[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT: HOW CAN FEMA IMPROVE THE INTEGRITY OF ITS WORK
FORCE?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND
MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 27, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-979 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Mike Rogers, Alabama James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
John Katko, New York Filemon Vela, Texas
Will Hurd, Texas Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Martha McSally, Arizona Kathleen M. Rice, New York
John Ratcliffe, Texas J. Luis Correa, California
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., New York Val Butler Demings, Florida
Mike Gallagher, Wisconsin Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana
John H. Rutherford, Florida
Thomas A. Garrett, Jr., Virginia
Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania
Ron Estes, Kansas
Brendan P. Shields, Staff Director
Steven S. Giaier, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Hope Goins, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania, Chairman
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina J. Luis Correa, California
John Ratcliffe, Texas Kathleen M. Rice, New York
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
Ron Estes, Kansas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Michael T. McCaul, Texas (ex (ex officio)
officio)
Ryan Consaul, Subcommittee Staff Director
Erica D. Woods, Interim Subcommittee Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Management Efficiency:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable J. Luis Correa, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Oversight and Management Efficiency:
Oral Statement................................................. 3
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
Witnesses
Mr. David Grant, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
Mr. Chris P. Currie, Director, Homeland Security and Justice
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Oral Statement................................................. 11
Prepared Statement............................................. 13
Mr. Jacqueline Simon, Director of Policy, American Federation of
Government Employees:
Oral Statement................................................. 27
Prepared Statement............................................. 29
EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT: HOW CAN FEMA IMPROVE THE INTEGRITY OF ITS WORK
FORCE?
----------
Thursday, July 27, 2017
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Oversight and
Management Efficiency,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Scott Perry
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Perry, Higgins, Estes, Correa,
Rice, and Barragan.
Also present: Representative Jackson Lee.
Mr. Perry. The Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee
on Oversight and Management Efficiency will come to order. The
purpose of this hearing is to examine findings of a recent
Government Accountability Office or GAO report on employee
misconduct at the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Before we begin, the Chair would like to welcome our new
Member, the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Ron Estes, to the
subcommittee. He brings a wealth of experience from the private
sector and as Kansas State treasurer that will be invaluable as
the subcommittee examines DHS operations.
The Chair recognizes himself for an opening statement. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA provides Americans
invaluable support during times of great need. FEMA leads
Federal efforts to prepare for, respond to, and recover from
disasters. To accomplish this enormous task FEMA relies on a
work force of over 22,000 dedicated men and women, which
includes both permanent and disaster-related temporary
employees.
Often FEMA employees are among the first responders helping
lift up communities devastated by loss and destruction. The
American people entrust FEMA's employees with this vital
mission which is why instances of employee misconduct are all
the more corrosive and concerning.
A year-long review by the Government Accountability Office
uncovered troubling instances of employee misconduct and found
several areas where FEMA must improve its management of
misconduct matters.
GAO analyzed data from January 2014 through September 2016
and identified almost 600 misconduct complaints. The most
common alleged misconduct dealt with issues of integrity and
ethics.
Examples include a FEMA employee allegedly taking illegal
gifts from contractors, a terminated FEMA employee stealing a
FEMA-owned laptop, and allegations of a supervisor bullying and
cursing at employees. A separate GAO review in 2016 found that
four FEMA employees being investigated for personnel matters
were placed on a paid administrative leave for a year or more
at a cost to taxpayers of over $600,000.
In addition, FEMA failed to properly investigate several
allegations referred to--correction, referred by the DHS Office
of Inspector General leaving them to languish without
investigation or resolution.
GAO also criticized FEMA for its poor data tracking of
misconduct cases which limited its ability to analyze trends in
employee misconduct over time.
GAO concluded that FEMA's management of the misconduct
process needs sustained improvement despite hundreds--
correction. Despite hundreds of misconduct allegations against
FEMA's work force, FEMA lacks documented misconduct policies
and procedures for its surge capacity force and has not
outlined disciplinary actions or the appeals process for its
reservist work force. Together, these employees total over half
of FEMA's total work force.
Additionally, FEMA does not instruct its work force on the
range of offenses and penalties that they might face if
misconduct occurs.
Everybody has got to know what the, you know, what the
recipe is. You know, what the rules of the game are, right?
Although many agencies utilize a table of offenses and
penalties to guide disciplinary actions which would inform
everybody, FEMA uses a comparators spreadsheet that is only
shared on a case-by-case basis with supervisors. This
spreadsheet replaced a previously-used table that had not been
updated since 1981. That is a long time, man.
Such an approach most certainly leads to inconsistencies in
how discipline is administered across FEMA's regions.
Legislation put forward by subcommittee member Clay Higgins,
H.R. 2131, the DHS FIRM Act, would require DHS components,
including FEMA, to utilize a table of offenses and penalties to
improve consistency with discipline across DHS.
GAO's report provides FEMA's new leadership an opportunity
to make important changes that will improve the integrity of
FEMA's work force. I am encouraged by FEMA's concurrence with
the GAO's six recommendations and its plans to refocus on
improving the agency's management.
Americans from all corners of the Nation simply rely on
FEMA during their darkest hours. We need the men and women of
FEMA focused on that critical mission of lifting up our
citizens facing disheartening times.
I look forward to hearing how FEMA will improve on the
deficiencies laid out in GAO's report and reaffirm its
commitment to the integrity of its work force.
[The statement of Mr. Perry follows:]
Statement of Chairman Scott Perry
July 27, 2017
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides Americans
invaluable support during times of great need. FEMA leads Federal
efforts to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. To
accomplish this enormous task, FEMA relies on a work force of over
22,000 dedicated men and women, which includes both permanent and
disaster-related temporary employees.
Often, FEMA employees are among the first responders helping lift
up communities devastated by loss and destruction. The American people
entrust FEMA's employees with this vital mission, which is why
instances of employee misconduct are all the more corrosive. A year-
long review by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) uncovered
troubling instances of employee misconduct and found several areas
where FEMA must improve its management of misconduct matters.
GAO analyzed data from January 2014 through September 2016 and
identified almost 600 misconduct complaints. The most common alleged
misconduct dealt with issues of integrity and ethics. Examples included
a FEMA employee allegedly taking illegal gifts from contractors, a
terminated FEMA employee stealing a FEMA-owned laptop, and allegations
of a supervisor bullying and cursing at employees.
A separate GAO review in 2016 found that four FEMA employees being
investigated for personnel matters were placed on paid administrative
leave for a year or more at a cost to taxpayers of over $600,000. In
addition, FEMA failed to properly investigate several allegations
referred by the DHS Office of Inspector General leaving them to
languish without investigation or resolution. GAO also criticized FEMA
for its poor data tracking of misconduct cases, which limited its
ability to analyze trends in employee misconduct over time.
GAO concluded that FEMA's management of the misconduct process
needs sustained improvement. Despite hundreds of misconduct allegations
against FEMA's work force, FEMA lacks documented misconduct policies
and procedures for its Surge Capacity Force and has not outlined
disciplinary actions or the appeals process for its Reservist work
force. Together, these employees total over half of FEMA's total work
force.
Additionally, FEMA does not instruct its work force on the range of
offenses and penalties that they might face if misconduct occurs.
Although many agencies utilize a table of offenses and penalties to
guide disciplinary actions, FEMA uses a ``comparators'' spreadsheet
that is only shared on a case-by-case basis with supervisors. This
spreadsheet replaced a previously-used table that had not been updated
since 1981. Such an approach most certainly leads to inconsistencies in
how discipline is administered across FEMA's regions. Legislation put
forward by subcommittee Member Clay Higgins, H.R. 2131--the DHS FIRM
Act, would require DHS components, including FEMA, to utilize a table
of offenses and penalties to improve consistency with discipline across
DHS.
GAO's report provides FEMA's new leadership an opportunity to make
important changes that will improve the integrity of FEMA's work force.
I am encouraged by FEMA's concurrence with GAO's six recommendations
and its plans to refocus on improving the agency's management.
Americans from all corners of the Nation rely on FEMA during their
darkest hours. We need the men and women of FEMA focused on that
critical mission of lifting up our citizens facing disheartening times.
I look forward to hearing how FEMA will improve on the deficiencies
laid out in GAO's report and reaffirm its commitment to the integrity
of its work force.
Mr. Perry. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority
Member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California, my
friend Mr. Lou Correa for his opening statement.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Chairman Perry and thank you for
holding this most important hearing on a very important topic.
The FEMA work force has a very important and critical
responsibility and that is to support our citizens and first
responders as they face some of the most crippling natural
disasters this country has ever seen.
They assist first responders and in many cases are the
first responders. FEMA employees risk their lives for the good
of the country as a whole and for this we thank you. The FEMA
work force exemplifies a DHS mission statement which is, ``With
honor and integrity we will safeguard the American people, our
homeland, and our values.''
At the Aspen Institute last week, Secretary Kelly commended
the patriotism, dedication, and focus of the DHS work force as
they protect the Nation even in the face of very dangerous
missions.
Today's hearing starts from a GAO report released last week
that concluded that FEMA should improve the manner in which it
documents and communicates policies related to employee
conduct, a task that is administrative in nature. But
witnesses, I would say, is this really the conclusion?
Employees, whether full-time, part-time, or temporary,
should know and understand an agency's policies regarding
misconduct, as well as the availability of their rights to
challenge or appeal adverse decisions.
While misconduct must be addressed and not tolerated
wherever it occurs in the work force, does the GAO report
actually say that FEMA has an integrity or misconduct problem
that requires improvement? Again, we must never tolerate such
behavior. In fact, I believe the report makes it clear that
allegations of misconduct made against FEMA employees are less
than 2 percent of the entire FEMA work force. Is that the case?
Additionally, one of the FEMA employee categories
highlighted in the report, surge capacity force members, has
recorded zero cases of misconduct according to FEMA officials.
The second class of FEMA employees discussed in the report,
reservists, are at-will and intermittent employees.
The second class of employees are not hired under Title 5
and do not receive the same protections of a collectively-
bargained contract such as a right to appeal adverse actions,
including suspensions or terminations. Again I ask, what is the
scope of the misconduct?
Also is morale an issue for FEMA? Measuring morale, FEMA is
ranked 284th out of 305 agency subcomponents, which means that
the agency index scores fall well below average. The FEMA work
force expressed dissatisfaction with agency leadership, their
fairness of performance reviews, and opportunities for
professional development.
Research shows that effective leadership is the key driver
of employee satisfaction. In order to improve employee morale,
FEMA must provide robust training to new supervisors, motivate
and engage employees, and recognize, of course, high
performers.
Very proud that this Congress and this committee have
passed legislation to focus on improving morale and employee
engagement at the Department. Today I look forward to
discussing with the witnesses today how this committee can
continue to engage 22,000 full-time, part-time, and volunteer
FEMA personnel to help improve morale.
I would also like to again thank the work force for your
contributions. You have not been ignored. To the witnesses I
would ask what does your data show?
FEMA has been around since I believe 1979. What is the
history of misconduct? Are there any patterns? Compared to who?
To other agencies? To FEMA? We can always do better. What does
this study tell us?
Finally, Mr. Chair, I yield back to you.
[The statement of Ranking Member Correa follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member J. Luis Correa
July 27, 2017
The Federal Emergency Management Agency work force has a critical
responsibility--to support citizens and first responders as they face
some of the most crippling natural disasters this country has seen.
FEMA employees frequently risk their lives for the good of the
country at a moment's notice.
To me, the FEMA work force exemplifies and personifies the very
basis for the newly-crafted DHS mission statement--With honor and
integrity. We will safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our
values.
Speaking at the Aspen Institute just last week, Secretary John
Kelly commended the patriotism, dedication, and focus of the DHS work
force as they protect the Nation, even in the face of a sometimes
dangerous mission.
Therefore, I am confused and concerned with the focus of today's
hearing, as evidenced by the hearing title insinuating the FEMA work
force has a wide-spread integrity problem.
Today's hearing stems from a GAO report released last week that
concluded FEMA should improve the manner in which it documents and
communicates policies related to employee conduct, a task that is
administrative in nature.
This recommendation by GAO is certainly not controversial or
problematic.
Employees, whether full-time, part-time, or temporary, should know
and understand an agency's policies regarding misconduct as well as the
availability of rights to challenge or appeal an adverse decision.
While misconduct must be addressed wherever it occurs in the work
force, nowhere in its report does GAO assert that FEMA has an integrity
or misconduct problem that requires improvement.
In fact, the report makes clear that allegations of misconduct made
against FEMA employees reflects less than 2% of the entire FEMA work
force.
