SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
MISMANAGEMENT ISSUES AT THE CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA AND PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTERS
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1997
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Terry Everett (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Everett, Buyer, Clyburn, and Mascara.
Also present: Representatives Bilirakis and Doyle.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN EVERETT
Mr. EVERETT (presiding). The hearing will come to order.
Good morning. This Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing is on mismanagement issues at Charleston, South Carolina and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Last year Congressman Sanford requested that the VA's Office of Inspector General conduct an investigation into a VA employee's complaint that he had received about mismanagement in Charleston. Earlier this year, Mr. Bilirakis of the full committee requested hearings on both sexual harassment and mismanagement in the Virginia VA facility.
Mr. Sanford joined the call for a hearing with respect to Charleston. Senator Specter, chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, requested for the other IG investigation and report concerning mismanagement issues at Pittsburgh which had come to his attention. We appreciate his commitment to good government as well.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Four panels of witnesses will testify today. First, Congressman Sanford will make a statement. Then we'll hear testimony of two employees with Charleston. We will hear the testimony of the Deputy Inspector General on the IG's findings and recommendations. Finally, we will hear the testimony of two hospital directors involved in these matters, as well as testimony of the new chief network officer of the entire VA medical tier system.
I, frankly, am disturbed that two of the individuals in Charleston who were invited to testify today declined to come and give public testimony because of fear of reprisal and adverse consequences. This alone is a sad commentary on the state of affairs surrounding the medical center even now.
These two hospital directors are in the hot seat. They are here voluntarily, not under subpoena. The allegations of mismanagement are basically directed at them or the mismanagement alleged occurred on their watch. Our objective is to stick to the facts and what happened. We do not want to hear any rumors. We will ask the directors some hard questions, and we will ask about employees' perceptions of management, conduct, and leadership because this is highly relevant.
That's what the hearing is about—good government and accountability. I have stated my concerns before about the culture problems of the VA, where there seems to be a pattern of tolerance for mismanagement and misconduct by senior officials. The VA has a longstanding and well-deserved reputation for transferring problem managers without doing anything about them. This subcommittee, during this session, has already had two hearings on sexual harassment in the VA involving senior managers. Today's hearing shifts focus somewhat to wasteful spending of taxpayers' dollars, but the culture problems are still abundantly evident, and the VA must come to grips with institutional harassment, favoritism, and reprisal.
Oh, I know that we'll hear that the amounts of money in these situations before us today are relatively small in the big scheme of things, but I think this misses the point entirely. This is about paying attention to public business and responsibilities of public service. Nowhere is that more important than when we are talking about the part of government that's supposed to be meeting the Nation's obligations to our veterans. We want the public to also judge whether $26,000 fish tank for a hospital lobby or a $1,400-a-day consultant and $500 faucets for a hospital director's residence rivals the $600 hammers and $1,200 toilet seats at the Department of Defense. They certainly raise my temperature more than just a few degrees.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'm offended by what the IG has found, and this subcommittee will continue to have these hearings, if need be, to expose mismanagement and waste and to impress upon the VA that it must change its ways. In the past few months, I have seen evidence that there is some change beginning. I hope it will continue, but, frankly, I'm still skeptical about it. We are looking at a culture in the VA of mismanagement. We're looking at a culture that seems to defy oversight. We're looking at a culture that protects the good old boy system, and I intend to see that stopped, if possible.
At this time I'd like to recognize my very able ranking member of this committee, Mr. Jim Clyburn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very kindly for recognizing me.
I would also like to welcome Mark Sanford to our subcommittee and thank him for his willingness to participate in today's hearing. As some of you may know, Mark and I represent the Congressional District that splits Charleston, and I appreciate his concerns for VA employees and veterans in Charleston and the surrounding areas.
Before I continue my statement, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that up on the wall here to our left is a portrait of William Jennings Van Dorn, who chaired this committee and was one of the best personal friends that I have, and the VA hospital in Columbia is named for him.
I also want to point out, because I looked through some of the statements, and there's a reference in one of the statements to something that hangs in the lobby of the VA Medical Center in Charleston. I want point out that that hospital is the Ralph H. Johnson Medical Center. It's named for a young man who gave his life in Vietnam. His portrait hangs in the lobby, and I notice by everybody's testimony that they don't give due deference to that. So throughout my statement I will refer to it as the Ralph H. Johnson Medical Center.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm reminded today of Winston Churchill's admonition that, if we open a quarrel between our past and our present, we may find that we have lost the future. Now I'm aware that Mr. Churchill's concern was for issues much more global than those that bring us here today, but as this subcommittee's ranking Democrat and as a Member of Congress who represents many of the veterans and VA employees who are served by, or work at, the Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, I am both encouraged and saddened that this subcommittee is hearing testimony concerning the troubling and allegations of past mismanagement and poor decisionmaking at the Charleston facility.
Now I emphasize past not only because of Mr. Churchill's admonition, but also because I hear the present director, Mr. John Vogel, has moved decisively to address and correct the problems that have been identified, and I am encouraged by that. But I am saddened that the problems at my hometown facility have been so severe as to warrant the attention they will be receiving here today, and I am hopeful that our subcommittee's careful scrutiny will help to ensure that similar allegations of mismanagement do not resurface at the Ralph H. Johnson facility or anywhere else.
I would also like to personally thank and salute two courageous VA employees who voluntarily agreed to make the trip from South Carolina to provide testimony this morning. By virtue of their willingness to appear before us, Phil Truesdell and Kate Smith are public servants in the truest sense of the word.
Now, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I may not be able to hear in person all of the testimony from the panels because of other committee responsibilities this morning relating to the serious problem of sexual harassment which we've dealt with here, but seems to have cropped up in another committee as well. And so I am looking forward to reading the testimony from the other panels, and I'm hopeful that today's hearings will help quicken the pace of positive change in the VA workplace, not only at the Charleston Ralph H. Johnson facility, but throughout the VA as well.
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you very much, Jim.
At this time I'll recognize Mr. Buyer for any statements he may have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE BUYER
Mr. BUYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to be brief.
Actually, what I have today is to announce something that I'm not very pleased to announce, and that is I'm going to send a letter over to Arlen Specter, and what I'm going to ask the chairman is that I have very serious reservations over the nomination of Hershel Gober as the position of Secretary of the Veterans Affairs, and I'm going to send him over my reservations that he should not be named as Secretary of the VA.
I've gone over part of the file here today. I'm very concerned, and I take to heart the comments of my colleague from Charleston, both of them, I'm sure, and I look forward to your testimony.
But Mr. Gober, as the former Deputy Secretary of the VA, Mr. Gober presided as second in command over a structure whose mismanagement is only now coming fully into scope. His complacency as Deputy Secretary, and more importantly, the failure to bring these mismanagement issues to light, leaves me limited room for confidence in his fitness for Secretary of the VA.
Second, the gross mismanagement of the Secretariat is about to be eclipsed by all these recent revelations on sexual harassment that have shown signs of permeating the VA management structure to include the culture. It's a cancer that seems to be eating away at the infrastructure of the country's second-largest agency.
