehan. Are this, is this an element of quality review
for an individual employee?
Ms. Ruell. It would be. But if I do a quality review and an
employee says I made this ready to rate and it had this
assistant manager's name on it, I can't use that case. And
that's not fair to the employee.
Mr. Malizia. But it would be charged as a performance error
if somebody did make a case ready to rate and it wasn't ready
to rate. It would be a performance measure and they would get
charged an error.
Mr. Meehan. Ms. Blender, I only have 45 seconds. You made,
you testified that work is all over the building. There were
some 13,000 pieces of mail that were processed but there was a
lot of others. Could you explain this to me? What you were
talking about when you said work that was previously in one
place was sent all over the building so it looked as if it was
being handled when in fact it's now presumably not accountable?
Would you take a moment and explain to me what you were talking
about?
Ms. Blender. We had back mail----
Mr. Meehan. Could you speak into the microphone please?
Ms. Blender. I'm sorry. We had back mail, mail that never
got processed. We had 28,000 pieces. Upper management walked in
one day and screamed, what is this? What is this? Like she
didn't know. And we've got to get this work done. And so they
began, I wasn't there, but they decided to take all these
28,000 pieces of mail and ship it throughout the building and
have VSRs stop doing what they're doing and catch up on this
work. And so they offered, they made like team spirit and stuff
like that, who's getting what done? So your group did ten
today? You win the thing. Your group did five this week? You
win the thing. They never got to 28,000, they got to 13,000.
And I said that at my hearing. I said what happened to the
other work?
Mr. Meehan. That's 15,000 pieces of mail that aren't
accounted for.
Ms. Blender. Where is it?
Mr. Meehan. What was the answer?
Ms. Blender. The answer was to give me what I want and get
rid of me. That was the answer. I was told that maybe I wasn't
a good fit. And when after he spoke to me I told him I'm a
better fit than you.
Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Meehan. Members, I would like
to do a second round but we really need to move to the next
panel and I apologize for that. Thank you to the witnesses. You
may get, and I hope you are open to answering some post-hearing
questions, you may get them from members. We will try to do it
between the majority and the minority so that we can get them
to you in a fashion that is a little more concise. But thank
you very much for your testimony. If you would, I will excuse
you and ask the second panel to please come forward.
Okay. Members, we are going to go ahead and continue on as
they come to the panel. We have Ms. Linda Halliday, Assistant
Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations with the Office of
the Inspector General. Ms. Halliday is accompanied by Nora
Stokes, the Director of the Bay Pines Benefits Inspections
Division with the Office of the Inspector General; Mr. Brent
Arronte, the Director of the San Diego Benefits Inspections
Division with the Office of the Inspector General.
Also testifying today is Mr. Danny Pummill, the Principal
Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits at the Veterans Benefits
Administration. Mr. Pummill is accompanied by Ms. Diana Rubens,
the Director of the Philadelphia Regional Office; Ms. Lucy
Filipov, the Assistant Director of the Philadelphia Regional
Office; Ms. Julianna Boor, the Director of the Oakland Regional
Office; Ms. Michele Kwok, the Assistant Director of the Oakland
Regional Office.
I would ask now that you are all seated that you please all
rise, raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Be seated. All of your
complete written statements will be made a part of the record.
Ms. Halliday, you are recognized for your statement.
TESTIMONY OF MS. LINDA HALLIDAY, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL
FOR AUDITS AND EVALUATIONS, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY MS. NORA STOKES,
DIRECTOR, BAY PINES BENEFITS INSPECTIONS DIVISION, OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND MR.
BRENT ARRONTE, DIRECTOR, SAN DIEGO BENEFITS INSPECTIONS
DIVISION, OFFICE OF AUDITS AND EVALUATIONS, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR
GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND MR. DANNY
G.I. PUMMILL, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR BENEFITS,
VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
TESTIMONY OF MS. LINDA HALLIDAY
Ms. Halliday. Chairman Miller and members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to discuss the results of the
OIG's recently published reports where we substantiated
allegations of data manipulation and mismanagement at the VA
regional offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Oakland,
California. I am accompanied by Ms. Nora Stokes, the Director
at our Bay Pines Division, who led the review of allegations in
Philadelphia; and Mr. Brent Arronte, our Director in our San
Diego Benefits Inspections Division, who led the review in
Oakland.
Since June, 2014 we have initiated 13 reviews addressing
allegations of mismanagement and data manipulation at 11 of
VBA's 56 VAROs. For seven of these reviews, VBA and VA
leadership requested OIG assistance. We commend VBA for
bringing forward allegations as early detection facilitates
more timely corrective action and strengthens their ability to
ultimately hold staff accountable.
We substantiated six of the seven allegations received from
VBA leadership, which included significant volumes of
unprocessed paper mail and confirmed some VBA staff and
supervisors manipulated data by processing inappropriate
actions. While these allegations have been addressed we are
concerned that the actions appear to be a systemic trend
motivated to inappropriately enhance reported performance
metrics.
Throughout our review at the Philadelphia Regional Office
we received an unprecedented number of allegations from
different sources pointing to lapses of management within
claims processing activities. Allegations and concerns we
identified involved functional responsibilities of VARO
management, the management of the veterans service center, the
pension management center, two call centers, and an insurance
center.
Many of these allegations conveyed issues of serious
mistrust and fear of reprisal. Allegations of wrongdoing
included issues such as cooking the books, referring to data
manipulation, and taking actions that inappropriately reduced
workload backlog, mail mismanagement, and the potential
processing of duplicate payments. Mismanagement of VA's
resources resulted in compromised data integrity affecting the
timely and accurate delivery of benefits and services, included
adjusting dates of claims by misapplying guidance in VBA's Fast
Letter 13-10, altering individual quality review results, and
failing to enter timely notices of agreements in VBA's tracking
system for appealed claims. Further the VARO's lack of
financial stewardship to prioritize the corrective actions
needed to address duplicate records existing in VBA's corporate
database ultimately results in improper benefit payments
totaling about $2.2 million to 56 different beneficiaries.
The conditions and culture we observed along with the high
levels of mistrust of VARO management reduced our confidence in
the leadership's ability to effectively manage and oversee
issues that are basic functions of a regional office. Until the
trust and fear of reprisal concerns are addressed,
whistleblowers will be reluctant to bring issues forward to
management.
Throughout our review we provided the VARO leadership with
the preliminary findings and issued two management advisory
letters to the Under Secretary for Benefits regarding the
mismanagement of work processes and our concerns regarding the
physical space housing the two call centers and some PMC
operations.
In April, 2015 our report offered 35 recommendations for
corrective action. The USB has taken some corrective action and
she has provided implementation dates for further planned
corrective action that extend through December, 2015. However,
as recently as April 7, 2015 we continued to receive new
allegations that included a new list of more duplicate records
that had not been corrected since 2012.
The USB deferred concurrence on three recommendations in
our report pending the outcome of a VBA administrative
investigative board.
Our review did not identify specific individuals
responsible for the mismanagement of the VARO because this
responsibility is a department program function outside of the
scope of the role of the Office of Audits and Evaluations,
which my role and my office's role is to identify conditions
and causes adversely affecting organizational performance.
In July, 2014 we received a requests from the USB as well
as Congressman Doug LaMalfa to review allegations that the
Oakland VARO had not processed nearly 14,000 informal requests
for benefits dating back to the mid-1990s. Allegedly these
informal claims were also being improperly stored. We reported
that Oakland VARO staff had not processed a significant number
of the informal requests for benefits dating back many years
and improperly stored 537 informal claims. However, because the
VARO 's management had such poor recordkeeping, we could not
confirm the staff processed all of the informal claims alleged
as identified in October, 2012 by VBA's own help team. We could
not confirm the initial list and that it contained 13,184
informal claims. However, we know VBA reported shortly after
the documents were discovered that they reviewed these claims
after finding them and reported that 1,155 required additional
actions.
In March, 2015 we received additional information that was
not disclosed during our initial review. We identified, we
received information that allowed for the identification of a
partial list of documentation with 1,308 unique documents that
were part of the original list of informal claims in the
original allegations. Preliminary results from our statistical
sample indicate the new information contains both formal and
informal claims and claims that still require action. In some
of these cases veterans' benefits were affected.
Before I conclude I would like to inform the committee that
we are reviewing the appropriateness of the relocation package
offered to Ms. Rubens for her relocation from Washington, DC to
Philadelphia PA. And we also have an ongoing OIG administrative
investigation related to the misuse of positions by two senior
leaders at the Philadelphia VARO. Because work is ongoing, I
will not be able to comment on that work today.
In conclusion, trust is fundamental to leadership,
especially during times of change and VBA must work to
establish a healthy environment where staff do not fear
bringing issues to their management, and that staff and
management work together to solve the problems and deliver the
benefits to veterans. Given the serious nature of the issues
identified, OIG will follow up at the appropriate times and
assess the effectiveness and completeness of the corrective
actions. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and we would
be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Linda Halliday appears in the
Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Halliday. Mr. Pummill, you are
recognized.
TESTIMONY OF DANNY PUMMILL, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
FOR BENEFITS, VBA, ACCOMPANIED BY MS. DIANA RUBENS, DIRECTOR,
PHILADELPHIA REGIONAL OFFICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; MS. LUCY FILIPOV,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PHILADELPHIA REGIONAL OFFICE, VETERANS
BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS;
MS. JULIANNA M. BOOR, DIRECTOR, OAKLAND REGIONAL OFFICE,
VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS; AND MS. MICHELE KWOK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OAKLAND
REGIONAL OFFICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
STATEMENT OF MR. DANNY PUMMILL
Mr. Pummill. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Brown, and
members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the Philadelphia and Oakland ROs. I am accompanied
today by Ms. Diane Rubens, Director of the Philadelphia RO; Ms.
Lucy Filipov, the Assistant Director of the Philadelphia RO;
Ms. Julianna Boor, Director of the Oakland RO; and Ms. Michele
Kwok, the Assistant Director of the Oakland RO The RO Directors
and their assistants are here to answer any specific questions
that you have today on the Philadelphia and the Oakland
regional offices.
First I'd like to provide you an update on our
transformation. VBA has reduced the disability claims backlog
by 71 percent, from the peak of 611,000 in March, 2013 to
177,000 today. The average age of the pending claims in the
inventory is now 131 days. That's down 151 days from its peak
of 282 days in February of 2013. These improvements have not
come at the expense of quality. We have increased claim based
accuracy from 83 percent in June, 2011 to 91 percent today, and
accuracy at the medical issue level is 96 percent.
With support from the VSOs at the local and national level,
county and State Departments of Veterans Affairs, and other
stakeholders, we are still on track to eliminate the claims
backlog by the end of 2015. This progress would not have been
possible without our dedicated workforce and leadership
throughout the organization. Our workforce includes over 21,000
employees, 53 percent of whom are Veterans themselves. Our
employees demonstrate every day that they are motivated to make
a difference.
VBA's leaders are responsible for developing, sustaining,
and nurturing employees, highlighting their accomplishments,
addressing their concerns, and giving them the training and
tools to deliver quality benefits and services. Our Directors
use innovative methods to facilitate direct communication,
identify and address issues of concern, and help employees
understand the importance of their work.
Our leaders encourage employees to raise issues, while
ensuring that they are no retaliation for frank discussions.
We're committed to consistently improving processes and
programs and to ensuring fair treatment for our valued
employees who identify areas of improvement.
We hold employees at all levels of the organization
accountable for performance and we continually strive to
fulfill our commitment to providing timely and accurate benefit
decisions.
The VA's Office of Inspector General began an investigation
at the Philadelphia RO on June 19, 2014 based on allegations of
mismanagement. The investigation began three weeks prior to the
arrival of the new Director, Ms. Rubens. With new leadership in
place, the RO immediately began implementing solutions and
remedying the issues outlined by the IG.
Upon receipt of the IG's draft report in March, 2015, we
had already remedied many of the findings. VBA continues to
resolve the remainder of the findings based on recommendations
in the report. We are also conducting an Administrative
Investigation Board to determine if further actions are
appropriate.
Last month, all of VA, to include Ms. Rubens and her
leadership team, asked every employee to recommit to the
Department ICARE values--Integrity, Commitment, Advocacy,
Respect, and Excellence. Ms. Rubens continues to build and
strengthen relationships with the RO employees and local
stakeholders by expanding and improving communication and
focusing on creating a culture that puts Veterans and their
eligible beneficiaries first.
The backlog of Veterans' claims in eastern Pennsylvania has
been reduced by 60 percent since its peak in 2011. The average
age of pending claims has been reduced by 104 days. Quality
remains high at 91 percent at the claim level and 98 percent at
the issue level.
The dedicated employees at the Oakland RO share a similar
commitment to providing the best possible service. The backlog
of northern California Veterans' claims has been reduced by 75
percent from its peak. The average age of pending claims has
been reduced by 307 days. Quality remains high at 96 percent at
the claim level, 98 percent at the issue level.
In February, 2015 the IG issued findings from its July,
2014 investigation of alleged mismanagement of paper documents
at the Oakland RO VBA fully concurred with and implemented the
IG's recommendations. The Oakland RO also implemented our
centralized mail initiative in January, 2015, significantly
reducing potential for delayed handling of paper documents.
The Oakland RO's leadership team takes seriously its
responsibility to develop and nurture employees, as well as to
ensure they have the training and tools necessary to do the
job. Since Ms. Boor's arrival in Oakland, she has built
effective relationships with Congressional stakeholders, VSOs,
and the Veteran communities.
The progress made at both ROs could not have been
accomplished without the dedicated leadership of the officials
present today. They have made significant progress toward
reaching VA's goals and shown great leadership, dedication, and
commitment to employee engagement.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. My colleagues
and I are prepared to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Danny Pummill appears in the
Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Pummill. Thank you,
Ms. Halliday for your testimony. Mr. Pummill, as you know this
committee is very interested in VA's decision to pay out more
than $300,000 to move Ms. Rubens from the D.C. metro area to
Philadelphia. As I read in a letter that I received from Ms.
Hickey that this was actually your recommendation, I was
reading an Office of Personnel Management guidance. It says
that it can be used if the agency determines that the position
is likely to be difficult to fill in the absence of using this
incentive. It seems to me that Philadelphia would not be one of
those areas that would be difficult to fill. So could you very
quickly tell me why this program was needed to be used?
Mr. Pummill. Philadelphia is one of our largest and most
difficult regional offices. It is tough to fill. The previous
RO Director that we had in there, it took us almost six months
to find somebody that was willing to go in there and do the
job. When we realized that we were having problems at
Philadelphia, one of the first names that came up was Ms.
Rubens, and we knew it was going to be tough to get her to go
into Philadelphia and try to fix the situation for us.
The Chairman. And could you tell me what types of
advertising or attempts did you make before the decision to
move Ms. Rubens to that position?
Mr. Pummill. We did not advertise for that position. We
just went through the RO Director----
The Chairman. Were any other employees encouraged to apply?
Mr. Pummill. No, they were not.
The Chairman. Okay. At what point was it clear to you that
the AVO needed to be offered in order to fill the position?
Mr. Pummill. The previous Director that was selected was a
senior executive from another agency in the federal government.
The Chairman. Did that individual get the AVO to move?
Mr. Pummill. No, he did not.
The Chairman. Okay.
Mr. Pummill. We attempted to bring an executive from
another agency to fix some of the problems there thinking that
some outside blood would help us a little bit. We realized very
quickly that it was just too complex, there was too much going
on, and we needed one of our most senior people.
The Chairman. Okay, thank you. Ms. Rubens, did you sign a
written statement that you would not accept a transfer unless
the relocation expenses were authorized?
Ms. Rubens. Yes, I did.
The Chairman. And why was that?
Ms. Rubens. The relo package that VA has is offered in some
instances. And because it was offered to me and I thought it
beneficial to help me ease that transition from one office in
one city to another in an effort to be there as quickly as
possible.
The Chairman. And you never intended to go to Philadelphia
at any time in your career?
Ms. Rubens. I would tell you that I had been in Washington
for a number of years. If I were to leave Washington it was to
take on an office that had a large, complex operation.
Philadelphia fit that bill.
The Chairman. And so that was the reason that you left, you
went to Philadelphia because you wanted to go to a large
complex office and that fit the bill that was in your career
path?
Ms. Rubens. Sir, at that time it was an option and there
was discussion about whether or not I would be able to meet the
needs of the regional office. And I felt like, and still feel
like, I am capable of doing that.
The Chairman. Are you eligible for retirement?
Ms. Rubens. No sir, I'm not.
The Chairman. How long before you can retire?
Ms. Rubens. Several years.
The Chairman. One, two, three, four? Do you know?
How about two? Is that close?
Ms. Rubens. I think it's a little bit more than two, but
less than five.
The Chairman. Okay. Do you have any family members that
live close by?
Ms. Rubens. I do.
The Chairman. And who might that be?
Ms. Rubens. My sister, my mother, nephews.
The Chairman. How close?
Ms. Rubens. Wilmington. I grew up in Delaware.
The Chairman. Twenty-eight minutes. Close?
Ms. Rubens. It depends on how you go and what time of day,
sir.
The Chairman. So you did not want to move unless you got a
$300,000-plus relocation package to be close to your mother and
your family?
Ms. Rubens. No sir, that's not the issue.
The Chairman. But you had to get this relocation package to
be close to your family?
Ms. Rubens. It was part of a benefit program that VA offers
to ensure transition is as quick and as smooth as possible to
an office that needed leadership.
The Chairman. And so you would not have moved close to your
mother had you not gotten this package?
Ms. Rubens. I don't know that, sir.
The Chairman. I guarantee you, I would move close to my mom
without a $300,000 relocation package.
Mr. Pummill. Congressman, if I could interject?
The Chairman. No, sir. I am talking to Ms. Rubens.
Mr. Pummill. Mr. Congressman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Had you ever told anybody prior to
this being decided that you had a desire to go to Philadelphia?
Ms. Rubens. I, when the director before the director I
replaced retired I had expressed an interest in Philadelphia.
The Chairman. Would you have gone then without getting a
$300,000 relocation package?
Ms. Rubens. I can't answer that, sir. I don't know what I
would or wouldn't have done many years ago.
The Chairman. How many years ago was that?
Ms. Rubens. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure. Three to,
three to five years ago.
The Chairman. So you did sign a written statement basically
that, so this, was this a Diana Rubens move? Or was this a
management directed move?
Ms. Rubens. I don't understand the question.
The Chairman. Either you made the decision to go to
Philadelphia or management said you needed to go to
Philadelphia.
Ms. Rubens. I could not have reassigned myself to
Philadelphia.
The Chairman. Did the management ask you to go to
Philadelphia or did you choose to go to Philadelphia?
Ms. Rubens. I still don't, I'm not sure how to answer that
question.
The Chairman. How did you make a decision, to decide to go
to Philadelphia? You just woke up one morning and decided to
move to Philadelphia? Or did management say you needed to go
fix the problems at Philadelphia?
Ms. Rubens. There were discussions with my leadership
about----
The Chairman. Did management tell you it was a management
decision or did you make the decision? It's one or the other.
Ms. Rubens. I guess I'm just not understanding the
question. It was not a directed reassignment.
The Chairman. It was not a directed reassignment?
Ms. Rubens. It was not a directed based on performance or
anything else reassignment. There was a leadership need in
Philadelphia. There was a discussion about whether or not I
would go. And----
The Chairman. And you told them you would not go unless you
got the relocation package?
Ms. Rubens. As part of the process for accepting a
relocation, you have to choose one of those options on that
document. I opted to avail myself of a program for relocation
to ensure I could make that move as expeditiously as possible.
The Chairman. So you couldn't have moved quickly without
$300,000 relocation package? That is okay. Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just want
you to know I am a little uncomfortable with this line of
questioning.
Ms. Rubens, I want to know something about your skill sets.
Because I understand there are a multiplicity of problems in
Philadelphia and VA decided that they wanted you and your skill
sets. Can you tell me something about your background as to why
it is that VA felt that your expertise was needed in
Philadelphia?
Ms. Rubens. So thank you, ma'am. I've been with the
Department of Veterans Affairs in the Veterans Benefits
Administration nearly 28 years. I started as a claims examiner.
I have processed claims and understand the challenges of that
position and the often changing requirements as we ask our
employees to take on difficult tasks.
I progressed over the years through first line supervisory
positions to leadership positions, both at a local level and a
regional office, within area offices, as well as in our
headquarters environment. And from that standpoint the ability
to understand the multiple priorities, the challenges of all of
the things particularly in the last three years that we've
asked employees to do as we have completely revamped from a
paper bound system to a paperless system, the need to ensure we
maintain dialogue, open communication, not only with our
veterans who are ultimately who we're there to serve, but with
our employees and our external stakeholders. And since my
arrival in Philadelphia I have been very actively engaged in
understanding the challenges within that local regional office,
reaching out to employees, our stakeholders, and our veterans
in an effort to understand and ensure that we meet the needs of
employees who are ultimately going to provide that world class
service to veterans that they so deserve.
Ms. Brown of Florida. One of the problems that we have is
the backlog. I listened to some of the whistleblowers and they
mentioned the fact the pressure that they are on to process so
many and you get so many points. Did you institute that system?
Or is there some way that we can better work? In other words
the one young lady said that in order to stay in that system
you have to, you don't continue in that system. You want to
move up. And the claims process, you develop certain expertise.
Can you address that? I am interested in how we can improve the
system and how we can improve processing the claims so that the
veterans can get their benefits the employee will feel that
they are doing a service to the veteran, because 53 percent of
the people in your office are veterans.
Ms. Rubens. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Please respond to that and then I
will go to Mr. Pummill.
Ms. Rubens. I would tell you that the last few years in
particular have been a period of great change in the system for
both veterans and employees in terms of how we're processing
claims as we have worked to improve the process to make it a
more streamlined process, to make it more accessible. And the
challenge often is that we know our veterans today come from a
wide range of different eras and different understandings and
comfort levels with new technology. And so it is about not just
how do we modernize and move into that electronic environment,
how do we ensure good outreach to our older veterans who are
not as comfortable in that way? And it has changed the things
that we've asked our employees to do. And so it's imperative
for us to continue to provide training, to continue to look at
what it is we're asking them to do and how they do it. And in
fact we continue to do that today and to ensure we are
continuing to support them as they take care of our veterans.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Mr. Pummill, you wanted to add
something?
Mr. Pummill. Yes, Congresswoman. I wanted to add that we
have done a lot in VA in the last two years. We ask a lot of
our employees. We ask a lot of our employees----
Ms. Brown of Florida. Is that mandatory overtime still in
place?
Mr. Pummill. Yes. The mandatory overtime is still in place.
They've been in mandatory overtime for a long time.
Ms. Brown of Florida. About five years, I understand.
Mr. Pummill. Yes, ma'am. At the same time they are in
mandatory overtime we also are taking the entire paper system
and automating it, both our claims system and our mail system.
I was shocked in 2013 when I took this my job that everything
we did was in paper. It didn't make any sense. So imagine the
employee out there who is on mandatory overtime, we're trying
to increase the number of claims so we can take care of
Veterans and their families, and we're asking them to
completely change everything they've ever done to a new system.
It's hard.
We understand that the standards that we have in place
right now are probably not the right standards. The standards
are changing as we modify how we do our work. We now have
automated systems so we shouldn't be using non-automated
standards. We put together a team right now, we have members of
the union, we have some of our best raters, we have some of our
people that are supervising claims and management of people,
and then we brought in some outside experts. They are in the
process right now of looking at the standards. How should the
standards be set under an automated system? Should we get more
work out of people, should we get less work? Should it be a
different type of work? Should we do away with points? How do
we distribute it? We're looking at everything from scratch
right now. We expect to get that done in about the next 180
days.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you. And I yield back my time
and I hope we have an additional round.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Yes, we will. Thank you,
Ms. Brown. And members, I apologize. I forgot to ask Mr.
Pummill one question. Is it your testimony that Ms. Rubens was
given this package because of her expertise and need to move
her quickly to the Philadelphia RO?
Mr. Pummill. Yes, it is.
The Chairman. Okay. Can you help square a statement that
came out from VA shortly after this issue arose that said that
the AVO is offered by VBA to all leaders accepting reassignment
as a VBA regional director. Is that true?
Mr. Pummill. That is not quite accurate, Congressman. In
the last three years we've moved 20 directors in VBA----
The Chairman. Wait, wait, no, I, you're getting ready to
cloud it. I know what you're getting ready to say. Some didn't
avail themselves because their house sold within the 60 day
time period. Do they all get the opportunity to participate if
their house does not sell?
Mr. Pummill. No, we only offered it to 11 of those 20.
The Chairman. Okay. So then, so the statement that VA sent
out that AVO is offered by VBA to all leaders accepting
reassignment as a VBA regional director is incorrect?
Mr. Pummill. That is not the information I have.
The Chairman. Okay. Is this a correct statement or not?
Mr. Pummill. I don't believe that's a correct statement.
The Chairman. Okay. Very good. Ms. Walorski.