Additionally, one of the FEMA employee categories highlighted in
the report, Surge Capacity Force members, has recorded ZERO instances
of misconduct according to FEMA Office of the Chief Security Officer
officials.
The second class of FEMA employees highlighted in the report,
Reservists, are at-will, intermittent employees.
These employees are not hired under Title 5 and do not receive the
same protections of a union contract and the right to appeal adverse
actions such as suspensions or terminations, which undoubtedly impacts
data related to cases of employee misconduct.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
July 27, 2017
I want to begin my remarks by expressing my appreciation to the men
and women of FEMA for the incredible work they do on behalf of our
Nation. Secretary Kelly has stated that the men and women of DHS, which
includes FEMA, are exceptional and dedicated professionals.
Unfortunately, there are some--including the President of the
United States--that fail appreciate the service and commitment of the
Federal employee. President Trump has made it clear through budget cuts
and hiring freezes that he does not understand the critically important
work of FEMA and other agencies across our Government.
Today, my colleagues across the aisle are perpetuating this lack of
understanding by asserting that the FEMA work force has an integrity
problem, ostensibly based on a recent GAO report. However, my reading
of the report does not support such an inference.
Instead, the report states that FEMA needs to do a better job of
documenting and communicating policies related to how misconduct is
handled at FEMA. I certainly agree with GAO's conclusion that clearly-
documented policies and procedures for all FEMA workers are necessary,
and I look forward to the agency carrying out GAO's recommendations. I
also hope to engage with GAO today on their findings.
I also expect to confirm that the overwhelming majority of FEMA
employees are dedicated public servants who carry out the agency's
mission with integrity, showing up at locations across the country with
little notice in some of the most stressful and dangerous environments
possible. Supporting the work force and focusing on improving morale
should be a top priority of this committee.
That is why this Congress I have introduced legislation, co-
sponsored by every Democratic member of this committee, to support
morale among the DHS work force by establishing a chief learning and
engagement officer, an Employee Engagement Steering Committee, and the
Secretary's Employee Award Program at the Department.
These are the areas that help improve morale and employee
engagement and help move the FEMA work force in the right direction.
Indeed, studies show that effective leadership is the No. 1 determinate
of employee satisfaction and is therefore integral to the productivity
and efficiency of an agency.
I encourage my colleagues to realize that better training, fair
policies, and recognition of good work are ways to improve the FEMA
work force. I hope on this committee we can work on a bipartisan basis
to do just that.
Mr. Perry. We are pleased to have two distinguished panels
of witnesses before us today. The witnesses' entire written
statements will appear in the record. The Chair will introduce
the first panel of witnesses and then recognize each of you for
your testimony.
Mr. David Grant is FEMA's acting deputy administrator.
Prior to this position, he served as FEMA's associate
administrator for mission support, as well as the chief
procurement officer. Prior to joining FEMA Mr. Grant was chief
of agency-wide shared services for the Internal Revenue
Service. Thank you, Mr. Grant, and welcome.
Mr. Chris Currie is a director in GAO's Homeland Security
and Justice team where he leads the agency's work on DHS
management, emergency management, National preparedness, and
critical infrastructure protection issues.
Prior to this position he served as an acting director in
GAO's Defense Capabilities and Management team, where he led
reviews of Department of Defense programs. Mr. Currie, thank
you, and we appreciate your service as well.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Grant for your opening
statement. Mr. Grant, just push the button and make sure the
mike is----
STATEMENT OF DAVID GRANT, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. Grant. Yes, sir.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. Right at your mouth.
Mr. Grant. Can you hear me clearly sir? Thank you. Good
morning Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Correa, and Members of
the committee. As you said, my name is Dave Grant. I am FEMA's
acting deputy director and--deputy administrator, excuse me,
and thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
This morning I would like to provide an overview of our
efforts to address the Government Accountability Office's, or
GAO's, performance audit of FEMA's process for handling
allegations of employee misconduct. The GAO report does
recognize that FEMA has effective and efficient misconduct
policies and procedures for its employees, and I appreciate
that. Although we agree that we need to do a better job in
documenting those procedures, and we have already begun to do
so.
FEMA documents its cases and outcomes to ensure timely
adjudication, verify that FEMA complies with all legal
requirements to treat our employees in a fair and equitable
manner, and for auditing purposes.
FEMA also has a process through which misconduct data is
shared with Homeland Security's inspector general. The vast
majority of FEMA's personnel serve effectively and honorably,
and I appreciate you both recognizing that.
They provide critical assistance to communities in their
time of greatest need. In those rare instances when a FEMA
employee or individual representing FEMA is accused of
misconduct FEMA takes immediate action to address those
allegations.
Under Stafford Act authorities, FEMA has created unique
policies and procedures for taking disciplinary actions
Stafford Act employees when required and necessary.
The Stafford Act affords FEMA the latitude to devise
disciplinary processes outside those requirements of Title 5.
Those allow those cases to be quickly initiated, reviewed, and
finalized. FEMA employs an appeals process for those Stafford
Act cases to confirm that the appropriate action was taken when
misconduct has occurred, ensuring that they are subject to a
fair and equitable process.
While FEMA does not have written policies and procedures
specifically addressing the surge capacity work force that you
mentioned a moment ago, management is empowered to take
necessary actions to address the misconduct following FEMA's
existing policies and procedures that apply to FEMA personnel.
With regard to surge capacity personnel, it is important to
note that they are not FEMA employees. FEMA does not have the
authority to take disciplinary action regarding those
individuals because they remain officially employed by their
sponsoring Federal agencies while engaged in activities on our
behalf. The sponsoring agency is responsible for appropriate
disciplinary action against those personnel.
For our Title 5 employees, FEMA has made significant
strides in documenting and improving our policies and
procedures, including the creation of an administrative
investigation directive and manual to delineate the process for
receiving and adjudicating the complaints of misconduct,
sending those complaints as appropriate to the DHS inspector
general, and direct misconduct investigations within FEMA.
This directive is currently being reviewed and updated, and
we expect it to be completed by December of this year. Although
FEMA has an effective misconduct process in place for Title 5
and Stafford Act employees, the GAO recommended that FEMA take
additional steps to clarify the process.
The GAO report makes several recommendations, including the
documentation of policies and procedures related to FEMA's
surge capacity force, its disaster force, and to clearly
communicate misconduct policies, including consequences and
appeals process.
The GAO also recommended that FEMA work to improve the
quality and usefulness of its misconduct data that it collects,
and once that quality is improved, conduct routine reporting on
misconduct trends. FEMA wholeheartedly agrees with each of
those six recommendations, and we have already initiated
several lines of effort that will address those concerns when
fully implemented.
I want to assure you that FEMA is committed to effective
support of our citizens and our first responders during
disasters and emergencies. That is our mission and we take it
very seriously. The overwhelming majority of our work force
serves honorably and effectively. We are committed to
investigating all allegations of misconduct and to
appropriately hold those individuals accountable.
One instance of substantiated misconduct is one too many.
FEMA takes these allegations seriously. We look forward to
working with the committee, with our partners at GAO, our
partners in the Inspector General's office to improve our
practice.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I am
looking forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grant follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Grant
July 27, 2017
introduction
Good Morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Correa, and Members of
the committee. I am David Grant, acting deputy administrator of the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). Thank you for this opportunity to meet with
you today to discuss ways in which FEMA is improving its disciplinary
and misconduct policies and procedures.
From June 2016 through July 2017, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) conducted a performance audit of FEMA's process for
handling allegations of employee misconduct. GAO reviewed FEMA's
misconduct policies and procedures, data on misconduct cases, and the
extent to which FEMA shares misconduct data with the DHS Office of
Inspector General (DHS OIG).
The GAO report recognized how FEMA already has effective and
efficient misconduct policies and procedures applicable to employees
hired under Title 5 of the U.S. Code (covering traditional Federal
civilian employees) and employees hired through the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act). FEMA
records data regarding misconduct cases and outcomes to ensure timely
adjudication of misconduct cases, verify misconduct cases are treated
in a similar and equitable manner, and for auditing purposes. Finally,
there is already a process for FEMA to share misconduct data with DHS
OIG.
GAO has not finalized the report; however, the contains the
following recommendations to enhance efficiency: misconduct policies
regarding Surge Capacity Force (SCF) personnel should be documented;
additional guidance on the disciplinary and appeal process for
Reservists should be provided; the range of penalties associated with
specific acts of misconduct should be communicated; the quality and
consistency of misconduct data should be improved; and FEMA should
study misconduct data to identify any patterns or trends for further
action.
In my testimony today, I will discuss how FEMA is working to
improve its misconduct process. FEMA is taking active steps to
formalize the misconduct process for SCF employees, provide additional
guidance on how Reservist misconduct is reviewed and addressed, and
improve the quality of data associated with misconduct cases.
fema's disaster work force
In assessing FEMA's process for handling misconduct, it is helpful
and important to recognize and understand the unique features of FEMA's
work force. Most Federal, civilian employees are hired under
authorities set forth in Title 5 of the United States Code, which are
standard for most of the Federal Government. As a consequence and
feature of the special needs and circumstances of FEMA's emergency
management mission, however, FEMA utilizes authorities and arrangements
beyond those in Title 5. To effectively and efficiently respond to
disasters, FEMA augments its permanent Title 5 work force by appointing
temporary employees through the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act). FEMA has also partnered with
the National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) to create FEMA Corps, a
dedicated volunteer unit of AmeriCorps that supports FEMA's mission. In
addition, in response to particularly catastrophic events, FEMA may
activate the Surge Capacity Force, comprising specially-designated,
non-FEMA, Department of Homeland Security personnel, to reinforce FEMA
personnel in support of Stafford Act functions when necessary.
The Stafford Act grants FEMA the authority ``to appoint and fix the
compensation of such temporary personnel as may be necessary, without
regard to the provisions of Title 5, United States Code, and governing
appointments in the competitive service.'' FEMA uses this Stafford Act
appointing authority to hire Reservists, who are intermittent employees
serving under 2 year appointments. Reservists are activated and
deployed in support of disasters as response and recovery needs
require. When not activated or deployed, Reservists remain in a non-
duty/non-pay status allowing FEMA to field sufficient disaster
personnel in a cost-effective manner.
In 2012, FEMA partnered with the Corporation for National and
Community Service (CNCS) to strengthen the Nation's disaster response
capacity by establishing a FEMA-devoted unit of 1,600 service corps
members, within the AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps, to
aid in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery activities. Upon
completion of an initial orientation by NCCC and FEMA, FEMA Corps
members are deployed to help individuals, families, and communities
recover following the initial impact of a disaster. Projects include
working directly with disaster survivors, providing support to disaster
recovery centers, and sharing valuable disaster readiness and
mitigation information with the public.
The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA)
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a Surge
Capacity Force of Department of Homeland Security employees, who are
not FEMA employees, and employees of other Federal agencies that could
deploy in response to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other
man-made disasters. DHS headquarters and its components, as well as
other partnering Federal agencies, designate employees to serve on the
SCF and ensure such employees are ready to deploy within 48 hours of a
warning, alert, or no-notice activation.
In very rare circumstances, a disaster of extraordinary size may
require the DHS Secretary to activate the SCF. During a declared
disaster, the DHS Secretary will determine if SCF support is necessary.
If the SCF is required, the Secretary will then authorize FEMA to task
and deploy SCF personnel from DHS components and other Federal agencies
to support disaster operations. The SCF was successfully activated by
former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, at the request of former FEMA
Administrator Craig Fugate in response to Hurricane Sandy.
Approximately 1,150 SCF personnel were activated to assist FEMA's
disaster response efforts, providing critical support to Individual
Assistance, Disaster Survivor Assistance, and Logistics mission areas.
disciplinary process for disaster personnel
The vast majority of FEMA's disaster personnel effectively and
honorably serve the Nation providing critical assistance to
communities, first responders, and disaster survivors to respond to and
recover from disasters and emergencies. In rare instances when a FEMA
employee, or an individual representing FEMA, is accused of misconduct,
FEMA takes immediate action to address the allegations.
Using the authority granted by the Stafford Act, FEMA created
unique policies and procedures for taking disciplinary actions against
Reservists to meet FEMA's mission requirements. The Stafford Act
affords FEMA the latitude to devise a disciplinary process outside of
the requirements of Title 5. The process in place allows for
disciplinary cases to be quickly initiated, reviewed, and finalized.