Finally, to exacerbate these conditions, it is truly very concerning to me, and that is that the most influential oversight medium available to the agency was the Office of the General Counsel, that was headed then by the Acting Secretary Spouse. It has been very disturbing to me that many of the allegations of sexual misconduct, that it was the agency themselves that took the victims of sexual harassment and further victimized them. And so when you had the Office of General Counsel there that should have stepped forward, instead of protecting the victims who are subject to the hostile working environment, they, in turn, became victimized because she sought to protect the agency herself, and that being her husband and the former Secretariat.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I look forward to further testimony here today, and I appreciate the leadership of the ranking member and the chairman, and it is with sad commentary I give these comments today.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Buyer.
Now, Mr. Mascara, any comments you may have?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK MASCARA
Mr. MASCARA. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to you.
I think it is important that we are holding this hearing to examine VA management practices at the VA Medical Centers in Charleston, SC and the VA Medical Center in Pittsburgh, PA. I am anxious to hear the explanation of those involved in the alleged mismanagement at these two facilities.
Over the past several evenings I have read over the testimony that is going to be presented, and I must say I found it to be very disturbing. Is no one overseeing the day-to-day operations of VA facilities?
Before coming to Congress, I was Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners in Washington County, Pennsylvania. We had various construction and remodeling projects working all the time and someone was always in charge—approving design changes, approving the bills, making sure the project was on time, if possible. While no large construction project is completed without its problems, I was amazed at the lack of coordination and miscommunication among the agencies, especially between the Real Property Management Office, RPMO, and the Pittsburgh facility. I think the problem in both of the cases we will discuss today is that the decisionmaking was not centralized.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the case of Mr. Cappello, it appears he relied entirely too much upon the RPMO for instruction and advice. Couldn't the advice regarding the rules and regulations be verified? I hope today's testimony will shed some light on these very serious allegations. Someone in the VA should be held culpable and accountable for the gross mismanagement demonstrated at these VA facilities.
It should be noted for the record that the Pittsburgh renovation occurred in 1994, many months before the new Veterans Integrated Service Networks were established. I hope what we are discussing here today regarding mismanagement is not a microcosm of a systemwide breakdown in operations of our facilities. The point is that I fear we could probably look at any VA facility across the country and find examples of similar mismanagement difficulties. I hope that that's not the case.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we can all work together to see that the Secretary initiates the kind of systemwide changes that are obviously needed to ensure our precious VA budget dollars are spent wisely and for their intended purposes, serving those who fought for their country. Again, I look forward to the testimony, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you very much. I think my colleague has certainly made a good point, that someone somewhere should be held accountable. That does not seem to be the case.
Also with us today we have two members of our full committee, Mr. Bilirakis for Florida and Mr. Doyle. Mr. Bilirakis, would you have a comment at this time?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE SATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. BILIRAKIS. I do, Mr. Chairman, and, first, I also want to thank you for scheduling this hearing, and also thank you for allowing me the opportunity to participate even though I'm not a member of the subcommittee.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On February the 23rd, earlier this year, a paper in my district ran an article with the headline, ''Big-Spending VA Officials Retain Top Jobs, Salaries,'' This article reported that top VA officials have routinely misspent taxpayers' dollars and mishandled personnel. However, what is even more disturbing—and others, of course, obviously have mentioned this—is that the VA's procedure for handling these employees seems to be to simply transfer them to other positions within the Department. Many times these employees are given promotions and pay raises in the process.
My constituents, and veterans in particular, were outraged that a medical center director who spent $26,000 on a fish tank could end up with a promotion and a raise of almost $5,000. The same employee hired a $1,200-a-day management consultant which the VA paid $87,750 in 1995 and $90,117 in 1996. According to the Inspector General's report, this consultant worked 4 days each month.
In another case, a medical center director spent $201,000 to renovate the director's residence on the VA's grounds. This renovation project exceeded its budget by $79,000, and included faucets that cost $500 and a $2,200 whirlpool bathtub with a shower. The Inspector General concluded that this medical center director was personally responsible for reviewing the interior renovation project, which cost the government $168,000. The IG found that the Pittsburgh Medical Center wasted scarce medical care funds for the project, but the VA promoted the medical center director.
For years, Mr. Chairman, veterans in Florida—and forgive me for being a little parochial in this regard—but they've been turned away from VA medical facilities because the Department lacks sufficient resources to treat them, and we can only imagine, I guess, how a veteran who has been denied care at a VA medical facility must have felt when he read that the VA spent $26,000 on a fish tank and $500 for faucets.
And what baffles me, is the VA's response to this type of mismanagement, rather than discipline managers who violate regulations or mismanage their facilities, the VA just transfers them to another position and rewards them with a pay raise.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I have more here and I would unanimous consent that it be made a part of the record.
I guess I would maybe make the same comment that I made when we talked about sexual harassment. That is the concern that we have a pretty darned good health care system in general, but then if you're a veteran—and some of us are—and you read about all these things, you start to maybe develop a little bit of a doubt in your mind: Are all the dollars being spent as well as they should be and as intelligently as they should be, and is the VA really doing everything they possibly can on behalf of the veteran? And I think that's the bottom-line concern that I have. We've got to get to the bottom of all these things, but more than anything else, we've got to raise the credibility of our veteran in our VA health care facilities.
Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you for your statement. I've said on a number of occasions that the VA has a real credibility problem.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes.
Mr. EVERETT. We must solve that.
Mr. Doyle.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by thanking you and Ranking Member Clyburn for giving me the opportunity to participate in this hearing. Although I'm not a member of this subcommittee, I have an interest in one of the cases being presented here today.
The director's residence that was renovated at the Pittsburgh University Drive VA Medical Center is located on the Aspinall campus of that facility, which is in my Congressional District. Mr. Chairman, I'm familiar with this case, probably more so than any member in this room, with the possible exception of my colleague, Frank Mascara, who also represents a District in the Pittsburgh area.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The renovation project under scrutiny here today was initiated in 1994. Responding to a complaint passed on by a Congressional office, the Inspector General investigated this incident. The report issued in January of this year is the document that has formed the basis for today's inquiry into the Pittsburgh renovation.
Following the IG report, the Pittsburgh media revealed the details of this renovation project to the residents of my area, and for some time after the information was reported this project received considerable attention in Pittsburgh. Since that time, however, corrections in management policies have been made at the Pittsburgh VA and our community, working with the VA, has moved on to tackle other issues involved with providing health care to our veterans.
Clearly, there is little doubt that the renovation of the director's residence was mismanaged. Frankly, I am disappointed that so many oversights could have been made at multiple levels of VA management that would result in an outcome like the one detailed in this report.
For many of my constituents, the VA health care system is their only source of medical care, and it should concern all members on this committee and all veterans when that care is sacrificed due to poor management. I do think it is important to note, however, that the IG report details not only the mistakes made during the project, but it also included recommendations for management changes within the Pittsburgh facilities designed to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future. I have been assured, and progress reports issued by the IG have acknowledged, that recommendations have been followed.
What concerns me today, Mr. Chairman, is that this incident not tarnish the reputation of the Pittsburgh VA health care system in general or overshadow the positive accomplishments of its management staff, including Mr. Cappello. I've toured the VA Medical Centers in Pittsburgh many times, and because of my membership on this committee and the Health Subcommittee, I constantly hear from veterans in my district about the quality of medical care they are receiving today from the VA. While I may not agree with all the changes taking place at the VISN or the facility level in my district, the management staff in Pittsburgh have made a number of positive changes to improve the quality of health care being provided to the veterans in our area. Furthermore, they have accomplished this in a very poor budgetary climate and during a time when the entire VA health care system is undergoing drastic reorganization.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I agree that this subcommittee should be looking into areas of mismanagement in the VA. Our goal here today should be to ensure that the VA is putting policies in place that will eliminate the possibility of similar events like this occurring in the future. It is this action that can best serve the interest of our Nation's veterans.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the subcommittee giving me some time this morning to read my opening statement and look forward to hearing the testimony today.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Doyle.