Ms. Walorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Boor, I wanted
to turn to the situation in Oakland where the regional office
discovered more than 13,184 unprocessed claims dating back to
the 1990s. According to VA, however, only 2,155 required
additional review and 11,029 claims were marked no action
necessary. Ms. Brown, one of the witnesses that was just here,
provided written testimony in which she stated that the VA did
not adequately review these claims. Investigators from the IG
office were only able to audit a fraction of the documents but
found that 21 percent were informal claims that had not been
processed. On what basis did the VA conclude that 11,029 claims
did not need to be reviewed further and processed?
Ms. Boor. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. Back
at the time, as Mr. Pummill mentioned, we were in a paper
environment. When they found the documents we weren't sure what
it was, we thought they were informal claims. Once we went
through them we went through and checked them with the
electronic system to see, one, if a formal claim was received,
and if so that the date of payment was correct. There were
instances where the, the formal claim never came in but the
letter may have been sent. And Ms. Brown was correct, if a
veteran or a beneficiary may have passed away during the
interim there may not have been another action by law that we
could have taken.
Ms. Walorski. How long did it through to go, how long did
it take you to go through that system?
Ms. Boor. Admittedly too long. When we first started and we
did the electronic review, we got through the ones that we
could not take action on based on the electronic system, or we
have already taken the correct action. We set those aside and
we went to the approximately 2,100 that we still needed to look
at a paper file to make sure we got it right. That was probably
the one that took us a little longer. We got through the
initial reviews pretty quickly. Once we got into the ones that
required a paper review it took us admittedly too long.
Ms. Walorski. How long did it take? I have no idea. I'm
just asking you. How long did it take? Months, days, weeks?
Ms. Boor. It took longer than that. We were through 2013
and `14, I think, going through it. It was brought very
gratefully to our attention that even the ones that they did
review, Ms. Brown was correct, we didn't attach it to the
claims folder as we should have through records management.
Once we found that we were about I think down to I think Ms.
Halliday mentioned 530-plus that we still had on station. So
we, we made through, we made it through most of them. But
sometimes it's hard to get those records, paper records from
storage from our archives and trying to make sure they are on
station. So we review again to make sure we did it right.
Ms. Walorski. So you are caught up. And what would be the,
what would be the difference today in, number one in the
process? But is there a backlog in there today?
Ms. Boor. The difference today is all of the claims related
mail is scanned into an electronic digital file. So that
instead of attaching it to a paper document or having a stack
of paper documents, they are all scanned into their own
electronic digital file. Which is, once anyone looks at it,
like Ms. Brown mentioned, you can know that it was there. So
we've already gone through that system. We started in January.
And we are, are continuing down that path.
Ms. Walorski. And are you caught up? Is there a backlog?
Ms. Boor. We have approximately 7,000 pieces of mail that
we have to sort through to make sure, in a digital environment,
to make sure that we are either controlling it for action or
making sure that any, any necessary action has been taken on
those.
Ms. Walorski. How long will that take to go through 7,000?
Ms. Boor. We average a turn around of approximately 13 days
right now.
Ms. Walorski. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Ms. Kuster?
Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
panel. And I want to particularly thank Ms. Halliday and the
folks at the IG's office for the thorough investigation that
you are doing.
So I want to focus on where we go from here. And I want to
get a handle, and I think, Mr. Pummill, you might be best
suited. I want to understand why Philadelphia and Oakland? Or
are we just setting the stage for a series of hearings like
this on other crises all around the country? Are these to your,
two of your most problematic situations? And if so I want to
understand is it just the volume of claims there? Or do we
seriously have a toxic work environment that they are not going
to be able to take on? Do we need more employees? Do we need a
whole management shift? Because I understand the challenges
that are laid down and I understand the transition from paper
claims. When we first got here we were talking about warehouses
with boxes and boxes of paper, and I agree that is not
efficient. But I want to get to is this worse? It sounds like a
nightmare. And how do we get out of it?
Mr. Pummill. Congresswoman, I would say that Philadelphia
is the worst. And we did have serious problems in Oakland. The
Oakland problems were to the extent that, as another
congressman alluded to in the earlier testimony, at one point
we had to shut down and retrain everybody in the office. When
we got the hotline complaint about Philadelphia, the first call
I received was from Ms. Halliday who said, hey look, I'm down
here, this is serious. I need your help. So I flew, took the
train, got Diana, brought her with me. We went down to
Philadelphia and my conversation with Ms. Halliday was these
people are afraid to talk to you and they're afraid to talk to
me. I'm not going to get the right information.
We ended up going around the office to every single person
in the office, stopping by their desk, everybody that was
there, and me trying to explain to them this is important. We
need you to be honest. We need you to be forthright. Nobody is
going to hurt you. We've got to know what's going on because if
we don't know what's going on we can't fix this.
We had a similar problem like that in Oakland. We've
changed out leadership in Philadelphia. We're changing out
leadership in Oakland. We're trying to be more veteran centric,
as the new Secretary has us doing. A lot of this is way too
much work with not enough people at the same time you're
implementing all of this change on them. And we have to figure
out how to work through that in a way that we continue to serve
the Veterans and make sure that the Veterans and their families
are taken care of.
The good news is that twice as many Veterans are getting
their claims done twice as fast as they were three years ago,
but the bad news is that this puts an incredible amount of
pressure on our people.
Ms. Kuster. Yes.
Mr. Pummill. I will say that we in VA for whatever reason
were not very good in the past at telling this committee what
we needed to do our job. We have to do a better job at that. We
have to look at what we need, we have to make proper
assessments, and then we have to come forward and say, like
when the chairman asked what do you need to do your job, we
need to be forthright and say we need more people or we need
more assets.
A lot of the people that we have are new people as you
heard that from the whistleblowers, because we did get a
substantial number of new employees over the last three years.
But they are new employees. And I agree with the whistleblower,
it does take them about three years to get up to speed to be
the high level, high performing employees that we need.
Ms. Kuster. So I am just going to cut you off there because
my time is limited. My colleague Mr. O'Rourke is going to get
into the notion of the fully developed claims and being as
efficient in the process. And he has got legislation, is there,
if there is something that we could do, I know the VSOs work
very hard to have the fully developed claims. It seems to me
part of the challenge we have is that this is, it is so
scattered. I mean, I know my husband took a year trying to get
my father-in-law into the veterans' home. And everybody's
intention is to be veteran centric, but we have documents and
records all over.
So I want to ask you a real specific question before I
close here. What are other regions doing that could be best
practices that would help us get over the hump with
Philadelphia? And we probably will not have time for it. But
just is there something that we could do about redefining the
regions, that their load could be lightened?
Mr. Pummill. One of the things that I think is going to
help us a lot is our national work queue that we're putting
together. The system that we have right now in VBA, or we had
in VBA, was 57 offices, all over the country and outside the
United States that had paper and had different mailroom styles,
different ways of handling mail, different ways of processing,
and things like that. With automation we're going to be able to
standardize.
I've heard the story since I got here that, people are able
to cherry pick claims. They can give easy claims to their
friends and they can save hard claims for other people, as the
whistleblowers alluded to. The national work queue will, not
allow anybody to do that. The work will be distributed equally
around the country and the work should go to the next available
claims person who has the expertise to do that claim. So if it
is a military sexual trauma claim, it goes to the military
sexual trauma team. If it's an easy claim it goes to a new
employee.
But we're just now in the initial phases of that. That will
be a brand new event for us here in VBA.
Ms. Kuster. Sounds like a critical development. And thank
you. Sorry, Mr. Chair, for going over.
The Chairman. Thank you. Dr. Wenstrup.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I just, my
question to all of you that sitting here today are in this, in
the thick of all this, is do many of you have experiences from
claims processing in the private sector of any types of claims?
Mr. Pummill. I have no experience. My entire career was
with the Department of the Army and then over into VBA.
Dr. Wenstrup. This kind of goes to some of the same
problems we see with hospital care and hospital administration,
if you will, compared to the private sector. Where the customer
service is, is so important that they are going to make sure
that they get things done right because they are competing for
business.
Mr. Pummill. Congressman, I will tell you that, one of the
things we're doing, and it is showing promise, well first of
all we are talking to civilian agencies. We are talking to some
of the largest claims affiliated organizations for profit in
the country. You know; How do you do it? How do you have such
high customer satisfaction? How are you able to get your claims
through quickly? We are even working a couple of pilots where
we're having contractors work a portion of our claim that is
not inherently governmental that allows us to speed it up to
see how that works. It looks like a combination of that is, is
probably going to be the future of the VA.
Dr. Wenstrup. Well, I hope so. And I would maybe do more
than talk to them, maybe hire some of them to implement the
processes. And you know, I do not think, it is kind of
surprising to me that, you know, what you are talking about
today, to have specialists on certain types of claims like this
is a big lightbulb going off. I can pretty much promise you in
the private sector, this is what people do. So you know, again,
it kind of comes down to the same thing, where your doors are
open no matter what. So let's just, we will do it the way we
want. Well it is time we look at other places. But I appreciate
your honesty in recognizing that there is this kind of lack of
input, or has been.
Mr. Pummill. And I agree with you, Congressman.
Dr. Wenstrup. And I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. O'Rourke, you are recognized.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To Mr. Pummill, I
wanted to better understand what the consequences were for
those responsible for the decisions that led to conditions that
you encountered in, in Philadelphia where you had, you know,
folks hiding mail, you had poor performance, you had
intimidation. You said employees were so fearful they would not
talk to you, they would not talk to the Office of the Inspector
General. We have had issues in Oakland that have been
highlighted today. What were the consequences for those
responsible?
Mr. Pummill. When we first heard about it and I got back to
Washington, DC the recommendation from my boss Allison Hickey
was let's do an investigation immediately. But after
consultation with the Inspector General, the Inspector General
asked us to please hold until we finish the IG investigation.
We can't have two competing investigations, it confuses
everything. Let us finish the IG investigation.
One of the recommendations in the IG investigation was that
we proceed with an AIB, which is an Administrative
Investigation Board. That is under way right now and the people
that are on the board are someone that is completely outside of
the claims process, a retired military colonel that works in
our Office of Economic Opportunity, and we got somebody, a
senior person from the National Cemetery Administration so we
wouldn't have anybody in the claims process, in the RO process,
or from the OFO involved in it. They are supposed to have a
report to Under Secretary Hickey by the end of June. And she
has told me to assure this committee that at that time she will
take appropriate action based on that investigation.
Mr. O'Rourke. And I certainly can appreciate the, the need
to approach this with due diligence and ensure that everyone
has their due process. But just given some of the anecdotes
that we heard earlier, things hanging out from 1996 untouched
by any employee, this OIG anecdote of one employee had four
bins of unprocessed mail. I mean, some of these seem so cut and
dried that, and, and this, this committee has had the benefit
of hearing mind boggling issues on the VHA side as well where,
where it's just, I just don't understand whether you are
missing the necessary authority to hold people accountable. And
when Ms. Halliday talks about cultural aspects and dynamics of
this, you know, if we want to create a culture of
accountability there has to be some accountability and there is
no accountability.
And I understand you are working on that but it would have
been wonderful to come to this hearing with, with some of that
in hand only because, you know, your testimony following the
whistleblowers, following Ms. Halliday, introduced some
cognitive dissonance at least in my head. That, you know, there
is a culture of no fear, we want people to not fear frank
conversations, et cetera. And yet all of this is happening.
And so I have no reason to question your commitment to
this. I just wish that I could see that there is in fact, there
are in fact some consequences and there is a change in culture
beyond the investigations and the committees.
Ms. Halliday, you talked about your job being primarily to
identify conditions and causes, and, and you described the
conditions really well. In, in terms of the causes, would you
like to comment on my line of questioning in terms of
accountability and the culture that has existed in those two
ROs, or maybe more largely at the VBA?
Ms. Halliday. Yes, I would. Thank you. Let's separate
Philadelphia from Oakland. Philadelphia is clearly the most
problematic VARO. In Philadelphia they need a culture change.
There is such fear of reprisal and fear from the employees, who
I believe are trying to do a good job. But they are scared to
bring issues forward and when they do, they see them ignored. I
think you need more management changes than what we've already
seen. I thought that bringing a new director in was a start. It
has to go deeper. We talked as a team, we were concerned about
the span of control at Philadelphia. It's so large for a
director that it probably should be reviewed. I think that
there is a compelling need to invest in the management,
specialty training the mid-level management at the VARO.
Training in how to lead and emotional intelligence, which by
the way they did take that action. This has to happen so that
people understand that they will be treated fairly and they
start to work together to resolve the issues.
I definitely believe and it's come out that the performance
metrics need to be reviewed. Clearly they are driving
production but it's not focusing on how well veterans are being
served. That's been a point of contention between OIG and VBA
for a while, but I see them coming along. There is one
recommendation in the Philadelphia report to look at the
performance standards at the call centers since we heard from
the staff there they couldn't provide good service under the
time allotted for each call. The standard needs fixing because
if a veteran can't get the information in the first call
they're just going to go to other parts of the system for the
information they need.
And, and lastly I think there really has to be a look at is
there any followup to the quality reviews being done? VBA does
site visit reviews by the Compensation and Fiduciary Program.
Many of the issues were brought up then. So the IG should not
have to come in and address issues that should be fixed at the
point you've invested those resources in that internal
oversight. That same issue spills over into Oakland.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you. Members, we do have I think a
series of two votes coming up. What I'll do is we will watch
the clock, let everybody know, then we'll take a 15-minute
recess to give everybody an opportunity to go vote on both, and
then come--there are five votes? Okay, I am sorry. Well, let us
keep going. Dr. Abraham.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. Mr. Pummill, I will make this quick. It
is my understanding from the structural level, and we are just
talking structure, that since Ms. Rubens has come aboard that
the only structural change that has been made is Gary Hodge has
been promoted. And let's go back to Ms. Kuster's, let me
dovetail on her questioning. She asked about what plans were
being made to change. I guess my question is, give me some
specific examples of what is going to be changed to make this
process better?
Mr. Pummill. We have lots of things in the works for change
right now.
Mr. Abraham. Give me, give me three.
Mr. Pummill. Of specific change, first of all is bringing a
team together to look at the standards to determine----
Mr. Abraham. But has a team been formed?
Mr. Pummill [continuing]. It is formed, it is in place.
They have already met several times.
Mr. Abraham. Okay.
Mr. Pummill. We also have a team that we put together which
brought outside people from industry, civilian industry, to
look at quality and how we measure quality and how we're doing
quality. We're doing that same thing.
Mr. Abraham. When are they going to report back to you?
Mr. Pummill. I believe that they are 30 days out. I can get
the exact date for you.
Mr. Abraham. I would appreciate it.
Mr. Pummill. They are meeting right now. Since the new
Secretary has been in place, Bob McDonald and his team, it's
holding people accountable, the accountability of personnel. We
still have issues inside the federal government on, you know,
due process, what you can do and you can't do to people. Back
in the Army it was so much easier with the Uniform Code of
Military Justice; it was cut and dried. Certain things that
people do don't carry over to work if it's done in an off duty
situation. But when the AIB gets back, I've had face to face
conversations with Under Secretary Hickey. Her intent is to
take the harshest action that she can take against people based
on what they did or didn't do. She won't overly punish anybody,
she'll follow due process, but she's, we're not going to let it
stand.
Mr. Abraham. And will we get a report on those punishments?
Mr. Pummill. The report should be back by June and then we
will ensure that this committee gets a copy of what we do with
that report from the AIB.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Halliday, you said that
there were 13 reviews by your group, seven were reported to the
OIG. Is that a correct statement?
Ms. Halliday. Yes, it is.
Mr. Abraham. When, when did those reviews start? When was
the first review begun?
Ms. Halliday. I'm going to say post-June, 2014.
Mr. Abraham. And I guess that leads to my question. We have
known and according to testimony that we have heard today, and
certainly in other testimony, that these problems, these
systemic problems go back years, sometimes decades. Why now are
the reviews just now starting?
Ms. Halliday. I think it comes on the heels of our review
at the Phoenix Medical Center and all the issues that came out
there with data manipulation. We knew the minute the news was
covering that issue that chances are we were going to get
allegations from the VBA side. New coverage raises people's
awareness of these issues. They look at what's happening in
their environment. They see the same types of things, maybe
different from a claims processing to a medical center, but you
know we had expected that we would get that.
I will tell you for the 13 allegations we have, there's a
great variety between which ones involve substantial claims or
documentation that's not processed to some where the
inappropriate actions are very small in number but egregious.
Houston is one of those examples. VBA asked us to come in. They
had looked at it. We looked at it. We see two instances in
Houston where someone inappropriately cleared end products.
They were removed. They are no longer employed with VA.
Mr. Abraham. Were they fired?
Ms. Halliday. Pardon me?
Mr. Abraham. Were they fired?
Ms. Halliday. They resigned, as far as I know.
Mr. Pummill. That's correct. They resigned.
Mr. Abraham. Okay.
Ms. Halliday. But there's a great variety and I have
instances within this 13 where there is no audit trail to tell
how frequently data has been manipulated or how many claims
have been touched. The issue up in Boston and that spilled over
into Togus is one of those issues.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. We will go to one more member, Mr. McNerney.
And then we will break until votes are over. Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Halliday, in
your testimony you state that the Under Secretary of Benefits
testified that none of the informal claims found required any
additional action. However, your investigation found that seven
out of 34 documents in your sample were informal claims that
had not been processed. Is there a way to explain that? Is
there a legitimate way to explain that?
Ms. Halliday. We would disagree with the Under Secretary
for Benefits here based on our thorough review. I don't know
what information came up the chain of command to her and I
can't comment on that. But our look at those claims shows us
they need action. I'd like to ask Mr. Arronte who did the work
out in Oakland to speak to it a little bit.
Mr. Arronte. Yes, sir. First of all it was difficult for us
to identify 14,000 anything. There was no paper trail. We
couldn't prove a negative. Since then a whistleblower has come
forward and provided us a list of about 1,308 additional
claims; we have looked at 60 of those. They are not duplicate
claims. They consist of formal claims and informal claims, and
several required action. So for, for the statement to be made
that none of these cases required action, I don't know their
definition of action. I can give you one example if you'd like?
Mr. McNerney. No, that's fine.
Mr. Arronte. Okay.
Mr. McNerney. I only have five minutes. So there's clearly
some sort of a contradiction here?
Mr. Arronte. Absolutely.
Mr. McNerney. You know, I am going to address this to you
and Ms. Boor. What can we do to improve the situation at the
Oakland office? I will, I will ask, start with Ms. Boor.
Ms. Boor. Thank you, Congressman. And, and I appreciate the
question. I think we're already doing it. Part of it was having
someone brave enough to raise their hand in a paper environment
and say, hey, I found these, I'm not sure what they are. And to
be comfortable to do so. Looking back on it we weren't the best
of recordkeepers in documenting and logging in each and every
13,184 documents that were found. We continue to look back. We
want to make sure that every possible action that we could take
was taken. We're now in an electronic format so that everything
that comes in via paper is scanned into electronic digital
format and, and less likely to have to----
Mr. McNerney. Okay, you know, it is, it is kind of
startling that you would say we are glad that a whistleblower
came forward within your own organization. I mean, that is kind
of an odd thing to hear.
Ms. Boor [continuing]. Well----
Mr. McNerney. And I am glad that you think that is a good
thing. It should be something that you can detect without
having to have a whistleblower, but----
Ms. Boor [continuing]. I would say, one, the whistleblowers
are important because we have gone through so much change in
making sure that we're, we're looking at things that we, we
need to. I would also say that it was a VA employee that
brought that to our attention from one of the special help
teams back then. The 1,308 that we found was based on another
employee that came forward. I did provide that to, to the OIG
as soon as we had it. A fresh set of eyes never hurts to make
sure we get it right because that's the bottom line, to do
what's right for the veteran.
Mr. McNerney [continuing]. Well you know, I am not quite
ready to believe that there is nefarious conduct. But some of
the testimony, for example Kristen Ruell's in the first panel,
gave me an indication of what could be happening. There is
just--not a cognitive dissonance, but a dissonance between the
way employees are treated and that there needs to be some sort
of an overhaul in terms of how we can clean that up so that
employees feel empowered to move forward so that they are
empowered to bring problems forward so they feel like they want
to stay and have high morale. I mean, those, that is probably
the most important thing we do. Training by itself has, has not
been effective as far as I can tell. So we need a plan from the
Oakland RO and the, and the Philadelphia RO and the, and the VA
in general that is going to achieve those goals. And I have not
heard that yet but I want to hear it. Mr. Pummill, can you
address that?
Mr. Pummill. Fundamentally, we realize that as we're
changing, as we're modernizing, and we're changing everything
we do, that we have to have better communication, a better
working arrangement with the employees out there. The IG
investigations that are going on right now, the only one that
was direct to the IG was the Philadelphia one. The rest of them
were ones that we got from whistleblowers that came to us, and
we contacted the IG and said could you please look at these and
help us get through these so we that can work it out and make
it better for Veterans? We know we have to provide better
service to veterans. We know that we have to have better
contact and relations with Veterans. But somehow we've got to
complete the trifecta and take care of our own people at the
same time.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I am running out of time. Mr. Chairman,
let us work together to put some sort of a requirement out
there to get the VA to put a plan that we can have confidence
in that will change things.
The Chairman. I am all for that. Members, we will stand in
recess until immediately following the last vote in this
series.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. This hearing is reconvened.
Thank you, Ms. Titus. We will ask that you serve as the
ranking member until such time as Ms. Brown returns.
Mr. Costello, you are recognized.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In looking back over some things that both Mr. Pummill and
Ms. Halliday said, I have a couple questions. First, Mr.
Pummill, I believe you indicated that Ms. Hickey indicated that
with respect to the AIB findings, when they are issued, that
Ms. Hickey indicated that they would take the harshest action
that can be taken; is that an accurate statement?
Mr. Pummill. ``The harshest,'' those are my words.
Mr. Costello. Okay. Fair enough.
Mr. Pummill. Yes.
Mr. Costello. Can you expound upon that. I just want to
make sure that I heard that correctly.
Mr. Pummill. Yes. When the under secretary read the IG
report as the IG investigation was ongoing, we were getting
interim reports from Ms. Halliday and her team and she was
seeing the problems were there. It was, we have to do something
here. There has to be some major change. We need to know what's
going on and we have to set examples so that people know that
they can't do the things that were happening. But we have to
know to what the details are; that's what the AIB is for right
now.
Mr. Costello. And so--I am very interested in this
interrelationship between the IG and the AIB, or at least that
point in time where they are separated--but I would like to
know, Ms. Halliday, what information can you provide that is
not contained in your report, but has been provided to the AIB
and is maybe contained in the charging letter? I am mindful
that you indicated that it is a department program function for
the--it is not a department program function for the IG to
identify individuals.
Question is, were individuals identified that you have then
forwarded on to the IAB for their further investigation?
Ms. Halliday. At this point, we expect VBA to come in and
ask us to review the evidence. My teams will have all
workpapers that will explain where we said 52 quality reviews
were changed by a person, and then they can expand on that and
determine the facts and determine exactly what happened, and
under what guidance it occurred, so that the individual and the
systemic deficiencies can be identified and effectively
corrected. And from that point, they will be able to see who's
accountable.
Mr. Costello. So, do you have the information, through your
investigation, that would yield the individuals who may be
found culpable?
Ms. Halliday. In some instances, yes.
Mr. Costello. You just have not----
Ms. Halliday. I mean I state in my report that someone
changed quality reviews----
Mr. Costello. Yes.
Ms. Halliday [continuing]. Then we have the evidence, and I
can put a number with it.
Mr. Costello. Okay.
Ms. Halliday. The big issue at Philadelphia is the
management, and the management oversight and why the
supervisory controls broke so badly.
Mr. Costello. And that would seem to me to be able to be
identified easier than an individual employee who has a
supervisor in terms of where culpability lies; is that correct?
Ms. Halliday. Yes.
Mr. Costello. Next question, the charging letter, as I
understand the term is used for charging the AIB with
investigating a certain scope, did you participate in the
substance of the charging letter?
Ms. Halliday. No.
Mr. Costello. Who does that fall on?
Ms. Halliday. We made the recommendation to the under
secretary for benefits.
Mr. Costello. Okay.
Ms. Halliday. And she would--she would put this
administrative investigation in place based on VA directive
0700, which talks about the administrative investigations.
Mr. Costello. Okay. I think I know the answer to this
question. Is manipulation of data, if purposefully done, a
criminal act? You had indicated that you criminal--you had a
whole team of people involved in your investigation. Is it a
criminal act?
Ms. Halliday. I think each and every instance needs to be
looked at, because with criminal, you have to look at the
intent.
Mr. Costello. Yes, the mens rea.
Ms. Halliday. So I think you have to look at these
instances on their own merits.
Mr. Costello. You have indicated that the Fast Letter 13-10
was misapplied----
Ms. Halliday. Yes.
Mr. Costello [continuing]. Or there was a
misinterpretation. Is that in any way an absolute defense to
manipulation? I am a little concerned that that term is sort of
being used as a way to immunize a further examination of
whether the Fast Letter 13-10 was actually purposefully
misapplied so that you will never be able to determine how much
manipulation occurred. Can you expound--can you agree with
that? Disagree with that? Expound on that?