FEMA employs an internal appeals process for Reservist disciplinary
cases to confirm appropriate action is taken in response to acts of
misconduct. The process ensures Reservists are subject to a fair and
equitable disciplinary process, while minimizing the impact of the
disciplinary process on disaster operations.
While FEMA does not have written policies and procedures
specifically for guiding misconduct investigations involving SCF
personnel, if such cases arise, the Office of Chief Counsel, the Office
of the Chief Component Human Capital Officer, and the Office of the
Chief Security Officer are empowered to take necessary actions to
address misconduct and would follow FEMA's existing policies and
procedures for conducting misconduct investigations that apply to FEMA
personnel. With regard to taking disciplinary action against SCF
personnel as a result of misconduct investigations, it is important to
note that SCF personnel are not FEMA employees. FEMA does not have the
authority to take disciplinary actions regarding these individuals
because SCF personnel remain officially employed by their sponsoring
organization (e.g., DHS headquarters, component, other Federal agency)
while engaging in activities on FEMA's behalf. The sponsoring
organization would be responsible for effecting any appropriate
disciplinary action against its SCF personnel.
development of fema's misconduct policy
Over the past several years, FEMA made significant strides in
documenting and improving the disciplinary and misconduct policies and
procedures.
Prior to 2012, FEMA did not have written or established policies or
procedures on how to conduct employee misconduct investigations.
Although FEMA had a process for imposing disciplinary action, FEMA did
not have a uniform process for investigating the facts surrounding a
misconduct allegation to determine whether disciplinary action was
warranted. Rather, the Office of the Chief Component Human Capital
Officer (OCCHCO) Labor and Employee Relations Branch conducted ad hoc
investigations to clarify the factual circumstances associated with a
misconduct allegation. On some occasions, the Office of the Chief
Security Officer (OCSO) would assist OCCHCO to gather necessary witness
statements. Alternatively, an attorney with the Office of Chief Counsel
(OCC) General Law Division would investigate a misconduct allegation in
the process of reviewing a disciplinary action.
In 2012, OCC, OCCHCO, and OCSO collaborated in creating FEMA
Directive 123-19, Administrative Investigations Policy (Administrative
Investigations Directive), and an accompanying manual, FEMA Manual 123-
19-1, Administrative Investigations (Administrative Investigations
Manual), establishing a process for the three offices to receive
complaints of employee misconduct, send complaints to the DHS Office of
Inspector General as required by DHS policy, and direct misconduct
investigations within FEMA. The Administrative Investigations Directive
and Manual require the three offices to meet weekly and review all
known complaints to ensure complaints are properly investigated. The
Administrative Investigations Directive and Manual also institute a
formalized process for appointing investigators and finalizing
investigative reports, which are reviewed by the OCCHCO Labor and
Employee Relations Branch for potential disciplinary action.
In practice, if there are misconduct allegations against SCF
personnel, the misconduct investigation process would follow the
current investigations process for FEMA employees. FEMA would notify
the parent organization of the allegation. Simultaneously, depending on
the nature and credibility of the allegation, the SCF personnel may be
demobilized and returned to their employing agency. Any additional
information gathered through the investigations process would be
provided to the employing agency for that agency's consideration in its
determination of what action to take.
Currently, the Administrative Investigations Directive and Manual
are undergoing a periodic review and update as mandated by FEMA policy.
The updated version of the directive and manual will streamline some of
the processes and are expected to be finalized and signed in 2017.
gao recommendations
Although FEMA has an effective misconduct process in place for
Title 5 and Stafford Act employees, GAO has recommended that FEMA take
additional steps to clarify the process and improve data associated
with misconduct cases. The GAO report makes several recommendations to
improve managing misconduct. FEMA agrees with those recommendations,
and has already initiated several lines of effort that will address
GAO's concerns when fully implemented.
Recommendation 1: Document policies and procedures to address potential
Surge Capacity Force misconduct.
Proper documentation of the misconduct process for SCF personnel
helps to ensure a consistent and reliable investigation process.
Although FEMA would apply its existing administrative investigation
procedures to allegations against SCF personnel, the FEMA policies
governing those procedures do not specifically state that they apply to
investigations of SCF personnel. Ensuring that application of the
existing administrative investigation procedures to SCF personnel is
spelled out clearly, in writing, will help eliminate any potential
confusion. DHS charged FEMA with developing a human capital plan for
the SCF to address this issue and other human capital related aspects
of deploying the SCF.
Recommendation 2: Document Reservist misconduct policies and
procedures, to include disciplinary actions and appeals
currently in practice at FEMA.
FEMA is committed to providing employees subject to allegations of
misconduct a fair and equitable process for addressing such
allegations. FEMA already applies a consistent process for reviewing
misconduct allegations involving Reservists and taking appropriate
disciplinary actions, but FEMA can do more to make employees aware of
the process. To address employee perceptions, FEMA will issue
additional guidance regarding the disciplinary process for Reservists.
Recommendation 3: Communicate the range of penalties for specific
misconduct offenses to all employees and supervisors.
FEMA is committed to communicating with employees and providing
guidance on the disciplinary process, while ensuring FEMA complies with
applicable privacy laws and regulations. Such information will increase
the perception among supervisors and employees that the disciplinary
process results in fair and equitable decisions. FEMA's Office of the
Chief Component Human Capital Officer drafted a Table of Penalties,
which is undergoing agency review. FEMA anticipates the new Table of
Penalties will be approved and finalized in the near future.
Recommendation 4: Improve the quality and usefulness of the misconduct
data it collects by implementing quality control measures, such
as adding additional drop-down fields with standardized
entries, adding unique case identifier fields, developing
documented guidance for data entry, or considering the adoption
of database software.
The Office of the Chief Component Human Capital Officer, the Office
of Chief Counsel, and the Office of the Chief Security Officer are
working together to provide consistent and accurate misconduct data.
FEMA is working on securing funding to purchase a case management
system that supports FEMA's misconduct process. Until sufficient
funding can be secured, FEMA is modifying its existing tracking tools
to include drop-down fields in order to provide standardized data
entries and include a column to cross-reference any case referred to
DHS OIG, received from the DHS OIG, or investigated by OCSO.
Recommendation 5: Once the quality of data is improved, conduct routine
reporting on employee misconduct trends.
Stakeholders managing the disciplinary and misconduct processes are
constantly seeking ways to improve the investigation process, identify
misconduct trends for strategic remediation, and ensure consistent and
fair results. FEMA already provides trend analysis to program areas
upon request; however, FEMA is currently seeking to acquire a system
that enables additional analytic capabilities. Analyzing misconduct
data will allow FEMA to identify and address emerging trends of
misconduct through targeted training to promote integrity within the
work force.
Recommendation 6: Develop reconciliation procedures to consistently
track referred cases.
FEMA is working with the DHS OIG to establish processes and
procedures that will improve reconciliation of case data. FEMA is also
working on the feasibility of using the same cases management system
used by the DHS OIG. This would allow for a seamless flow of case
information between the two agencies. A case management system will
help in this endeavor. Until then, more care will be taken to reconcile
cases manually.
conclusion
FEMA is committed to providing effective support to our citizens
and first responders during disasters and emergencies. That commitment
includes a commitment to investigate allegations of misconduct and
appropriately hold individuals accountable. FEMA currently has an
effective misconduct and disciplinary process and routinely looks for
ways to improve that process. FEMA appreciates GAO's assistance and
recommendations in this regard and will take appropriate action to
address the concerns they identify in their final report. Again, thank
you for allowing me to testify, and I am happy to answer any questions
the committee may have.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Grant.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Currie for his opening
statement. Sir.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS P. CURRIE, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND
JUSTICE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Currie. Thank you, Chairman Perry. Thank you Ranking
Member Correa and other Members of the subcommittee that are
here today. I would like to summarize the report we issued just
last week on FEMA misconduct. I will try not to duplicate too
much of what was already mentioned in the summary of the
opening statements.
To be clear, any amount of misconduct in any agency is
never a good thing and in FEMA's case, as was discussed, its
full-time and reserve employees interact with State and local
first responders and officials and citizens during times of
extreme stress and vulnerability.
Misconduct by its employees cannot only hamper FEMA's
mission, but also damage the agency's reputation. We all saw
how quickly public trust can be lost after Hurricane Katrina in
2005 and how long it takes to rebuild it.
However, cases of employee misconduct exist at every
agency. That is why it is so important that agencies have
procedures to address it quickly, take consistent disciplinary
action, and have the systems needed to monitor misconduct
across the entire agency, especially one as large as FEMA.
Now, to quickly summarize our report, first, I would like
to discuss the numbers and the types of cases we saw at FEMA.
Second, I will summarize our assessment of FEMA's policies and
process for handling these cases.
First we identified, as the Chairman noted, about 600
misconduct cases at FEMA from January 2014 to September 2016.
That is about a 3-year time period across an agency of 20,000
employees, give or take which work force is included in that
number. The most common cases related to integrity and ethics
violations, inappropriate conduct, and misuse of Government
funds.
For example, one alleged case involved a FEMA employee in
the field accepting illegal gifts from a contractor. Other
cases involved more internal issues such as supervisor
harassment and favoritism.
The data showed that misconduct was most common among
FEMA's part-time reservists, and the agency took a range of
disciplinary actions in these cases. The most common
disciplinary action was removal or termination, followed by
reprimands and various levels of suspension.
While these cases are always shocking to hear, agencies
send a clear message when they have strong processes, controls,
and systems to handle them quickly and effectively. We found a
number of areas where we think FEMA could improve in this area.
For example, we found that while FEMA had discipline
policies for many of its employees, it had no policies for
reservists. And that is about 7,000 employees at the agency.
FEMA also had not developed a table of offenses and penalties
to communicate to employees.
We also found FEMA's misconduct data and systems for
tracking cases frankly, was a bit messy. For example, various
internal FEMA offices maintained information in different
formats making it very difficult to track cases and identify
trends across the whole agency. We recommended that FEMA
improve its data and better report on these trends.
We also identified problems in FEMA's process for sharing
and following up on cases referred from the DHS Office of
Inspector General. I think it is important I understand this
process. DHS policy requires components like FEMA to send
serious misconduct cases to the I.G. The I.G. then determines
whether they want to investigate it or not.
The I.G. typically handles the more serious cases. such as
criminal or those involving very senior staff such as senior
executive service officials, and refers the rest back to FEMA
for internal investigation.
What we found is that FEMA sometimes missed cases referred
from the I.G. We took a random sample of these cases and found
a number of them where there was no follow-up investigation
conducted. Now, after we alerted FEMA. they did follow up and
adjudicate the cases. So we recommended that they work with the
I.G. to strengthen that whole process.
As Mr. Grant noted, and to FEMA's credit, they have agreed
with all of our recommendations and are taking action to
address them. For example, they are working to document
discipline policies for reservists now and plan to communicate
a table of offenses and penalties to all the agency staff.
FEMA is also working with the I.G. to develop a new case
management system to clean up the data and better ensure
reconciliation of cases. This concludes my statement, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Currie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris P. Currie
July 27, 2017
Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Correa, and Members of the
subcommittee: I am pleased to be here today to discuss our recent
report on employee misconduct at the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). FEMA is responsible for coordinating Government-wide
efforts in preparing for, protecting against, mitigating the effects
of, responding to, and recovering from all domestic natural or man-made
disasters, including acts of terror. To accomplish this mission, the
agency relies on a total work force of more than 22,000 permanent and
disaster-related temporary employees.\1\ These employees play a key
role in supporting communities and first responders. However, incidents
of misconduct can detract from FEMA's mission, damage the agency's
reputation, and hamper the agency's ability to respond to disasters and
maintain public trust if not effectively managed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FEMA's combined work force includes permanent and disaster
response employees, as well as individuals from two newer personnel
groups--the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Surge Capacity Force
and FEMA Corps--who are not FEMA employees, but who are included in
FEMA's work force categories for the purposes of our review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within FEMA, three primary offices are involved in reviewing,
investigating, and adjudicating employee misconduct allegations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FEMA's Office of Equal Rights may also be involved in certain
cases involving allegations of discrimination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Chief Security Officer (OCSO) Internal
Investigations Branch.--Conducts investigations related to more
serious allegations, such as those that may involve potential
criminal misconduct.
The Office of the Chief Component Human Capital Officer
Labor and Employee Relations Branch (LER).--Advises supervisors
who conduct lower-level investigations and inquiries, such as
time and attendance violations, and provides recommendations on
any counseling or any disciplinary or adverse action for all
cases.
