- GSA Chief Seeks to Cut Budget For Audits - Incidents point to need for a chief privacy officer - OMB must sell e-gov to new 'in' party Patrice McDermott, Director OpenTheGovernment.org 202-332-OPEN (6736) www.openthegovernment.org - GSA CHIEF SEEKS TO CUT BUDGET FOR AUDITS - Contract Oversight Would Be Reduced http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101645.html By Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow Jr. Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, December 2, 2006; A01 The new chief of the U.S. General Services Administration is trying to limit the ability of the agency's inspector general to audit contracts for fraud or waste and has said oversight efforts are intimidating the workforce, according to government documents and interviews. GSA Administrator Lurita Alexis Doan, a Bush political appointee and former government contractor, has proposed cutting $5 million in spending on audits and shifting some responsibility for contract reviews to small, private audit contractors. Doan also has chided Inspector General Brian D. Miller for not going along with her attempts to streamline the agency's contracting efforts. In a private staff meeting Aug. 18, Doan said Miller's effort to examine contracts had "gone too far and is eroding the health of the organization," according to notes of the meeting written by an unidentified participant from the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The GSA is responsible for managing about $56 billion worth of contracts each year for the departments of Defense and Homeland Security and other agencies. Doan compared Miller and his staff to terrorists, according to a copy of the notes obtained by The Washington Post. "There are two kinds of terrorism in the US: the external kind; and, internally, the IGs have terrorized the Regional Administrators," Doan said, according to the notes. Through a spokesman, Doan said she respects the inspector general's role and is not doing anything to undercut his independence. She also denied that she had referred to Miller, a former terrorism prosecutor, or his staff as terrorists. [...] Doan, who was confirmed as administrator May 26, has publicly criticized Miller on other occasions. In her Nov. 10 annual report, Doan stated there was only one GSA manager unwilling to "confront programs and policies that had outlived their usefulness and were wasting taxpayer money." She later told Miller that she was referring to him, according to officials familiar with Doan's statement who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution. Doan also complained in the annual report that Miller was being "unsupportive of recent changes" and said vendors and government contracting officials had reported that his auditors and investigators were exerting "undue pressure." [...] Before joining the GSA in August 2005, Miller served as a federal prosecutor and worked on the government's case against al-Qaeda terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has written to Doan expressing his concerns. [...] The GSA inspector general's office's audits have helped the agency recover billions of dollars in recent years from flawed or fraudulent contracts. Some vendors and government workers have complained that the audits have made contracting more cumbersome than necessary. Soon after Doan was nominated to lead the GSA this spring, she promised outside vendors that she would make contracting with the agency much easier for both government bureaucrats and corporations. After she assumed the post, she began trimming the budget proposal of the inspector general's office. She wrote in her annual report that the office's budget and staff had "grown annually and substantially" in the past five years. Since 2000, the number of employees in the inspector general's office has grown from 297 to 309, according to the office. In August, a budget official in the inspector general's office described Doan's efforts to cut funding and to limit the number of audits as "unprecedented," according to an e-mail obtained by The Post. The official, John C. Lebo, said that "for the first time in memory, the Budget Office changed or deleted portions of our budget without notifying us prior to their changes." Lebo, who has since left the agency, said the changes were troubling. "The Administrator's Office wants to change the IG's overall approach from independently rooting out crime, fraud and abuse, to one in which the OIG is a team player working with GSA," he wrote. *** -INCIDENTS POINT TO NEED FOR A CHIEF PRIVACY OFFICER http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/42524-1.html By Charles E. Tompkins III GCN-National Defense University IT Leadership column Among the controversies the federal government faced this year, its handling of personal information continues to be front and center. Consider the following: On May 27, the Department of Veterans Affairs announced that personal data of up to 26.5 million veterans had been stolen. On May 11, USA Today broke the news that the National Security Agency has secretly been collecting telephone records of "tens of millions" of Americans. On March 27, the Los Angeles Times reported that an American Civil Liberties Union Freedom of Information Act inquiry revealed the FBI had been "gathering information on anti-war and environmental protesters and on activists who feed vegetarian meals to the homeless." An October 2006 report to the Government Reform Committee of the House of Representatives concluded: "Taken as a whole, the agency reports outline hundreds of instances of data breaches involving sensitive personal information since Jan. 1, 2003. . The number of individuals affected in each incident ranges from one to millions. However, in many cases, the agency does not know what information was lost or how many individuals potentially could be affected." Many instances, all leading to the same question: How can federal agencies assure citizens that their private information is protected appropriately and lawfully? Back in 2005, in a report to Congress on the implementation of the E-Government Act of 2002, the Office of Management and Budget released Memorandum 05-08, "Designation of Senior Agency Officials for Privacy." It directed agencies to appoint a senior official with "responsibility and accountability for ensuring the agency's implementation of information privacy protections, including full compliance with federal laws, regulations and policies relating to information privacy." But it's not working well. Continuing privacy-related news raises serious concerns about whether these privacy officers are sufficiently independent to be effective. Citizens are generally unaware of their rights under the federal Privacy Act and cannot hold agencies accountable. Protection offered from agencies appears to be weak in many instances. To achieve greater agency accountability and prevent privacy breaches, it is time to consider a federal chief privacy officer with independence and authority to protect citizens from unreasonable and unlawful intrusions upon their privacy. A good example of this position can be found just north of us in Canada. Its privacy commissioner, currently Jennifer