Ms. Halliday. Certainly, we would question why Fast Letter
13-10 guidance was not appropriately applied. It seemed very
clear that there was a requirement for each and every date of
claim that was changed under that guidance to be reported to
VACO. Philadelphia did not do that. The intent to which they
didn't do that might be hard to assess.
Mr. Costello. And did you find--last quick question--did
you find their explanation for how it was misinterpreted to be
at all credible? In other words, is there--you said it was, I
believe you used the word s``unambiguous'' or ``clear''--can a
reasonably intelligent person with experience in processing
claims have come to misinterpret it the way that it was
misinterpreted.
Ms. Halliday. We don't think so. We just think it was
blatant disregard for the policy. We did a review of similar
allegations at the Little Rock VARO. We found they kept
meticulous records because they did not like the fact that
veterans were being told they really only waited a short period
of time for their claim to be processed versus a lengthy period
of time. They kept very good records for us. And our report in
Little Rock illustrates two examples of how data can be
manipulated and how the times veterans waited for these claims
to be processed was inaccurate.
I'd like Nora to expound on that, if she could.
Ms. Stokes. Thank you. So in Little Rock, because they did
keep good records, we were able to look at the impact as VBA
had intended. So had the folks in Philadelphia used the
electronic indicators and provided the notification to
Compensation Services, then you may have had an audit trail.
But in the Philadelphia regional office, they did not do that.
In Little Rock they did, and we were able to look at 48
claim, where they had applied the guidance in the Fast Letter.
Forty-three of those claims involved rating compensation
claims; those are basically disability determinations. On
average one year and eight months had elapsed between the time
VA had actually received the claims to the date that it had
been adjusted.
One of the most egregious examples was--one of the cases
was 20 years old, but by adjusting the date of claim, it was
made to look as if it were 14 days old.
In another instance, because adjusting the dates of claims
didn't just apply to rating-related cases, it also applied to
the non-rating workload. We did observe five cases that Little
Rock had kept records on, and we found that the average time,
from the time they actually received it to the adjusted date of
claim was five years and nine months. And one of those cases
was 16 years old and it had been adjusted to be six days old.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
The Chairman. Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Chairman.
Well, as you all know, I remain concerned about--excuse
me--the Reno office and that it is still a problem. We know
that the average length of time a veteran waits is 300 days. I
don't know how in the world you are going to get to 125 days by
the end of the year. The reduction in time is due primarily to
brokering out of cases, so the problem, obviously, still exists
there.
Now, one of the problems, the fact that you had a director
who, obviously, didn't have very good management skills; he was
put on leave. We have had two interim directors and now we have
a third. So I hope that that gets better, but I am going to
keep asking you about it every time.
But this problem of the interim director is kind of what
brings me to the question which is relevant to what is going on
here today. There seems to be a real pattern of just moving
people from one office to the other instead of getting rid of
them when they have a problem. And I was at home in the
district this week and a person wrote a letter to the editor, a
very nice letter thanking Congresswoman Titus for the work
she's done with veterans--appreciate it.
But I have to disagree. Mr. Russell should have been fired,
and I am inclined to agree with the person who wrote the
letter. Mr. Russell has been on leave for I don't know how many
months and now a new job has been created for him, a new job in
Washington, so he has come now to be in Washington. Then we
have to get another new director, after we have already had two
interim directors, and you are sending us Rashida Smith, who
was a coach at the Oakland office where all of these problems
occurred that we are talking about today in Oakland. So now
Reno has gotten rid of one guy who has a new job and we have
got a new person who was a problem in Oakland.
Do you not see this as part of the leadership challenge
that you all might be facing?
Mr. Pummill. Yes, Congresswoman, we do see this as part of
our leadership problem. We couldn't put a permanent director in
Reno while we still had a permanent director there. Now that
Mr. Russell is no longer in that position, we can find the
right person for that station.
The coach who is there right now did come from Oakland, but
she was one of the coaches that helped us find the problem and
work through the initial problem there.
I mean, do you know anything more about her, the coach?
Ms. Halliday. Just that she was one of the supervisors that
did come forward and--and help with the project and make sure
that the review was being done. She was working under division
leadership at that point.
Ms. Titus. She came after the fact. She wasn't one of the
whistleblowers?
Mr. Pummill. No. She was one of the ones who helped us
resolve the problem.
Ms. Titus. Oh, I hope so.
Mr. Pummill. Yes, she's one of our solid performers.
Probably won't be the permanent person there, but I can assure
you we're going to put a strong person into Reno, to help her
out in that position.
Ms. Titus. You might have an easier chance of recruiting
somebody if the leadership went to the Las Vegas office,
instead of the Reno office.
Mr. Pummill. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. That is why we have had to have all of this
turnover.
Mr. Pummill. Yes, Congresswoman.
Ms. Titus. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Boor, last year around last June, we came down, made
our two-and-a-half-hour drive down to Oakland to come in and
meet with you and start fresh, you know, we maybe hadn't had
the greatest relationship with the previous director there. And
I asked you about the reports of the almost 14,000 informal
claims, and you and Mr. Willy Clark, who had come up from
Arizona, had told me they never existed and were part of a
rumor by disgruntled staff--which if I was that staff, I would
be disgruntled as well.
I then found out that you were working in Oakland--you
hadn't told me that when we met--previously, at the time that
Ms. Rubens determined the claims were actionable. You were
working there, I think, on maternity leave for Ms. Kwok at the
time. You didn't disclose that you had actually worked there
before when we were getting to know each other. So at that
time, I guess you either didn't know as the number two person
in Oakland, that these claims had come forward that Ms. Rubens
had disclosed and also disclosed in committee here last summer.
You also put out a recent memo to staff that refers to those as
``ancient history'' and all were duplicate copies.
Today in this committee, they are not duplicates, so I am
having trouble with the credibility and believing the whole
story, because we have heard that they don't exist, they are
duplicate copies, or, maybe in here today, that they are
actionable, which turns out that Ms. Rustyann Brown was right.
So, are there still pending unprocessed, informal claims
piled up in your office?
Ms. Boor. Congressman, thank you for asking the question
and allowing me an opportunity to address your concerns.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, you are welcome.
Ms. Boor. I do remember meeting you. I think I was fairly
new on the job at the time, a couple weeks in.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes.
Ms. Boor. I believe we had a conversation a little bit
about our history, my history.
Mr. LaMalfa. Unfortunately, my clock doesn't give me a lot
of time, so we have got to get to the point. Thank you.
Ms. Boor. So I thought what I communicated to you, sir, if
I remember correctly at the time, is that we had most of them
completed in the review process. That the ones that we did have
were--the majority of them----
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, again, we had the three stories, they
didn't exist, or they were duplicate copies, and now today they
are actionable items. So which story am I supposed to go with?
So I guess the question I come back to, though, was, are there,
right now, today, pending unprocessed, informal claims piled up
in your office?
Ms. Boor. I don't believe so, sir. That's now my
understanding. We did a quality review of----
Mr. LaMalfa. You don't believe there are any informal
claims left?
Ms. Boor. First of all, the informal claims were a process
that we had, prior to our conversion into standardized forms,
so we would not. The second piece is that the ones being
reviewed now, there is a quality review of the reports being
done.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, then, what is this? What is this here?
This is on the 17th floor. It was sent to us a week or two ago.
Ms. Boor. Correct. Those are a quality review.
Mr. LaMalfa. Quality review of informal claims?
Ms. Boor. Quality review of the review that we were in
discussion of last June.
Mr. LaMalfa. So is Oakland--why are they doing another one-
hundred percent review of these claims if they already reviewed
them twice? What has hastened that effort?
Ms. Boor. Because we want to make sure that we got it
right, Congressman, as--as you do. I appreciate the fact that--
--
Mr. LaMalfa. Why does Oakland know where those claims are,
but the Inspector General does not?
Ms. Boor. I can tell you that we weren't the best of
recordkeepers. We didn't keep track----
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, I have heard that a couple of times.
Ms. Boor. The--everything that we have, the Office of
Inspector General has, we work collaboratively with them.
Mr. LaMalfa. So are we to believe, then, as asserted
earlier by Ms. Hickey in a previous hearing, that of those
13,184 claims, that none of those veterans had to wait for a
decision, that all of that has been properly handled in the
past?
Ms. Boor. I would say the majority of those, sir, were
copies and have been handled appropriately. We did find some
corrections that had to be made. They were made.
Mr. LaMalfa. So they were copies or they were today
actionable claims? We have all these numbers 537; 2,215. It is
really hard for me to keep up here, so I had to write it down.
Why do some of these, also--some of these claims are shifted
into what is known as a 930 administrative claim or a 400-
series correspondence?
Now, when I was a kid if I didn't like eating my peas, I
just kind of spread them around on my plate real thin and make
it look like I was eating my peas, you know. This kind of looks
like that to me because you put these in these different files
or they might get sent off to a zero percent claim or get sent
to review back here by the appeals board or maybe get shipped
to Sacramento or maybe some get brokered out as Ms. Rubens
mentioned last year. So I am not buying, really, that the
numbers are down that much and I would like to get a phone call
from Mr. Pummill on New Year's Eve as they get through all of
them. But, Ms. Boor, please address some of that.
Mr. Pummill. Congressman----
Mr. LaMalfa. No, no sir. Ms. Boor.
Ms. Boor. There's a lot in that statement, sir. I'll try to
address each point. As far as how the numbers went, we started
out with what we believed to be approximately 13,000 documents.
When we got through a match of the systems, we realized that
many of them we couldn't tell through the systems, so we needed
to pull the actual claims folders, which you have a picture of
right there.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes.
Ms. Boor. Unfortunately, we were not the best of record----
Mr. LaMalfa. That is the same number as an Army division,
by the way, you know, 13,000, so----
Ms. Boor [continuing]. So--I'm sorry, sir, I am trying to
respond, but I didn't want to talk over you.
Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. Go ahead.
Ms. Boor. So when we got down to the approximately 2,100,
the OIG mentioned that--required a claims folder to make sure
that even if we couldn't see it in the system, that we made
sure that if there was a formal claim--again, this is kind of
like a--an informal claim is more like if someone is shopping
on Amazon.com and they want to make a purchase--you mentioned
peas, I thought I'd use an analogy as well--if you want to make
a purchase, you would put the item into the shopping cart, but
until you push the button, you don't make the order.
So the informal claim is similar to that. It's putting us--
it's correspondence, it's phone calls letting us know, hey,
we're looking to file a claim, we just may not have done it
yet. Our responsibility was to make sure we notified----
Mr. LaMalfa. Our 13,000 veterans, I would wager that they
haven't all had their claim finished. And I guess on the heels
of all this, you know, Ms. Rustyann Brown just told me in the
hall that when you were telling Mr. McNerney how you welcome
whistleblowers, she didn't feel welcomed at all. She actually
begged you to look at the 13,000 more closely at the time and
also to handle some of the other issues she was dealing with on
an employee issue. She wanted to keep her job, yet she retired
15 years to the day because she couldn't handle it anymore.
Mr. Chairman, I hope I have a chance to follow up here a
little bit more. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walz yields, and Mr. Meehan, you are recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pummill, I thank you for being here, but the IG did a
service doing this report and you have identified Philadelphia
as being particularly problematic. The standard procedure for
five days to respond to inquiries, 31,000 inquiries, an average
of 312 days for a response.
What do you tell those veterans and their families?
Mr. Pummill. There's nothing we can say to those veterans.
It's wrong. It shouldn't have happened. We, as an organization,
have to do better, and we have to figure out how things like
that don't happen. I--there is no response you give to a
veteran that would be a legitimate response.
Mr. Meehan. All right. Well, in order for us to do
better--Ms. Rubens, these are not my words, these are the words
of the Inspector General--the IG found serious mistrust and
fear of reprisal and they found conditions and culture that
was--that the confidence in management was greatly questioned,
but this is the words of the IG saying this.
How does a culture get changed when this is what is
believed of the management that is currently in place?
Ms. Rubens. Thank you, Congressman Meehan.
And I would tell you from the time I arrived at the
regional office, I worked to make a connection with the
employees, not just with managers, not just with supervisors,
but out on the floor talking to employees. Invited everybody
who was employed by the regional office at that time to come in
and meet with me. I held over 40 meetings----
Mr. Meehan. You didn't invite everybody to the town hall
that occurred when your supervisor came in, though. When Ms.
Hickey was there, not everybody was invited to a town hall, why
not?
Ms. Rubens [continuing]. Sir, her time that day was very
limited. We----
Mr. Meehan. Why did she have a town hall with the
employees if the people weren't free to speak what they--what
they wanted?
Ms. Rubens. She, actually, that day, met with service
officers as her endeavor to reach out. She asked no supervisors
or managers to be in the room and gathered input from our
stakeholders that day.
Mr. Meehan. May I ask, the report was scathing in a number
of areas, among them, that there was a quality review team
manipulation. There was an inappropriately altered document by
individual quality reviews. When did you become aware of that?
Ms. Rubens. Actually, when I read the draft of the report,
sir.
Mr. Meehan. You were not aware prior to that----
Ms. Rubens. I was not.
Mr. Meehan. K [continuing]. Until you read the draft of
this report?
Ms. Rubens. I was not.
Mr. Meehan. Ms. Rubens, it says that management was aware
that these actions were occurring, but no action was taken to
stop the pattern.
Ms. Rubens. In my----
Mr. Meehan. You had been there eleven months by the time
that report--are you saying this went on--and this was known
that somebody manipulated data, management knew about it, other
people stood and looked aside. Some people--the complaint--
members of the VSC management--all of the results of individual
quality reviews for some employees, but not for others, and you
are trying to tell me this much information was known and you
first heard about it when it became published in the IG's
report?
Ms. Rubens [continuing]. Sir, I am anxiously awaiting the
report from the AIB so that we can----
Mr. Meehan. What do you need from the report from the AIB.
You just heard the testimony. What are you doing about
accountability? Who is the individual? And if you say you are
out on the floor, why did it take you 11 months to find out
that somebody altered documents that protected some employees
and put other employees in a negative situation?
Ms. Rubens [continuing]. Sir, I have been at the regional
office just over nine months and I would tell you that I have
worked to uncover as many things as I can. There are still days
when I find things that I was unaware of, and I think that that
will go on, and I think that's important for me to keep asking
the questions. And, ultimately, if there's appropriate action
that needs to be taken, we need to take it so that folks do
have a sense of security and continue to come forward as we ask
employees to do a tremendous amount of work.
Mr. Meehan. I am holding in my hand a photograph, right
here, which is the evidence of a time stamp machine, a date
stamp machine which is open and accessible, again, identified
in the Inspector General's report. When did you first become
aware that these time and date stamp machines were capable of
being accessed by people, other than directed by you?
Ms. Rubens. In fact, when the IG was still on station and
raised that issue, we took quick action to remove IG--excuse
me--date stamp----
Mr. Meehan. When was that? You had been there for nine
months. When did that occur?
Ms. Rubens. I believe that first came up when the IG first
came in, before I actually arrived on station. It was one of
the issues raised as part of their management advisory, if I
recall properly.
Mr. Meehan. What time frame do you think that was?
Ms. Rubens. June 19th of 2014.
Mr. Meehan. So you did know right from the beginning. Why
didn't you tell me June 19th, then?
Ms. Rubens. Because it is my--I needed just a minute to
think about whether it was after I had arrived on station
whether that was one of the issues raised as part of the
management advisory. I have now read the entire IG report with
35 recommendations, as well.
Mr. Meehan. Ms. Rubens, I know that there are many good
people at the VA who want to do a good job. I know you have
people in management that want to do a good job, but I have
never seen a report as scathing and I have never seen distrust
as high, and you asked for an assignment to go to a facility.
What is needed and what is being asked, Mr. Pummill and Ms.
Rubens, is when is there going to be accountability? If you
knew somebody altered quality review documents that implicated
the performance of some and released the performance of others,
that is fraud. That is potentially criminal behavior. Who is
being held accountable and when is it going to be done?
Mr. Pummill. Congressman, we're going to hold everybody and
anybody that was responsible for the actions in this IG report
that's confirmed by the AIB responsible.
And I do agree with Ms. Halliday's statement to the
Congressman before, most of our regional offices got this
guidance right, so I don't believe that in the case of
Philadelphia, where it was gotten so wrong, that it could have
been a mistake. You are going to have to prove really, really
hard to me that this was an absolute mistake when so many
people got it right.
Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
your testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Rubens, as a follow-up to our previous back and forth,
I asked whether you were directed by management to go to
Philadelphia or whether it was your decision. I want to ask it
a different way: Were you given a choice by management to
remain in your former position here in Washington as the deputy
under secretary of field operations or become the new RO in
Philadelphia?
Ms. Rubens. Sir, it was not an either/or conversation.
The Chairman. Okay. When did you first learn of my requests
for all of the MSPB and EEO files at the Philadelphia RO dating
back to 2008?
Ms. Rubens. Sir, your staff was visiting our regional
office the week before Christmas in December of 2014.
The Chairman. And what did you do in response to their
requests?
Ms. Rubens. I began to try to organize my staff around that
request. I also reached out to headquarters to let them know
that we had gotten that request from your staff.
The Chairman. And when were the files assembled and boxed?
Ms. Rubens. Sir, we worked to assemble and box various
parts of that information over the course of the next two
months.
The Chairman. Did you contact my office at any point, you
or somebody in your office, contact staff and tell them that
the material was ready to be picked up?
Ms. Rubens. I don't recall having reached out to your
office. Ms. Tripplaar from your staff was back at our regional
office as part of The American Legion visit to Philadelphia and
we had some conversation about the materials.
The Chairman. She advises me that they were told while they
were there, that it would take a couple of days, and that they
would be able to pick it up at that point. Does that ring a
bell?
Ms. Rubens. I believe I told her that we were continuing to
work with our members of general counsel to make sure that we
were providing information. There are a number of steps, as I
understand it, that have occurred, and that VA is currently in
the midst of providing you a rolling production of the
information that you had requested.
The Chairman. Yes, but my question is when you found out.
So what direction did you receive from central office regarding
the request and who, specifically, advised you or directed your
response?
Ms. Rubens. I'm not clear on what information you're
looking for, sir.
The Chairman. You said you contacted general counsel, and
referenced my request. I believe you said that you needed a
Chairman's letter in order to release those files, which you
got within moments of the request, and so I am trying to find
out what kind of direction the central office gave you
regarding the response.
Ms. Rubens. So in December when I called to talk about the
fact that we had had that request from Ms. Tripplaar, the
response was we don't have a Chairman's letter, as a request.
We were interested--we--the Department was interested in
ensuring they had an understanding of what information you were
looking for.
The Chairman. All, A-L-L, all EEO files and MSPB files----
Ms. Rubens. Yes.
The Chairman [continuing]. Which we still, by the way,
don't have. When did you receive word to finally transfer all
of the files to the central office? Because, see, I was told
that everything was hung up at general counsel and then we
found out that they never had been transferred to the General
Counsel's Office.
Ms. Rubens. Of course. I had several conversations,
beginning after the holidays, with both our congressional
liaison as well as general counsel about what information they
wanted me to provide to them for their review to ensure if
there was the need for any privacy concerns for anything else
in those records that they would have a chance to review that.
The Chairman. Are you aware that Congress is not bound by
the HIPAA laws and privacy requirements, that any information
that you provide to us is protected information?
Ms. Rubens. Congressman, I worked closely with
congressional affairs and general counsel and worked to provide
them the information that they asked me to send up. I cannot
tell you whether or not they are doing something that is or
isn't within, if you will, the guidelines as you've outlined
them.
The Chairman. Can you confirm that all files, all EEO
files, complete files, all MSPB files have been transferred
now?
Ms. Rubens. I have nothing in my office left to provide.
Part of the ongoing conversation is not only the fact that
there are office files, which we've provided to headquarters,
but that our office resolution management and MSPB may have
other or more complete files. If something has happened with
that issue subsequent to it leaving, if you will, the regional
office.
The Chairman. And you did allude to the fact that there's a
rolling supply of information. We have not gotten the files
yet, we are still waiting on the files, we have gotten discs of
partial files, and again if we don't receive it by Friday, and
anything you can do to help move it along--you, Mr. Pummill, as
well--would be greatly appreciated.
Ms. Filipov, would you step forward for just a moment to a
microphone? You can do it right there by Ms. Rubens. I want to
discuss, if you would, the lack of trust between RO employees
and management staff. And I understand from a whistleblower,
and it was confirmed, at least that the rumor was out there
that there was a party hosted at your house June of 2014, at
least some of the guests were PMC employees and my question is,
is it true at this party that employees were asked to pay Gary
Hodge's wife to act as a medium and speak with their deceased
loved ones?
Ms. Filipov. Chairman Miller, that's, as Ms. Halliday has
testified, that's part of an ongoing IG investigation and I
have been instructed by the IG not to discuss that
investigation until it's complete. Once it is complete----
The Chairman. Wait, wait, wait. The IG has told you not to
discuss?
Ms. Filipov. That's correct.
The Chairman. Are you--you're under oath, so if I asked the
IG that question, they're going to say they've instructed you
not to respond?
Ms. Filipov. I was instructed by an IG investigator not to
discuss until the investigation is complete. I would be
available to answer questions when that investigation is
complete.
The Chairman. Ms. Halliday, would that be an appropriate
direction from the Inspector General's office?
Ms. Halliday. That may be appropriate at this point. This
was done by a different office, and I would like to be able to
go back and take that for the record. We have an office that
does administrative investigations within our office of
investigations, I handle the audit side.
The Chairman. And so once it's complete, we will have you
back, Ms. Filipov, to talk about the party that apparently was
held at your house. And the question that I will ask you, and
it will give you time to think about it a little bit, did you
voice any concerns at the time that your guests were asked to
pay Ms. Hodge for her services, knowing that many of them were
in Mr. Hodge's direct or indirect chain of command? That will
be an easy question for you to answer when you return. Thank
you.
Ms. Filipov. I understand, sir.
The Chairman. Ms. Brown, questions?
Ms. Brown of Florida. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a question
for Ms. Halliday. My question pertains to the appraisal value
office. You explain the relocation program? Is that just a
program in the VA or a program for all federal agencies? For
example, let's say my house, if VA purchased it, let's say they
spent $200,000 for my house, who owns that property and can VA
resell--will they sell that property, what's the status of the
property? I mean, explain to me because I am very confused.
Ms. Halliday. In my oral statement I said that I didn't
want to comment to that at this time. It an ongoing
administrative investigation.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Is that under investigation too?
Ms. Halliday. Yes, it is.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Okay, all right. All right then.
Ms. Halliday. We will provide all the details as we do a
due diligence review of this.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Arronte. Congresswomen, we can----
Ms. Brown of Florida. Yes.
Mr. Pummill [continuing]. Tell you that the AVL program is
a contract that's on the GSA schedule. It's available to all
government agencies in the Federal government. Anyone who uses
the contract has to pay the rate that's set in the GSA
schedule. There's several contractors on there. The one that
the VA uses is the lowest rate that's available on the GSA
schedule.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Well, thank you. I am sure we will
get additional clarity.
Ms. Rubens, you said you have been involved with the VA for
over, what, 28 years?
Ms. Rubens. Ma'am, yes, I've been with VA just about 28
years.
Ms. Brown of Florida. I understand that you probably have a
lot of expertise, the reason why VA wanted you to go to
Philadelphia because this--I understand it's a multiplicity
office, it encompass--tell us what.
Ms. Rubens. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. The Philadelphia
regional office actually has a number of missions. Similar to
most offices, we have called them, the two that seem to be
everywhere are Veterans Service Center which is the disability
claims compensation as well as Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment.
But we also have one of only three pension management
centers in the nation, as well as two call centers. One that is
one of a series of eight national call centers that take
veterans' calls from across the nation. But we also have the
only national pension call center where veterans, stakeholders,
anybody who's got an interest in a claim will call and have
access to us by phone for that as well.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Some of the employees have indicated
it's a morale problem there and, of course, ``dash,''
leadership. Whose responsibility it is to work on the morale of
the employees and try to get the problems resolved?
Ms. Rubens. Ma'am, I think that's my responsibility to work
with them and help. I would tell you I think it's the entire
leadership team, but I think also every individual as they come
to work. We've got to--we've got to be engaged to that end.
I have held a series--when I first got there identified
everybody who worked at the regional office and invited 100
percent of those folks to sit with me, just me, nobody else
from the leadership team, to talk about things that they saw in
the office. I've continue that process through what I'm now
calling ``listening posts,'' where I've got representatives
from across the regional office coming in.
I'm out on the floor regularly talking to folks, checking
in on how things are going. VA does an all employee survey. We
didn't have great participation as much as I was out front
encouraging folks, if you haven't done your all employees'
survey, do that, 'cause we need that feedback from you to
understand what's going on.
We've taken that. I've got a work group that's largely
employees who have done a review of those results and identify
three areas for us to begin to work on to ensure employees feel
as though we're hearing them. I've worked closely with our
first line supervisors to provide some training, and that's
ongoing. I don't think you can do a ``one and done.'' To help
them understand how do we do a better job of having those
crucial conversations and providing feedback. Those loops have
to continue to stay open.