The Office of the Chief Counsel Personnel Law Branch
(PLB).--Provides legal advice during investigations and
conducts legal reviews of certain reports of investigation and
all disciplinary and adverse actions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ According to PLB officials, PLB does not review Reservist
disciplinary actions or terminations unless requested to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representatives from these three offices form FEMA's Administrative
Investigations Directive (AID) Committee, which reviews misconduct
allegations, assigns investigators, and tracks the status of open
cases. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector
General (OIG) also plays a role in reviewing and investigating certain
misconduct allegations, such as allegations of criminal misconduct
against a DHS employee and any allegations of misconduct against senior
employees.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Senior employees include those at the GS-15 level or higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony discusses findings from our July 2017 report on the
handling of employee misconduct allegations at FEMA.\5\ Accordingly, my
testimony addresses: (1) The extent to which FEMA has developed
policies and procedures for addressing employee misconduct; (2)
available data on FEMA employee misconduct cases and their outcomes and
the extent to which FEMA uses these data to identify and address
trends; and (3) the extent that information regarding misconduct cases
is shared within FEMA's personnel management offices and with DHS OIG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ GAO, Federal Emergency Management Agency: Additional Actions
Needed to Improve Handling of Employee Misconduct Allegations, GAO-17-
613 (Washington, DC: July 18, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To conduct this work, among other things, we reviewed, where
available, FEMA's documented policies and procedures for reporting,
investigating, and adjudicating allegations of misconduct across all of
the agency's work force categories, including the following: Title 5
employees,\6\ Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery Employees (CORE),
Reservists, Surge Capacity Force members, and FEMA Corps members.\7\ We
also interviewed officials from FEMA units with responsibilities
related to managing misconduct and analyzed available FEMA data on
employee misconduct. Specifically, we reviewed and analyzed available
2014 through 2016 data contained in three misconduct case tracking
spreadsheets maintained by FEMA's OCSO, LER, and PLB. Our July 2017
report includes a detailed explanation of the scope and methods used to
conduct our work, which was performed in accordance with generally
accepted Government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Generally, Title 5 refers to the section of United States Code
that establishes the law for managing human resources in the Federal
Government. Title 5 employees can be hired on a permanent or temporary,
full- or part-time basis. Over 90 percent of FEMA's Title 5 work force
is permanent full-time.
\7\ Work force categories are defined as: Title 5 (generally
permanent employees), CORE (temporary employees who support disaster-
related activities), Reservist (intermittent disaster employees), Surge
Capacity Force (employees of other DHS components who may augment
FEMA's work force in the event of a catastrophic disaster), and FEMA
Corps (a National service program managed by AmeriCorps National
Civilian Community Corps).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fema has developed and documented misconduct policies and procedures
for most employees, but not its entire work force
FEMA has developed a policy and procedures regarding misconduct
investigations that apply to all FEMA personnel and has also documented
policies and procedures regarding options to address misconduct and
appeal rights for Title 5 and CORE employees. However, FEMA has not
documented complete misconduct policies and procedures for Surge
Capacity Force members or Reservists.
DHS issued the Surge Capacity Force Concept of Operations in 2010,
which outlines FEMA's base implementation plan for the Surge Capacity
Force.\8\ However, the document does not address any elements
pertaining to Surge Capacity Force human capital management,
specifically misconduct and disciplinary policies and procedures.
According to the FEMA Surge Capacity Force Coordinator, despite the
lack of documentation, any incidents of misconduct would likely be
investigated by FEMA's OCSO, which would then refer the completed
report of investigation to the employee's home component for
adjudication and potential disciplinary action. However, although no
allegations of misconduct were made at the time, the Federal
Coordinating Officer in charge of one of the Hurricane Sandy Joint
Field Offices said he had not seen anything in writing or any formal
guidance that documents or explains how the process would work and
stated that he would have had to contact FEMA headquarters for
assistance in determining how to address any misconduct.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 6 U.S.C. Sec. 711(a) (requiring the FEMA administrator to
prepare a plan to establish and implement the Surge Capacity Force).
\9\ Joint field offices are Federal multi-agency centers which are
established locally in order to coordinate the response to domestic
incidents, such as terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other
emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without documented guidance, FEMA cannot ensure that Surge Capacity
Force misconduct is addressed adequately in a timely and comprehensive
manner. Therefore, in our July 2017 report we recommended that the FEMA
administrator document policies and procedures to address potential
Surge Capacity Force misconduct. DHS concurred and stated that FEMA is
developing a Human Capital plan for the Surge Capacity Force and will
include policies and procedures relating to potential misconduct. DHS
estimated that this effort would be completed by June 30, 2018. This
action, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the
recommendation.
Additionally, we found that FEMA's Reservist Program Manual lacks
documented policies and procedures on disciplinary options to address
misconduct and appeal rights for Reservists.\10\ Both LER and PLB
officials told us that, in practice, disciplinary actions for
Reservists are limited to reprimands and termination. According to
these officials, FEMA does not suspend Reservists because they are an
intermittent, at-will work force deployed as needed to respond to
disasters. Federal Coordinating Officers and cadre managers have the
authority to demobilize Reservists and remove them from a Joint Field
Office if misconduct occurs, which may be done in lieu of suspension.
Furthermore, LER and PLB officials also told us that, in practice, FEMA
grants Reservists the right to appeal a reprimand or termination to
their second-level supervisor. However, these actions are not
documented in the Reservist Program Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Reservist Program FD
010-6 Revision Number: 02 (Jan. 25, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without documented Reservist disciplinary options and appeals
policies, supervisors, and Reservist employees may not be aware of all
aspects of the disciplinary and appeals process. Thus, in our July 2017
report, we recommended that FEMA document Reservist disciplinary
options and appeals that are currently in practice at the agency. DHS
concurred and stated that FEMA will update its Reservist program
directive to include procedures for disciplinary actions and appeals
currently in practice at the agency. DHS estimated that this effort
would be completed by December 31, 2017. This action, if fully
implemented, should address the intent of the recommendation.
We also reported in our July 2017 report that FEMA does not
communicate the range of offenses and penalties to its entire work
force. Namely, FEMA revised its employee disciplinary manual for Title
5 employees in 2015, and in doing so, eliminated the agency's table of
offenses and penalties. Tables of offenses and penalties are used by
agencies to provide guidance on the range of penalties available when
formal discipline is taken. They also provide awareness and inform
employees of the penalties which may be imposed for misconduct. Since
revising the manual and removing the table, FEMA no longer communicates
possible punishable offenses to its entire work force. Instead,
information is now communicated to supervisors and employees on an
individual basis. Specifically, LER specialists currently use a
``comparators'' spreadsheet with historical data on previous misconduct
cases to determine a range of disciplinary or adverse actions for each
specific misconduct case. The information used to determine the range
of penalties is shared with the supervisor on a case-by-case basis;
however, LER specialists noted that due to privacy protections they are
the only FEMA officials who have access to the comparators
spreadsheet.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The comparators spreadsheet contains personally identifiable
information about specific cases, such as subject names. According to
LER and PLB officials, this information is subject to privacy
protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because information about offenses and penalties is not universally
shared with supervisors and employees, FEMA management is limited in
its ability to set expectations about appropriate conduct in the
workplace and to communicate consequences of inappropriate conduct. We
recommended that FEMA communicate the range of penalties for specific
misconduct offenses to all employees and supervisors. DHS concurred and
stated that FEMA is currently drafting a table of offenses and
penalties and will take steps to communicate those penalties to
employees throughout the agency once the table is finalized. DHS
estimated that this effort would be completed by December 31, 2017.
This action, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the
recommendation.
fema records data on employee misconduct cases and their outcomes, but
could improve the quality and usefulness of these data to identify and
address trends
Multiple FEMA Offices Collect Misconduct Data; FEMA OCSO Recorded
Approximately 600 Misconduct Complaints from January 2014
through September 30, 2016
The three offices on the AID Committee involved in investigating
and adjudicating employee misconduct complaints each maintain separate
case tracking spreadsheets with data on employee misconduct to
facilitate their respective roles in the misconduct review process. We
analyzed data provided by OCSO in its case tracking spreadsheet and
found that there were 595 complaints from January 2014 through
September 30, 2016. The complaints involved alleged offenses of
employee misconduct which may or may not have been substantiated over
the course of an investigation.
Based on our analysis, the 595 complaints contained approximately
799 alleged offenses from January 2014 through September 30, 2016. As
shown in figure 1 below, the most common type of alleged offenses were
integrity and ethics violations (278), inappropriate comments and
conduct (140), and misuse of Government property or funds (119). For
example, one complaint categorized as integrity and ethics involved
allegations that a FEMA employee at a Joint Field Office was accepting
illegal gifts from a FEMA contractor and a State contractor. Another
complaint categorized as inappropriate comments and conduct involved
allegations that a FEMA employee's supervisor and other employees had
bullied and cursed at them, creating an unhealthy work environment.
Finally, a complaint categorized as misuse of Government property or
funds involved allegations that a former FEMA employee was terminated
but did not return a FEMA-owned laptop.
Figure 1.--Alleged FEMA Employee Misconduct Offenses Reported to OCSO
by Category: January 2014 through September 30, 2016
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Note.--According to agency officials, lower-level alleged offenses,
such as being absent without leave, are typically addressed by the
Labor and Employee Relations Branch and may not be included in the OCSO
data we reviewed.
Aspects of FEMA's Data Limit Their Usefulness for Identifying and
Addressing Trends in Employee Misconduct
OCSO, LER, and PLB collect data on employee misconduct and
outcomes, but limited standardization of fields and entries within
fields, limited use of unique case identifiers, and a lack of
documented guidance on data entry restricts their usefulness for
identifying and addressing trends in employee misconduct. FEMA employee
misconduct data are not readily accessible and cannot be verified as
accurate and complete on a timely basis. These limitations restrict
management's ability to process the data into quality information that
can be used to identify and address trends in employee misconduct. For
example, an OCSO official stated that senior OCSO officials recently
requested employee misconduct information based on employee type, such
as the number of Reservists. However, the data are largely captured in
narrative fields, making it difficult to extract without manual review.
In our July 2017 report we recommended that FEMA improve the
quality and usefulness of the misconduct data it collects by
implementing quality control measures, such as adding additional drop-
down fields with standardized entries, adding unique case identifier
fields, developing documented guidance for data entry, or considering
the adoption of database software. In addition, we recommended that
FEMA conduct routine reporting on employee misconduct trends once the
quality of the data is improved. DHS concurred and stated that FEMA is
working with the DHS OIG to develop a new case management system. The
system will use drop-down fields with standardized entries and provide
tools for trend analysis. Once the new system is implemented, DHS
stated that FEMA will be able to routinely identify and address
emerging trends of misconduct. DHS estimated that these efforts would
be completed by March 31, 2018. These actions, if fully implemented,
should address the intent of the recommendations.
fema shares misconduct case information internally and with dhs oig,
but does not accurately track dhs oig referred misconduct complaints
FEMA Offices Meet Regularly to Discuss Misconduct Allegations and On-
going Investigations and Send Monthly Status Updates to DHS OIG
Officials from OCSO, LER, and PLB conduct weekly AID committee
meetings to coordinate information on misconduct allegations and
investigations. The committee reviews allegations, refers cases for
investigation or inquiry, and discusses the status of investigations.
In addition to the weekly AID committee meetings, LER and PLB officials
stated that they meet on a regular basis to discuss disciplinary and
adverse actions and ensure that any penalties are consistent and
defensible in court. Employee misconduct information is also shared
directly with FEMA's chief security officer and chief counsel. Within
FEMA, these regular meetings and status reports provide officials from
key personnel management offices opportunities to communicate and share
information about employee misconduct. FEMA also provides DHS OIG with
information on employee misconduct cases on a regular basis through
monthly reports on open investigations.
FEMA's Procedures for Tracking DHS OIG Referred Cases Need Improvement
We found that OCSO has not established effective procedures to
ensure that all cases referred to FEMA by DHS OIG are accounted for and
subsequently reviewed and addressed. As discussed earlier, OCSO sends a
monthly report of open investigations to DHS OIG. However, while these
reports provide awareness of specific investigations, according to OCSO
officials, neither office reconciles the reports to a list of referred
cases to ensure that all cases are addressed. We reviewed a non-
generalizable random sample of 20 fiscal year 2016 employee misconduct
complaints DHS OIG referred to FEMA for review and found that FEMA
missed 6 of the 20 complaints during the referral process and had not
reviewed them at the time of our inquiry. As a result of our review,
FEMA subsequently took action to review the complaints. The AID
committee recommended that OCSO open inquiries in 3 of the 6 cases to
determine whether the allegations were against FEMA employees, assigned
2 cases to LER for further review, and closed 1 case for lack of
information. According to an OCSO official, OCSO subsequently
determined that none of the allegations in the 3 cases they opened
involved FEMA employees and the cases were closed. The remaining 2
cases were open as of April 2017.