I might point out to those attending this hearing today that the targets of allegations of mismanagement are people who are making three-digit salaries. We're talking about somebody who should be competent, and we keep seeing over and over again that this is not the case. The subcommittee has seen a number of cases where the directors involved simply were not competent to hold the job that they held. I'm sorry, six-digit salaries—not three-digit salaries, but six-digit salaries.
All statements will be entered into the record, and I would ask each witness to limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes. As I said, your complete written statement will be made a part of the official hearing record today. I ask that we hold our questions until the entire panel testifies. Because of the nature of some of today's testimony, I decided to have the witness panels with direct knowledge of events or investigative activities testify under oath.
I'd now like to recognize our colleague, Mark Sanford, and, Mark, I appreciate you listening—being here today and appearing here today. Mark represents South Carolina's First District, and now we will be pleased to hear your statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHALL ''MARK'' SANFORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SANFORD. Thank you, sir, and as you already suggested, both written and oral testimony will be submitted for the record. That's my understanding.
Mr. EVERETT. Yes. Without objection.
Mr. SANFORD. (A) I would just thank you very much again for holding these hearings. I appreciate that.
And, too, I would I guess pick up with what my colleague from Charleston and South Carolina said. I admire Jim Clyburn in the way that he is very measured in the way that he approaches things, and he raises a great point on: Where do we go from here? Because you can spend too much of life looking backward rather than looking forward, and yet what's interesting—and I think I'd just make two points—is that in going forward, at times we have to look back. Because if I was to ask you, Mr. Chairman, you know, is history a good thing or a bad thing, you would probably reply, well, it's neither; history is history. The question about history is: What do you do with it? What do you do about it?
In fact, we work in a city that is covered with memorials, and those memorials are not there just to take up real estate. They are there to remind us, so that we might change our lives on where we go from here, both to remind us of good points in history and to remind us of points in history that are not worth repeating.
And, in fact, in Charleston, you know, we've got Holocaust survivors, some of whom have made it their life's mission for the rest of their lives to go out into classrooms and to say: This was history; I was there, and this is what I saw. And, yet, the modern American way, if you will, is just the opposite. People at times don't want to get involved, and they say, well, I'll just look the other way because to get involved would take time; it might get messy. And, yet, Jefferson, 200 years ago, said that absolute opposite. He said that a democracy rests on the active participation of its citizens, not the passive, but the active participation of its citizens.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And so in that regard, I would simply like to praise Fletcher Truesdell and Kate Smith and Charlie Steiner, who's here but not testifying, and a host of other Veterans' employees for setting forward and saying: This is history and this is what I saw. Because too often people today won't get involved.
I would also just make one other comment, and that is that I would ask you to do something with this history. I think we can learn from history. And the points that my colleague from Florida raised on, if nothing else, the advancement process within the Veterans' Administration, wherein there can be serious charges of wrongdoing, substantiated by an IG report, wherein the only outcome seems to be advancement of that person. It just doesn't seem to pass the common-sense test back home.
And so I would simply leave you with the one request that I hear from folks back home, and that is, please do something with this piece of history. I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Sanford appears on p. 163.]
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you very much, Mark. I would also say it does not pass the smell test as well as the common-sense test.
Mr. SANFORD. Yes.
Mr. EVERETT. And as we have these hearings, we get deeper and deeper into that. Obviously, history is important. Our obligation is to understand history and then take some action on it that would benefit our veterans.
Your personal efforts and the interest in behalf of the veterans and employees of the Charleston VA Medical Center are a principal reason we're having this hearing today, and I want to commend you for your work that you've put forth. I'm pleased that you could be with us to give the subcommittee the benefit of your views about what's happening in Charleston, which I understand serves many of your constituents.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me ask you: How was employee morale and the personnel picture generally when Mr. Billik was Director, and how are things going now?
Mr. SANFORD. I think, as Jim Clyburn pointed out, morale ahs gone up substantially here lately with Mr. Vogel. What happened at that time—again, what happened, if you were to reconstruct history, was that a number of these employees—morale went up slightly when Mr. Billik first came onboard. Then it began to dip, and we began to get—apparently, a number of the employees placed calls to the Veterans' Administration Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Hotline, or whatever it was. They didn't seem to get much in the way of response, and then they began calling my office and I would suppose Mr. Clyburn's office as well. And morale began to dip very substantially at that point, and, frankly, it was very, very low.
Mr. EVERETT. What do you feel like this committee can do to help you in this situation? Your previous comment about doing something with the testimony we get here today——
Mr. SANFORD. If you think about the mandate of the Veterans' hospital system, I think it's to serve those who served. And what's being called into question, the thing that's being wondered about by both the employees and those being served within the system, is: How efficiently is it doing that? Because of you think about priorities, businesses have priorities; individuals have priorities, and the thing that people kept wondering about, when they began to see fish tanks or when they began to see nursing home units that were opened—or built but never opened, or these consultant fees—were priorities. In other words, were the veterans, in fact, the priorities or was cronyism the priority?
And so I would simply say what would help the most to both the morale of the institution and to the veterans that it serves is for there to be a very clear-cut set of priorities on how money is spent within the veterans' system and, two, how people are advanced within the veterans' system.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. EVERETT. What are you hearing from your constituents about the quality and timeliness of the health care there now?
Mr. SANFORD. You know, again, as I've indicated, I think that the morale is up from where it was. The question I think still continues to be, given the amount of money that goes into the veterans' system, to an extent what the veterans expect is, if not Cadillac care, something close to Cadillac care, and what they feel like is that they're not getting that level of care commensurate with the amount of money that's going into the system.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you very much. Mr. Clyburn.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congressman Sanford, I don't know that I have any questions. Let me, as I said before, thank you for being here today and for your work on this subject. But let me dwell a little bit on history. As you know, in my other life, I served a tenure as a history teacher. I don't think there's anybody in this Congress who loves history any more than I do. But I think it's one thing for us to look back and learn from our history; it's something else to dwell on the past——
Mr. SANFORD. Sure.
Mr. CLYBURN (continuing). And open up all kinds of contentiousness that may or may not do us any real good as we try to launch off into the future.
Now one of the reasons I never raised a public discussion of what was going on, the allegations at the VA, was because, as some people know, my wife retired after 29 1/2 years as a librarian in the VA system, and she spent her time at the VA in Van Dorn. She'd never spent any time at this facility. But we were getting a lot of phone calls from her friends in the service at home, and I never spoke out publicly about it because of that bit of history. I didn't want anybody to feel that our involvement had more to do with my wife's experiences than what was really going on. And so I admire the fact that you went public and raised those issues to the point that the public could become cognizant of them.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One last thing I want to say about this: The reason I raised the issue this morning about the Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center is because Monday of last week I spent the day at Courtney School in Charleston, a school that Ralph H. Johnson attended. And the reason I was spending the day at that school is because a gentleman went to a Black History Month Program last February, and he saw all these discussions about people, black people, in the Charleston area. This gentleman had been in Vietnam, and he knew Ralph had lost his life in Vietnam by saving the lives of scores of people around him, and had received the Congressional Medal of Honor, and there was no mention of it. And he thought there was something wrong with that. And so we got involved, and we were having a little essay contest at Courtney School, asking all the students in that school to write about Ralph H. Johnson and what his life and legacy mean to them today, and so that kind of history is important, and we have to deal with it. And I agree with you.