The other thing that I think has been very successful is
reaching out to our stakeholders. Whether that's our service
officers, or whether that's veterans themselves through our
town hall meetings. And engaging employees in those efforts too
so that they can have a better understanding of what our
veterans deserve and what they're looking for from us as we
work to provide best service.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Many of the employments are at entry
level, seven or something like that, what kind of incentives
can be offered? I understand it takes, two or three years to
get a new employee operational. What kind of positive
apportions can VA do to keep the expertise at that location so
that an employee can, process those claims?
Ms. Rubens. Yes, ma'am, I've got two things that are
particularly important right now in that vein. One is actually
one of the recommendations from the all employee survey team to
talk about, how do we ensure they feel more valued. But two,
understand how to best position themselves for opportunities
within the regional office.
The other thing is, and Mr. Malizia and I have had several
conversations about, I'll say the quality, the training cadre
that we've got. We're engaged now and have reached out--or
reached back, if you will, to headquarters and our employee
development team here to come down and help 40 of our key
trainers--and we've got more folks than that that do training--
to ensure we've got the right investment in them, so that as
they're given that investment to our employees to improve their
skills and position themselves for opportunity.
And so I think that--those are just a couple, and I'll
continue to work with the team, and employees, to figure out
what else can we do to build on that.
Ms. Brown of Florida. We started out with a backlog of 600
plus thousand and now we're down to 188,000, what are your
recommendations? Should we outsource part of that? I know--I am
not one that believes in outsourcing, but I am saying it. What
do you think?
Because one of the pressures that VA is under is that you
want to make sure that those veterans' claims get taken care
of. That's the bottom line. If a veteran is not in the system,
VA can't take care of you.
Ms. Rubens. Yes, ma'am. And I would tell you that some of
the things that we're doing in Philadelphia involve engaging
employees and what else can we do to ensure we're more
efficient. We've reduced the backlog from our peak by nearly
56% and continue to stay focused on how do we continue to
ensure to do that.
As I've held meetings with employees, sometimes the topic
is really about morale but I would tell you the employees are
also great sources of ideas about policy, process, and
procedure. And I would tell you that I am quick to respond with
sending those things up the line to headquarters because those
are some areas where we've got some great ideas they continue
to gather them, we've got to keep working to ensure veterans
are getting the best service.
Ms. Brown of Florida. You, bet.
The Chairman. Thank you, and I'm going to yield to Mr.
Costello in just a minute, but part of the relocation package,
and it is throughout the federal government not just to VA, but
there's a 28 percent management fee on top of the house
purchase price.
So in this instance, Ms. Rubens, I believe her house was
appraised somewhere in the $770,000 range, they ended up
selling her house for $692,000 and then Stone Financing appears
to have received $134,000 in profit because of that management
fee. Twenty-eight percent, again, which is not just at the VA,
it's federal wide. Ms. Ruben, have you ever availed yourself of
that before, in that program?
Ms. Rubens. Chairman, as I have moved throughout my career,
this was the first time that I did not sell my house on my own
in 60 days.
The Chairman. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Costello.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Halliday, I am
going to read a couple sentences and then ask you to respond.
This is on Page 3 of your written testimony, second paragraph.
``We identified serious issues involving mismanagement and
distrust of VARO management impeding the effectiveness of its
operations and services to veterans. Further, the extent to
which management oversight has been determined to be an
ineffective and/or lacking requires VBA's oversight in action.
Moving forward, VBA and VARO leadership must work to restore
the trust of employees and promote open communication at the
VARO.''
My question is, do you have concerns about whether that's
even possible? And that's not a disparagement of any particular
leader, but culturally, it has just been so scathing that--is
there a sort of--and a related question is, IG involvement now
and moving forward with respect to implementation, can you
describe that in connection with any concerns you might have?
Ms. Halliday. We certainly have concerns with Philadelphia
because we have never seen such a dysfunctional or toxic
environment. My two directors here today have conducted over 90
benefits inspections, So they have a very good perspective of
what they saw in there.
To change the culture, I highly encourage VBA to change
more of its management team. In getting a new set of eyes and a
new perspective on this, it'll be easier for them to build
trust. In the military, they would call it a loss of trust in
the command and they would change the entire team.
Mr. Costello. Are you at all troubled that that hasn't
happened yet? Or is there a piece of this IG report where it
needed to happen before that can occur?
Ms. Halliday. I believe that the administrative
investigation has to occur, I think when all the evidence is
viewed, Ms. Rubens and Mr. Pummill will be in the position to
hold certain managers accountable.
The one point I want to make here is, I believe the
accountability is at the management level and the leadership
level. Not so much the employee level where all these employees
are so fearful for their job.
This is a process that's pushed and driven by people, there
will be errors. The issue that I'm taking exception to in
Philadelphia is, fixing errors. When you know about the
problems, start to correct those problems. Use your quality
reviews to help you always implement continuous improvement.
Mr. Costello. So ``fix it.'' The term outsourcing was used
a little earlier in a different capacity, but we are leading it
to management to fix it. Do you think from a credibility
perspective and restoring a sense of competence in the 825,000
veterans that are served there that having an independent set
of eyes outside confirming that the right personnel changes are
being made is appropriate? Or do you just need that----
Ms. Halliday. That's a pretty broad question. I believe
there needs to be changes in the management team at
Philadelphia. I think that there are probably good people
throughout VBA that can come in, and put a new set of eyes on
this, and do it right.
Mr. Costello. Okay. Ms. Ruell stated her testimony that she
stopped sending emails to the ACO because she was informed that
her and other employees' emails were being rerouted to the RO
and were in the hands of the people that were reported. Do you
know whether or not that was accurate or not? Was there that
sort of mischief?
Ms. Halliday. We can't put context with that.
Mr. Costello. Okay. Final question, the number of EEO
complaints, it's been stated that the volume of complaints at
Philadelphia was inordinately high. Can you comment on whether
that's accurate?
Ms. Halliday. No, I don't have the number on that. What I
did when we received this unprecedented number of allegations
is we focused on looking at all the major processing activities
within the VARO to understand was it an efficiently run VARO,
or was it a mess.
Mr. Costello. Ms. Rubens--excuse me, AIB, the three folks--
it's a board of three, correct?
Ms. Rubens. Sir, actually I think the AIB is larger.
Mr. Costello. Okay. How many folks were appointed?
Ms. Rubens. We've got an external VBA member, we've got
leader from headquarters, and I believe three others.
Mr. Costello. Have you had any previous professional
dealings, or relationships, with any of those who are--that
comprise the AIB investigating Philadelphia?
Ms. Rubens. I don't--four of the five I have had some
familiarity on one level or another with, yes.
Mr. Costello. Could you detail--could you provide a little
bit more detail to that?
Ms. Rubens. So, the member from outside VBA, honestly I'm
not sure who that is. The leader is Program Director here in
headquarters, I'm going to say relatively new to VA and VBA as
in the last, I don't know, three to five years. There is
another man that is in HR arena, works out in the West. There
is a service center manager from Lincoln, and a member of the
Systematic Technical Accuracy Review (STAR) team from
Compensation Service. I've had varying degrees of interaction
with the last two over the years.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, my time is expired. Mr. Chairman,
thank you.
The Chairman. Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you. I have a couple of final
questions. First, Ms. Halliday, I indicated that I would like
for you to come to my office because I have some follow-up
questions and I'm looking forward to that.
I had extensive conversations with Representative Barbara
Lee, Congress people from Oakland, and Representative Chaka
Fattah from Philadelphia. The Secretary is in Oatland today as
we are having this hearing. There have been ongoing problems.
For years in the making in Oakland. In fact, I had discussions
with him when I arranged a meeting with the Secretary and
members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Oakland was on
the list. So where are we as far as Oakland is concerned?
Ms. Halliday. Our look into Oakland was to look at whether
there were 14,000 claims that were not processed. And I think
we've come to an accounting of that information to the extent
that physical evidence exists. There's now new evidence that
there's 1,308 claims information or documentation, and we've
looked at that. We have not looked at the full number of that,
that takes some resources to do.
But what we did was we looked at a sample to start and, we
saw that it included both informal claims and formal claims.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Would you give us the difference
between an informal and a formal?
Ms. Halliday. Now, I'm going to have Mr. Arronte, he's the
specialist in that area.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Yes.
Mr. Arronte. An informal claim is an attempt by the
veteran, or a surviving spouse, or a beneficiary to apply for
benefits through the Department. The Department has certain
criteria that they must meet for this to be a formal claim.
So, for example, if a veteran writes in and says, I served
during the Persian Gulf and I want to file a claim. That's
considered an informal claim because there's no way they can
verify service, they don't know what the disabilities the
veteran is claiming. So that's the difference, it's just
specificity in what the veteran is claiming.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Let me ask the question to, my
understanding we are working with a lot of our stakeholders to
make sure that when they turn that claim in it's complete?
Mr. Arronte. That's true if the veteran or the surviving
spouse has a service organization that represents them, but
there are plenty of veterans that do not have that, so they
test the waters without that assistance. And, typically, there
are times when they do that the claims are informal because it
doesn't contain all the information required to formalize the
process.
Ms. Brown of Florida. One of the problems that often come
up is that, the veteran I don't have all of his or her
paperwork. As far as the system, DoD and VA, is that system
being improved so that veteran can have all the necessary
paperwork? It makes no sense that they don't have the
paperwork.
Mr. Arronte. I think that's probably a question better
answered by VBA.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Okay.
Mr. Arronte.
Mr. Pummill. Yes, Congresswoman, we still get claims from
veterans that don't have all the information every day. One of
the things that's going to help us a lot with the informal
claims is the new standard form rule that we have which allows
veterans to fill out a form and provide us the information we
need so we have formal claims on everybody just like every
other agency in the Federal government.
The veterans that are getting out of the service right now,
we have a very good handle on getting their records. We have
this thing called a gold standard where when they leave the
military we get an electronic copy of their medical record,
their dental record, their service record, and that system is
working. It's a little slow in some cases, but it's working.
The ones we still have a problem with are the Vietnam era
veterans, the Korea War Veterans, sometimes World War II
veterans that are still living, that submit a claim that have
nothing with it and it's our responsibility to go out and get
the information still a claim, it's still a formal claim
because they've claimed it, they've claimed a specific issue,
medical issue, we have to do everything we can to help them. We
use the VSOs to help us to try to gather that information.
That's still tough.
Ms. Brown of Florida. I recently met a veteran who is
currently rated at 10 percent, and clearly he should have been
at 90 percent. He's been out for 2 years and he can't get his
paperwork. So there's still a problem between DoD and VA.
Mr. Pummill. Congresswoman, if he would have got out two
years ago it would have been a problem. The----
Ms. Brown of Florida. Okay.
Mr. Pummill [continuing]. The law that you all passed, the
VOW VEI Act where everybody has to go through transition and
the records, those laws have really helped a lot and we've seen
less and less of that. But I would say two years ago,
absolutely he probably had a problem getting his record.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Is there any additional information
that you want to give us before we adjourn?
Mr. Pummill. Congresswomen, I would just say that, I've
been with VBA for almost four years now. Listening to the
whistleblowers here, kind of broke my heart hearing what they
said and the issues that they had in the organization: that's
wrong. We can't treat employees like that, and we have a huge
push to take care of veterans and sometimes we, as a management
organization go overboard, and we have got to take care of
veterans, we got to take care of them now, we have got to get
them what they deserve, they served our country.
As you know we're in mandatory overtime, we're changing
everything, we're automating things. How our agency got to 2013
without automation in the United States of America, I have no
idea. But what we've done and how far we've come in the last
two years, we have pushed our employees really, really hard.
Now we have to figure out, how do we take care of veterans
and at the same time get our employees more involved and do
some of things that Diane's trying to do in Philadelphia so
that we can make this a team and do the right thing. And we
have to be more forthcoming when we come to this committee on
the things that we need to help veterans.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Well, I want to thank all of you for
your service and all of the whistleblowers, for the feedback we
have received. I like the Army motto, ``one team, one fight,''
and we are all fighting for the veterans. I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Halliday,
Mr. Arronte, again thank you for, you know, hearing us in the
committee last summer on this and engaging Oakland in your
reviews and investigations, and so, I appreciate that and the
interaction.
I just would ask that, couple things, that in the I think
16 days you spent there reviewing, there is still a lot to be
mined from that information. I know the report was pretty
succinct on that, not so much critical it's just there is still
a lot to go. Not just on, you know, numbers or, you know, piles
of files but some actions in there by personnel that I think
were highly inappropriate and disrespectful to the process. I
would ask you to keep mining that as you go along, and
particularly with this file of 13,184 claims.
We happen to know that there's two individuals that have,
or are holding, I believe Excel files of those. Ms. Rashida,
Lusterschmidt, and Rachel Pennington, I am told have these
files somewhere and I am asking you to get hold of that list
and keep it so it's safe. And then let's work through the
confirmation process of seeing that those 13,000 actually all
those veterans have their requests, their plea, heard. Not just
the first phase and say processed check the box, but actually
have those veterans receive the full benefit they should be
eligible for. I ask you of that, would you please get those--
get that Excel file?
Voice. (Indiscernible).
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
And then, you know, obviously I think more review. Some of
the testimony you have on hand from last year is going to be
very appropriate. Some really stern recommendations on that.
You mentioned that there's a--there needs to be a culture
change on management, whether it's middle level, upper, and
some other areas I think Oakland should also have that kind of
review looked at.
Ms. Boor, back to you. As we know, you are starting your
second year or so, Director Bragg retired prematurely. Bottom
line, have you fired any of these middle managers that have
treated people and made it such a hostile environment in
Oakland for employees?
Ms. Boor. I can tell you that I have personally not fired
any managers, we do have a new staff. We have a new service
center manager on board, we have a new vocational
rehabilitation officer on board, we've beefed up our first line
supervisors to make sure that we're able to not only provide
oversight that's necessary but also address concerns a little
bit better than maybe we have in the past. I----
Mr. LaMalfa. But none of the people that have made the
environment for Ms. Rustyann Brown or one of our other people
that have spoken to us, Tony Sevara [phonetic] have not--have
not been let go?
Ms. Boor. Sir, like I mentioned, I have not terminated or
fired anyone at this point.
Mr. LaMalfa. Because we have had some good people that
really have been taking care of the veterans and have left not
voluntarily but because of the atmosphere. And Mr. Severa, Ms.
Rustyann Brown, and all the others I cannot think of right now.
So I am--you mentioned a while ago Mr. McNerney, I mentioned
whistleblowers that you embraced, that you welcome that.
Ms. Boor. Yes, sir.
Mr. LaMalfa. May I ask of you today, will you protect the
whistleblowers that have already emerged, or will be emerging,
in your office and so that when we hear about it we will hear
that Julianna Boor was helpful, and listened to them, and
wanted to get to the bottom of that?
Ms. Boor. Absolutely, sir. It's not only encouraged by me,
it's expected. I tell my employees either through written
communication or as I walk around and talk to them that, you
know, if you see something say something. We can't get better,
we can't provide excellent customer service to veterans if we
don't talk to one another, if we're not--if the trust isn't
there.
So, sir, I know that trust isn't given it's earned, and I--
and I hope to earn not only the trust of the veterans of the
Northern California but the Northern California delegation here
in Congress.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, I had hoped we would start out that way
last June and when I hear again a lot of different stories on
these files here and they don't hold water, then I want--I
would like to have that trust built back with my office `cause
we will not go away on this issue and we will be back here
again if we have to be, but I would like this to be positive.
So----
Ms. Boor. Sir, you are welcome at our office at any point.
I know your time is limited so I won't take it here, but I'd
love to have further discussions to make sure that your
concerns are met and make sure that, more importantly, that the
veterans are taken care of.
I hope that there is a list of 13,000, I would love to go
back and make sure that we did everything humanly possible.
Mr. LaMalfa. Every single one----
Ms. Boor. Every single one.
Mr. Lamalfa [continuing]. Having been met. Whether they are
deceased----
Ms. Boor. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lamalfa [continuing]. There is a widow involved, what
have you. And so we have this issue and then we will have to
tackle the actual medical services they received too because
NORCAL has some issues on that. So, Mr. Chairman, I really
appreciate the time. Thank you, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa. One final question,
Ms. Rubens, I also ask for a complete VA file on Bradley Stone.
And my question is, have you provided everything that's in the
RO to the central office?
Ms. Rubens. Yes, sir, I have.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you very much. I would ask that
all Members would have five legislative days with which to
revise and extend their remarks, or add any extraneous
materials. Without objection, so ordered.
With that, thank you everybody for being here. This hearing
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:39 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
Prepared statement of Chairman Jeff Miller
Good morning.
Welcome to our witnesses, especially the brave whistleblowers who
will appear on our first panel.
The title of this hearing is ``Philadelphia and Oakland: Systemic
Failures and Mismanagement.''
Based on the IG's reports describing the serious problems
processing claims in both Philadelphia and Oakland, I think that the
phrase: ``systemic failures and mismanagement'' might be a gross
understatement.
The witnesses from the VA will have an impossible task today--they
will have to try to explain the inexcusable: a pattern of malfeasance,
abuse and incompetence by VA officials that has led to waste of
taxpayer funds, a serious failure to correctly process veterans'
claims.
And--in Philadelphia--a workplace environment so corrosive, so
toxic, so abusive, that according to whistleblowers, workers have been
driven to attempt suicide.
In one tragic case, as one witness will testify, a worker may have
actually succeeded in taking his own life after being bullied by VA
management.
I also have serious questions about the costs incurred by VA
regarding the transfer of Philadelphia RO director, Diana Rubens, from
the VA central office in Washington to the Philadelphia RO.
The VA incurred over three hundred thousand dollars [$300,000] in
relocation expenses last summer to move Ms. Rubens, one of the highest
paid employees at the VA.
Let me repeat that: at a time when VA was telling Congress and the
American public that it needed more money for claims processors, it
authorized more than three hundred thousand dollars [$300,000] in order
to move a federal employee less than one hundred forty [140] miles from
Washington to Philadelphia.
In fact, of the total sum of the relocation expenses, $84,643.70
was paid directly to Ms. Rubens for expenses such as subsistence and
temporary expenses, real estate expenses, relocation income tax
allowances, permanent duty travel, permanent change of station meals,
shipment of household goods and personal effects, and storage of
household goods for the first 30 days.
While such an expenditure may have been totally legal, it does not
pass the smell test.
Paying such an exorbitant amount on behalf of a federal employee to
move three hours down the road is an outrageous abuse of taxpayer funds
in this fiscal climate, or any fiscal climate for that matter.
In this situation, everyone wins except the American taxpayer.
I would also note that a comparison of relocation expenses for our
service members with those available to VA employees shows a
significant advantage to civilian employees.
I have asked the Office of Inspector General to investigate not
only the payments for Ms. Rubens' transfer, but also whether there is a
more systemic problem with VA's use of relocation expenses.
Relocation expenses are intended to entice employees to take hard-
to-fill positions.
From what I've learned, VA makes these benefits available to every
RO director who relocates.
That is hardly the kind of scrutiny such a large expenditure of
taxpayer funds deserves.
But VA's problems are more than just an abuse of the relocation
program.
VA asserts that it is making progress in resolving its backlog, but
the IG's finding that Philadelphia staff deliberately manipulated claim
dates in order to conceal the true size of its backlog seriously
undermines the VA's credibility, at least where the Philadelphia RO is
concerned.
Although the mismanagement and data manipulation detailed in the
IG's report on Philadelphia is as bad as I have seen in a long time, we
cannot ignore the serious problems discovered at the Oakland RO.
It is absolutely inexcusable that the Oakland RO ignored more than
thirteen thousand [13,000] informal claims, some dating from the mid-
1990s.
This committee will continue its oversight to ensure that the VA
actually holds the Philadelphia and Oakland management staff
accountable for the abuses and mismanagement outlined in these reports.
VA's actions--not words--in these two cases will demonstrate
whether the department is serious about cleaning up this mess.
Merely requiring staff to attend training sessions is not enough,
and shuffling poor performing managers to other stations--as was done
with Mr. Gary Hodge, the manager of the pension management center, who
was transferred to the VA central office literally hours after the
release of the IG Report--is simply the old VA way of papering over
problems.
Further, VA's response to my request for all Equal Employment
Opportunity and Merit Systems Protection Board files from the
Philadelphia RO is another example of VA's lack of transparency and
seeming attempt to hide the truth about working conditions in
Philadelphia.
I asked for these files on December 19, 2014--more than four (4)
months ago.
I also requested this information when I met with Secretary
McDonald on February 25, 2014.
In addition, I specifically asked VA's general counsel for these
files during a committee hearing on March 16th.
And my staff has repeatedly followed up on my requests with the VA
over the last four months.
Finally, after months of delay, on April 14th, we received some
documents, including a disposition log of MSPB cases that the VA
claimed was complete but, in actuality, is incomplete.
Since Friday evening of last week, the VA has since turned over
some additional files but has failed to deliver all the requested
files.
For example, the committee has received seven (7) of twenty-two
(22) files for MSPB claimants, although there are believed to be more
than twenty-two (22) individual employees who have filed MSPB claims
since 2008.
To date, VA has failed to deliver any EEO files.
These continued delays are unacceptable and inexcusable.
If all requested records are not provided by week's end, I will ask
my colleagues to join me in subpoenaing the documents.
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Corrine Brown
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. I look
forward to working with you and all the other members to help our
nation's veterans.
I'd like to recognize and thank Representative Barbara Lee and
Representative Mike Thompson and Representative Jackie Speier for all
the work they've done in keeping tabs on the Oakland Regional Office
and Representative Chaka Fattah for the Philadelphia Regional Office.
I'd also like to recognize a veteran Mr. O. Bobby Brown who is
currently serviced by the Philadelphia Regional Office sitting in
today's hearing. Thank you Mr. Brown for your service.
We all agree that providing veterans timely, and accurate benefits
is an important focus of this Committee. I for one, am very concerned
with the facts before us today.
Today we will hear from the Department of Veterans Affairs Office
of the Inspector General and numerous whistleblowers that will
highlight two broken regional offices. Individual employees, and some
supervisors, who have alleged to have engaged in shameful activities,
which at the end of the day hurt veterans. I know that I and VA
leadership will not tolerate such actions.
Today, I hope to hear VA's plan to fix these offices, and ensure
accountability for management, and mid-level management. I also hope to
hear from our witnesses on what needs to be done to resolve the
problem. Our job is not only to find problems, it is to offer
solutions.
The Office of Inspector General highlighted in its report ``serious
issues involving mismanagement, and distrust of Veterans Affairs
Regional Office management impeding the effectiveness of its operations
and services to veterans.''
To me, these sound like local, cultural issues, and it sounds like
the Philadelphia and Oakland offices are due for a leadership shake-up
at all levels if these allegations are proven to be true.
I also hope to hear from VA on how you are coming along with the 38
Department of Veterans Affairs Office of the Inspector General
recommendations between these two regional offices.
With that said, I think it is important that we keep today's
hearing in context. We are focused on two broken VA Regional offices,
while VA as a whole has dramatically increased their timeliness and
quality of adjudicating claims. VA seems to still be on track to
eliminate the backlog by the end of this year. In fact VA has reduced
the backlog from a high of 611,000 claims in March 2013 to
approximately 188,000 today.
We are not there yet, but I believe we are on the right track. I
don't want a few bad actors taking away the progress that has been made
across the country for our veterans.
I ask that Representatives Lee and Fattah stay on top of the
concerns of veterans who are supported by the Oakland and Philadelphia
Regional Offices.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back my time.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ralph Abraham, M.D.
Thank you to Chairman Miller for holding this hearing today.
First of all, I want to be clear that whistleblowers should never
face retribution, senior VA officials need to be held accountable, and
any type of claim manipulation by the VA is unacceptable. It is
whistleblowers who bring to light the flaws in organizations which must
be fixed.
For far too long there has been systemic mismanagement at the VA. I
suggest we look at mistakes made and find a way to look forward to
ensure these mistakes are not made again.
I thank the men and women who are here today, and look forward to
hearing your testimony. I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Raul Ruiz, M.D.
I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for including my bill, H.R.
732, the Veterans Access to Speedy Review Act in this hearing, and I
appreciate the Chairman's support as a cosponsor of this bill. This
simple, bipartisan legislation will provide the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) the flexibility they need--and have requested before this
committee--to expand the use of video teleconferencing (VTC) for
hearings before the Board of Veterans Appeals. This authority will
expand VA's capacity to adjudicate appeals, thereby expediting results
for waiting veterans. My bill will also eliminate substantial travel
costs to the veteran and the administration.
Under current law, veterans may involuntarily encounter an extended
wait period for a judge to visit the veteran's region or for the
veteran to travel to Washington, DC. Additionally, veterans are
required to pay all travel expenses to and from an in-person hearing,
even if they would prefer a video teleconference. My bill would center
the appeals process on the veteran's needs and save money for all
parties involved. Importantly, veterans will retain the right to an in-
person hearing, and under my bill the VA must honor the veteran's
preference for hearing type--whether in-person or via VTC.