The results from our sample cannot be generalized to the entire
population of referrals from DHS OIG to FEMA; however, they raise
questions as to whether there could be additional instances of
misconduct complaints that FEMA has not reviewed or addressed.
Therefore, in our July 2017 report we recommended that FEMA develop
reconciliation procedures to consistently track referred cases. DHS
concurred and stated that once the new case management system described
above is established and fully operational, FEMA will be able to upload
all DHS OIG referrals into a single, agency-wide database.
Additionally, FEMA will work with DHS OIG to establish processes and
procedures that will improve reconciliation of case data. DHS estimated
that these efforts would be completed by March 31, 2018. These actions,
if fully implemented, should address the intent of the recommendation.
Mr. Estes [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Currie.
Now we will go into questions from the Members. I will
recognize myself first to ask the first series of questions. We
will go through the 5-minute time period for each Member as
well.
Mr. Grant, you know, the reservist program manual currently
does not include information on the disciplinary process or
appeals rights for reservists. Is that part of what FEMA is
planning to add to the manual as part of this review?
Mr. Grant. Yes, sir. The reservist misconduct policies and
procedures will be updated to include disciplinary actions and
the appeals. We intend to issue that by December 31 of this
year.
Mr. Estes. Thank you. Again for Mr. Grant, what is FEMA
doing to ensure that misconduct and discipline are handled
consistently across its work force categories or regions or
different field offices?
Mr. Grant. Well, as Mr. Currie correctly noted, we do have
some inconsistent systems. We currently maintain three
different systems from three different offices: Office of Chief
Council, Office of Chief Security Officer, and labor relations
within the Chief Human Capital Office. Those three
organizations meet weekly to discuss the various caseloads.
The problems could come in to any one of those groups and
then they meet every week to discuss and make sure that nothing
slips through the crack.
Those issues that are raised to the level of the inspector
general are reported by chief security officer to the I.G. As
Mr. Currie indicated, they make the decision whether or not
they will investigate and they return them to us.
We did note that six of those cases that they found were
not appropriately investigated by us in a timely manner. We
have subsequently taken that under advisement and fixed that
problem. We don't believe that that problem will occur again.
The other issue that we are doing, which Mr. Currie noted
and I appreciate, is that we are partnering with the I.G. to
actually adopt their system, their I.T. system or case
management system. They have given us the system.
We have deployed it in our test environment to determine
whether or not it will operate in the FEMA network. If it
will--we hope that it will--that testing should be done by
October. Then we will deploy it within the chief security
officer as a pilot.
If that then works, then we will deploy it across our
enterprise, and it will become a singular system with common
nomenclature, common case management numbers so that--one of
the issues that the GAO recognized was that having a singular
case number system to go up to the I.G. and back would allow us
to track every case to completion.
We don't have that today. We don't have common nomenclature
between the three systems. That is what causes us to then have
a manual conversation every week. So we try and manage it
manually. We think by deploying the I.G. system that will
enable us to fix much of the problem that GAO raised.
Mr. Estes. It does seem that it would be much more logical
to have the one system that you could work from and be
consistent across the offices, as well as----
Mr. Grant. Yes, sir.
Mr. Estes [continuing]. Tracking.
Mr. Currie, you know, in 2006, you know, FEMA ranked 284th
out of the 305 agencies in terms of best places to work. Can
you talk about a little bit about what you may have observed in
terms of what is the cause of this or what practices might be
improved?
Mr. Currie. Yes, sir. Well first of all, we look at morale
across all of the Department of Homeland Security and all of
the components. It is a key reason that the Departmental
management is still on GAO's high-risk list.
It is very, very important. You cannot separate the morale
of the employees from the mission of the organization. Those
two are tied together. They are not separate things.
We have been very interested in watching FEMA's progress in
this area. I am not sure I have a reason, per se, for the low
morale. We have looked at their recent plans they put together
to increase employee engagement.
One of the key reasons that FEMA itself has cited is,
frankly, a lack of trust of upper-level leadership. That is
much higher actually than trust of immediate supervisors. So I
think the morale issue feeds directly into that.
Employees want to know that other employees are being held
accountable and that their leaders are playing fairly and
following the rules. I think having stronger misconduct
policies and procedures and communicating those will help that.
Mr. Estes. All right, thank you.
I am about out of time here, so I will turn the questioning
over to Ranking Member Correa.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Chairman Estes. I just wanted to
follow that line of questioning, and I think the Chair is
absolutely on to something, which is morale and misconduct.
Mr. Currie, you just said there is lack of trust in upper-
level management. If I pull back and think about FEMA, as I
mentioned earlier, you are effectively first responders. Your
workplace is a challenging one.
When you are called to respond to a disaster, you encounter
things that are very difficult to work with. You do your job,
and I would imagine you do it with honor.
That is why you continue to do what you do. Yet if you have
a lack of morale, that tells me that there is something there
that is not connected, lack of trust in upper management.
Also the issue of misconduct. You want to know that that
person that you are working next to is an honorable individual.
So I would ask both of you, misconduct, percentage-wise--
FEMA has been around since 1979. Is this a pattern that has
exploded? Is it State level? Has this gone up or down? What are
the percentages of, you know, levels of misconduct or
categories?
Mentioned a laptop missing, a person taking a gift from a
contractor, how many times do you have this happen percentage-
wise? Personnel issues. Somebody gets mad at their, you know,
co-worker and files a complaint. Give me a picture. I wanna see
what these numbers are actually telling us.
Open it up.
Mr. Grant. If you don't mind, Mr. Currie, I will take the
first stab at answering that.
Thank you very much for the question. As you noted earlier
in your opening statement, sir, less than 2 percent, about a
little over 1 percent of our staff have been alleged to have
this kind of misconduct. As I mentioned----
Mr. Correa. So less than 1 percent are complaining?
Mr. Grant. No. Less than 2 percent of the folks have had a
complaint. But we have gone----
Mr. Correa. Lodged against them?
Mr. Grant [continuing]. Yes.
Mr. Correa. OK.
Mr. Grant. Then we have gone back and looked at what, what
I call, how it has been adjudicated. That turns out to be
slightly less than 50 percent of those that have been alleged
actually----
Mr. Correa. So about 2 percent and then about 1 percent are
actually substantiated?
Mr. Grant. A little less than 1 percent.
Mr. Correa. Less than 1 percent. OK.
Mr. Grant. So I want to make two points. No. 1, I am
actually encouraged by a number of complaints because I think
that sends the message that employees feel safe and free to
lodge a complaint. I don't want employees to feel as though
they are inhibited from lodging a complaint or a question. I
want them to feel free to go to management, to the----
Mr. Correa. What did you do? Create an 800 anonymous number
or what----
Mr. Grant. Yes. We actually do. One of the questions I had
in preparing for this hearing was how do employees--I wanted to
validate and look at it myself--how do employees lodge such a
complaint? We have that as an icon on our chief security
officer web page.
I asked for it to be moved to the front page of the FEMA
intranet site. I want every employee to have access to that.
We also have annual training, such as the No FEAR Act,
where every employee is made aware that they can contact the
DHS I.G. hotline directly or contact labor relations or contact
their supervisor or contact the chief security officer.
So we want the complaint to come in. We want to follow the
process to adjudicate it. We hope that they are not
substantiated. But when they are, then we want to follow a
consistent, quick process to take care of the problem and to
issue discipline as required.
Mr. Correa. So again, the pattern has been complaints going
up or down or steady?
Mr. Grant. I would say they have been fairly steady. It
depends on the kind of system. Kind of----
Mr. Correa. So would you say that based on your new policy
of encouraging folks to come forward, the actual number of
complaints has remained steady or again----
Mr. Grant. Well again, that is just recent, in preparation
for this hearing, that we moved it to the front page. So I
would expect, again, the number of complaints coming in doesn't
concern me as much as those that are substantiated. What we
have seen is about two-thirds or three-quarters of 1 percent of
our population would have a substantiated issue against them.
Those are the issues. As I said in my opening statement,
one issue of substantiated misconduct is one too many. We don't
like that. We don't tolerate it.
As you indicated in your statement, that causes a morale
issue because if I am sitting next to someone who I think is
getting away with something like that, that could be an issue.
I don't want people thinking about that.
As the Chairman said in his opening statement, when we are
out in the field, these are stressful times. These are
communities. These are survivors who are having potentially the
worst day of their life. They wanna know that they have the
full focus and attention of our staff.
As I said in my opening statement, the vast majority of our
employees serve honorably and with distinction in very
difficult circumstances, with a lot of tension. They handle it
well.
In those cases that do happen, we wanna handle it
consistently. We wanna handle it quickly. We want to remove
those individuals or put them in a place where they can be
educated better and understand that what they just did is not
tolerated. Then we will bring them back in.
Mr. Correa. Mr. Chair, I yield.
Mr. Estes. Thank you, Mr. Correa.
I would now like to call on Miss Rice for 5 minutes.
Miss Rice. I think this administration has made it very
clear through hiring freezes, reductions to employee retirement
programs, and just overall budget cuts, that the Federal worker
is just simply not a priority for this administration. So we
can talk about morale all we want, but when the Government that
you work for doesn't support you, I can't imagine a worse
situation in terms of morale.
So to what extent does the administration's clear attempt
to shrink the work force, the Federal worker work force, what
does that have on their ability to do their job, No. 1 and the
morale of the agency overall? That is for both of you.
Mr. Currie. Well, ma'am, at GAO we have not analyzed the
recent efforts to try to reduce or streamline the Federal work
force. But I can say this.
In terms of Department of Homeland Security and FEMA, and
all agencies across Government, you know everybody in
Government, all departments are operating under the same
environment and have been for a long time. We assess employee
morale and engagement using several different factors and
criteria.
What we have seen is that agencies that have high-morale
exercise certain behaviors that lead to that morale being
higher than other agencies. So in FEMA's case, as the Chairman
noted in opening up, they have tended to be lower on that side
of thing, as have most of the DHS components.
Mr. Grant. Ma'am, thank you for the question. One of the
things--I have been acting in this job since January 20. Mr.
Bob Fenton was the previous acting administrator. Mr. Long is
now on board.
One of the things that Mr. Fenton and I did, and now Mr.
Long and I have done, is we have conducted four agency-wide
town hall meetings in the 6 months that I have been in this
job. That is more than we did in the previous year or two.
Mr. Long has also initiated a plan to have, what he calls
listening sessions in the next 8 weeks, with both our employees
and our constituents that we work with.
One of his intentions, one of Mr. Fenton's intentions and
my own, was to reach out and talk to employees and the folks
that we serve and find out what are we doing well. We wanna
replicate that. Where do we need to improve, and we want to
work on that. But we wanna hear it from the ground up and we
wanna hear it from those that we serve.
So that is an initiative that we have undertaken for the
last several months and we will continue to undertake. I think
that is terribly important.
As Mr. Currie indicated, I think that engagement will help.
One of the factors that Mr. Long has clearly articulated in the
month, maybe just under a month he has been here, is that he
expects leadership to get out from behind the desk and to go
out and meet with the folks.
I myself have walked Mr. Long through the entire building.
We will walk up, talk to employees wherever they are, 7 o'clock
in the morning to 7 o'clock at night and find out how they are
doing and what could we do to help them. Because, quite
frankly, the work of the agency is done by those folks, not
honestly by us.
Those are the folks that are going out and meeting with the
survivors and ensuring that our mission is being met. We have
initiated a significant increase in our communication and
engagement. We hope in the long run that will help drive those
employee morale scores up.
Miss Rice. So FEMA also took a beating in the aftermath of
Katrina and Superstorm Sandy. Certainly, you know, I have been
in this position for 3 years, since I was the D.A. of my county
when Superstorm Sandy happened. One of the biggest issues we
still face is people trying to recover from that.
The problem with the program there had really nothing to do
with any of the FEMA employees. It had to do with the flood
insurance program and how it was administered. There is going
to be a major overhaul, we hope, in the future on that program,
at least.
So to what extent does that have an effect on the morale?
Which, you know, what FEMA did in those two instances was
really--the workers, how quickly they responded and how much
they helped people in the immediate aftermath of these
tragedies, No. 1.