But I also ask us to take into account what Mike Doyle here has said today about what has taken place in Pittsburgh, because I have talked with people at the headquarters here at the VA, and these are people who have worked with Mr. Vogel. I have talked to veterans in the Charleston area, and they tell me, as you have said, that what is taking place at that facility today is just great. I have not heard one person complain. Now this is not to say there aren't any people complaining, and maybe they are complaining somewhere else, but all that I hear today seems to be positive.
And I've visited the facility recently, and you can feel it when you walk into the lobby, the difference in the aura there. It's different today than it was a couple of years ago. And we're talking about things that happened 4 and 5 years ago. Somebody reading the headlines tomorrow morning will think it happened yesterday. And so I think we need to be very, very careful with that.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you very much, Jim.
Any other member wish to have any questions?
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[No response.]
Mark, thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.
Mr. SANFORD. Thank you, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. I will now ask panel two to please be seated.
Will the panel please rise and raise your right hand and repeat after me.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Thank you. Please be seated.
I believe we'll begin with you, Mr. Truesdell. Would you please describe your job at the Charleston VA Medical Center?
TESTIMONY OF FLETCHER P. TRUESDELL, CHARLESTON VA MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEE, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY KATE IRENE SMITH, RN, CHARLESTON VA MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEE, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
TESTIMONY OF FLETCHER P. TRUESDELL
Mr. TRUESDELL. I am the full-time National Association of Government Employees president, and I'm also in engineering. I'm a utility systems operator.
Mr. EVERETT. We would be pleased to hear your testimony now.
Mr. TRUESDELL. Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Congressional committee. Thank you for granting me this opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Fletcher P. Truesdell. I am a disabled veteran, and the president of the National Association of Government Employees, local R51–36, representing approximately 700 employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Charleston, SC. My total commitment is to the American veterans and the employees who care for them. My testimony is filled with emotion and concern. There is no way to impart to you in 5 minutes everything needed to be told today.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Billik was blatant in his mismanagement and abuse of power. The system routinely transferred directors like him out of trouble, leaving behind other top management officials who continued the same management offenses. They are left in place to wreak havoc on the employees who complained of the waste, fraud, and abuse until a ''don't-rock-the-boat mentality'' cloaks all in fear of reprisal and retribution. We have many dedicated and excellent employees remaining at the VA Medical Center in Charleston. We do not want to lose any more due to the poor treatment they are receiving.
Mr. Billik arrived at Charleston VA Medical Center January 1992 as the Director and was assigned as Acting Director in Columbia, SC. Soon after his arrival, his entourage from Texas began arriving. He had hired and promoted his friends without competition and placed them in positions held by long-time employees. He further abused the system by giving these friends raises at the same time he was announcing hiring freezes, possible contracting-out of services, layoffs, RIFs, and cutbacks due to reduction in Federal funding. All this was done while creating a $2.9 million deficit.
During an employee forum on June 11, 1996, when asked about the opening of the 38-bed nursing health care unit, Mr. Billik stated that President and Mrs. Clinton health care reform had changed health care overnight, and that the unit would not open. At another forum, Mr. Billik stated that he was not in the nursing home business. Gentlemen, who did he think he was fooling. The funded nursing care unit has not opened to this day.
The following actions have taken place since Mr. Billik's arrival in Charleston:
A management official informed me that one quality management employee had been demoted and another chose to leave under duress when a management consultant was hired by Mr. Billik for the VA Medical Centers in Charleston and Columbia, SC to perform tasks normally handled by the Director and the QM staff. This consultant was paid $1,200 a day through medical funds.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Billik hired an interior decorator at a time when the hospital was in a deficit. Costly items ordered for the decorated areas are now elsewhere or missing.
Mr. Billik remodeled the Director's suite and the carpeting was laid twice.
During this excessive spending, essential hospital equipment and material was unobtainable due to lack of funds. During a shortage of supplies a nurse supervisor stated, ''We should take one of those fish and sell it to buy paper for the copying machine.'' Yes, it was that bad.
Under Mr. Billik's management, we experienced $3 million deficit while patient care projects were put on hold. This VA Medical Center received these funds. Where did they go? Will this be investigated? OSHA cited this hospital with willful safety violations such as the absence of hepa filters and unsafe exterior railings, placing patients and employees in unnecessary danger. The corrective measures were disregarded.
There was an escalation of complaints from employees in all areas. Simple complaints that could have been easily resolved ballooned into major issues due to management's refusal to acknowledge and accept responsibility for the problem.
Mr. Billik and his managers have a propensity to play the ''is/is not'' game. It is known that correspondence regarding this man was mailed to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs voicing a variety of concerns about the hospital. The Secretary apparently did not turn this over to the Inspector General for inquiry or investigation. Instead, he forwarded the concern to Mr. Billik, who in turn called the employee into his office and confronted her. There are many more cases of employees suffering the consequence of utilizing the confidential IG hotline. How can stamp out the waste, fraud, and abuse if no one feels safe to speak out? This same scenario is true in reporting harassment of any sort. We are told to go up the chain of command. In most cases the guilty party is in the chain or a pal of someone in the chain.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I thank you for you time, and I look forward to possible solutions to this problem. Gentlemen, I am at your service at any time. Additional example follow, and more information is available upon request.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Truesdell appears on p. 165.]
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Mr. Truesdell.
Ms. Smith, would you describe your job at the hospital?
TESTIMONY OF KATE IRENE SMITH
Ms. SMITH. I'm a registered nurse, and 75 percent of my workday is in my department, Mental Health, and 25 percent is as the president of the RN union.
Mr. EVERETT. We'd be pleased to have your testimony.
Ms. SMITH. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. I appreciate the invitation to come here today and give testimony before you.
My name is Kate Irene Smith. I am a registered nurse, a veteran, and the president of the National Association of Government Employees, local R–5–150, at the Ralph H. Johnson Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Charleston, SC.
This is a professional unit representing title 38 registered nurses, and the testimony I gave is in our collective behalf. A statement made by our national president, Kenneth T. Lyons, is begin included in today's hearing.
The focus of this testimony is on the alleged mismanagement at the Charleston VA Medical Center, as investigated by the Office of the Inspector General. There is no question that over a lengthy recurring period of misspending and mismanagement a negative impact was felt by the nurses in our medical center. Limited to 5 minutes, I cannot bring all the issues forward, so I will concentrate on those that are of greatest concern to our nurses.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
During Mr. Dean Billik's directorship in Charleston, we faced ongoing problems and adverse working conditions. We were daily faced with critical shortages in nursing staff, threats of downsizing, and reductions in force, commonly called RIFs. Many resigned under duress, and a hiring freeze compounded our problem.
Additionally, under Mr. Billik, we witnessed a money management style that left each nurse with continued cutbacks in salary. The subsequent reassignment and promotion with accompanying pay raise of Mr. Billik is something that the nurses in Charleston still ponder.