In 2012, the VA Board of Veterans Appeals submitted a report to
Congress highlighting recent activities which include four policy
recommendations that seek to expedite or streamline the claims process
for our nation's veterans. Video teleconferencing by default was
included in these recommendations. In last year's committee report on
the amended Veterans Access to Speedy Review Act, the VA committee
noted that the Board has historically been able to schedule video
conference hearings more quickly than in-person hearings, saving
valuable time in the appeals process. As the VA testified before this
subcommittee, in FY 2014, on average, video conference hearings were
held 124 days sooner than in-person hearings.
This bipartisan solution will get many veterans their appeal
results sooner, at no cost, which is why each Veterans Service
Organization that testified at this legislative hearing supported my
bill, as did the VA. This overwhelming support from both parties, the
Administration, and veterans is why this bill passed the VA Committee
by voice vote last Congress.
I urge the members of this subcommittee to come together again to
advance this essential measure out of committee, and to advocate for
the Speaker to bring it to the floor. It is understandable to delay
controversial and contentious policy proposals until an agreement is
reached, but denying veterans relief when a consensus has been reached
is unacceptable.
Statement of Kristen Ruell
My name is Kristen Ruell. I am an authorization quality review
specialist at the Philadelphia Regional Office. My primary job duty
includes performing quality reviews on the accuracy of benefit payments
paid out from the VA to its beneficiaries. This August will mark my 8th
year of employment with the Philadelphia Regional Office at the United
States Department of Veterans Affairs. The agency has potential to be
the greatest place to work in the entire country. The feeling of being
able to give back to the American citizens that served our country is
truly satisfying.
Earlier this month, the OIG's report on the Philadelphia Regional
Office was released. The report confirms what whistleblowers have
alleged for years, that the managers at the Philadelphia Regional
Office lack the ability to appropriately govern and oversee the wide-
range of benefits and services for which it is responsible. To date,
the VA has failed to hold any management official accountable for the
many deficiencies cited in the report. The VA has stated that 95% of
the problems cited in the report have been fixed. I strongly disagree
for the following reasons:
1) The Philadelphia RO has a large number of EEO complaints against
various members of management. A large amount of taxpayer monies have
been spent on administrative costs, attorney fees, and settlements. For
every case settled, a new one is filed. Without removing the officials
making the bad decisions, the number of claims filed will not decline.
When the evidence clearly indicates that the same decision makers are
not making the right decisions, they should no longer be in decision
making positions.
2) I have personally reported erroneous and duplicate payments
since 2010. In 2012, I reported the erroneous payments to the IRS,
Department of Justice, OIG, OSC, and the VA Secretary. The duplicate
payment problem has never been fixed. Unless the computer is programmed
to prevent a duplicate payment, they will continue to occur. The VA has
stated that they have no way to identify and prevent duplicate
payments, aside from a duplicate payment report, which Philadelphia RO
employees admitted they were unaware the reports existed. Stopping an
award that is paying twice is not correcting the underlying problem,
which is wasting millions of taxpayer dollars. The VA also did not keep
a list of people that were paid duplicate awards, and many were sent
letters in which the erroneous award was stopped without processing and
noting the overpayment. Creating a ledger of the overpayments at this
point would be virtually impossible due to the lack of recordkeeping
regarding these payments.
3) Although fast letter 13-10 was rescinded, there is evidence that
data manipulation continues. The data manipulation will continue until
the performance standards are amended. The current standards are
unreasonable and cause an employee to do things to save their job that
in turn can harm the Veteran. It is not fair to place an employee in
that situation. It is even less fair to the Veteran whose claim may be
effected.
4) An Administrative Investigative Board, has been charged with
making a determination on certain issues regarding the misapplication
of Fast letter 13-10, which pertains to dates assigned to claims filed
by veterans and their survivors. The Administrative Investigative Board
consists of VA employees who determine whether there is intentional
wrongdoing. The OIG just finished their investigation on this issue. It
is confusing to me why the OIG suggested an AIB rather than an outside
investigation. An outside agency should be assigned to eliminate bias.
Philadelphia RO Director Diana Rubens used to be in charge of 57 field
offices and most likely knows most management officials chosen to
investigate on behalf of her Regional Office. The VA should not be
trusted to investigate itself until it proves it is complying with the
VA Core Values.
5) Employees are expecting management to be accountable for the
deficiencies cited in the recent OIG report regarding the Philadelphia
Regional Office. The typical VA solution for most every problem is
training, committees, and meetings, which do not fix managers who lack
morals and integrity.
The Philadelphia Regional Office needs new leadership. Employees
have lost trust in their managers and do not trust the broken chain of
command. I have lost trust in VA management at all levels. I stopped
sending emails to the VACO because I was informed that my and other
employee's emails were being rerouted to the RO and were in the hands
of the people we reported. The only way to rebuild trust at the
Philadelphia Regional Office is to hold those accountable that were
responsible for the many issues cited in the OIG report. Congress and
the American people need whistleblowers so they are informed as to what
happens inside the walls of the Federal Agencies. Without
accountability, in my office and at the VA, there will be far fewer
whistleblowers, if any.
Thank you for the invitation to be part of this hearing today. I
will be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding my
experiences in the Philadelphia Regional Office.
Prepared Statement of Joseph F. Malizia
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee for allowing
me to address the continuing problems at the Philadelphia Regional
Office, only some of which were identified in the recent Office of
Inspector General's Report dated April 15, 2015, titled Review of
Alleged Data Manipulation and Mismanagement at the VA Philadelphia
Regional Office Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
First I want to explain who I am and my role in the VA. I am a 37
year employee of the VA all at which is referred to as the Philadelphia
Regional Office. I have been the local Union President of AFGE Local
940 for the past 16 years and was Vice-President for 10 years prior to
that. I have served on many joint national VA Labor/Management
Committees including the Mid-Term Bargaining Committee and am still a
member of the National Quality Council and am a certified Trainer for
AFGE-Master Agreement. I have been a VA Carey Quality Program Examiner
and I am a member of the Unified Union Partners for VISN 4 which is a
VHA group. I have interacted with numerous Regional Office Directors,
Area Directors, VBA Central Office Staff, including Ms. Rubens in her
capacity as Chief of the Office of Field Operations, as well as the
past five or six Under Secretaries for Benefits.
I also believe it is important to explain the uniqueness of what is
referred to as the Philadelphia Regional Office. This is a misnomer.
The Philadelphia facility encompass the Regional Office, the Insurance
Center (the only one in the nation) with its own Director, the
Philadelphia Information Technology Center (one of three major Data
Centers) which is an OI&T function with its own Director and
leadership, and the Philadelphia Insurance Products Development Staff
which is a separate OI&T function (one of approximately six) with its
own Director and leadership. The Philadelphia Regional Office and AFGE
Local 940 also cover the Wilmington, Delaware Regional Office. All
combined, these VA entities compromise the largest identified VBA
facility. It is my hope that by explaining the separateness and
distinctness of each individual entity in Philadelphia you can better
appreciate the confusion that occurs by simply referring to the
Philadelphia facility as the Philadelphia Regional Office.
Why is this important? Because the cloud that is hanging over the
Philadelphia is only based on the actions of the Regional Office
Management yet, the whole facility is feeling the negative effects of
something that they are not a part of.
Employees in the Philadelphia Regional Office are very demoralized.
A negative cloud has been hanging over them for more than nine months
now. It has been hard for them to function under the combined
management of Director Diana Rubens, Assistant Director Lucy Filipov,
Pension Management Center (PMC) Manager Gary Hodge, Veteran Service
Center Manager Jeanne Paul, and Human Resources Chief Lina Giampa. By
their actions, these Management Officials both individually and
collectively have created a hostile work environment in the Regional
Office.
With regards to the OIG Report and other problems at the
Philadelphia RO, I want to highlight some examples and will be glad to
expound on them later if you have any questions.
While it is true that Director Rubens is new to the Philadelphia RO
as of June 2014, she is not new to VA. As Chief of the VBA Office of
Field Operations, Ms. Rubens was well aware or should have been well
aware of the problems in Philadelphia RO. She was responsible for the
creation, implementation and enforcement of most if not all of VBA's
policies and procedures many of which are the source of the problems in
Philadelphia and other RO s.
It was with great hope that I was looking forward to working with
Ms. Rubens. When the rumor was spreading that Ms. Rubens was coming to
Philadelphia RO , several management officials were disgruntled because
they feared her reputation and because of her extensive background and
intimate knowledge of VBA protocols. I believe that they were worried
that she might actually hold them accountable for doing their jobs the
right way. Regrettably for the employees of the Regional Office, this
did not happen. In fact, I believe things actually got worse. I will
address in more detail later.
One example is the manner in which Director Rubens handled a
complaint the Union raised about a hostile work environment in the PMC
Training Class. Similar problems had occurred in past training classes,
so it appeared there was a systemic problem with how PMC Management
approached training. One of VA stated goals is to be an ``employer of
choice'' and champion the hiring of Veterans. We do this. Many of the
newly hired employees are Veterans, including Veterans with service-
connected disabilities. Many of these disabilities involve some form of
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). In the most recent PMC Training
Class, there were a number of new hires who fit this profile. One
employee in particular felt he was being bullied by the Training
Instructors and they created a hostile work environment for him. His
attempts to address and resolve the situation with the Training and
Quality Team Coach were summarily dismissed without consideration. When
this employee did not show up at his family's house for Christmas
holidays, they were concerned. They call his friends in the PMC
Training Class, who were equally concerned. When they went to his
house, they found him dead. Needless to say, they were very distraught.
Let me be clear, it is unknown to me if this was a suicide or not. I
have not and am not stating that this employee's death was directly
caused by his treatment at the Philadelphia RO. My complaint to
Director Rubens was that this situation is another example illustrating
that there is definitely is a pattern of problems in the Philadelphia
PMC that needs to be stopped.
Director Rubens told me she would authorize an investigation
outside the control of PMC and possibly outside of the RO. However,
what she actually did was authorize two untrained PMC Coaches to
conduct the investigation. These Coaches were investigating the actions
of their friends and fellow Coaches and their boss, the PMC Manager. I
objected that this was a conflict of interest, but Director Rubens
dismissed my concerns. I was appalled by Director Rubens reneging on
her word and at her apparent lack of regard for the employees.
What is interesting to note is that the PMC Training and Quality
Team Coach is the sister of the Chief of Human Resources. This familiar
relationship has been called into question as an inherent conflict of
interest many times because of the various disciplinary actions
initiated by the PMC Training and Quality Team Coach and processing of
any grievances against her. Director Rubens was made aware of this
conflict of interest but continues to allow it.
When I never received an investigative report on my complaint, I
asked Director Rubens for it. She told me there were no findings of
inappropriate actions therefore there is no report. Once again,
Director Rubens was reneging on her word. It was becoming apparent to
me that her management philosophy was to deny, cover up and repeat. I
believe this is a pattern that Congress is familiar with from prior
dealing with Ms. Rubens. I sent an initial e-mail to Secretary McDonald
explaining all of this to which he replied stating he would have Ms.
Gina Farrissee, Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and
Administration look into it. I have since sent a follow-up e-mail and
am waiting for a reply.
Given all the scrutiny of the Philadelphia RO, the OIG
investigations, two Congressional Hearings, negative publicity about
the disrespectful and unprofessional comments about the Congressional
Staff and about Veterans ``Oscar the Grouch'', I would have thought
that Director Rubens would have changed her behavior. But,
unfortunately none of these events seem to indicate that her behavior
has been corrected or improved. With regard to the Oscar the Grouch
analogy, Director Rubens stated that she was not equating Veterans with
Oscar the Grouch but rather she was equating employees with Oscar the
Grouch. I ask you: Do you think Ms. Rubens' clarification is any
better? Her actions once again are indicative of a deny, cover up and
repeat management philosophy.
Knowing employees' morale was low because of the lingering negative
effects of the pending OIG Report and negative publicity about them,
Directors Rubens stated in employee group meetings that morale is their
(the employees') responsibility, not Management's. Her position shocked
the employees. As stated previously, employees have been under a cloud
since all the violations were reported and investigated. Regrettably,
the employees are becoming increasingly numb to statements like this. I
want to piggy-back on testimony provided to Congress last week by VA
doctor Maryann Hooker. She presented information on Psychological
Safety and Workplace Bullying. The negative aspects of these practices
are the fundamental tenet of VA Management in the Philadelphia RO and
throughout VBA. These represent some of the ways Management covertly
retaliates against employees who have the nerve to speak up about
injustices or any potential problem.
Philadelphia RO Management constantly holds employees to a higher
standard of performance and behavior than they do themselves. It is a
classic double standard, do as I say not as I do. Management would
never accept an explanation from an employee that they simply
misinterpreted an order or regulation. Deny--cover up--repeat.
Another serious problem in Philadelphia RO is the manner in which
Reasonable Accommodation requests from employees with disabilities and
Equal Employee Opportunity (EEO) complaints are handled. Many of these
cases involve Veteran employees who have a Service Connected
Disability. Many times PTSD is one of these conditions. When the
Reasonable Accommodation Committee approves an accommodation, many
times the Division Chief will refuse to implement it. This refusal to
implement has caused internal friction between the Reasonable
Accommodation Committee and the Management Staff including HR. This
then forces the employee to have to file an EEO Complaint. Then the
same pattern occurs for processing EEO cases. These stalling tactics
cause unnecessary stress on employees who are already in a stressful
state. It aggravates their existing physical conditions and causes
additional emotional damage. In addition, it also costs the VA to waste
hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost production, settlements and
judgments.
Some of these cases were as simple as changing an employee's desk/
seat from under an air vent or approving Telework for medical reasons.
The actions to deny or delay these resolutions seem punitive and
retaliatory. Again, deny--cover up--repeat. Not only are the specific
employees affected by this practice, but it also has a chilling effect
on other employees as well. There are several pending EEO cases fitting
this pattern that are scheduled for EEOC Hearings, which could have
easily been resolved at earlier stages of the process. Now, VA will
incur added expenses and lost productivity regardless of the outcome.
Should the employees prevail, then the costs to VA will skyrocket to
include damages as well as attorney's fees.
With regards to the issue of Ms. Rubens' reimbursement for
relocation and other expenses, many employees feel this is just another
example of the perception that she is above the law and afforded
special treatment by Senior VACO Management. Several years ago, it was
common knowledge throughout VBA that when knowledge that former
Philadelphia RO Director Thomas Lastowka was going to retire that Ms.
Rubens wanted to take his place. Given the practice in VBA that once
Senior Leaders and Director had paid their dues by accepting
assignments across the country, and they were getting close to
retirement, they could be relocated to a place of their choosing.
Perhaps this was back to or close to their hometown or to a more
favorable retirement area. Ms. Rubens fit this description. She had
paid her dues around the country and in VACO, so she could have her
pick of where to go. Philadelphia was close to home for her. By all
accounts Ms. Rubens was going to be the next Director in Philadelphia.
However, VBA Undersecretary Hickey asked Ms. Rubens to stay in VACO and
help her for at least two more years. Speculation was that since she
stayed, she would be guaranteed the Directorship in Philadelphia.
Consequently, the Philadelphia RO Director position was opened for
competition. It was filled by Mr. Robert McKenrick, a complete outsider
to VA. Since he was not familiar with any of the VA processing,
protocols or history, Mr. McKenrick was dependent on the senior
Management Staff already in place in Philadelphia RO. In my opinion,
this was all a set-up to secure Ms. Rubens' relocation to Philadelphia.
Why? Because in my opinion, I believe the senior Management Staff in
Philadelphia and then Eastern Area Director, who were all friends of
Ms. Rubens, sabotaged Mr. McKenrick by not providing him sound
guidance. Consequently, he couldn't properly handle all the problems
surfacing in Philadelphia RO. Therefore, this established sufficient
reasons to have to transfer Mr. McKenrick out of Philadelphia, creating
an opening for a new Director. Guess who?
I do not believe the Philadelphia RO Directorship was a problem to
fill. I believe there were or would have been many qualified candidates
for the position. And, yes, Diana Rubens would have been one of them.
But, there was no need for a special bonus to fill this position. Does
the fact that Ms. Rubens has many friends throughout VA/VBA give the
appearance of favoritism? Does this fact give the appearance she is
being protected? With regard to the questions and explanations about
the relocation expenses, it seems once again the philosophy of deny--
cover up--repeat is being used with regards to Ms. Rubens' relocation.
It is my hope that justice will be served. Please don't allow the
deny-cover up-repeat practice to be rewarded or to continue. Drastic
action needs to be taken to break these practices. Congress has passed
new laws to give VA Secretary the authority to do this. In my opinion
and that of many employees and Veterans, the only way VA can restore
its integrity is to remove the Management Staff in Philadelphia RO.
Given all that has occurred, we do not think the current management
staff will be able to fix or otherwise effectuate the changes necessary
to change the practices and culture at the Philadelphia Regional
Office.
Thank you again for affording me this opportunity to testify today.
Respectfully,
Joe Malizia, President, AFGE Local 940
Prepared Statement of Diana Blender
I want to express my gratitude to you for the opportunity to be
heard today regarding the Philadelphia Regional Office and I am here to
testify to the events as they happened to me. I am grateful for this
opportunity to do the right thing for our Veterans. I am going to
address an outline of events that brought me to the point of filing an
EEO.
My name is Diana Blender. My story is one of harassment,
belittlement and discrimination that occurred to me when I attempted to
blow the whistle. Sadly for me, when I unearthed the true happenings of
this department and their gross unjust manipulations of others, I was
sent on a journey of daily abuse, mental cruelty, emotional torture and
undeserved corrective job actions.
When I first came to triage I had great hopes and large amounts of
pride that I was working with the Department of Veterans Affairs and my
first supervisor was very pleased with my work ethic and was impressed
with my dedication to become proficient and effective at my job for the
betterment of our department.
Our department was run by a highly proficient supervisor who was
unceremoniously replaced at whim with an inexperienced, unskilled
supervisor who had no experience in what the inner workings of our
department also lacking in any historical knowledge of our operations.
This new supervisor was totally ineffective in the daily management of
our department and allowed staff members to realign the direction of
the department in a highly negative and abusive manner.
These employees took this opportunity to redirect the most
difficult work to others, mostly older people. They were harassed and
verbally abused, all under the watchful eye of an ineffective assistant
supervisor who allowed this abuse to continue and eventually escalate.
It was being done to benefit some, but much more importantly to the
detriment of others, my self-included. We all knew this activity
existed, had existed for almost three years and management looked the
other way. At various times, changes were made in the way the mail was
distributed, to make it fair but these changes were never lasting and
reverted almost immediately. When I was brave enough to address this
ongoing situation with my superior's daily abuse to me in the workplace
became my norm, and this behavior was encouraged my management.
Most of the targeted victims were older women and men who became
aware of this abusive situation and addressed it with upper management.
Upon reporting it to my supervisor the retaliation was abusive,
offensive and unbearable.
History of Events
This chronology starts in mid-2008, with doing my job
and picking up speed as required at my level. I was enjoying
the work and proud of my accomplishments. My coach was very
supportive and pleased with my progress and success.
The work day started by picking up bundles of random
mail (25 pieces each) that had been stamped and bundled the
previous day. The work was difficult but manageable. As time
went on, I noticed that some of my co-workers were way
outperforming and doing exceptional amounts of work, they were
coming in extra early to get their mail and removing difficult
cases from their bundle and returning them to the stacks for
others to complete.
One day when I came in earlier than usual and went to
get the mail, I noticed that two of my co-workers who were
Claims Assistants, as I was, were separating the mail in to
different piles and selecting out the easier work from the
harder claims. They then bundled the easier work into the
requisite bundles of twenty five and distributed those easier
claims to themselves and other friends. The other mail bundles
of 25 pieces was left in each Claim Reps mail bin waiting to be
picked up for processing and therefore was void of easy mail,
which normally formed a part of the average used to determine
processing amounts to be done. All of this was easy to discern
this since the easier claims were yellow sheeted and much
thinner than the normal claims. A stack of 25 easy claims is
substantially lower than of 25 regular claims that took more
time to process. I noticed that on some people's desks the pile
of mail that they were to process was indeed much lower than
normal. Those desks were the ones of those consistently
preforming way above normal. All of the time-consuming claims
had been sorted out of their mail. That evidently was not
happenstance.
When I questioned them as to what they were doing, to
placate me they let me into their scheme. The next day I
reported this activity to my direct supervisor, who I later
found out was one of those benefiting from this unfair
activity.
Suddenly, I began to receiving a majority of very
difficult claims to be processed. The action taken by my
immediate supervisor was to start picking apart my daily work
and returning pieces for correction of errors. The quality of
my work prior to event was never in question. The upshot of my
reporting this to him was that I was given only the most
difficult claims and being forced to do them at the same rate
as the easy ones. Hence, my evaluation was poorer and I was
denied a much deserved promotion.
I noticed that no one else, other than myself, were
having their claims reviewed and being returned for corrections
and it was obvious that I was being discriminated against for
reporting the unfair activity in distributing the mail.
Those who were coming in early had no real authority
to do so, but it seemed to management to be adventitious since
it relieved everyone else from the responsibility of sorting
the mail. Indeed management seemed to take the attitude that
the discrepancy of work was no concern to them.
It became apparent that those that benefited from the
allocation of the easier mail were mostly men in a close knit
clique. It was easy to notice the discrimination that was
occurring against women in general, and also to older
employees, was due to the fact that this particular male clique
was now being put in charge. The result of the above mentioned
selection of work was used to get rid of co-workers that were
either women or people above a certain age.
When I brought my concerns about gender discrimination
to upper level management, the response was that there was no
gender discrimination because our supervisor in charge was a
woman.
After my complaint there was an attempt to correct
these issues. Then each person doing processing was given
numbers corresponding to the last two digits of the Social
Security number on a claim and they were to get only those
claims; this was a mixture of the easy and the more time
consuming ones. It seemed like an equitable way of dividing up
the work, and indeed, it was fair. Unfortunately, this fair
distribution of work did not continue for very long.
When the time came for our office to begin to receive
work from other Regional Offices, our work seemed to increase
10 fold. There was no way we could process the amount of work
we were receiving on a daily basis. At one point we had 28,000
pieces of mail in shopping carts that we could not process.
These pieces of incoming mail sat unopened for months. We also
had thousands of pieces of returned mail from claimants that
never got addressed and were left unopened. A majority of this
mail was a part of EVR's (Eligibility Verification Requests).
These eligibility reports were sent out by the VA to claimants
to determine if their income and net worth still made them
eligible for VA benefits. This was time sensitive material and
therefor if it remained unprocessed the individual was cut off
from receiving benefits.
Due to the fact that I was an exceptional worker, I
was selected to process Congressional Claims. There was a
special team in place to process these particular claims. I
began that particular work under to tutelage of the
Congressional Expert. I felt that handling the Congressional
claims were critical. Processing of Congressional mail is also
time sensitive. Because of our inability to keep up with our
incoming mail, more and more claimants were seeking help from
their congressman. At this time, I asked my supervisor on more
than one occasion, for permission to go through the 28,000
pieces of mail and look specifically for Congressional
envelopes. I was told this was not allowed. Management decided
to distribute this mail throughout the building on a day when I
was not at work. As soon as I returned to work the next day, I
began to receive phone calls from other employees throughout
the building, asking why they were getting Congressionals. I
asked them to send them to me (ASAP) and I would process them.
I emailed my supervisor about the fact that
Congressionals were being misdirected and I asked how this
happened. She replied to me that the 28,000 pieces of mail were
distributed for processing throughout the building. I asked why
the Congressionals were not separated since they were done by a
special team and should not be done in the same manner as most
claims. I asked her if we could email supervisors throughout
the building to separate Congressionals and send them back to
our office. This was not done.
At this time I made it very clear to her that I felt I
was responsible for Congressionals and that what she had done
would reflect on me. She replied, ``Don't worry about it.''
Not long after this incident, instead of me retrieving
the Congressionals as I recommended, the responsibility of
handling the Congressionals was taken away from me and I became
management's scapegoat.
After the Congressionals incident, I was once again
given an inordinate number of difficult claims. It seems that
the old method of being able to rig the mail in favor of the
chosen few was back into full force. At this time it was common
knowledge that I filed an EEO complaint. So once again, I
became a target.
Not only was I being given difficult work, but actual
harassment had started to occur. These are just some examples
of the bullying I endured on a daily basis.
I was in deep concentration doing work on my computer;
there was a loud thump in back of me. I jumped up in fright
because everything up until that point in time was calm and
quiet and I was completely involved in my work. This loud thump
was very unexpected. Tears came to my eyes as I spun around and
noticed a co-worker, had quietly snuck up behind me and thumped
a load of files on my desk. He walked away holding back his
smirks and laughs.
On the morning of April 12, 2011 there was a pile of
mail on my desk waiting to be stamped. In accordance with the
previous email from my supervisor, we were responsible for one
hour of stamping, so I proceeded to stamp mail that was given
to me. Suddenly, my male co-worker loomed over me and began
abruptly taking my mail away with no explanation. I grabbed the
mail back and asked, ``What are you doing?'' He said that he
needed mail to stamp and so he was taking mine--ignoring that
there were piles and piles of mail on the desks all around
waiting for those that had not yet come to work. Clearly, I was
his target. He then went away, but soon returned a few minutes
later, bending over and shouldering me aside and then scooped
up the mail that I was assigned to stamp. Again, when I asked
him what he was doing, he replied that our supervisor told him
that he should take my mail. When I approached my supervisor
about this situation, she said that he approached her and told
her that I was not doing my stamping. I then told my supervisor
that this was not true and I had been working for some time.