Because if you look at, you know, the overall number of,
what is it, 248 complaints annually related to alleged
misconduct by FEMA personnel, it reflects less than 2 percent
of the entire FEMA work force, which I would think it is
probably low, on the low end for, at least, a lot of Federal
agencies. They just seem to be the ones to get beat up all the
time.
So, you know, to what extent does that have to do----
Mr. Grant. Well, I think one of the issues, I think you are
correct. When you are an agency like FEMA, generally speaking
you are not in the press until a bad day happens. When that bad
day happens, it is a stressful situation for the communities,
the localities, the public entities, but most importantly for
the private citizens that we serve.
These are difficult times and our employees do work
terribly hard, sometimes 18-, 20-hour days in very difficult
situations where they themselves are often, you know, sleeping
on a cot in a tent to make sure that they can do their job. So
it is stressful.
But actually during those periods, our morale goes up
because our people want to help. We have a first mentality
responder, a first responder mentality within our organization.
Frankly, the busier we are, the higher the morale goes.
Mr. Currie. Can I mention, I would agree with that. I think
the issues of morale at FEMA are not related to the mission. I
think everyone there has bought into the mission and are there
because of the mission.
I think that where morale becomes a problem, and this
happens across DHS components, we have talked about this a lot
at TSA and CBP and constantly being in the public limelight.
The morale issues tend to creep in with leadership and
supervision and how connected and trusting folks feel and
supported they feel by their leadership.
So the actions that Mr. Grant talked about that he and the
new administrator are taking, town halls trying to connect with
officials, trying to make employees a priority, just as much of
a priority as the mission and not separate because they are not
separate, I think are great steps.
Miss Rice. Well, I agree with you----
Mr. Estes. All right.
Miss Rice. I agree you, but I think it all--you say morale
all comes from the top. If the President of the United States
is not putting an emphasis on----
Mr. Estes. Thank you for the comments.
Miss Rice [continuing]. Protecting Federal workers----
Mr. Estes. But----
Miss Rice. Oh, I am sorry. I was----
Mr. Estes [continuing]. The time has expired. Time has
expired. Thank you for your comments.
Miss Rice. You have got to be kidding me.
Mr. Estes. I would like to call on Ranking Member Correa.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like ask
unanimous consent to have Ms. Jackson Lee participate in the
hearing?
Mr. Estes. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman for his courtesies,
and I thank the Ranking Member for his leadership, and I thank
Miss Rice for a very consistent and thoughtful line of
questioning. I think she may have gotten her insight from being
one of the areas that experienced Hurricane Sandy and obviously
engaged a lot with FEMA staff.
Making a very viable point that, if I may use the
terminology, commander-in-chief sets the tone all over the
Nation and really all over the world on how our Federal
employees are treated, including in the last 24 hours how the
United States military is treated.
So this hearing is a very vital hearing because if we as
Members of Congress can be helpful, I think it is important
that we do so. That we do what is constructive and not do what
undermines, I think, a very able work force.
Now let me personally thank the entire FEMA work force and
emphasize that I believe they comply with the DHS mission with
honor and integrity. We will safeguard the American people, our
homeland, and our values.
Let me say that I am a, how should I say, beneficiary of
FEMA's good works. I am a hurricane victim. I might not use
that term in such that I ask for sympathy, but I have been
through any number of hurricanes and storms.
If the Chairman and the Ranking Member would allow me, when
my daughter was 3 years old, in essence we had to ship her off
to her grandparents because we were displaced for 6 weeks in
what we call Storm Allison some many years ago. The Texas
Medical Center's major research was eliminated in a terrible
disaster during that storm.
Then successive storms from Rita to Katrina to Hurricane
Ike, we have all been impacted in Houston and my constituents.
I say this to say because I want to applaud the FEMA workers. I
know that there was a great episode with Hurricane Katrina with
the leadership, but I can tell you that the FEMA workers were
on the ground working to try and overcome what the National
image was.
Visiting with my colleague, Congresswoman Sewell right
after her election, with the terrible tornadoes in Alabama, I
saw FEMA workers on the ground.
So to the FEMA workers, including the reservists, let me
thank you very much from a personal perspective. Maybe that is
what we should be doing is ensuring that they understand the
value that they serve for the American people.
They are there before others are there, and they are there
after others have gone. So I particularly want to acknowledge
your leadership that I have worked with in Washington and that
on the ground.
I want to take note of the reservists because I think we
should understand that the reservists come in and come out.
That is a tough life. So I am going to ask a line of
questioning.
I also want to thank Ms. Simon and the president of the
AFGE, dear friends of mine. I don't mind saying it. I
apologize. I have to step out to another meeting, but you
already have me on record as being a chauvinist, if I may use
that term, and advocate for all of you.
Now, let me quickly try to in the minutes I have left, to
be able to ask a question about follow-up. I want to know, once
an allegation of misconduct is made against a FEMA employee,
what recourse does the employee have then to refute the
allegation or appeal?
Then both of you can answer it, and maybe it should be you,
Mr. Grant?
Then FEMA uses three separate offices as well as an
administrative investigations committee to handle allegations
of employee misconduct, which appear to average less than 300
cases per year.
Does FEMA need to adjust or improve how employee misconduct
is managed at the agency? That may be part of morale. There is
no seamless way to--for these employees to respond. I want to
know what kind of added benefits do you give?
This is tough work. So morale goes about what incentives or
benefits that you give to make sure that they are, in fact,
rewarded for this very tough work. Because it is not--to the
Chairman and Ranking Member, it is not money. So if you can ask
that and the Chairman would indulge me for them to give their
answer, I would greatly appreciate it.
I just want to be on the record that the U.S. Congress in
particular, this Member from hurricane country, greatly
appreciates the work that FEMA offices and FEMA staff does. Any
misconduct should be corrected, but the work should be
applauded. Would you answer those two questions please?
Mr. Grant. Yes, ma'am, I will do my best to do so. The
first is that I believe GAO did note that we have a practice in
place that is consistently followed to review and adjudicate
each of the allegations that come up. Where we do not have
adequate procedures in place is at the system level to make
sure that they are captured in a unique system.
So what we have done is have a manual process where each of
those three groups you mentioned, Chief Counsel, Chief Security
Officer, and Chief Human Capital Officer, meaning labor
relations, will meet weekly to ensure that issues do not fall
between the cracks. Unfortunately, that has occurred at times.
As I indicated earlier, we are working with our partners at
the I.G. to adapt their system and deploy it across our
enterprise as a singular sort of parent or umbrella system to
ensure that we have current, accurate, and complete records for
all cases with common nomenclature, common case management
numbers, et cetera.
We believe that will allow us to do the trend analysis that
Mr. Correa asked about earlier in a more effective manner. So I
believe that answers most of your questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The refuting. How does an employee refute?
Mr. Grant. Oh. At any time that an allegation is made
against an employee, they are advised that they have the
opportunity to meet with the investigation organization and
refute that, provide whatever information they deem necessary.
They are advised of their appeal rights should the decision go
contrary to their belief.
Mr. Estes. Thank you. Thank you for your answers----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Through AFGE?
Mr. Perry. Time has expired now.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could just
put this on the record for an answer in writing, I would like
to know how you work with AFGE for those employees that have
that relationship with them?
Mr. Grant. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would like that writing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Estes. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back.
Mr. Estes. Now, I recognize Mr. Higgins for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for appearing before the subcommittee,
and thank you for your service to our Nation.
Mr. Currie, my question is for you. How do FEMA's
misconduct policies and procedures reflect best practices or
internal control standards to ensure an efficient and effective
organization?
Specifically, while you reflect upon that, please give us
some insight as to why did FEMA not properly investigate
certain cases referred by the Department of Homeland Security's
Office of Inspector General? What was the effect of this delay?
So give us some insight, please, to your policies.
Mr. Currie. Yes, sir. I think you used the perfect wording
which is internal controls. I think that is the biggest problem
we found in this process. Mr. Grant has talked about three
separate systems collecting information on misconduct.
When I say systems, don't think about I.T. systems. We are
talking about spreadsheets here, manual spreadsheets and then a
physical adjudication process to discuss those.
So frankly, the data we presented in our report, we
presented to give a sense of what we knew about misconduct
cases, but it was not reliable, which is why we had several
findings and recommendations to strengthen the data.
So I am not inferring that it was understated or
overstated. We just don't feel good about the data. I am not
sure if that was comprehensive or not. So the controls are
critical. If you don't have a system to track it and monitor
it, then you have no idea whether you are following up.
The other part of that is, the process of the complaint
coming in and the adjudication and disciplinary action are
separate and those don't track through the process.
So we couldn't go back and find out if there was
disciplinary action taken in all allegations or not and why,
because the system was, the data was just kind of a mess.
The I.G. issue, it is the same issue. This is not just an
issue for FEMA. Other DHS components, TSA and CBP, we found
similar issues. They are supposed to communicate constantly
with the I.G. Some of these components are getting thousands of
cases. So there just has to be a better system to automatically
communicate and track the cases between the I.G. and the
component.
I think the burden is really on the component to make sure
they are not missing the cases because the I.G. gets, you know,
15,000 to 20,000 cases a year.
Mr. Higgins. So you are saying that it is very difficult
for you to track whether or not disciplinary action has been
taken at some other stage within the agency or within some----
Mr. Currie. Well, we have----
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Some context of the agency?
Mr. Currie. FEMA provided us data on the number of
disciplinary actions it took and what those actions were. What
we couldn't do is track them to each case all throughout the
process from allegation to investigation to adjudication and
disciplinary action because the systems were just different.
Mr. Higgins. Are case files not created on each individual
investigation into misconduct within the Department of Homeland
Security?
Mr. Currie. Case files are created, but mostly manually and
inputted into a system. But----
Mr. Higgins. Do telephones not get answered from one
supervisor to another or from the director to a supervisor? Is
there----
Mr. Currie. Well, there----
Mr. Higgins. Can people--are people not allowed to talk to
each other?
Mr. Currie. Absolutely. FEMA has a process for handling
these cases and what supervisors and employees are supposed to
do, as Mr. Grant said. It is just, you know, that may not
always happen.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Grant, do you have something to add there,
sir?
Mr. Grant. Yes, sir. I think of the six recommendations
that Mr. Currie in his report indicated or provided us, we
agree with them all. We do do case management. We identify each
case. We track it through the system.
We do not have a singular system, as I indicated earlier,
in place that would allow a unique case identifier number. Each
of those three systems have different nomenclatures, and that
is why we have to meet manually each week to make sure that
each office is on the same page.
It is inefficient. It allows for opportunity for mistakes
to be made. That is why we are adopting, as I mentioned
earlier, the Department of Homeland Security's inspector
general has a system.
We are testing that system in our environment right now. We
are going to pilot it in our Chief Security Office. That is the
office that most closely interacts with the inspector general.
That will ensure that we are using the same nomenclature, the
same case numbering they have.
Once we establish that in our architecture and it works, we
will then deploy it across FEMA. So all of the offices involved
in this process will be using the same parent system. I believe
that will take care of many of the issues raised by GAO.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, gentlemen. It appears that the
creation of a solid case file with an identifying number that
would gradually build upon itself with supplemental reports as
cases of misconduct are investigated, could be quite beneficial
to the efficiency of your procedure.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Estes. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
Now the Chair would like to thank the witnesses for their
valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The
first panel is now excused. The clerk will prepare the witness
table for the next panel. Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Mr. Estes. The Chair will now introduce our witness for the
second panel. Ms. Jacqueline Simon is director for the Public
Policy Department at the American Federation of Government
Employees, AFGE. AFGE is the largest Federal employee union,
representing 700,000 Federal and D.C. government workers.
AFGE provides its members with legal representation,
legislative advocacy, technical expertise, and informational
services. Thank you for being here today.
Now the Chair recognizes Ms. Simon for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE SIMON, DIRECTOR OF POLICY, AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Ms. Simon. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Correa and Members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. GAO's report takes pains to explain the numerous
distinct types of employment tenure at FEMA.
First are Title 5 employees, who are both permanent and
temporary workers hired only after a rigorous and competitive
merit-based examination process, one that includes the
application of veterans' preference.
FEMA employees who are covered by Title 5 are afforded full
civil service protections and where the workers have voted to
form a union are covered by a collective bargaining agreement
as well.
Stafford Act employees, on the other hand, are hired only
for temporary or term appointments. They do not undergo
rigorous vetting through competitive examination. They are
employed at-will, and they may be terminated at any time for
any reason or no reason and have no rights of appeal and no due
process protections.
FEMA also employs surge capacity force volunteers who are
otherwise employed by the Department of Homeland Security. They
are deployed in the case of catastrophic disaster.