Mr. Billik explained to us, and I quote, ''During lean times, raises and bonuses are not part of the job, and employees should not even expect them.'' It is a matter of record that during the same lean times Mr. Billik rewarded his staff, those who followed him to Charleston or were formerly acquainted, with promotion and salary advance.
During periods of critical nursing shortages in nursing staff, daily staffing adjustments were made. Nurses with specialized advanced training, competency, and certification in one area of nursing were assigned with lack of orientation or cross-training to areas of total unfamiliarity. This hardly fits the picture of the best patient care possible with efficiency and effectiveness. Mr. Billik denied this to the local media, that this was occurring, but in fact I was an eye witness and a forced participant in the management practice.
Currently, title 38 registered nurses are dependent on the annual salary survey conducted under the Nurse Pay Bill Act and other regulations for pay adjustments in pay or shift differentials. This survey is conducted exclusively by management and did little to nothing to keep the nurses in Charleston compensated for their dedicated care to our veterans.
In a memorandum dated March 31, 1994, Mr. Billik addressed the, and I quote, ''significant impact that the reduction in differential pay would have on nurses.'' One salary survey resulted in the average pay scale nurse getting an increase of $1 a week. We experienced continual downward adjustments.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In another memorandum dated 8 April 1996, Mr. Billik again reduced night and evening differential, citing, and I quote, ''Severe budgetary restrictions.'' He further explained, because of the current budgetary restrictions, a more gradual reduction will not be feasible.
We did have a large deficit variously reported between $2.8 and $3 million. Our lack of advancement was hard to accept in the face of what we knew was happening at the medical center. Mr. Billik's reorganization was thorough in promoting those in management, often noncompetitively, through multiple levels upwards, while nurses were losing ground.
Nursing provides care to veterans 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and all nurses, myself included, appreciate a pleasant work environment, but fish tanks, palm trees, and costly office renovations cannot replace our mission, which is putting veterans first. No nurse I have ever spoken to can conceive of earning $800 to $1,200 a day, as was Mr. Billik's consultant.
It is no surprise that the results of the recently-conducted 1997 ONE-VA employee survey states that 65 percent of employees feel that pay raises do not depend on how well they perform their jobs.
It was not until January 9, 1997 that the registered nurses in Charleston were recognized for their hard work and dedication to their veteran patients. Our current Medical Director, Mr. John Vogel, was able to use the salary survey and other measures available to him, and Mr. Billik, to give us a modest, but more importantly, an equitable pay raise that mirrored our general schedule co-workers. We were grateful to him for that recognition.
What I have related are just not minor anecdotal situations, but real conditions affecting a person—oops, may I have the rest put into the written record?
Mr. EVERETT. Please go ahead and finish.
Ms. SMITH. What I have related are not just minor anecdotal situations, but real conditions affecting the person's standing directly at the bedside of the veteran, the VA registered nurse. We registered nurses are anxious to be part of the new VA with its new management, new challenges, and the reorganization that gives the stakeholder principle as defined by Dr. Kenneth Kizer, Under Secretary for Health, a chance to include us in decisions affecting our careers and the delivery of care to our patients.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am reminded of an old German proverb that says, to change and to improve are two different things. It is something I use to tell me if I'm doing the right thing.
In closing, I want to thank the committee for giving me an opportunity to testify on behalf of an excellent, dedicated staff at the Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center in Charleston, SC.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Smith appears on p. 168.]
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you very much.
I have some questions that are sort of multi-layered, so the first question will be directed at both of you. As I said, it's kind of multi-layered, and I'll finish the question, then if you will, feel free to answer it.
A common complaint that the subcommittee has received about the former Director at Charleston, Mr. Billik, is that he showed favoritism toward his office staff, and one member of his staff, in particular. Do you believe he showed favoritism, and what were the employee perceptions of Mr. Billik as a manager and a leader? Did he set an appropriate example and conform to the higher standard of conduct expected of senior management? And then, lastly, would there be employees that would not share your views on that?
Ms. SMITH. I am sure that there are many employees in management who will not share my views because they were part of that system, having been rewarded. But from my standpoint, from the general employee, there was a very negative perception. It was very, very difficult to work hard, coming in after hours and working hard, coming in and then seeing somebody brought from Texas right to the Director's suite and then promoted upward through several levels, obviously not competitively, while we were at the bedside of the veteran and losing ground. The perceptions were entirely negative.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Truesdell, do you have anything——
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TRUESDELL. The perception of most of our employees was that he (Mr. Dean S. Billik) was in power, and that's one person that you shouldn't cross.
Mr. EVERETT. How was the morale prior to Mr. Billik's arrival at Charleston?
Ms. SMITH. Prior to Mr. Billik's arrival, we had a Director who paid close attention to both the mission he had to do and the people who had to accomplish the mission, and so the morale was much better. The work was being done. He still had problems that every Director has with how to balance the money, how to get the resources out, but the moral was much better because he took care of both things at the same time, the veteran and the person taking care of the veteran.
Mr. EVERETT. And, apparently, from your testimony, it took a nosedive on his arrival, and that continued——
Ms. SMITH. Straight down.
Mr. EVERETT (continuing). During his tenure there?
Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes.
Mr. EVERETT. How's morale now?
Ms. SMITH. Morale has improved since Mr. Vogel arrived. There are still things to be taken care of. That's an ongoing process in every hospital, but it did improve after he came. We're hoping for further improvements.
Mr. EVERETT. What are some of the things that need to be improved?
Ms. SMITH. From my perspective with the nurses, the Nurse Pay Bill Act is not an equitable system compared to the cost-of-living adjustments that the general wage schedule people get. A specific example is that recently——
Mr. EVERETT. Would you repeat that, please?
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. SMITH. I said that the Nurse Pay Bill Act of 1990, which authorizes VA nurses, title 38, to get cost-of-living adjustments, only through a salary survey; it is not an automatic process, and in fact your pay can be reduced. This doesn't mirror the cost of living that every other government worker gets as an automatic thing.
Now it was within Mr. Billik's power to use this, and he did not. Mr. John Vogel this last January did use that, plus other measures, to recognize us.
Mr. EVERETT. I understand that—as a matter of fact, I mentioned in my opening remarks that two individuals from the Charleston hospital were invited to testify and they declined because of fear of reprisal. If you know who they are, please do not—do not—mention their names, but please tell the subcommittee about the atmosphere of Charleston that would cause them not to want to testify.
Ms. SMITH. The employee I have most recently spoke to is concerned because she works, this employee works in a department with highly-specialized equipment that carries no maintenance contract, and yet the fish tank is on a maintenance contract of $7,000 a year. But this highly-technical piece of medical equipment lacks a maintenance contract, and she can't rely on its function.
Mr. EVERETT. I don't think that answers the question of why she fears to come forward and testify.
Ms. SMITH. Because her supervisor or her boss has threatened to fire her if she says this.
Mr. EVERETT. I sure would like to hear some mid-level management employee threaten to fire an employee, because I'd like to get that person right in front of this subcommittee and——
Ms. SMITH. It's an ongoing thing.
Mr. EVERETT. And we do hear that. We, members of the committee, have strong feelings about that. The problem is that it's very difficult for us to get the proof. But if you can ever find the hard proof, I really, really wish you'd get it to the subcommittee, because I would enjoy getting that type of person in front of this committee.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. SMITH. Would the minutes of meetings be all right?