Her response was, ``Well I guess he lied.''
I then approached my co-worker and asked him why he lied, he would
not answer, but then after a minute he said very loudly (in means to
humiliate me, so that all could hear), ``I need to get the stamping
done and you don't even have the right date on it.'' This was false, I
had just adjusted the date on my stamping machine earlier that day and
it was obvious on the mail that I had already stamped. The harassment
was not over. Later that day, he appeared in our desk area where he had
no business to be. His desk was in the front of the office and mine was
in the back. Clearly, he had an agenda. He then spoke to my neighboring
workers (the men) in a loud voice, so that all would hear, ``Us guys
are working hard because the men get the job done in this place.'' He
appeared in our area again later that same afternoon, repeating the
same remarks. He clearly wanted a confrontation with me, but did not
get one.
The above mentioned incidents were just a fraction of
the injustices and harassment I witnessed and endured while
working in triage for three years. A woman who sat behind me
was fired because she would not sign a document falsely
accusing me of something I had not done. Because of this and
other hostile actions, I filed an EEO claim and attempted to
transfer to another department. For a long time my requests for
a transfer went unanswered. I then became a target of their
malice.
Once again, I want to express my gratitude to you for
the opportunity to be heard. I am grateful for this chance to
do the right thing for our Veterans.
Prepared Statement of Rustyann Brown
Good morning committee members and guests. My name is Rustyann
Brown. I am a retired federal employee who served 10 years in the Navy
as a Hospital Corpsman and then years later continued my federal
service at the Veterans Benefits Administration Regional Office,
Oakland, CA. I was hired by the VA on September 15, 2009 as a Claims
Assistant and considered this a wonderful opportunity to continue
serving my Veteran community.
I quickly realized that we were being instructed to do things that
were not in the best interest of the Veteran, but instead, good for the
employee and management numbers. It started with returned mail piling
up in huge tubs and no one assigned to research and locate current
addresses.
Letters regarding claims issues that we sent to Veterans always
included the 1-800 # and not our own direct line. This type of
communication was discouraged as they did not want us bogged down with
calls. Elderly and terminal Veterans claims would not be moved or acted
upon; just no sense of urgency for them.
I began, very quickly, to voice my opinion to my supervisors and
other employees because we were not doing the right thing. This was a
regular visit to my supervisor's office. Sometimes as I approached, I
could see him roll his eyes at me and then dismiss me with, ``Just do
want you are told to do''. Then one day this supervisor brought me into
his office and told me that per the director I could no longer do
volunteer work with the Oakland Vet Center. I had been volunteering to
help Veterans understand the forms and which ones were needed for their
situation. When I asked why I was being restricted, I was simply told
that the director believed that it was a conflict of interest.
In July 2012 I was promoted to Veterans Service Representative and
sent to San Diego for what should have been 8 weeks of training.
Instead after only 3 weeks, my training group of five was brought back
and placed on a special informal project. We were never given an answer
as to why we were doing this work that was part of our previous role
and why we were not allowed to fulfill the remainder of our training
requirements.
This project consisted of processing 13,184 informal claims which
had never been reviewed. We realized that a substantial portion of
these veterans were now dead and their claims had never been answered;
nothing had been done to help them.
If we determined that they were dead or had never filed a formal
claim, we were instructed to mark them ``NAN'', No Action Necessary,
our initials, the date and set aside. We began to ask management why
nothing was being done to take care of these claims as required by
policy. And also why their criteria for screening these claims was not
the normal screening practices.
I would go home on a daily basis telling my husband of the heart
wrenching letters I had read that day and how so many of these veterans
and dependents were now dead before anyone had even looked at their
claim. Even among the ones still living, it had been years, sometimes
more than 10 or 12 years since they had made the request.
After several months of screening these claims we were taken off
the project and relocated to a different team. Our team continued to do
other special projects for our previous department, IPC and we were
also finally given claims to begin developing in our new position. This
was new work for us for which the San Diego training was supposed to
prepare us.
I began to see Military Sexual Trauma claims show up in my work
assignments. These claims are supposed to be developed by the Special
OPS Team because of the sensitive nature of the claim. But, when I
would take the claim to my mentor or supervisor and tell them what I
had and that it needed to be moved to the Special OPS Team, I was told
to just do the next action and move it on. This was a huge problem for
me as I am a survivor of military sexual trauma and service connected
for PTSD due to this. For me, simply reading the statements would bring
back all the memories I had tried for years to forget. I would spend
time in the restroom crying or hiding in a stair well so I could be
alone and not have anyone see the physical reaction I would have to
these claims.
A Reasonable Accommodation Request was initiated in May 2013 to
remove MST and certain other PTSD claims from the claim files I
reviewed, those that provoked my PTSD symptoms. Under the VA's rules, I
should have received a response within 30 days. Yet, I did not even
receive a request for additional medical documentation for over 60
days, and did not receive a final determination for five months. During
this time, I continued to review files, and my own PTSD reactions
intensified in part because of fears that I would have to review the
files which exacerbated my symptoms. I took FMLA in September to remove
myself from the situation. While I was on leave on Oct 30, 2013 5
months after the request was initiated, I received a letter from the
regional office denying my request without good justification. During
this entire time, no one at the agency had engaged in the required
interactive process with me as a disabled employee; no one asked me
about the details of which files I could not review, and what would
remedy the situation. Thus, they never learned that it was a smaller
group of files than they believed, with a simple accommodation which
would allow me to continue as a Veterans Service Representative. With
my accommodation denied, and in order to maintain my employment and
protect my retirement, I agreed to take a downgrade in pay and status
and was sent back to IPC as a Claims Assistant.
Then in April 2014, a cart showed up in my work area and when I
looked at what was on the cart, it was some of those informal claims
from Nov. 2012.
I saw my initials on the very first page. I didn't understand why
they were still hanging around. I took a picture of the cart (shown
above) and forwarded it to Congressman LaMalfa. 2 other employees and
I, hand carried approximately 120-140 claims to the OIG office in the
building, per Congressman LaMalfa's instructions, all of which required
actions. OIG came in for 16 days to do an investigation in June-July,
2014.
After months of being referred to as ``snitch'' or ``NARC' by other
employees and being isolated with my department, I put in for early
retirement. I could no longer continue to work under these conditions
so I retired Sept 15, 2014.
From that day I have fought to get the word out regarding these
claims and the Veterans who were ignored. So many of these Veterans had
letters or personal notes attached begging for help, and we, the VBA
Oakland, did nothing.
I do not have General or CEO on my resume', but, I know what was
done to these veterans was not right. I will carry those memories of
the letters for the rest of my life. I ask this committee to do
everything in their power to do the right thing for these veterans,
their families and the employees that truly want to do the right thing
without fear of retaliation. Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Linda A. Halliday
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the results of the Office of Inspector General's
(OIG) recently published reports where we substantiated allegations of
mismanagement and data manipulation at the VA Regional Office (VARO)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and allegations of claims mismanagement at
the Oakland, California, VARO.\1\ I am accompanied today by Ms. Nora
Stokes, Director, OIG Bay Pines Benefits Inspection Division and Mr.
Brent Arronte, Director, OIG San Diego Benefits Inspection Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Review of Alleged Data Manipulation and Mismanagement at the VA
Regional Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (April 15, 2015); Review of
Alleged Mismanagement of Informal Claims Processing at VA Regional
Office, Oakland, California (February 18, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
The number of substantiated allegations and non-compliance with
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) policy at the Philadelphia VARO
and the inability to maintain records relating to approximately 14,000
pieces of mail at the Oakland VARO were indicators of leadership
failures, weaknesses in competencies, or a disregard of existing VBA
policy. Given the lack of oversight and the significant findings at
these two offices, we have serious concerns regarding the lapses of
management at these VAROs to appropriately direct and oversee the wide-
range of benefits and services for which they are responsible. In May
and June 2014, VBA appointed new directors to these two VAROs.
Since we first began the OIG independent benefits inspection
program of VAROs in April 2009 to the present, we have consistently
reported the need for enhanced policy guidance, oversight, workload
management, training, and supervisory review to improve the accuracy
and timeliness of disability claims processing and VARO operations. Our
benefits inspections also include special reviews of VBA programs and
initiatives. Since we began our review at the Philadelphia VARO in June
2014, the OIG initiated 13 additional reviews at 11 other VAROs.\2\ For
seven of these reviews, VA leadership requested OIG assistance; the
remaining six were initiated as a result of allegations received from
anonymous sources. OIG substantiated six of the seven allegations
received from VA leadership, which included significant volumes of
unprocessed paper mail and VBA staff and supervisors manipulating
electronic records by deleting electronic controls needed to manage
claims processing actions, amending dates of claims, and cancelling
pending claims. Several of the reviews identified individuals engaging
in inappropriate activities that eventually resulted in administrative
sanctions against some employees by VA management, including
termination. While these allegations have been addressed, we are
concerned these actions are potential indicators of a systemic trend,
motivated by a need to enhance reported performance metrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ VA Regional Offices: Baltimore, Maryland; Boston,
Massachusetts; Denver, Colorado, Honolulu, Hawaii; Houston, Texas;
Little Rock, Arkansas; Los Angeles, California; New York, New York;
Oakland, California; San Diego, California; St. Paul, Minnesota
(denotes two separate reviews).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the onset of VBA's multiple initiatives to reduce the claims
backlog, VBA has struggled with maintaining data integrity. In our July
2014 report on VBA's Special Initiative to review claims pending over 2
years, we found VBA incorrectly removed all provisionally rated claims
from its pending inventory.\3\ This process misrepresented VBA's actual
workload of pending claims and its progress toward eliminating the
overall claims backlog. We estimated 7,823 provisionally-rated claims
had been removed from the inventory though they still awaited final
decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Review of the Special Initiative To Process Rating Claims
Pending Over 2 Years (July 14, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia VARO
The Philadelphia VARO is responsible for administering a range of
benefits and services that total approximately $4.1 billion annually.
Of VA's 56 VAROs, the Philadelphia VARO also includes one of VA's three
Pension Management Centers (PMCs) responsible for processing claims for
pension and survivor benefits. Jurisdiction of the Philadelphia PMC
includes over 19 Eastern States, Puerto Rico, and some foreign
countries.\4\ The PMC also processes cases identified through 10
computer-match programs used to assess the integrity of information
provided by pension recipients. The VARO also operates two National
Call Centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Philadelphia PMC jurisdiction does not include Central and
South American countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In late May 2014, we received numerous allegations on the OIG's
Hotline from different sources pointing to serious concerns within the
Philadelphia VARO. Many of these allegations were indicative of serious
mistrust between VARO staff and management. Allegations and concerns we
identified affected claims processing activities to include VARO
management, and the management of the Veteran Service Center (VSC),
PMC, two call centers, and an Insurance Center.
Due to the multitude and broad range of allegations, we assembled a
multidisciplinary team comprised of OIG benefits inspectors, auditors,
and administrative and criminal investigators. Our work included
interviewing VARO staff from all operational areas to include clerical,
technical, and managerial staff. We also conducted a complete physical
inspection of all VARO workspace, including offsite locations that
house the Philadelphia National and Pension Call Centers. During the
course of our review, we issued two management advisory memorandums to
the Under Secretary for Benefits (USB) on the need to take immediate
corrective action regarding misapplication of Fast Letter 13-10,
``Guidance on Date of Claim Issues,'' and on working conditions at an
annex facility on June 20, 2014, and July 23, 2014, respectively.\5\
Overall, we conducted over 100 interviews with VARO management and
staff to assess the merits of more than 100 allegations and complaints
as well as other areas of non-compliance OIG staff observed.
Allegations of wrongdoing at the Philadelphia VARO included issues such
as ``cooking the books,'' referring to data manipulation and taking
actions that inappropriately reduced workload backlogs, mail
mismanagement, and the potential processing of duplicate payments.
Mismanagement of VA resources resulted in compromised data integrity,
lack of financial stewardship, and lack of confidence in management's
ability to effectively manage workload and to protect documents
containing personally identifiable information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ These management advisory memorandums are included in the
OIG's report, Review of Alleged Data Manipulation and Mismanagement at
VA Regional Office Philadelphia, PA (April 15, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an immediate need to improve the operation and management
of the Philadelphia VARO and to take actions to ensure a more effective
work environment. We identified serious issues involving mismanagement
and distrust of VARO management impeding the effectiveness of its
operations and services to veterans. Further, the extent to which
management oversight has been determined to be ineffective and/or
lacking requires VBA's oversight and action. Moving forward, VBA and
VARO leadership must work to restore the trust of employees and promote
open communication at the Philadelphia VARO. The VARO can be successful
by working transparently and engaging the staff to work together to
deliver vital services and benefits to veterans and their families as
it oversees the administration of approximately $4.1 billion in annual
eligibility payments.
Overall, we made 35 recommendations for improvement encompassing
operational activities relating to data integrity, public contact,
financial stewardship, mail mismanagement, and other areas of concern.
The USB agreed with 32 of the 35 recommendations that included target
completion dates for corrective actions that extend through December
2015. The USB deferred concurrence on three recommendations pending the
outcome of a VBA Administrative Investigation Board, which was convened
as a result of Recommendation 1 in our report. (The OIG's review did
not identify specific individuals responsible for the mismanagement
outlined in this report because this responsibility is a Department
program function outside the scope of the role of the Office of Audits
and Evaluations, which is to identify conditions and causes adversely
affecting organizational performance.) Given the serious nature of the
issues identified, the OIG plans to follow up at the appropriate time
and assess the effectiveness of the corrective actions. Noteworthy,
while VA took actions to fix problems in the VARO, we recently received
additional information that some of the problems identified in this
report continue to negatively impact some areas of claims processing
performance.
Data Integrity
Misapplication of Fast Letter 13-10, ``Guidance on Date of Claim
Issues,'' resulted in incorrect dates of claims being entered in VBA's
electronic system of record, alteration of quality reviews by
supervisory staff, and delays in entering appealed claims in VBA's
appeals tracking system. We substantiated an allegation that VARO staff
misapplied the guidance in Fast Letter 13-10. We observed and
determined VARO staff used the guidance to manage mail backlogs within
the PMC and to adjust dates of claims for claims that were 125 days and
older in the VSC. Thus, mismanagement of previously unadjudicated
claims was considered prevalent in the PMC and the VSC.
We also determined the Fast Letter guidance created opportunities
for negative consequences when VARO staff did not use the required
electronic designators or provide required notification to VBA's
Compensation Services when adjusted claims were completed. Because this
guidance was not followed, the expected audit trail was removed.
Without an audit trail, the Philadelphia VARO cannot identify the
claims with adjusted dates, nor can they determine the frequency in
which VARO staff misused the guidance to adjust dates or the impact the
adjusted dates have on claims processing timeliness.
Overall, we concluded the guidance in the Fast Letter was flawed
because it required claims processing staff to apply current dates to
older claims that had been previously overlooked. This practice is not
in line with VA core values of integrity. Additionally, by adjusting
the dates of older claims to reflect current dates, the aging claims
may not have received expedited processing actions--ultimately delaying
decisions and benefits delivery to veterans and their dependents.
Further, the practice of applying a current date to aging claims calls
into question the reliability of VBA performance measures related to
timeliness.
We also substantiated that a supervisor altered the results for 52
of the 86 individual quality reviews (60 percent) we examined. VARO
staff had completed the quality reviews between May 8, 2014, and July
30, 2014. We also determined VSC management was complicit in these
actions because it was aware of the supervisor's actions but did not
take actions to stop the practice. VSC management excused the
supervisor's actions, explaining that some claims processing staff were
unaware that they were required to update certain VBA systems.
According to VBA policy, individual quality reviews are intended as a
performance measure to ascertain the quality element in that
individual's performance standard. Altering the review results by a
third party renders the resources invested in those reviews meaningless
and does nothing to promote quality and consistency among decision
makers in VAROs. Moreover, these actions may have compromised the
accuracy of claims processed at the Philadelphia VARO. Further, because
individual quality review results were altered for some staff, we
consider the accuracy rates for claims processing staff at the
Philadelphia VARO to be unreliable.
We did not substantiate the allegation that VARO staff processed
less complicated appealed claims by ``cherry picking'' easy cases out
of docket order. The Philadelphia VARO does not have control over
appealed claims under the jurisdiction of the Board of Veterans
Appeals. As such, VARO staff could not influence how the Board of
Veterans Appeals controlled or managed its workload. However, while
assessing the merits of this allegation, we determined VARO staff did
not enter Notices of Disagreements (NOD) in the Veterans Appeals
Control and Locator System (VACOLS) within 7 days as required in VBA
policy. An NOD is a written communication from a claimant expressing
disagreement with a decision and desiring to contest the decision; it
is the first step in the appeals process. VARO staff use VACOLS to
control and track veterans' appeals and manage the appeals workload.
The effectiveness of VACOLS is dependent upon the quality of
information entered. As of June 30, 2014, VARO staff working in the VSC
exceeded the 7-day standard by more than 4 months on average. Delays in
recording NODs affect the integrity of VACOLS data and misrepresent
performance metrics related to the number of appealed claims pending
and the time it takes VARO staff to complete them. In addition,
National Call Centers rely on accurate and timely entries in VACOLS to
respond to inquiries from callers.
Further, in our report, Audit of VA Regional Offices' Appeals
Management Processes, we observed VARO staff did not record 145 appeals
in VACOLS, which delayed processing for an average of 444 days.\6\
Consequently, we recommended and the USB agreed to develop and
implement a plan to provide adequate oversight to ensure staff record
NODs into VACOLS. However, based on our review of the Philadelphia VARO
and our prior audit results, we are concerned that entering NODs into
VACOLS continues to be a systemic issue affecting timely processing
actions for appealed claims as well as data integrity relating to the
number of appealed claims pending in VBA's inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Audit of VA Regional Offices' Appeals Management Processes (May
30, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Contact
We substantiated an allegation that the PMC had not provided
responses to more than 31,000 inquiries received through VA's Inquiry
Routing and Information System. On average, the inquiries had been
pending for 312 days--significantly exceeding the VBA's standard that
90 percent of these inquiries should be responded to within 5 business
days. We determined the mismanagement at the Philadelphia VARO and the
Eastern Area Office, which has management oversight responsibility for
the Philadelphia VARO, failed to ensure adequate staffing and
prioritization of this workload. Consequently, inquiries from veterans,
widows, and potential beneficiaries were unanswered. Additionally, we
identified 2 instances from our 30 sample cases where family members
notified VA of the deaths of widows who were receiving death pension
benefits. However, PMC staff did not take timely action to review the
inquiries so the monthly pension benefits payments continued to be
paid. Despite notifications of deaths in these two cases, the estates
of the deceased beneficiaries received improper payments totaling
$10,056 over a period of 3 months and 5 months respectively.
Financial Stewardship
VBA has a fundamental responsibility to be effective stewards of
taxpayer resources and to safeguard those resources against improper
payments. Broadly defined, an improper payment is any payment that
should not have been made or that was made in an incorrect amount under
statutory, contractual, administrative, or other legally applicable
requirements.
We substantiated the allegation that VARO staff did not prioritize
the merging of duplicate records, which ultimately resulted in improper
benefits payments totaling about $2.2 million to 56 beneficiaries. We
also found that VBA's national duplicate payment report for fiscal year
(FY) 2012 to FY 2014 only identified 7 (13 percent) of the 56
beneficiaries we found receiving improper payments. Further, once
improper payments were identified, VARO staff did not take, or delayed
taking timely actions to terminate and recoup the improper payments. We
shared this information with VARO management early in our process on
October 2, 2014, so it could take corrective actions. However, as
recently as April 6, 2015, we received an allegation and a listing of
duplicate records that allegedly had been identified in 2012, but had
not been corrected. We reviewed the listing the complainant provided
and confirmed that the duplicate records had not been consolidated. We
also confirmed that no improper benefits payments were being made.
Mail Mismanagement
As early as December 2013, OIG criminal investigators received an
allegation that a VARO employee hid mail in a file room. The allegation
was substantiated but criminal prosecution did not occur because there
was no evidence that the documents had been destroyed, the employee no
longer worked for VA, and VARO management had the mail in its
possession and had implemented a plan to process the mail. Because we
continued to receive complaints and allegations about VARO staff hiding
or inappropriately destroying mail during our current review, we
conducted a physical review of the VARO's workspace. During our
physical inspections of the workspace, we observed several areas of
mail management that required further review by OIG staff.
We are aware of VBA's transition to electronic mail processing
versus paper-based mail processing. Reportedly, all 56 VAROs are
processing mail under VBA's Centralized Mail Initiative as of January
2015. Under this initiative, paper mail is routed directly to scanning
sites where it is scanned directly to the electronic folders. The OIG
has not yet assessed the effectiveness of the Centralized Mail
Initiative. However, during the transition from a paper to electronic
process, VBA must continue to ensure claims processing staff continue
to process paper mail accurately and timely. Our review of mail
management practices at the Philadelphia VARO revealed weakness on two
levels. At the VARO level, management did not prioritize or provide
adequate resources to ensure mail was processed timely. We also
determined VBA's internal reviews of the Philadelphia PMC, conducted by
the Pension and Fiduciary Service, were ineffective because it did not
always follow up on prior recommendations for improvement or open
action items.
VARO mail consists of various categories with multiple subclasses
of mail. For example, incoming mail pertains to claims or inquiries and
includes subclasses such as drop or file mail. Effective mail
management is crucial to the success and control of workflow within the
VARO. VBA policy emphasizes the importance of mail management by
requiring staff to open and date stamp claims-related mail in the
mailroom and route it to the appropriate location within 6 hours of
receipt.
Incoming Mail
Contrary to VBA policy, VARO management designated responsibility
for opening and date stamping incoming mail to locations outside the
mailroom. Consequently, mail was not always opened and date-stamped
within 6 hours of receipt. Because mail was not always date stamped on
the date it was received at the VARO , staff routinely adjusted date
stamps to reflect an earlier date. To document the date VARO staff
actually received mail, staff annotated the date mail was received on a
piece of paper on top of a bin of mail. Claims-related mail that is not
properly date stamped can affect benefits payments and misrepresent
claims processing timeliness measures reported to stakeholders.
Access and Control of Date Stamping Equipment
Typically, VA staff use electronic date stamps to annotate the date
a claim is received at a VA facility; generally, this date is also the
date used to begin paying benefits, if awarded. We confirmed VARO
management did not ensure staff minimized the use of date stamps or
that access and use of the equipment was limited to authorized staff.
Inadequate security of date stamping equipment and uncontrolled access
to the keys needed to adjust the date mechanism in the machines puts
VAROs at increased risk for abuse. For example, as indicated in another
report, Review of Alleged Data Manipulation of Veteran Claim Dates,
Boston VA Regional Office, we substantiated lapses in oversight at the
Boston VARO provided the opportunity for a Veterans Service Officer
(VSO) to manipulate dates of claims prior to submitting them to the
VARO for processing.\7\ Because Boston VARO management did not ensure
only authorized staff accessed and used date stamping equipment, the
VSO was able to date stamp documents unassisted by VARO staff. He was
then able to slip blank sheets of paper in between claims documents and
then later affix those dates to claims documents that he had not
submitted timely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Review of Alleged Data Manipulation of Veteran Claim Dates,
Boston VA Regional Office, MA (April 15, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unscanned Mail
VARO staff working at the PMC did not prioritize or provide
adequate resources to ensure staff timely scanned documents to Virtual
VA (VVA)--VBA's electronic repository. On June 19, 2014, we observed 68
boxes of mail, which VARO management described as a backlog of
completed claims waiting for VARO staff to scan to VVA. When we
returned on June 23, 2014, 48 boxes were remaining. Management
explained that staff had scanned 20 boxes to VVA over the weekend. We
estimated the remaining 48 boxes contained approximately 16,600
documents relating to claims VARO staff had completed. We sampled 160
of the documents that VARO staff had completed but had not been scanned
to VVA and noted the documents contained VARO date stamps ranging from
September 2009 through June 2011. VBA policy requires decision makers
to consider all relevant documents before deciding claims. The
relevancy of documents sitting in bins cannot be determined and as
such, creates unnecessary risk that may affect the accuracy of benefits
and entitlement decisions.
Returned Mail
We also confirmed that VARO management did not ensure PMC staff
processed returned mail timely. We observed 98 boxes of mail containing
an estimated 22,400 pieces of mail that had been returned as
undeliverable by the United States Postal Service. We sampled 96 pieces
of mail and observed the returned mail had been received at the
Philadelphia VARO between August 2010 and February 2013, and 3 of the
documents sampled had the potential to affect benefits. For example, on
November 30, 2011, VA sent a letter notifying a veteran's designated
beneficiary for Government life insurance benefits of that veteran's
death. The letter also included documentation needed to claim the life
insurance benefit. Because VARO staff did not initiate any action to
identify a correct address, the beneficiary of the life insurance
benefits may be unaware of entitlement to the life insurance benefits.