Stoddart, serves for seven years, following approval by the Senate and House of Commons. The privacy commissioner is empowered by statute to investigate complaints arising under the Canadian Privacy Act. She may act upon receiving a complaint or on her own initiative, and she may compel testimony under oath, or demand documentation and other evidence. However, the powers granted to the Canadian privacy commissioner have been criticized as incomplete, as she may only offer findings and recommendations to the offending agency. In a 2006 opinion, H.J. Heinz Co. of Canada, Ltd v. Canada, the Canadian Supreme Court concluded that the privacy commissioner is "is of little help because with no power to make binding orders, she has no teeth." To avoid the same trap, a U.S. chief privacy officer would need greater strength in three aspects. First, the officer should come under jurisdiction of the Justice Department. This would give the position legal authority, resources and other "teeth." But to insure the position's independence, the officer should report directly to the appropriate committees of Congress. A good model for this arrangement might be the statutory protection afforded the director of operational testing and evaluation at the Defense Department. While he is on the staff of the secretary of Defense, he reports to Congress directly as well as to the secretary, who cannot change his reports. Second, the officer should have the power to issue orders enjoining a federal agency from taking actions he believes as the law until those actions could be considered by a court. Finally, the officer's authority should extend to national security systems, such as those that collect intelligence information. These systems are exempted from many aspects of federal information technology law, including the requirement that they develop privacy impact assessments. Charles Tompkins, a lawyer and former Defense Department program manager, teaches classes on privacy and information assurance law at the National Defense University's Information Resources Management College. The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Defense Department or any other department or agency of the federal government. *** - OMB MUST SELL E-GOV TO NEW 'IN' PARTY http://www.gcn.com/print/25_33/42612-1.html 11/20/06 By Rob Thormeyer Uncertainty hangs over how House Democrats will deal with ongoing IT issues If the White House couldn't sell e-government to its own party on the Hill, what chance will officials have now that the Democrats control Congress? Actually, according to industry observers and former government officials, it could be a pretty good chance. But the window of opportunity could be small, and open for only a short time. "It all depends on how much [the Democrats] want to play ball with the White House," said Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation of Washington. "I could see them being more supportive of e-government. ... Democrats have a stronger stake in making government work, they're the party of government, and they want it to work." But Atkinson and others say OMB has to demonstrate-now more than ever-that e-government programs will truly result in the efficiencies and cost savings they project. If not, agencies, with the end of the Bush administration looming, could dig in and wait for the next White House to pursue its management agenda, experts say. Competing signals [...] A former CIO under the Bush administration, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, agreed. "Agencies will feel empowered to drag their feet and wait for the administration to croak," the official said, adding that complying with the President's Management Agenda scorecard will not be a priority. One initial hurdle e-government faces is that it is not a top priority for the new Congress. With Democrats proposing an ambitious agenda focusing on the Iraq war, health care, homeland security and the 9/11 Commission reforms, and labor issues, e-government and other IT issues are not high on the list. "I think [Congress is] going to go after the war big time," the former CIO said. "The absence of thought about [IT issues] from Democrats leads me to think that their thoughts are somewhere else. IT and e-government just won't be a focus." For its part, OMB is optimistic. [...] While observers anticipate new Democratic committee leaders, such as expected House Government Reform Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), to be highly critical and suspicious of any White House initiative, they also note that much of the congressional opposition to e-government has come from the president's own party. This could provide OMB an intriguing opportunity to sell its agenda to a Democratic Congress that may have more support for such citizen-centric ideas, observers said. Atkinson and others noted that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) was one of the chief proponents of the E-Government Act of 2002 and was the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee when Congress passed the bill. He's projected to resume chairmanship of that committee. "I'd expect considerable continuity in the Senate if Lieberman takes over as chairman," IBM's Bruel said. "He's had a long-standing support for e-government." But while the transition could be smooth in the Senate, the House is another story. Current chairman Tom Davis (R-Va.), who ushered the e-government law through the House, has been one of the initiative's biggest and loudest champions, while Waxman, as ranking member, has been largely silent on IT issues, observers say. "I don't think IT will receive the same level of attention [in the House] as it did under Davis," the former CIO said. "I think Waxman's focus will turn more toward policy and less toward technology." In fact, this official said committee Democrats were not all that visible during hearings on technology and security issues. On the horizon Also due to change is the oversight of OMB's Financial Management Line of Business initiative, currently under Rep. Todd Platts (R-Ohio), chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Management, Finance and Accountability. The ranking member of the subcommittee is Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.). At this point, Waxman has not formulated an agenda for IT matters such as e-government and data security, a Government Reform Committee staff member said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, adding that the incoming chairman will work closely with Davis to address these concerns. Perhaps the only sure thing about the new Congress' IT agenda is that it will be some time before it's sorted out. The change in power means new committee chairmen, assignments and, perhaps, oversight responsibilities have to be named-all before any committee can hold its first hearing. [...] But for the first time under the Bush administration, Congress, not the White House, will likely be setting the direction. "It will be interesting to watch," said the former CIO. "I don't think the president is driving the agenda anymore."
Attachment:
image001.gif
Description: GIF image
Attachment:
image002.gif
Description: GIF image
Attachment:
image003.gif
Description: GIF image