Finally there is the FEMA Corps National service program,
whose members are fewer than 500 and are part of the AmeriCorps
program.
These distinctions matter. Under Title 5, employees are
subject to well-defined disciplinary procedures and penalties,
and they have the right to appeal adverse actions, either
through grievance and arbitration procedures in their
collective bargaining agreements, where applicable, or through
access to the MSPB.
FEMA Corps members have a disciplinary process that is
determined by the AmeriCorps program. Surge capacity force
volunteers have no documented misconduct policies and are
presumed to be referred back to their home component for
action.
Stafford Act employees, reservist and CORE employees, make
up a second-class work force at FEMA. They are described by GAO
as having poorly-defined or nonexistent disciplinary processes
and no rights of appeal for adverse actions.
It is the lack of policy or procedures to address
misconduct and appeal rights for this segment of FEMA's work
force that makes up the heart of GAO's report.
Let's start with the numbers. The average annual number of
employee misconduct complaints for 2016 amounted to less than 2
percent of all employees. Of the complaints filed within the 3-
year period under examination, the agency's actions were
decisive--65 percent of the accused were terminated, 21 percent
received reprimands, and 12 percent received suspensions.
This appears to me to be a system at work. Allegations were
investigated and the agency responded. Importantly, about 12
percent of those investigated were found innocent. We must
remember that these innocents are why we have due process.
The result of GAO's efforts to research and report the
policies in place to handle allegations of misconduct among
FEMA workers is the realization that no consistent process
exists at all for anyone other than Title 5 employees.
If there is a problem with investigating misconduct at
FEMA, AFGE believes that the reason is the overabundance of at-
will employees. These workers have not been hired
competitively. Their background, skills, and qualifications
have not been rigorously tested, and it seems as though they
receive neither adequate training nor adequate supervision.
Most important from the standpoint of the concerns about
integrity addressed in the GAO report, because they lack
protection of a union contract and the right to appeal adverse
actions such as suspensions and terminations, their
whistleblower protections are entirely pro forma and thus
ineffective.
Corruption is an ever-present danger when the Government is
providing assistance after a disaster. There are cash
transfers, direct provision of goods and services, and
procurement decisions that all present risk.
For those who either don't have clear policy and
supervision or are vulnerable to pressure from corrupt
supervisors or managers to engage in misappropriation, there is
danger of being charged with inappropriate behavior.
FEMA is therefore the last agency that should ever be
staffed by an at-will work force with no collective bargaining
rights and no avenue of appeal for adverse action by managers.
There should be no surprise that there are allegations of
impropriety in a work force that is so much at the mercy of
managers.
If this subcommittee is truly interested in providing the
public with well-trained, qualified, and accountable emergency
workers, the the current practice of hiring reservist and CORE
employees at-will should end. Rather the entire emergency work
force at FEMA should be hired under Title 5 authorities.
This will ensure they are properly vetted, trained, and
disciplined and protect the public from potential financial or
political corruption.
This concludes my statement, and I will be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Simon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jacqueline Simon
July 27, 2017
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Correa, and Members of the
subcommittee: My name is Jacqueline Simon and I am the policy director
of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE). On
behalf of the almost 700,000 Federal and District of Columbia employees
AFGE is proud to represent, I thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report which is at
the center of this hearing.
GAO's report takes pains to explain the numerous, distinct types of
employment tenure that exist among the work force at the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Most title 5 employees constitute
the permanent and temporary work force and are usually hired only after
a rigorous and competitive merit-based examination process (one that
includes applications of veterans preference). FEMA employees who are
covered by Title 5 are afforded full civil service protections and
where the workers have voted to form a union, are covered by a
collective bargaining agreement as well. Stafford Act employees, on the
other hand, are hired for temporary or term appointments. They do not
undergo rigorous vetting through competitive examination, are employed
``at will,'' and may be terminated at any time for any reason or no
reason and have no rights of appeal, and no due process protections.
FEMA also employs Surge Capacity Force volunteers who are otherwise
employed by the Department of Homeland Security; they are deployed in
the case of catastrophic disaster. Thus far, the only time this
volunteer force has been used was during the response to Hurricane
Sandy in 2012. Finally, there is the FEMA Corps National service
program, whose members are fewer than 500 and are part of the
AmeriCorps program.
These distinctions matter. Under Title 5, employees are subject to
well-defined disciplinary procedures, penalties, and have the right to
appeal adverse actions either through grievance and arbitration
procedures in their collective bargaining agreements (where applicable)
or through access to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). FEMA
Corps members have a disciplinary process that is determined by the
AmeriCorps program. Surge Capacity Force volunteers have no documented
misconduct policies and are presumed to be referred back to their
``home component'' for action.
Stafford Act employees--Reservists and CORE employees--make up a
second-class work force at FEMA. They are described by GAO as having
poorly-defined or non-existent disciplinary processes and no rights of
appeal for adverse actions. It is the lack of policy or procedures to
address misconduct and appeal rights for this segment of FEMA's work
force that makes up the heart of this report.
Let's start with the numbers. The average annual number of employee
misconduct complaints for 2016 amounted to less than 2 percent of the
all employees. Not to belittle any instance of alleged misconduct, but
2 percent hardly constitutes an epidemic of bad behavior within the
agency. Next, of the complaints filed within a 3-year period (January
2014 to December 2016), the agency's actions were decisive: 65 percent
of the accused were terminated, 21 percent received reprimands, and 12
percent received suspensions of less than 2 weeks' duration. This
appears to me to be a system at work. Allegations were investigated and
the agency responded.
The result of the GAO's efforts to research and report on the
policies in place to handle allegations of misconduct among FEMA
workers is the realization that no consistent process exists at all for
anyone other than Title 5 employees. And there is a need for better
record-keeping.
The report recommends instituting clearly documented policies and
procedures to address misconduct among Surge Capacity Force volunteers
and Reservists. This is certainly not controversial.
If there is a problem with investigating misconduct at FEMA, AFGE
believes that the reason is the overabundance of ``at-will'' employees.
These workers have not been hired competitively. Their backgrounds,
skills, and qualifications have not been rigorously tested. And it
seems as though they receive neither adequate training nor adequate
supervision. Most important from the standpoint of the concerns about
integrity addressed in the GAO report, because they lack the protection
of a union contract and the right to appeal adverse actions such
suspensions and terminations, their ``whistleblower'' protections are
entirely pro forma and thus ineffective.
Corruption is an ever-present danger when the Government is
providing assistance after a disaster. There are cash transfers, direct
provision of goods and services, and procurement decisions that are all
occasions for those who either don't have clear policy and supervision,
or are vulnerable to pressure from corrupt supervisors or managers to
engage in misappropriation. FEMA is the last agency that should be
staffed by an at-will work force with no collective bargaining rights
and no avenue of appeal for adverse actions by managers. There should
be no surprise that there are allegations of impropriety among a work
force that is so much at the mercy of managers.
If this subcommittee is truly interested in providing the public
with well-trained, qualified, and accountable emergency workers, then
the current practice of hiring Reservists and CORE employees ``at
will'' should end. Rather the entire emergency work force at FEMA
should be hired under Title 5 authorities. This will ensure they are
properly vetted, trained, and disciplined, and protect the public from
potential financial or political corruption.
Mr. Estes. Thank you, Ms. Simon. Now the Chair recognizes
himself for 5 minutes of questioning. I mean, do you believe
that having the documented misconduct policies and procedures
for all FEMA work force categories would help improve the
perception that FEMA is being able to treat their cases
adequately and equally?
Ms. Simon. Yes, but when there is an at-will work force
there is no need to use any procedures. People can just be
fired for not toeing the line.
Mr. Estes. But if we had--are you thinking that adequate or
consistent policies couldn't address some of that, even if you
had a policy for the at-will work force--hired under the
Stafford Act versus other under Title 5?
Ms. Simon. Well, the Government has access to a system that
is demonstrably working. That is the systems that are described
in Title 5. That is why I have argued that the procedures in
Title 5 should be applied to the entire FEMA work force,
particularly emergency workers.
Not particularly necessarily, but to all workers, and that
is the best protection for the public that is put in a
situation involving an emergency.
Mr. Estes. Part of my questions around that centers around,
I mean, in my past life as State treasurer, I had both
employees that were under the Classified as well as non-
Classified positions.
I think we were able to effectively make that work for both
classifications of employees, even though there were actually
technically some different criteria in how you worked with
them. But, you know, having good management practices seemed to
address some of those things.
Ms. Simon. Well, of course, if you don't have--where
management is not corrupt you don't have this problem. But what
our responsibility is to protect the public from the potential
of corruption.
Mr. Estes. Another question is, I mean, FEMA recently has
been using the comparators spreadsheet to determine the range
of disciplinary actions and table of offenses. Due to some of
the personal information maintained on that, only certain
management were able to see that spreadsheet.
Do you think it would be beneficial for the entire FEMA
work force to have better transparency in terms of the range of
offenses and penalties?
Ms. Simon. Well, I think that this question of using the
comparators as opposed to a table of penalties is complex and
there are arguments on both sides. On the one hand, a table of
penalties in theory provides consistency.
But you raised the questions with privacy and, you know,
having the comparators of what kinds of discipline have
actually been applied in similar situations might in theory
produce even more consistency than a table of penalties that
gives you a range of possibilities.
I think that is why there was a move from the table of
penalties to the comparators. Personally, I come down on the
side of the table of penalties.
Mr. Estes. All right. Thank you.
I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Correa for 5
minutes of questioning.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Simon. first of all, welcome and thank you for being
here. As I listened to my colleagues and their testimony, I am
reminded that I am from southern California, Los Angeles,
Orange County. Back in the early 1990's I was actually there to
witness--I was part of that little earthquake that hit us and
stopped cold about 10 million people.
It was the first time in my life I actually thought I was
gonna die. It was a horrific situation and the aftermath was
quite something and seeing FEMA there. Again, I thank all of
you for being there at our most critical moment in our life.
The aftermath, all the stories of fake insurance companies
coming in, people trying to make a buck off other people's
disaster. The stories of corruption were countless.
You remind me when you talk about risk of corruption, part-
time employees, I imagine that these at-will employees that we
are talking about, are they employees that are essentially
brought in when you have a surge? Is that what it is?
Ms. Simon. Yes.
Mr. Correa. What I am hearing you say, and I don't want to
put any words in your mouth, is these are the folks that
probably need to be at the front lines in terms of having the
ability to blow the whistle when they see corruption happening
at the grassroots level.
Because it didn't do any of my neighbors and friends any
good to figure out that they were actually being duped a month
or two after their money had been taken away.
So I guess trying to follow up with the Chairman's line of
questioning with you is would you say then that you want to
bring in these temporary employees under collective bargaining
to give them the protection so they can call out the corruption
that either management or outside of FEMA during these, you
know, moments of crisis?
Ms. Simon. Absolutely, yes. A strong collective bargaining
agreement with protection against retaliation for blowing the
whistle is the best protection the public can have to make sure
that taxpayer dollars are being handled in a way that is
consistent with the public good.
We have data across the Government in every agency that
shows the whistleblowers who come forward with the strongest
protections are those covered by a collective bargaining
agreement. As you describe, disasters, intense disasters where
there is a lot of money floating around----
Mr. Correa. Money and chaos.
Ms. Simon. Money and chaos.
Mr. Correa. And hurt and pain.
Ms. Simon. That is a moment when you want to have the
strongest possible protections, especially for the front-line
employees, because it is inevitable that there will be pressure
placed upon then by those who are in that chain of possession
of the money and making decisions about distribution of the
money.
They need to be held to account. Those managers need to be
held to account. If the front-line employees are completely
subject to the whim of those who are supervising them, you have
got a recipe for corruption.
Mr. Correa. A follow-up question, I am very concerned with
some of the testimony from the prior panel and you as well,
this lack of trust at upper levels of management. Can you get
any more specific? Because, again, FEMA in my opinion, you are
front-line responders.
Your mission is an important one. I think morale has to be
the driving force. If you really love your job and your job is
to go into very, very terrible places, and so why is it that
you have lack of trust at the upper level and therefore low
morale? How do you fix that?
Ms. Simon. Well, I think there is a----
Mr. Correa. Speculate please.
Ms. Simon. It is hard. You know, I think that
Representative Rice was certainly on to something when she
discussed the attacks on the Federal work force. That certainly
lowers morale, not only in the Department of Homeland Security
and all its components, but across the Government.
When it comes to lack of trust, you know, I don't want to
have----
Mr. Correa. Do you feel you are attacked as a work force?