Additionally, VBA's Pension and Fiduciary Service site review teams
also noted weaknesses related to processing returned mail on two prior
site review visits, yet, these conditions were never addressed.
Military File Mail
We substantiated the allegation PMC staff mishandled military file
mail. We projected about 6,416 documents categorized as unidentifiable
could be identified using VBA systems. We found PMC management
oversight lacking because it did not conduct reviews to ensure staff
performed comprehensive searches using all VBA systems or attempted to
contact the correspondent when telephone numbers and addresses were
provided on the unidentified mail. Had management conducted periodic
reviews, it would have realized some of the military file mail
categorized as unidentifiable could be identified. Additionally, in
August 2014, during a return visit to the Philadelphia VARO, we
judgmentally sampled 26 documents pending a final review before
management approved them for destruction and found 11 of the 26
documents could be identified using VBA systems. We could not identify
the remaining 15 documents; however, 14 contained telephone numbers
and/or a return mailing address. We did not find any instance where
staff destroyed military file mail prematurely; however, lapses in
management oversight and the lack of accountability for screening
military file mail prior to destruction increased the risk of this
occurring.
Drop Mail
The Philadelphia VARO stored approximately 14,675 pieces of
veterans' paper mail instead of shipping this claim-related mail to one
of VBA's contracted scanning facilities for conversion into the
electronic processing environment. Our random sample of this mail
identified nine pieces of mail affected or had the potential to affect
benefits. For example, a veteran submitted an informal claim that was
not associated with the veteran's electronic record and therefore not
available to VARO staff when the disability claim was decided. Because
the mail was not available, VARO staff did not know the veteran's claim
for benefits was received earlier which resulted in assigning an
incorrect date for benefits payments to begin.
Personally Identifiable Information
We discovered VA-related documents containing Personally
Identifiable Information (PII) inappropriately stored in an area
accessible to VA and non-VA employees. The documents containing PII
belonged to veterans and VARO employees. The documents containing PII
consisted of VA claim and insurance numbers, employee personnel action
forms, and 83 signature cards belonging to credit union members dated
from 1961 through 1998. The signature cards contained names, bank
account numbers, birth dates, Social Security numbers, home addresses,
and employment information. Forty of the credit union signature cards
listed the Philadelphia VARO as their employer. Management did not
routinely conduct physical inspections of all space accessible to VARO
staff and were unaware documents containing PII for veterans and
employees were inappropriately stored in the interior office of a
kitchen.
Documents Retained Beyond Records Control Schedule
We could not substantiate the allegation that VARO management hid
two pallets containing boxes of potentially old claims from the view of
visiting Members of Congress because OIG teams were not physically
present at the time of the visit on July 28, 2014. However, our review
of the contents of 32 boxes on the 2 pallets revealed Insurance Center
managers were non-compliant with VBA's record control schedule. The
personnel-related documents for Insurance Center employees had been
inappropriately retained from FY 2006 through FY 2012. Housing and
maintaining unnecessary and outdated personnel-related records covering
6 fiscal years resulted in ineffective use of VA space and equipment.
Working Conditions and Morale of VARO Staff
We received numerous complaints about working conditions at a
geographically separated annexed worksite of the VARO and based on our
own observations, we alerted the USB of conditions violating
Occupational Safety and Health directives. We are also concerned about
the reasonableness of new performance standards requiring staff to
complete calls, on average in less than 8 minutes. The timeliness
standards may result in compromised customer service to many callers,
such as the elderly, those with hearing impairments, and in responding
to tearful or irate callers.
Oakland VARO
The Oakland VARO and its satellite office in Sacramento is
responsible for compensation claims, public contact, vocational
rehabilitation and employment. Combined, these programs annually total
approximately $1.9 billion.
On July 10, 2014, the OIG received a request for assistance from
the USB to review allegations that the Oakland VARO had not processed
nearly 14,000 informal requests for benefits dating back to the mid-
1990s. In addition, Congressman Doug LaMalfa also requested the OIG
review these allegations. A complainant also alleged that those
``informal claims'' were being improperly stored.
VA considers an informal claim to be any type of communication or
action indicating intent to apply for one or more benefits under the
laws administered by VA. Upon receipt of an informal claim, and when no
formal claim is on record, VA will forward an application form to the
claimant for completion. If a formal claim is received within 1 year of
the date VA sends the application form to the claimant, VA considers
the date of receipt of the informal claim as the effective date of
claim. As such, an informal claim is not tracked in VBA's performance
metrics. Further, an informal claim does not impact data integrity.
However, informal claims that staff do not process accurately, could
lead to delays in veterans receiving timely benefits.
In July 2014, we conducted an unannounced onsite review at the
Oakland VARO and its Sacramento satellite office to assess the merits
of the allegations. Our work included interviewing VARO staff from the
VSC to include technical and managerial staff. We conducted a complete
physical inspection of all VARO workspace, including an offsite
location in Sacramento.
We substantiated the allegation that Oakland VARO staff had not
processed a significant number of informal requests for benefits dating
back many years and improperly stored formal claims. We could not
confirm that VARO staff processed all of the informal claims found in
October 2012, nor could we confirm the initial list contained 13,184
informal claims because of management's poor recordkeeping practices.
Further, we substantiated Oakland VARO staff did not properly store 537
informal claims because these claims were not discovered until the
office was undergoing a construction project. Some of these informal
claims dated back to July 2002. The 537 informal claims, documented by
VARO management in June 2014, appear to be part of the original list
found by VBA's special review team in October 2012; however, poor
recordkeeping practices limit our ability to confirm this fact.
VARO staff did not perform an adequate review or take actions
needed on all of the unprocessed informal claims found by staff when
the office was undergoing a construction project. The USB testified
that none of the documents required any action. However, we found that
7 of the 34 documents in our sample (21 percent) were informal claims
that had not been processed. Further, Oakland VARO staff had repeatedly
reviewed these seven informal claims from December 2012 through June
2014 without taking additional action as required.
We issued a report on February 18, 2015. The Oakland VARO Director
concurred with our three recommendations. However, in March 2015, a
complainant, who had kept a list on a work computer of names from the
initial alleged list of approximately 14,000, came forward with
additional information regarding the issue of poor recordkeeping. This
complainant provided additional details that were not disclosed during
our initial review. Subsequently, the VARO Director informed the OIG a
partial list containing 1,308 unique documents was discovered. Both the
Oakland VARO and the OIG now have a copy of that list. The OIG has
selected a statistically random sample from that list and is currently
reviewing the documents. The preliminary results of that small sample
indicate that both formal and informal claims are included in the
partial list that was recently obtained.
Conclusion
Our findings at these two VARO s raise serious concerns about VARO
management's ability to appropriately direct and oversee the wide range
of benefits and services for which they are responsible. It is clear
that VBA needs to take immediate action to improve the operation and
management at these facilities and to re-examine the effectiveness of
its internal processes to ensure the accuracy and delivery of benefits
and services to veterans and their families. The OIG will continue to
provide oversight of VBA operations and monitor implementation of our
recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and we would be happy to
answer any questions that you or Members of Committee may have.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Danny Pummill
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Brown, and Distinguished Members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Veterans
Benefits Administration's (VBA) operations and progress made at the
Philadelphia and Oakland Regional Offices (RO). I am accompanied today
by Ms. Diana Rubens, Director of the Philadelphia RO; Ms. Lucy Filipov,
Assistant Director of the Philadelphia RO; Ms. Julianna Boor, Director
of the Oakland RO; and Ms. Michele Kwok, Assistant Director of the
Oakland RO.
Progress and Results
First, I would like to provide an update on the tremendous progress
we have made in transforming the claims process at the national level.
VBA has reduced the disability claims backlog by almost 70 percent,
from the peak of 611,000 in March 2013 to approximately 188,000 today.
Last year, VBA completed a record 1.32 million disability rating
claims, and we are on track to meet or beat that record this fiscal
year. Approximately 95 percent of the claims in our inventory are now
being processed electronically in our new digital environment, the
Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS). The average age of the
pending claims in the inventory is now 132 days, down 150 days from the
peak of 282 days in February 2013. Similarly, the average time to
decide a claim has improved by 176 days, from a peak of 348 days to 172
days. The reduction in the disability rating claims backlog and our
increased production have not come at the expense of quality, which has
also improved significantly. We have increased our claim-based accuracy
from 86 percent in 2011 to 91 percent today. When we measure accuracy
at the issue level within each claim, our accuracy level is 96 percent.
At the same time, we remain focused on all of the other workload
components of the wide range of benefit programs we are privileged to
administer.
VBA has the incredibly important mission of effectively delivering
the benefits our Nation's Veterans and their families have earned and
deserve. In carrying out its mission, VBA employees have adopted and
embraced the Department's core values of Integrity, Commitment,
Advocacy, Respect, and Excellence--appropriately captured in the phrase
``I CARE.'' Our workforce includes over 21,000 employees, 53 percent of
whom are Veterans themselves. VBA's progress in reducing the claims
backlog would not be possible without our dedicated workforce and
leadership throughout the organization.
Employee Engagement
VBA needs the talents of each and every one of our employees to
succeed in reaching our goals. Our employees demonstrate every day that
they are motivated to make a difference in the organizations where they
work and in the lives of those they serve. They are dedicated to our
unique mission of service to America's Veterans, their families, and
Survivors.
We recognize our responsibility for developing, sustaining, and
nurturing our employees--highlighting their accomplishments, addressing
their concerns, and giving them the training and tools they need to
deliver quality benefits and services. Our Directors use a number of
innovative methods to facilitate communication, identify and address
issues of concern, and help employees understand the importance of the
work that they do. Many Directors have invited Veterans to their RO to
meet and speak with employees so they gain a better understanding of
the daily challenges disabled Veterans face. Town hall meetings are
held to improve communication with management, and many managers also
hold recurring team meetings. VBA established Change Management Agents
at every RO to plan for and oversee the implementation of VBA's
transformation initiatives at their local facility and facilitate
communications between employees and managers. The Agents create
awareness and understanding of VBA's Transformation goals and plans,
offer training, seek employees' input, and listen to their feedback on
our Transformation efforts.
VBA also utilizes the Under Secretary for Benefits (USB) pulse
checks to engage employees. Pulse checks provide an open dialogue
between front-line employees--supervisory employees are directly
precluded from participating--and the USB. This open, honest, and
transparent dialogue allows employees to directly communicate concerns,
issues, and suggestions to the USB on topics ranging from VBMS, to
mandatory overtime and new performance standards. The purpose of these
events is to improve communication and encourage employees to raise all
issues to VBA leadership, while ensuring no retaliation for frank
assessments of initiatives.
VBA encourages all employees to participate in the annual All
Employee Survey, the results of which are carefully assessed and
analyzed to focus on areas needing improvement to promote a healthy and
motivated workforce. RO Directors are required to select and seek
improvement in two measures where they have influence. These measures
are evaluated by their Area Director at the end of the performance
period.
Whistleblower Protection
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is committed to
consistently improving processes and programs and to ensuring fair
treatment for whistleblowers who identify areas for improvement.
Secretary McDonald talks frequently about his vision of ``sustainable
accountability,'' which he describes as a workplace culture in which VA
leaders provide the guidance and resources employees need to
successfully serve Veterans, and employees freely and safely inform
leaders when challenges hinder their ability to succeed. We need a work
environment in which all participants--from front-line staff through
lower-level supervisors to senior managers and top VA officials--feel
safe sharing information and observations for the benefit of Veterans
and as good stewards of the taxpayers' money.
In recent months, VA has taken several important steps to improve
the way we address opportunities for operational improvement and to
ensure that those who identify those areas are protected from
retaliation. Last summer, the Secretary established the Office of
Accountability Review, or OAR, to ensure leadership accountability for
whistleblower retaliation and other serious misconduct. VA has also
improved its collaboration with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC),
which is the independent office responsible for overseeing
whistleblower disclosures and investigating whistleblower retaliation
across the Federal Government. VA has negotiated with OSC an expedited
process to speed corrective action for employees who have been subject
to retaliation. That process is working well, and we are now beginning
a collaborative effort with OSC's Director of Training and Outreach to
create a robust new training program to ensure all VA supervisors
understand their roles and responsibilities in protecting
whistleblowers.
Leadership Accountability and Coordination
VBA holds employees at all levels of the organization accountable
for performance as we continuously strive to fulfill our commitment to
providing timely and accurate benefit decisions. Objective measures and
performance standards are used to make basic determinations that our
managers and employees are meeting or exceeding their job requirements.
Procedures are in place to reward our best performers and to work with
employees who need additional training to improve performance.
All VBA senior managers of ROs are held accountable for effective
workload management and the resulting performance of their offices.
Performance is evaluated against national and RO-specific targets that
are based on our strategic goals. The targets are established at the
beginning of each fiscal year and account for a variety of measures,
including timeliness, production, and inventory. Performance
expectations are established based on the previous year's performance,
giving consideration to current staffing and anticipated receipts at
each RO. There are several layers of oversight including VBA's Office
of Field Operations and the Area Offices that routinely review the
performance of ROs and their leadership teams. The performance is
measured against established targets, workload, and staff turnover.
VBA aggressively monitors RO workload trends and performance, and
as negative trends develop, Area Directors establish and monitor
performance improvement plans for RO Directors to ensure appropriate
attention is given to problem areas. Performance improvement plans
identify areas for improvement such as production capacity, quality, or
timeliness. Often, a challenged RO will engage a high-performing
station to share best practices.
VBA's Stat Reviews are a performance technique and tool using
statistical data and visual displays of those data to monitor progress
and improve performance. This monthly process involves in-depth
performance metric reviews with the USB and other top VA leaders, as
well as VBA's Office of Field Operations and other members of the VBA
leadership team, to analyze and manage performance more effectively.
Every RO participates in the Stat Reviews to ensure alignment across
ROs on transformation initiatives and that best practices and lessons
learned are shared quickly across leadership teams.
VBA's Stat Reviews are based on highly successful performance
management programs conducted Government-wide. The USB sits with RO
Directors in the half-day meeting to discuss challenges and successes,
using extensive data-driven performance measures for accountability.
This allows VBA leadership to more easily identify what improvements
are needed to produce desired performance results. Stat Reviews also
help VBA leadership understand what is or is not working, while
motivating RO managers and employees to focus their energy and
creativity on achieving specific results. The Stat Review process
encourages focus on accountability to achieve workload performance
metrics and sharing of best practices throughout VBA.
Improvements at the Philadelphia RO
The dedicated employees of the Philadelphia RO have demonstrated
commitment to improving the delivery of benefits to Veterans and their
families. The Philadelphia RO asked every employee to recommit to the I
CARE values last month, putting Veterans and their needs first. The
employees of the Philadelphia RO take this commitment to heart, and
many of our employees in Philadelphia are Veterans themselves.
Overview of the Philadelphia RO
In July 2014, Ms. Diana Rubens was appointed as the Director of the
Philadelphia RO. As the Director, Ms. Rubens is responsible for
administering a range of VA benefits to over 1 million Veterans and
their families living in eastern Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey, and
Delaware. These services include administration of compensation and
pension benefits, national call center services, and vocational
rehabilitation and employment benefits, which total approximately $4.1
billion in annual payments.
Upon her arrival in Philadelphia, Ms. Rubens immediately began
building and strengthening working relationships with RO employees and
local stakeholders by expanding and improving communication and
focusing on creating a culture that puts Veterans and their eligible
beneficiaries first. A number of initiatives were launched in her first
several months at the RO and continue now, including:
Expanding avenues for communication with employees, to discuss
issues, ideas, and ways to improve the RO;
Conducting training for all supervisors to increase
communication and provide tools for supervisors to build trust and
improve interactions with employees;
Improving the physical appearance of RO space, including the
public contact area, to enhance the environment for both Veterans and
employees; and
Improving communication and relationships with external-VBA
stakeholders.
Our transformation efforts have improved performance at the
Philadelphia RO. The backlog of Veterans' claims in eastern
Pennsylvania has been reduced from its peak of 13,000 claims in
December 2011 to 5,400 claims today, an improvement of 58 percent.
Veterans there are also waiting less time for decisions. The average
number of days pending has been reduced from a peak of 264 days in
April 2013 to 159 days today. The progress is not at the expense of
quality, which remains high at 91 percent at the claim level and 98
percent at the issue level.
The Philadelphia Pension Management Center (PMC) has also made
tremendous strides in improving performance. The PMC oversees Veterans
pension and all Survivors' claims for the Eastern United States, Puerto
Rico, and most foreign countries. The PMC's backlog was reduced by 94
percent, from its peak of 13,300 claims in July 2013 to 763 claims
today. Timeliness has also improved from a peak of 196 days in November
2012 to approximately 60 days today. Accuracy is currently at 100
percent. While there is more work to do, improvements have been
initiated or achieved amidst various challenges since Ms. Rubens'
arrival in July 2014.
Leadership and Employee Morale
First, let me assure you that since Ms. Rubens assumed her new
duties as the Director of the Philadelphia RO in July 2014, she is
committed to fostering an environment and culture where employees feel
safe to raise issues. Protecting whistleblowers from retaliation is a
key component of carrying out VA's core mission in accordance with its
institutional I CARE values. Veterans expect VA leadership to cultivate
an environment that empowers employees and demands accountability in
service to our Veterans. The RO is making progress by participating in
mandatory whistleblower training to ensure every supervisor at the RO
understands retaliation is not tolerated and adheres to the I CARE
values. Ms. Rubens is working to ensure every employee feels safe in
raising concerns and is protected from any retaliation.
In addition to these efforts, the Philadelphia RO's management team
has taken a multitude of steps to engage employees, such as:
Inviting all employees to meet with Ms. Rubens in one of the
40 town hall meetings that she had held/led since August 2014 so she
can directly hear their concerns, respond, and take action on issues
raised;
Reenergizing the RO's Collaborations Strategies Group
comprised of employees who have volunteered to lead committees to help
improve the Philadelphia RO;
Establishing monthly Listening Post sessions in November 2014
for employees to brainstorm ideas and develop ways to improve
processes;
Placing suggestion boxes in the Veterans Service Center (VSC)
in January 2015 to obtain feedback from employees; and
Creating a workgroup in November 2014 to analyze the VA All
Employee Survey 2014 results for the Philadelphia RO and develop action
plans to address areas for immediate improvement.
Ms. Rubens continues to strengthen her leadership team, creating a
more inclusive environment for the entire workforce. The Philadelphia
RO conducted training for all supervisors to improve communications and
develop ways for supervisors to build trust and improve interactions
with employees. A 2-day team building and emotional intelligence
training was held in December 2014. The training focused on developing
skills through which supervisors can lead with a Veteran-centric focus.
An additional training session was provided by VBA's Office of Employee
Development and Training on February 5, 2015. This has improved
communications between RO leadership and all employees with more clear
and consistent messages, feedback, and team outcomes.
Ms. Rubens and her management team are enhancing relationships with
stakeholders through Veteran town halls and claims clinics, semiannual
Congressional seminars, quarterly meetings with Veterans Service
Organizations (VSO), and weekly meetings with our local American
Federation of Government Employees president. They implemented a VSC
advocacy team in December 2014 to better manage Congressional
inquiries, and they are instituting a new way to track and monitor
inquiries regarding pending appeals and non-rating claims. Local media
have been invited to all Veteran town halls. In addition, the
Philadelphia RO has supported the Veterans Health Administration at all
of its local Veteran town halls at VA medical centers. In March, the RO
supported the American Legion Veteran town hall and local Veteran
engagement events. Although there is more work to do, the Philadelphia
RO is committed to improving operations and communications to better
serve its Veterans.
Issues Raised by OIG
Leadership within VBA and management at the Philadelphia RO take
recommendations from VA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) very
seriously. The RO actively and quickly worked to address issues that
were raised and implemented action plans to ensure these issues do not
occur again.
OIG Report Published April 15, 2015
VA's OIG began an investigation at the Philadelphia RO on June 19,
2014, based on allegations of mismanagement made through the VA OIG
hotline. The investigation began 3 weeks prior to Ms. Rubens' arrival
on July 10, 2014. Upon her arrival, she engaged with management and
immediately began implementing solutions to issues raised by OIG while
they were on-site. VBA had already remedied many of the findings when
the final report was published on April 15, 2015. VBA continues to work
to resolve the remainder of the findings based on the recommendations
in the report. VBA is also conducting an Administrative Investigation
Board to determine if further actions are appropriate.
OIG Management Advisory
On June 20, 2014, OIG issued a Management Advisory. Four
recommendations were included in this advisory. The first
recommendation was related to the allegation that staff at the
Philadelphia RO misapplied VBA Fast Letter (FL) 13-10, Guidance on Date
of Claim Issues. OIG found instances in which the Philadelphia RO did
not enter the correct date of claim in some Veterans' records and
recommended that VBA discontinue use of FL 13-10. On June 27, 2014, VBA
suspended FL 13-10, pending a thorough review of its implementation.
The Philadelphia RO complied immediately with VBA's discontinuation of
Fast Letter 13-10. Ms. Rubens charged the leadership of the VSC and PMC
to ensure the earliest date of receipt of claim was consistently used
to establish claims. Employees were immediately engaged and informed to
comply with this direction.
The second recommendation was related to scanning completed pension
claims. OIG found 68 mail bins containing completed pension claims and
associated evidence that had not been scanned into VA's electronic
records. These claims were completed in 2011, and it is important to
note that no Veterans were waiting for the resolution of these pension
claims. In addition, the most relevant information related to these
claims was available within VBA's electronic systems. Should the
original documents be needed for processing subsequent claims, PMC
employees would access those documents in the paper records. Prior to
the OIG investigation, the Philadelphia PMC's processes had been
adjusted to incorporate up-front scanning of documents, and resources
had been dedicated to scanning the completed claims. Although the work
had not been completed at the time of OIG's arrival, it was underway
and subsequently completed in August 2014. VBA is transitioning all
claims processing to a fully electronic system, VBMS. VBA has a
contract with a private scanning vendor to convert paper documents into
digital format and upload them into VBMS. VBA is examining the use of
the contract scan vendor for the PMC scanning to enable more rapid
uploading to VBMS.
The June 20, 2014, OIG Management Advisory also reported on several
instances in which Veterans or their dependents received duplicate
payments resulting from duplicate records in VA's electronic system.
Resolution of duplicate records continues to be a top priority of the
Philadelphia RO. VA's Hines Information Technology Center generates
monthly reports identifying potential duplicate payments in VBA's
corporate database for resolution. Ms. Rubens personally engaged with
the employees who brought this issue forward and members of the
Philadelphia RO management team to form a workgroup to develop and
implement procedures to prevent establishment of duplicate records and
improper payments. As a result of the workgroup, the RO provided
training on searching VBA systems to identify existing records before
establishing a new record for a claimant. Additionally, VBA developed
standardized training for field personnel on how to avoid creating
duplicate records and how to correct the system when duplicate records
are identified.
The fourth recommendation in the Management Advisory was to limit
employees' access to electronic date stamps. To address OIG's
recommendation, the Philadelphia RO changed its procedures on July 11,
2014, and moved date stamping into a secure mailroom. A small number of
exceptions were permitted for the public contact staff and other front
office employees. Employees continue to be assigned to specific
machines so the RO can audit use of date stamps. All unassigned
machines remain secured by the RO's Records Management Officer.
OIG Management Implication Notification--Occupational Safety and Health
On July 23, 2014, OIG sent a Management Implication Notification
Letter--Occupational Safety and Health to address facility conditions
at the RO's leased space located at 4700 Wissahickon Avenue. The 150
employees of the National Call Center and National Pension Call Center
reside in this space. Ms. Rubens took immediate action to engage with
the General Services Administration (GSA), which manages this lease,
and secured contracts with GSA to begin immediate construction at the
main RO building, at 5000 Wissahickon Avenue, to house these
operations. VBA anticipates employees will move into new space by the
end of May 2015.
Improvements at the Oakland RO
The dedicated employees of the Oakland RO share a similar
commitment to providing the best service possible to Veterans and their
families, who deserve nothing less.
Overview of the Oakland RO
In May 2014, Ms. Julianna Boor was appointed as the Director of the
Oakland RO. In this role, Ms. Boor is responsible for administering
approximately $1.9 billion in annual payments to over 137,000 Veterans
and their dependents in Northern California. The Oakland RO administers
the full range of compensation and vocational rehabilitation and
employment benefits. Ms. Boor promotes development opportunities for
all employees through both local and national programs. She promoted
and supported the 2014 All-Employee Survey, which resulted in a high
participation rate of 70 percent. Ms. Boor carefully assessed and
analyzed the results of the survey and continues to work
collaboratively with her labor partners to focus on areas needing
improvement to promote a healthy and motivated workforce.
Ms. Boor also continues to build effective relationships with
Congressional stakeholders, VSOs, and the Veteran communities. She has
participated in multiple town hall and Veterans advisory committee
events. She holds monthly meetings with VSOs and Congressional
Staffers. Ms. Boor partnered with the California Department of Veterans
Affairs (CDVA) in implementing a Strike Force Team, utilizing 12 CDVA
employees to assist in obtaining information on claims and submitting
more fully developed claims. The team's assistance continues to assist
in reducing the number of claims in the backlog.