Mr. EVERETT. I beg your pardon?
Ms. SMITH. The minutes of meetings in which those statements are made?
Mr. EVERETT. Yes, certainly, if he used the threat to fire an employee if they did a certain thing, I'd love to have that.
Do you believe the IG investigation at Charleston has been thorough and independent of VA management? And do you believe it pulled any punches, so to speak?
Ms. SMITH. I believe it pulled several punches, and, no, I don't believe it was thorough.
Mr. EVERETT. I did notice—and we'll talk to the IG group about that later—that while the titled report—I don't know if you read it or not—says, ''Alleged Mismanagement,'' there's no direct finding of mismanagement in the report. They don't use the term, and I'm very curious about that. I would assume that if either of you had written that report, you would have had no problem using the term ''mismanagement.''
Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Clyburn.
Mr. TRUESDELL. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. EVERETT. Yes?
Mr. TRUESDELL. Speaking of the report, we had approximately 30-something employees that were willing to speak to the IG, and only about 21 actually spoke to the IG. We had still about another 10 or more that wanted to speak to the IG over issues. The investigation ended. We weren't informed that it was actually ended, and we never saw or heard from the IG since then.
Mr. EVERETT. Of course, one of the responsibilities of this subcommittee is to find out why those kind of things happen, and as our colleague, Mr. Mascara said, that somewhere somebody needs to take the consequences of these actions. Now whether it's in the IG's office or upper management's office, or what, this subcommittee intends to find out.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Clyburn.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions, but, first of all, Mr. Truesdell, how would you rate Mr. Vogel's performance since December 1996?
Mr. TRUESDELL. I really can't.
Mr. CLYBURN. You can't?
Mr. TRUESDELL. No, sir.
Mr. CLYBURN. So after 10 months, you have no impression of what his performance is?
Mr. TRUESDELL. I'd say it's a neutral, from our standpoint.
Mr. CLYBURN. Who's ''our?''
Mr. TRUESDELL. The employees. Nothing's happening.
Mr. CLYBURN. How would you answer that question, Ms. Smith?
Ms. SMITH. When Mr. Vogel came in, initially there was a great response to his attention to us. Since then, I feel that some of his attention has been diverted because he has an accompanying VISN assignment.
Mr. CLYBURN. He has a what?
Ms. SMITH. Accompanying VISN assignment. Each hospital director also has another duty within VISN. So he spends a great deal of time away from the medical center, and I feel that the system that started under Mr. Billik is still somewhat in effect. So that in Mr. Vogel's absence, things are still being done that he may be unaware of. There are still problems to be taken care of, and he's often not there to see what's going on.
Mr. CLYBURN. Well, let me say to both of you, as you may or may not know, this is my first elective office. Before I came to Congress, I spent all of my life, since the age of 25, as a manager and an administrator, and I took over an agency that was under severe criticism publicly and by the State legislature. And though you would like to walk in on Monday morning and turn the culture around by 5 o'clock that afternoon, it cannot be done.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And so I guess what I'm asking is whether or not there is an attempt on the part of Mr. Vogel to correct, or the right term may be to rectify the situation, at the hospital. I notice you said that Mr. Vogel used this instrument that was available to Mr. Billik but never utilized by him that gave what you thought were equitable pay raises, but Mr. Truesdell still says nothing is happening.
Ms. SMITH. We come from two different perspectives. We're representing different type schedule employees. What Mr. Vogel did was took the instrument and the information he got, and instead of accepting it, he forwarded it on to Washington for further consideration. He said, ''Please override what the community salary survey says. I don't think it's right.''
Mr. CLYBURN. Right.
Ms. SMITH. Mr. Billik had that option and didn't exercise it. Mr. Vogel did, and was able to give us good news.
And I will say that I've taken many things before Mr. Vogel and he has done everything he can to help rectify some problems. He has done some good things. I do think that the system in the hospital is so ingrained, leaving Mr. Billik's management style, that there are still many more things to be corrected. I do believe he's attempting to do that.
Mr. CLYBURN. Well, thank you very much.
Ms. SMITH. We haven't seen a totally positive result yet, but it's like you said, it takes time.
Mr. CLYBURN. Maybe if he stays there as long as Mr. Billik was there, he might be able to do it.
Mr. Truesdell, let me ask you, what is your function at the hospital.
Mr. TRUESDELL. I'm a full-time president of the National Association of Government Employees that was negotiated in July of this year.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CLYBURN. Oh, so you're not an employee——
Mr. TRUESDELL. I am an employee being paid through the engineering services as a utility systems operator.
Mr. CLYBURN. But you aren't working there every day?
Mr. TRUESDELL. No, sir, I work out of an office.
Mr. CLYBURN. Okay. So you are an advocate for the people who work there?
Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. CLYBURN. Okay. Have you had discussions with the people who are working there every day as to what they feel?
Mr. TRUESDELL. I have many, many people come to me all during the day and even at night, because a lot of times I——
Mr. CLYBURN. So you don't think that any of the people that you have responsibility to as an advocate think that anything is happening of a positive nature?
Mr. TRUESDELL. They feel that nothing's happening. There's still hints over whether they're going to be contracting out, whether being RIFed. We were in a deficit earlier in the year, and we were bailed out.
Mr. CLYBURN. How were you bailed out, the deficit?
Mr. TRUESDELL. I think the money was given to us through the VISN.
Mr. CLYBURN. And you don't think Mr. Vogel had anything to do with that?
Mr. TRUESDELL. Well, I'm sure that they had what they called MCCR, and——
Mr. CLYBURN. I don't know what all those acronyms mean, but——
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TRUESDELL. Okay. They were talking about funds coming back to the hospital through the MCCR program, like a third-party billing, and also through the redirection of northern patients' money (northern patients migrating to southern hospitals) to the southern cities, that we would use the money from that——
Mr. CLYBURN. Excuse me. Were you in a deficit before Mr. Billik got there?
Mr. TRUESDELL. Not that I'm aware of.
Mr. CLYBURN. So you think that he drove you to a deficit?
Mr. TRUESDELL. It's the first time that I ever heard—I've been at this hospital since 1973, and this is the first time I have heard of a deficit at this hospital.
Mr. CLYBURN. Okay, but now you're out of the deficit?
Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. CLYBURN. So you would blame Mr. Billik for putting you there, but you don't want to give credit to Mr. Vogel for getting you out of there, the deficit situation?
Mr. TRUESDELL. Well, we were in the deficit earlier, and now we're out of a deficit. He had to be the one responsible for getting out of the deficit.
Mr. CLYBURN. Well, then, something is happening. All I'm saying to you, Mr. Truesdell, is that what we want to do, I would hope, is try to change the culture, and this is not just Charleston; it's not just the Ralph Johnson facility or the Pittsburgh facility. We're talking about something that we are finding throughout the entire VA system. It's a culture that we're trying to get to, and I think it will be very helpful if we know what's working and what's not working, if you know who is good and who is bad. But to just lead us to believe that, no matter who comes, no manager is going to make a difference is something that I have a real problem with. I thought of myself as a pretty darned good manager, and I would hate to think that it doesn't make any difference who the manager is; that the system is so ingrained or so endemic that nothing can be done about it. I would hope that you'd be helpful to us, especially the people that you advocate for, so that we will know what it is that we can recommend as a subcommittee.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When we ask you to come up and testify, we're looking for information, and we would like to know when something is working and when something is not working, but just to say that it ain't going to work, no matter what, is a problem to me as a manager, and I hope you understand where I'm coming from here.
Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. CLYBURN. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you very much, Jim.
I would just point out, on behalf of Mr. Vogel, as former Under Secretary of Benefits for VA, I hope you can understand why he'd be a very attractive candidate to have assignments also with a VISN, as well as the directorship. I do understand your feelings and those of the people you represent that you have immediate problems that need to be solved, and that's perhaps a conflict that can be worked out.
Now I would like to turn to another member of the subcommittee, Mr. Mascara. Frank, if you will?
Mr. MASCARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Truesdell and Ms. Smith, I probably am a glutton for punishment; I read all of the testimony, including yours. And, Mr. Truesdell, there are some very serious charges in your testimony. In the first three paragraphs alone, you charge Mr. Billik with mismanagement, misappropriation of funds, abuse of the system, waste of taxpayers' dollars, abuse of employees, fraud, abuse of power. These are very serious charges.
Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. MASCARA. They're very serious charges. Have you read the Inspector General's report?
Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes, sir, a redacted copy.
Mr. MASCARA. The redacted copy?
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. MASCARA. You already responded to Chairman Everett's question, but this is something I wrote last night. ''Have you read the Inspector General's report,'' and you responded, ''yes.'' ''If so, do you think the report fairly explains the allegations,'' and you've already responded to Mr. Everett. My note to myself is, ''I have and it does not. It does not address the charges.''
In your statement, and I quote, ''Will this be investigated?'' That's taken from your statement. So do you think that some other independent agency outside the Department of Veterans Affairs should look into these matters?
Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes, sir, most definitely.
Mr. MASCARA. Ms. Smith—thank you, Mr. Truesdell.
Mr. TRUESDELL. You're welcome.
Mr. MASCARA. While your testimony is less volatile, you still allege misspending, mismanagement, adverse working conditions, critical shortages in nursing care; many people resigned under duress; nurses were assigned with lack of orientation or cross-training. In your opinion, on this last observation here, did that compromise the care of the patients in any way?
Ms. SMITH. I'll give you an example. I'm a psychiatry nurse with 20 years' experience, and one morning I was told I would go and work on the surgical ward. I took care of 20 surgical patients, their full care. If you were going to an operating room and they were short a doctor, your surgeon, and they said, ''Well, let's go get a psychiatrist. Both of them went to medical school,'' would you be comfortable?
Mr. MASCARA. I would not. So you've answered my question.
Ms. SMITH. I'm not sure my surgical patients were comfortable, but I attended to their mental health needs. I could calm their fears, but I couldn't take care of their surgery.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MASCARA. Do you think that the new network organization structure that has been in place for nearly 2 years will address any of these problems that you cite?
Ms. SMITH. I believe it's started, and I believe it has a long way to go, but I believe the change has begun.
Mr. MASCARA. Because the regional directors I believe had in some instances as many as 43 facilities reporting to them, where now some as few as 3, and in fact two of the networks have only 3 facilities reporting to them, and I believe no director has more than 10 reporting to them. So we should see some benefit from the reorganization. Thank you.
Do you think somebody outside of the VA should investigate the allegations that have been made?
Ms. SMITH. Yes.
Mr. MASCARA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Frank.
A colleague of ours on the full committee, Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. Smith and Mr. Truesdell, for appearing before the committee.
I just want to get clear, Ms. Smith, you are president of the National Association of Government Employees, local R–5–150, and that is registered nurses?
Ms. SMITH. Yes, title 38 registered nurses.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. And then Mr. Truesdell is president—what is that R–5–136? Is that all other employees or cover all other employees at the center?
Mr. TRUESDELL. Except the doctors and the dentists——
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Except the doctors.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TRUESDELL. We handle all nonprofessional title 38 hybrids and professionals——
Mr. BILIRAKIS. I see. So you're both presidents of local union groups. How long have you been presidents of those groups?
Ms. SMITH. The nurses union was certified in August of 1996, which is why I have less testimony. Mr. Truesdell has much more history——
Mr. BILIRAKIS. So you've been president since August of 1996?
Ms. SMITH. I don't have the same amount of history to bring forward.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, you don't have the same amount of history as president of the union, but you have the same amount of history as an employee of the Veterans' Center and caring for veterans, et cetera.
Ms. SMITH. But not all the information has been made available to me.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes, I see.
Ms. SMITH. Things I have requested, I have been denied under the premise of——
Mr. BILIRAKIS. You have requests that you have been denied?
Ms. SMITH. Yes, I have requested information that was available before we were certified as an RN union, and I've been told, no, that was before you became certified.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. You've been told no by whom?
Ms. SMITH. The Department of Human Resources—that it wasn't relevant.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. That it wasn't relevant?
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. SMITH. Yes.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Truesdell, I'm sure somebody wants to follow up on that one——
Mr. TRUESDELL. Not to interrupt you, but——
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Go ahead.
Mr. TRUESDELL. I stepped out of steward shoes into the president's shoes February 5, 1996, and that was during Mr. Billik's term there——
Mr. BILIRAKIS. February of 1996, but you were a steward for quite a while before that?
Mr. TRUESDELL. I was a steward for many years before that, and due to that fact, the election that took me through was by 21 votes shy of a unanimous vote, a majority of the votes of the members.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right, now you said in your testimony here, ''It is known that correspondence regarding mismanagement was mailed to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs voicing a variety of concerns by the hospital. The Secretary apparently turned this over to the IG for inquiry and investigation, instead of forwarding the concerns of Mr. Billik,'' et cetera, et cetera. When did that—you say it is done. What do you mean by that?
Mr. TRUESDELL. A majority of the employees had heard about it and——
Mr. BILIRAKIS. But who would have sent this correspondence?
Mr. TRUESDELL. An employee.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. An employee? All right. So we know—so there's a fact—it's a fact that an employee sent this correspondence on to the Secretary of the Veterans—the Department of Veterans Affairs?
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. And that's a fact?
Mr. TRUESDELL. I was given a copy of the letter, and I also know who the employee is, and they still——
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Has that been made available to the committee? The letter, do we have a copy of that letter? When did that take place Mr. Truesdell, approximately?
Mr. TRUESDELL. I believe it was the summer before Mr. Billik left, approximately 1 year ago (1996).
Mr. BILIRAKIS. The summer of what, 1995?
Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes, sir. (1996.)
Mr. BILIRAKIS. The summer of 1995?
Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Yes?
Mr. EVERETT. Are we speaking of the letter of complaint that was given to the Secretary——
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes.
Mr. EVERETT (continuing). And then rerouted back to him?
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes.
Mr. EVERETT. By the way, a common occurrence.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Do we have copies of that?
Mr. EVERETT. We do not, and it was felt like it would compromise the signer of the letter, but we're still working to get a copy of that.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, the reason I bring these up is because, yes, you've both been presidents of your unions for a short period of time, but you've been employees there a long time. And I trust that these concerns that you have expressed here, the conduct that has taken place is conduct that hasn't just taken place during the time you've been president of your union; it's conduct that has taken place over a period of time. Is that correct?