Ms. Simon. Certainly when it comes to the pay and benefits
and the quality of their work with threats to dismantle
programs and eliminate jobs, the questioning of the quality of
Federal employees' work constantly. Yes, we very much feel
under attack.
I think we see that in the Federal employee viewpoint
survey.
Mr. Correa. Very quickly, how does that translate to lack
of trust in upper management?
Ms. Simon. Well, there are two sort-of streams of upper
management: One is political appointees, another are career
managers. When political appointees follow the Federal, you
know, attack the Federal work force line, that is a problem.
You know, I think that there has been a lot of rhetoric in
this Congress about how we need to make it easier to fire a
Federal employee. Federal employees are always presumed to be
poor performers and somehow a drain on the taxpayer rather than
providing valuable services to the American public.
To the degree that, you know, managers continue to repeat
that rather than to praise the good work that Federal employees
do and express appreciation for how much they do with very,
very modest compensation, you have got a problem.
Mr. Correa. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Estes. Thank you, Ranking Member Correa.
I would now like to call on Mr. Higgins for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Simon. thank you for appearing before this
subcommittee, and thank you for your service to your Nation.
Ms. Simon. Thank you.
Mr. Higgins. Reading your testimony and listening to you
speak, you are an intelligent and passionate representative for
your cause, but is it your suggestion that the solution to the
problems at FEMA, including during disaster response, be they
man-made or natural, the solutions to the problems would be
that 100 percent of the employees of FEMA, full-time and part-
time, should be union employees?
Ms. Simon. Well, my testimony focused exclusively on the
subject of the GAO report that was published last week, not
the----
Mr. Higgins. You suggested that----
Ms. Simon [continuing]. Not the question of all of FEMA's
problems.
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. That the at-will employees, are
they union employees?
Ms. Simon. No, they are not.
Mr. Higgins. You are----
Ms. Simon. They are not covered by a collective bargaining
agreement.
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. You are suggesting that that they
should be union employees. They should be better trained and
under union control.
Ms. Simon. They----
Mr. Higgins. You specifically suggest that they need union
protections regarding their employment status and so that they
can be--their ``whistleblowing'' will be more effective.
Ms. Simon. Absolutely. A union contract as well as the
provisions of Title 5, civil service protection.
Mr. Higgins. So respectfully I ask you, if we staffed FEMA
with 100 percent response-capable employees at that level, that
were union employees, what would they do when they were not
responding to a disaster?
Ms. Simon. Oh, the union can represent workers who are
employed only in a surge capacity. The unions can certainly
represent temporary employees and term employees. You don't
have to be a full-time permanent employee in order to be
covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
Mr. Higgins. Intelligent response. I represent a south
Louisiana district. In August of last year our citizens
suffered what was referred to as epic flooding, 1,000-year
flooding with 56 inches of rain in just a couple of days.
The water management systems were overwhelmed. Rivers
overflowed their levees, et cetera. Tens of thousands, scores
of thousands of homes and businesses were flooded.
May I respectfully suggest to you to consider the fact that
during that flooding and immediate aftermath, before FEMA was
on the ground, a volunteer staff of thousands and thousands of
south Louisiana citizens, churches, volunteer groups, formed
what was called a Cajun Navy and a supply chain.
Tens of thousands of people were rescued from flooded homes
and rooftops. Hundreds of tons or perhaps thousands of tons of
food and clothing and shelter were distributed by volunteer
staff before FEMA was on the ground. Those guys are not
certainly union employees.
So would you please clarify for this subcommittee the
disparity of what I just described, an actual, effective,
practical response by real American citizens working for
themselves for free for their fellow citizen and had largely
addressed the emergency status of the flooding before FEMA was
on the ground?
Ms. Simon. I think volunteerism is wonderful, and it is
part of citizenship, and it is part of what any humane response
would be to a disaster. So I am very glad that the people of
your community were beneficiaries of volunteerism.
Mr. Higgins. Well, thank you for your response, ma'am.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Perry [presiding.] The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California,
Ms. Barragan.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am still trying to make the connection on how the
volunteers that came out ties into the GAO report which is what
we are here to hear about, the how to improve the situation at
FEMA.
When Hurricane Katrina hit, I was one of those volunteers.
I was a lawyer. I flew out to Biloxi, Mississippi to help
people file their insurance claims.
I did it because I had a certain skill that I think I could
provide and wanted to just help. I think that is a very
different situation than what I did in my full-time job or what
anybody would do in their full-time job. So I am also grateful
for the volunteers we have.
But in this situation, I think we have employees who are
working at FEMA and kind-of hearing your testimony today about
why you believe that the at-will relationships provides, I
guess, less protections and some hesitation, maybe, on the part
of employees to come forward.
As somebody who has actually served as an employment lawyer
before, I can understand this first-hand. As an employee I can
understand that as well when you are reluctant to kind-of come
forward.
I am interested in hearing a little bit more about if you
have testimonials from employees maybe that were at-will who
were hesitant to come forward because of that relationship? How
it would have--they may have come forward because if they had
some protection that they would have come forward?
Ms. Simon. Well, thank you for the question. I don't have
those kinds of testimonials and to my knowledge no one who is
part of the at-will work force at FEMA has come to AFGE asking
for assistance or advice.
We do get people who are in our bargaining units come to us
for legal advice and assistance when they are preparing to come
forward as whistleblowers. We, you know, we advise them,
especially in the context of retaliation, which happens more
often than anybody would like to believe----
Ms. Barragan. Yes.
Ms. Simon [continuing]. In Federal agencies. But we never
hear from--these are the people we never hear from. You know,
they become part of the statistics on termination.
Ms. Barragan. Right.
Ms. Simon. We don't know. We never get the story and we
never have an objective third party to hear the evidence----
Ms. Barragan. OK.
Ms. Simon [continuing]. That they would bring forward.
Ms. Barragan. The reason I ask was my sister happens to be
a Federal employee. She has actually come to me before with
stories of people who are at-will and saying, you know, people
want to come forward but they don't because they are concerned
about it.
I was just curious if you had heard any of those stories,
because I certainly have heard some of those and understand
what it means when you have those collective bargaining rights.
Having come from a labor household all my life, I have seen
first-hand what the difference could be when you are trying to
make sure to report some misconduct or in this case you know,
any issues of corruption that may be happening, especially
during a time of crisis.
Just to clarify, do you believe that the table of penalties
would be beneficial to the FEMA work force?
Ms. Simon. Before I answer that question, I would have to
see a lot more information than what was provided in the GAO
report. I, of course do not have access to the comparators. I
think that, you know, the question of privacy was raised with
regard to the comparators.
The question becomes, you know, to what degree does
management have discretion when there is a range of penalties
that can be applied in a certain situation. I am not sure that
the difference between the table of penalties and the
comparator system is as enormous as it might be, you know,
presumed to be.
But, you know, the discretion and the range is where you
get inconsistency. On the other hand, you know, just a cookbook
that gives absolutely no opportunity for, you know, mitigation
of penalties on the part of a supervisor to say, well, you
know, there were circumstances that justify a less harsh
penalty or, you know, the harshest penalty.
There is an argument to be made for the discretion, too,
but I haven't seen enough data to really give a good answer.
Ms. Barragan. OK. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
Mr. Simon, I regret and I apologize for not being here for
your testimony. That having been said, I just have a couple
questions for you, and I am hoping maybe they are germane to
what you know as opposed to the other witnesses.
According to GAO's report, OSCO, or the Office of Chief of
Security has not established an effective procedure to ensure
all cases referred to FEMA by DHS OIG are accounted for and
subsequently reviewed and addressed. Indeed, according to the
report there were some that were referred and then sent back
and then never adjudicated.
What is the effect on the employee population, if you know
from your experience, when these things go unaddressed, is the
best way to ask it? I mean, I guess. I mean, is there--does
anybody care? Is there an effect?
Because in my mind somebody probably either was wrongly
accused or wrongly got away with something, for lack of a
better way to put it. I imagine in any organization that has an
effect, but I just want to hear your thoughts on that?
Ms. Simon. Of course, I mean, I don't know anything about
specific cases. I can just speak generally to the question. Of
course, you know, everyone wants a Federal Government that is
run with the highest standards of integrity. No one wants to
tolerate corruption.
No one likes to see a manager or a low-level employee get
away with something that he or she should not get away with and
go unpunished. No one likes to see inconsistency.
So when there are cases that are not dealt with that are,
you know, swept under the carpet, of course, nobody is happy
about that. But I don't have any actual knowledge of specific
cases.
Mr. Perry. Do you think, do you view it--do employees view
it as corruption, incompetence, a broken system, too many
things going? Do you know how--well, how do people view that?
Ms. Simon. I can't really give you a clear answer because
the range of allegations is so broad. You know, allegations can
be lodged in all kinds of situations. Sometimes there is a
personality conflict. Sometimes, you know, sometimes there is
smoke sometimes and no fire and sometimes there really is an
issue.
So that is why it is so important, as I testified, to have
a procedure where an objective third party weighs evidence. We
don't have that for the reservist and CORE work force. There
they can simply be terminated with no consideration of
evidence.
Mr. Perry. Well, we are concerned on both sides of the
equation. We don't want people falsely accused, however, we
don't want things to go unadjudicated for the sake of the
taxpayer, for the sake of the employees, for the sake of the
agency and its reputation. All those things are important, and
I appreciate your insight.
Out of a curiosity that came to my mind during the previous
testimony and I didn't get to ask those folks, so I am gonna
ask you if you know? The volunteers, and I guess that is the
reserve force, right, that comes into place when there is a
disaster?
They come from other agencies of their own volition but
they cannot be disciplined by FEMA if they are found to have
done something incongruent with the codes of conduct and
standards, et cetera.
I am wondering if that has to do with an administrative
process, if you know? Or if that has to do with a collective
bargaining agreement that this employee might have with his
normal employer or her normal employer as opposed to the time
they are at FEMA?
From my standpoint as a military officer, when I would get
a soldier or a service member from another organization to work
in my organization, there was a status for that individual that
I knew or the unit that I knew either had tactical control so I
could order them to go do whatever I needed to do and their
owning or parent unit provided their logistics and their UCMJ,
the Code of Military Justice whatever, or they were what we
would call operational control.
I own them for the period of time. I write their
evaluation. I order them. I feed them. I clothe them. I
adjudicate, you know, if there is a problem.
So I am just wondering if, if you know, if this is an
administrative oversight or if there is a rationale or a
problem or a roadblock that has to do with collective
bargaining, multiple bargaining agreements or what have you. Do
you know?
Ms. Simon. Well, two things. I am not 100 percent certain,
but my recollection reading the GAO report, that segment of the
work force didn't have any kind of allegations of impropriety
or misconduct that had been adjudicated.
There were no--but the answer to your question is no, that
it is not the collective bargaining agreement, not at all. They
were, you know, sort-of on loan. This work force is on loan to
FEMA from other components, mostly of DHS. They are referred
back to their employing agency.
It is up to the agency. Remember, discipline is a
management responsibility. So if the employing agency doesn't
follow through and investigate and ultimately discipline, that
is not the fault of the collective bargaining agreement. That
is a management failure.
Mr. Perry. Well, I would agree with you unless there is
something that inhibits----
Ms. Simon. No.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. The management from----
Ms. Simon. Absolutely not.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. From taking action. I am well past
my time here, but I appreciate your input.
I think from an editorial standpoint I think it would be
hard as a manager to be able to exact discipline on somebody
that I didn't have jurisdiction over that could go back to
their parent agency, for lack of a better term, and claim
ignorance or what have you. Then that agency doesn't take any
action.
But I----
Ms. Simon. Well----
Mr. Perry [continuing]. I also accept, and because I don't
know whether these individuals had been involved in any of the
infractions. It is great if they haven't.
Ms. Simon. I think not.
Mr. Perry. But even so, I think it is important that there
is a system in place for instances because even though they are
volunteers and we appreciate their service and taking time away
from what they do, they are representing FEMA at a critical
time when all eyes are on FEMA.
So we must be ensured of their integrity and their work
ethic and everything that goes with that.
Ms. Simon. I agree with you. I think it probably should be
a--FEMA should have the opportunity to handle these issues.
Mr. Perry. I appreciate you being here. Thank you very
much.
The Chair thanks you, Ms. Simon, and all the witnesses for
their very valuable testimony and the Members for their
questions. Members may have some additional questions for the
witness, and we will ask you to respond as witnesses in
writing. Pursuant to committee rule VII(D), the hearing record
will remain open for 10 days.
Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]