The backlog of northern California Veterans' claims has been
reduced by 73 percent, from its peak of 30,000 claims in June 2012 to
8,000 claims today. The average age of pending claims was reduced from
467 days at its peak in March 2013 to 161 days today--a 306-day
improvement. Quality remains high at the RO--claim-level quality is at
96 percent and issue-level quality is at 98 percent.
Employee Morale and Engagement
The Oakland RO's leadership team takes seriously its responsibility
in developing and nurturing employees, as well as ensuring they have
the training and tools they need to do the job. They also focus on
providing a safe workplace, not only in terms of physical safety, but
safety from harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. Ms. Boor
encourages candid disclosure of information about problems and
understands that retaliation is not tolerated and adheres to the I CARE
values. She promotes developmental opportunities for all employees
through both local and national training programs and tries to find as
many ways as possible to have an open dialogue with employees--from
all-employee meetings to daily meetings for teams. Her leadership team
actively solicits suggestions on ways to improve, which has resulted in
ideas implemented locally and shared with other ROs.
In addition, a special communication mechanism was established in
Oakland that has become quite popular with employees. Every week, the
RO celebrates special instances of exceptional customer service in the
form of ``Friday Shout-Outs.'' These instances range from helping a
homeless Veteran find shelter close to the treating hospital, to
helping a young family with five children in financial hardship obtain
a down-payment for a new home with the grant of service-connected
disability compensation.
Ms. Boor and the RO's management team aggressively promoted and
supported the 2014 All-Employee Survey, which resulted in a 70 percent
participation rate. RO management carefully assessed and analyzed the
results of the survey and continues to collaborate with labor partners
to focus on areas needing improvement to develop a more healthy and
motivated workforce. Oakland employees have faced and overcome many
challenges over the past few years and continue to demonstrate each day
that they are motivated to make a difference in the lives of Veterans
and their families.
Documents Found in 2012
To address performance challenges, a special support team was sent
to Oakland in October 2012. In November 2012, a member of the support
team found a file cabinet of duplicate copies of approximately 13,000
documents. VBA initiated an immediate review to determine if a formal
claim had subsequently been received, and if so, was the correct
effective date used for any benefits awarded as a result of the
informal claim. Oakland employees completed the initial review of all
of the documents in December 2012, with the exception of 2,155
documents requiring a review of the associated claim folders housed at
off-site storage facilities.
In May 2014, before the Oakland RO had completed all of the 2,155
claim folder reviews, allegations of unprocessed claims were made by
former employees on a radio talk show. The documents were re-reviewed
in June 2014 to see if further action was needed on any of the
documents, and then the copies were filed in the Veterans' records. In
hindsight, a record of all documents reviewed should have been kept to
validate the review process.
To further investigate the allegations, VBA requested the
assistance of OIG. Unfortunately, OIG was unable to confirm the actions
taken by the Oakland RO on the majority of the 13,000 documents, as
only 537 documents were remaining to be reviewed at the time the OIG
investigation was initiated. The copies of all of the other reviewed
documents had been filed in each individual Veterans' claims folder.
In total, 403 documents, or approximately 3 percent of the original
13,000 documents, were identified as requiring additional claims
processing actions, primarily granting an earlier effective date. These
corrective actions were completed in September 2014.
In February 2015, OIG issued the findings from its July 2014
investigation, noting the Oakland RO's inadequate maintenance of
records on the review. In the report, OIG acknowledged that neither VA
nor OIG can determine entitlement to disability benefits without the
Veteran submitting a formal application for benefits. As such, OIG
recommended the Oakland RO complete a review of the remaining 537
documents, provide training on proper procedures for processing
informal claims, and implement a plan to ensure oversight of those
staff assigned to process the informal claims.
Corrective Actions
VBA fully concurred with the OIG recommendations to improve
operations and implemented all recommendations. The Oakland RO also
recently implemented the national centralized mail initiative in
January 2015, which significantly reduces the potential for delayed
handling of paper documents. All of the Oakland RO's claim-related mail
is now directed to a centralized scanning facility in Janesville,
Wisconsin, for conversion from paper to electronic digital format.
Additionally, on March 24, 2015, VA implemented an important
regulatory change to require use of standardized claim and appeal
forms. This change includes a new intent to file process that replaces
the informal claim process for applicants who need additional time to
gather all of the information and evidence needed to submit their
formal application for benefits. This new process protects the earliest
possible effective date if the applicant is determined eligible for
benefits and helps to ensure anyone wishing to file a claim receives
the information and assistance they need.
Closing
The progress made at both ROs could not have been accomplished
without the dedicated leadership of the officials present today. Ms.
Rubens and Ms. Boor, supported by their Assistant Directors, have both
led significant progress towards reaching VA's goals. Both have shown
great leadership, dedication, and commitment to employee engagement.
This concludes my remarks. My colleagues and I are happy to respond to
any questions from you or other Members of the Committee.
Prepared Statement of Mr. Ryan Cease
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit my written statement regarding Philadelphia and
Oakland: Systemic Failures and Mismanagement.
Since 2012 I've teamed up with Kristen Ruell to provide the VA OIG
as well as members of Congress details and evidence regarding systemic
failures and mismanagement. When we first submitted our concern to OIG
we wanted to remain anonymous because we were afraid of retaliation
from our peers and management. Regardless our identities were revealed
since at the time the whistleblower protection act was not taken
seriously. Since we were afraid that we were going to lose our jobs we
contacted the media to stay on the radar. After being a voice that's
being heard, whistleblowers from the VARO would secretly provide us
with information since they too are afraid of retaliation.
For the record I would like to provide this written statement as a
status report, additional findings after the release of the VA OIG
report and my personal opinions.
I've selected 6 questions for this written statement that I have
firsthand knowledge of, obtained from the VA OIG Report, Review of
Alleged Data Manipulation and Mismanagement at the VA Regional Office,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania dated April 15, 2015.
Did VARO staff misapply Fast Letter 13-10, ``Guidance on Date of Claim
Issues'' and enter incorrect dates of claims in the electronic record?
Although the guidance under Fast Letter 13-10 was terminated
effective June 27, 2014, older dates of claims can be hidden in the VBA
systems using the End Product (EP) EP 930 for Service Connected
Compensation and EP 937 for Non-Service Connected Pension or Death
Compensation and DIC Claims with an earlier effective date.
For VA Service Connected Compensation Claims the following End
Products are used once it's established in the VBA System, handled by
the Veterans Service Center (VSC):
EP 010--Initial Disability Compensation Claims--Eight Issues
or More
EP 110--Initial Disability Compensation Claims--Seven EP 110--
Initial Disability Compensation Claims--Seven Issues or Less
EP 020--Reopened Claims--Compensation
For VA Non-Service Connected Pension Benefits or Death Compensation
and DIC Claims are used once it's established in the VBA System,
handled by the Pension Management Center (PMC):
EP 197--Initial Death Pension Claims
EP 127--Reopened Claims--Pension
EP 147--Initial Death Compensation and DIC Claims
EP 029--Reopened Death Compensation and DIC Claims
As of last week the VSC was instructed to provide justification to
management upon establishing an old date of claim, under the normal end
product codes EP 010, 110, and 020. However, establishing an EP 930 to
hide older date of claims are still being applied in the VSC and PMC
(under EP 937). This makes it look like the VARO has accomplished their
goal on eliminating older claims.
Due to the pressure of achieving production points to justify an
employee's workload, most employees would top sheet a Veteran's
physical claim folder or electronic claim folder upon completion of a
claim. Top sheeting is reviewing only new documents beyond the active
date of claim.
Old claims that are not addressed are usually identified if a
Veteran submits a Notice of Disagreement and request for a Decision
Review Officer Review (DRO Review). This election forces the Decision
Review Officer to review the Veteran's entire physical claim folder and
electronic folder prior to providing the Statement of the Case or an
Amended Decision of the issue on disagreement. Since the DRO Review
forces an entire review of the Veteran's record, top sheeting cannot be
applied, so finding old claims by the Appeals Team due to a DRO Review
is common.
Once an old claim is identified it is then sent back to the VSC or
PMC to be established under the proper End Product (EP) designation and
date of claim.
The following questions should be asked and looked into:
Do both VSC and PMC use the correct date of claim when an old
unprocessed claim is discovered by the Appeals Team (or randomly appear
out of nowhere in the VARO)?
As well as what is the oldest claim in the VARO's inventory
and how was it discovered?
If the VARO is saying that they do not have claims categorized as
old pending in their inventory or that they have reached their goal of
eliminating old claims, someone is lying to the VA Central Office or
Congress.
This information was acquired from multiple anonymous
whistleblowers reporting the information to me because they were
concerned that the problem still continues and while I process claims
in the Appeals Team.
Did VARO staff process Board of Veterans' Appeals claims out of order
by ``cherry picking'' the easy cases?
Since I've been transferred to the VSC Appeals Team in November
2014 I do agree with OIG's findings that they did not substantiate the
allegation that VARO staff processed less complicated appealed claims
by ``cherry picking'' easy cases out of docket order. It is true that
Philadelphia VARO does not have control over appealed claims under the
jurisdiction of the Board of Veterans' Appeals. As such, VARO staff
could not influence how the Board of Veterans' Appeals controlled or
managed its workload.
However due to the pressure of achieving production points to
justify an employee's workload, cherry picking is common in the VSC and
PMC main floors for regular cases. Most employees do have the integrity
to work older or harder cases in their workload regardless of the point
system. But there's always those who would rather work on the easy
cases to get by and save their jobs since unmeasured time is usually
frowned upon by management. To regulate this issue some responsible
Coaches (Team Supervisors) would conduct monthly projects to eliminate
older cases, forcing the employees to initiate an action on a pending
claim.
Cherry picking does occur but this applies to other VAROs as well.
There are many factors on why this occurs in our work environment but
it takes a responsible Supervisor to identify the issue and take
action.
Did VARO staff timely process Notices of Disagreement for appealed
claims?
Since I've been transferred to the VSC Appeals Team in November
2014, I have firsthand experience on how the workload is managed
regarding the Notice of Disagreements.
As listed by the OIG report the delay is due to the following
reasons:
Disorganized Storage of NODs--Changed due to the Centralized
Mail Center
Increased Appealed Claims Workload--Currently Occurring
Misrouted Mail--Currently Occurring
OIG recommended the following:
The VARO implement a plan to ensure and effectively monitor
staff enter appealed claims in Veterans Appeals Control and Locator
System within 7 days to ensure accurate and timely reporting to
stakeholders.
The VARO Office Director implement a plan to ensure efficient
operations when processing appealed claims, to include determining if
additional staffing is required to process approximately 700 appealed
claims from another VA Regional Office.
Based on my experience working with the VSC Appeals Team the Notice
of Disagreement delay is ongoing. Currently the major issues with the
delay are the following:
Centralized Mail Scan Delay: The timeframe for the scan
facilities to upload the Notice of Disagreements into the VBA portals
is not instant upon receiving the documents. They are unable to keep up
with the volume of incoming mail.
VARO Intake Processing Center Backlog: Once the Notice of
Disagreements are scanned they are uploaded into an electronic portal
on which Claims Assistants in the Intake Processing Center (IPC) are
tasked to identify, establish an End Product (EP 170) in VBMS for
tracking purposes and assign the case to the Appeals Team. Many of the
Claims Assistants in IPC are not familiar with VACOLS or the Appeals
Process so only a select few are knowledgeable on updating VACOLS.
Under Staffed in the Appeals Team: The Appeals Team is under
staffed and unable to keep up with the incoming Notice of
Disagreements. In addition to each Veterans Service Representative's
(VSR) primary duty, most are assigned special duties to include
handling attorney fee cases, verifying herbicide exposure,
posttraumatic stress stressors and locating missing service records.
The special duties take up more time then the primary duties so getting
back to the normal workload can vary depending on the amount it takes
to complete the special duties. In addition, the team must also
undertake high priority cases which need attention as soon as possible
such as White House Inquiries, Congressional Inquiries, Homeless and
Terminal Cases.
The major question that should be asked is what is the national
average on how many days it takes for the Notice of Disagreements to be
placed into VACOLS once it is received?
Also where does the Philadelphia VSC and PMC Appeals Team rank
regarding the delay of the Notice of Disagreements being placed in
VACOLS?
There is no way at this point for NODs to be placed into VACOLS
within 7 days as required. The only way this requirement is obtainable
is if the following changes are applied:
The scan station must upload the NOD into the portals on the
same day or within 3 days upon receiving the document.
Combine the PMC and VSC Intake Processing Center to prevent
misrouted scanned mail.
Increase the amount of Claims Assistants to help alleviate the
incoming workload of the VARO.
Train all Claims Assistants on how to update VACOLS and gain
basic knowledge of the Appeals Process equivalent to a Veterans Service
Representative (VSR).
Increase the staff in the Appeals Teams as soon as possible.
Have Special Duties such as Military Records Specialist and
Attorney Fee Coordinator VSRs in the Appeals Team focus only on those
duties so that the regular workflow of appeals is not interrupted.
For the record my current Supervisor and Assistant Supervisor at
the VSC Appeals Team have been very proactive on managing our workload
regardless of our limitations.
Did VARO management ignore benefits-related inquiries and veterans'
claims submitted through VBA's Inquiry Routing and Information System
at the Pension Call Center?
Both Kristen and I were informed about this issue by an anonymous
employee. Due to the hostility of PMC management towards recognized
whistleblowers, the employee did not want to be identified for the
possibility of retaliation. We advised the employee to provide this
information to the OIG along with us.
As of last week I conducted a followup with the anonymous employee
regarding the 31,410 pending inquiries. I was informed to date no
action has been taken on the pending inquiries via IRIS.
OIG selected judgment sample of only 30 inquiries from this listing
to review. Based on the report they just mentioned that they are
inquiries. But the truth is the majority of the reports of contact via
IRIS are informal claims which can grant the Veterans with an earlier
effective date. Due to this they all must be properly reviewed to check
if the VARO owes Veterans additional payments based on an earlier
effective dated generated by the informal claim. As well as identify
and take actions on death notifications of beneficiaries in a timely
manner to prevent improper payments beyond the termination date.
The VARO was tasked to fix this issue and USB concurred with their
recommendations and reported the Philadelphia PMC had fewer than 300
inquiries pending as of March 15, 2015.
There is something clearly wrong with this answer. An IRIS if not
printed can easily be deleted electronically leaving no trace.
The big question is if the anonymous employee informed me that no
actions have been taken on the 31,410 IRIS ``inquiries'' how is it that
it has been reduced to 300 inquiries by March 15, 2015?
In addition to the big question of who reviewed them, did OIG save
a control list of the IRIS inquiries to verify if the PMC conducted the
correct actions?
The questions raised by the anonymous employee are:
Of the 31,410 IRISes that have been responded to, how many times
was a phone call made, per the Veteran's request?
How many times was a letter sent to a Veteran?
Why does the PMC disregard the Veteran's request for the type of
contact they want?
Damage control was done and a followup is needed. People who were
tasked to conduct the review must be questioned and the data must be
presented and hopefully OIG has a control list to cross-reference the
PMC's response.
Did VARO management fail to prioritize the merging of duplicate
claim records that resulted in improper payments and instruct staff to
waive associated overpayments?
When I was a Claims Assistant in PMC Triage I was assigned the duty
of fixing duplicate records and other various record issues. I've
always been told that duplicate records are not a priority and that
upper management told us to focus on our regular work. I then got
promoted to the VSC as a Veterans Service Representative (VSR). I was
then informed that no one really knew how to fix duplicate records in
the VSC so I was assigned to help VSC with their duplicate records
issues. I've done it for approximately 2 years while also tasked to
work my regular workload and my Military Records Specialist duties for
brokered cases and then the NEHMER project.
According to the report, the USB advised OIG that Hines Information
Technology Center (ITC) staff generate monthly cumulative reports on a
national level identifying duplicate payments in VBA's corporate
database. However, VARO staff OIG interviewed were unaware these
reports existed.
The question is where is this report that Hines provided the VARO?
The funny thing is we're the ones who notified upper management to
contact Hines when we had our DUPC meetings.
In 2012 Kristen and I worked together to reveal that duplicate
records can indeed create duplicate payments and later down the line
Kristen revealed that the duplicate payments were not being recouped
properly PMC. We submitted this information to OIG in 2012. We never
got a proper response regarding what we reported until we resubmitted
our findings along with other mismanagement concerns in 2014.
From experience working with duplicate records for years, double
payments will not occur as much in the VSC compared to the PMC since
VSC requires the Veteran's Service Treatment Records and Personnel
Records to complete a claim. PMC on the other hand had a habit of
authorizing payments on pension claims without a social security
number, verified service dates and correct dependent information.
The OIG visited the VARO in June 2014; we asked them what happened
to our initial report in 2012. They informed us that it came out
inconclusive. We were never asked how we found the duplicate payments
until June 2014. Our previous report was just pushed to the side
without any effort on contacting us to obtain more information. It was
case closed in 2012 with no notification. In 2012 Kristen and I also
wanted to remain anonymous but someone from the OIG revealed our
identities to management so we had no choice but to contact the media
to protect our jobs.
So the second time we reported the issue I created two charts for
OIG on June 24, 2014 to assist them on locating duplicate records with
duplicate payments. I'm not sure how in-depth their investigation was
because the number of duplicate records on the report is the number
that I've provided them.
No one at the VARO looks for duplicate records; they only come
across it and then it's forwarded to me to fix. When the VARO was
assigned the NEHMER project I reviewed the incoming spreadsheet and
identified duplicate records. I've compiled a list for management and I
was told that we didn't have to worry about those duplicate records
because it didn't affect the Veteran's payments. Since this was a Court
Order Project and NVLSP project I felt that that response that I've
received was not right so I sent that list to OIG as well.
I was then relieved of my duties fixing duplicate records once I
provided the VSC IPC my procedures and templates. I was then
transferred away from the main VSC floor and assigned to the Appeals
Team. The duty of duplicate records in the VSC is now being handled by
one person as a fulltime position, which I've been asking for and
suggested since 2011. I've submitted multiple suggestions on how to fix
the problem at the VARO before it got worse and they were both denied
and never reached VACO. I then gave up on submitting suggestions to
human resources.
When I was transferred to VSC no one compiled an inventory list of
identified duplicate records so I created one for the D1BC and
requested the VSC to create one as well. Since then we were able to
gain an approximate count of duplicate records in the VSC. The PMC on
the other hand was not allowed to create a list of their duplicate
records. I was informed by multiple employees in the PMC. This is very
questionable since when I left the PMC there were about 1500 to 2000
duplicate records floating around unattained. The reason for this is
because the Philadelphia PMC covers pension claims for the whole entire
east coast of the U.S. Fortunately one employee compiled a list but
only 150 were identified since that employee took it upon himself like
me to make an inventory list for tracking purposes. I'm not sure who is
handling duplicate records in the PMC since the last person was
promoted.
There are a lot of steps at the VARO level to fix duplicate
records. There are hardly any updated procedures that are easily
accessible to end users. I've made one for the VSC since I kept on
calling the National Service Desk to gain new procedures that the VARO
is not aware of. The PMC is still new to VBMS so the new employees who
are assigned the duty probably does not know to transfer the electronic
documents first prior to a merge. If a duplicate record is merged and
steps are missed electronic documents end up getting lost in a location
in VBMS that can only be accessed by using a special search feature. I
don't believe that this information was ever relayed to PMC.
Duplicate records have increased nationwide because the VA Form 21-
526EZ, ebenefits, and the new VA Form 21-0966 Intent to file form does
not require the Veteran to provide his or her service number. A lot of
Veterans with service numbers have claim numbers in the VBA system
already. This will create more double payments and headaches to all of
the VAROs.
How serious is the VA taking duplicate records now? I'm not really
sure; I hope that after this hearing there will be some changes.
Did VARO staff mishandle military file mail?
Kristen and I reported this practice in 2012; this too was
dismissed until it was raised again in 2014. The question is will the
VARO keep doing it? Will whistleblowers keep reporting it?
The sad new is VBMS has an unassigned document location, so instead
of physical documents being lost, now electronic documents are being
lost too. The unassigned document list in VBMS is hardly reviewed and
it's equivalent to military file mail. This is nationwide, not just at
our VARO.
Since Kristen and I revealed multiple issues to OIG, Congress and
the media we've been categorized as the snitches of the VARO. A lot of
coworkers and members of management would say that we are just out
there to give our building a bad reputation. Which I don't understand
because most of the people who complain about the issues that's going
on in the building would not step up because they are comfortable
having a ``it is what it is'' mentality. A lot of our co-workers would
say just keep your mouth shut, no matter what you do it's going to get
covered up. Well we made it this far, I really do hope our efforts will
bring some changes not only for our VARO but the whole nation.
For the record the Philadelphia VA Regional Office has a lot of
amazing employees who would go above and beyond for a Veteran in need.
A lot of us believe in our mission ``To care for him who shall have
borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan.''
My name is Ryan H. Cease. I am a Veterans Service Representative,
at the Philadelphia VA Regional Office. I have worked with Kristen
Ruell for almost 3 years to reveal Systemic Failures and Mismanagement
at the Philadelphia VA Regional Office. I would like to add to the
record my concerns of the current outcome after the release of the OIG
Report, Review of Alleged Data Manipulation and Mismanagement at the VA
Regional Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania dated April 15, 2015.
As a result of the investigation the guidance under Fast Letter 13-
10 was terminated effective June 27, 2014. Older dates of claims can
still be hidden in the VBA systems using the End Product (EP) EP 930
for Service Connected Compensation and EP 937 for Non-Service Connected
Pension or Death Compensation and DIC Claims with an earlier effective
date.
Since I've been transferred to the VSC Appeals Team in November
2014, I do agree with OIG's findings that they did not substantiate the
allegation that VARO staff processed less complicated appealed claims
by ``cherry picking'' easy cases out of docket order. However due to
the pressure of achieving production points to justify an employee's
workload, cherry picking is common in the VSC and PMC main floors for
regular cases.
Since I've been transferred to the VSC Appeals Team in November
2014, I have firsthand experience on how the workload is managed
regarding the Notice of Disagreements. Based on my experience working
with the VSC Appeals Team the Notice of Disagreement delay is ongoing.
Currently the major issues with the delay are the centralized mail scan
delay, VARO Intake Processing Center backlog, and under staffed Appeals
Team.
As of last week I conducted a follow up with the anonymous employee
regarding the 31,410 pending inquiries. I was informed to date no
actions have been taken on the pending inquiries via IRIS. Both Kristen
and I were informed about this issue by an anonymous employee. Due to
the hostility of PMC management towards recognized whistleblowers, the
employee did not want to be identified for the possibility of
retaliation.
Duplicate records have increased nationwide because the VA Form 21-
526EZ, ebenefits, and the new VA Form 21-0966 Intent to File form does
not require the Veteran to provide his or her service number. A lot of
Veterans with service numbers have claim numbers in the VBA system
already. This will create more double payments and headaches to all of
the VAROs.
Did VARO staff mishandle military file mail? VBMS has an unassigned
document location, so instead of physical documents being lost, now
electronic documents are being lost too. The unassigned document list
in VBMS is hardly reviewed and it's equivalent to military file mail.
This is nationwide, not just at our VARO .
Well, we made it this far, I really do hope our efforts will bring
some changes not only for our VARO but the whole nation.
Letter of Mr. Richard J. Griffin
The Hon. Jeff Miller, Chairman,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is in response to your question at the April 22, 2015 hearing
before the Committee on ``Philadelphia and Oakland: Systemic Failures
and Mismanagement'' about a statement by a witness, Ms. Lucy Filipov,
that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) instructed her ``not to
discuss that investigation until it's complete.'' You asked the OIG
witness, Ms. Linda Halliday, whether that direction from an OIG office
was appropriate, and she offered to provide this statement for the
record .
As a standard practice in OIG administrative investigations, OIG
Administrative Investigators read an introductory statement to
witnesses at the beginning of each interview. These instructions are
given to maintain the integrity of our investigation and to prevent
collusion by witnesses while the investigation is ongoing. The
instructions given to Ms. Filipov were appropriate and consistent with
OIG standard practice. Following is a portion of that statement:
We are conducting an administrative investigation that involves
specific allegations that we will discuss during our conversation. Any
information that is discussed or derived from this interview is
designated as confidential by the OIG and is not to be disclosed to any
individual outside the OIG.
VA policy requires VA employees to furnish information and testify
freely and honestly in cases respecting employment and disciplinary
matters. Refusal to testify, concealment of material facts, or
willfully inaccurate testimony in connection with an investigation or
hearing may be grounds for disciplinary action. An employee, however,
will not be required to give testimony against him/herself in any
matter in which there is indication that he/she may be or is involved
in a violation of law wherein there is a possibility of self-
incrimination. The information that we will be discussing is protected
from unauthorized disclosure under the Privacy Act and other Federal
laws. You should not disclose to anyone the nature of the questions we
ask you or any other information you may become aware of during this
interview.''
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this information for the
hearing record.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Griffin,
Deputy Inspector General
[all]