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. SMITH. Yes, it is.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. I guess I'm trying to get to—you have an Inspector General, and we're going to be having an opportunity to talk to that individual, but if employees have not made a real strong effort to let somebody know about mismanagement, then how in the world—you know, you indicated that things still needed to be corrected, Ms. Smith. We all know that nothing is ever perfect; nothing is ever going to be perfect; we know all that.
But I guess what I'm trying to find out: Have efforts been made on the part of employees, on the part of the staff, aside even from the union, to let somebody know about things taking place? I mean veterans' lives are being adversely affected when there aren't adequate resources to take care of them, and if those resources are misused, wouldn't you say? I mean, what's your answer to all that? The yellow light is on, but, very quickly, can you respond to my concern?
Mr. TRUESDELL. They fear retribution. The only——
Mr. BILIRAKIS. They fear retribution?
Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes, sir. The only way they could respond was to go off-station, and I agreed to that; we would have arrangements made with the Inspector General off-station, and that was the basis——
Mr. BILIRAKIS. In other words, an Inspector General—off-station meaning not located, not physically located at the facility?
Mr. TRUESDELL. We didn't trust anybody walking in and seeing them go into the office with an IG. They asked to remain anonymous, and we honored that.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Ms. Smith?
Ms. SMITH. I would say that if there's any efforts being made, that some of that information doesn't get back to me; I have very, very limited communication with management. So some of the feedback, if attempts are being made, I'm not aware of all of them. They may be occurring. Of course, I'm only going to hear from other people's perspectives when things are not going well——
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BILIRAKIS. But before you were president, I mean, you were there; you were there for so many years. You know fellow nurses, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, there's got to have been talk about mismanagement, complaints about this and that. Has there been any talk about any efforts being made to carry these complaints and these concerns up the ladder somewhere?
Ms. SMITH. People did, but they did it anonymously because they still had retribution fears.
Mr. TRUESDELL. Retribution was also on the people that did try to go to the Inspector General through the hotline and remain anonymous, and the name was given out, and the employee does not know how.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, we'll continue on here, because we have other witnesses. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EVERETT. We only have about 8 minutes to make a vote. This panel will remain seated, and, Mr. Bilirakis, I misspoke; we do have a copy of that letter. We have not made it public because of fear of reprisals toward the employee, but it is available to members of the committee.
The committee is in recess until we return from the vote. This panel will remain seated.
[Recess.]
Mr. EVERETT. We will proceed with another round of questioning with this panel. To emphasize the importance of your testimony, I emphasize that you remain under oath at this point.
Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. EVERETT. Let me just briefly comment on the letter that went full circle, that was written to the Secretary and then found its way back down to the hospital director. This is not something that we found was uncommon; I hate to tell you that. For instance, we had a situation in our sexual harassment hearings where the people who were complaining to the EEOC officer, that officer was actually director of a hospital, and one of the complainants actually heard the director and someone else laughing about her complaint. This is what I have referred to as ''the culture'' that exists in VA. And it has been very difficult for us to break through that culture. But, frankly, for VA to survive, it has to break through that culture or we're going to have some really, really tough hearings, and it doesn't make any difference if I'm in this chair or the ranking member is in this chair; this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue that we're very much concerned about, and it's one that we are struggling with to find the answer to, because we get people in front of us and they nod very politely, and tell us they're going to change course, and then they go out and do whatever it is they want to do.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You will find that this subcommittee will put more and more people under oath. We will use subpoenas when we have to, but we simply are not kidding around about trying to break through the culture that exists at VA.
Ms. Smith, do you have personal knowledge about what may have happened to some of the new carpeting which was torn up from Mr. Billik's office?
Ms. SMITH. Yes. One day I was going from the main hospital to the personnel department, and you have to cross the back of the hospital's loading dock, and there's a construction dumpster, and I saw huge sheets that filled the entire dumpster fanfolded in there, and I know it was new carpeting. It was not stained on the backing. It's the same carpeting I had seen going into the Director's office, and it was now in the dumpster. I reached over to feel how thick and plushy it was.
Mr. EVERETT. Do you have any idea why that occurred?
Ms. SMITH. No. I know rumor. I don't know fact. I only heard that the first carpeting was not satisfactory; that being black, it showed too much lint.
Mr. EVERETT. And so the carpeting was then removed and that new carpeting was dumped——
Ms. SMITH. Yes.
Mr. EVERETT (continuing). And other carpeting was ordered and paid for?
Ms. SMITH. Yes, I saw it in the dumpster.
Mr. EVERETT. And this was at the lean time?
Ms. SMITH. Excuse me, yes.
Mr. EVERETT. This was during lean—what was lean times?
Ms. SMITH. Lean to some.
Mr. EVERETT. He apparently took care of his own interests very well.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You are aware that Mr. Billik was promoted, got a pay raise, as I mentioned earlier, six figures, and was put in charge of three VA hospitals in central Texas after leaving Charleston? You're both aware of that?
Ms. SMITH. Yes, I heard the news.
Mr. TRUESDELL. Certainly.
Mr. EVERETT. How do you think that affects the employee morale at Charleston?
Mr. TRUESDELL. In my bargaining unit, it confirmed that managers get promoted when they leave, even though they're having problems, and——
Mr. EVERETT. In other words, this is the same old same old——
Mr. TRUESDELL. It gives the message that they can do whatever they want and get away with it.
Mr. EVERETT. You're seeing this time and time again, and VA employees over the country have seen this time and time again. We found that particularly true in the sexual harassment cases. It's incredible that this has been allowed to happen, and I don't think that we can just blame directors who take advantage of the situation. I think the blame goes higher than that, quite frankly.
At this time, I'll turn it over to my able ranking member for any additional questions he may have.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple of questions.
I've gone through the Inspector General's report, and I'm just, certainly as we talk today, counting the allegations, and I think in the allegations of mismanagement at the Ralph Johnson Center there were 27 allegations, and there were 12 the General substantiated. He found substantiation for 12 of the 27 and 2 others, and the Inspector General's report says that one was turned over to the proper judicial authorities, and the other to what I gleaned to be an administrative procedure. So that would bring to 14—that's more than half of the allegations the Inspector General substantiated. And so when you look at that kind of thing, I wonder why if the Inspector General found cause or substantiation in more than half of the allegations, that you still think we need to have another investigation by somebody outside? You don't give the Inspector General credit for finding on your behalf more than half of the time?
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TRUESDELL. With respect to that, there was a lot of complaints that the Inspector General was informed of that was not in the IG report.
Mr. CLYBURN. Well, I noticed that you indicated at one point that there were 30-some-odd people that you had on the list to talk to, and they only talked to 20-some-odd. You know, after a while, if you talk to 10 people, and the next 10 people say the same thing as the first 10 people said, then you might ask why do I need to go to the third 10 to hear the same thing over and over again?
Do you have any information that led you to think that these 10 people would raise new issues that had not been brought to the attention of the Inspector General in these 27 instances?
Mr. TRUESDELL. In the 27 instances, there was issues that was brought up that was not in the report.
Mr. CLYBURN. Sir, you said there are some other, in addition to these 27?
Mr. TRUESDELL. Well, the 27—no, with the 27 people that was interviewed by the IG, issues was brought up——
Mr. CLYBURN. Right.
Mr. TRUESDELL (continuing). To them that was not in the report.
Mr. CLYBURN. Could you give us an example of—maybe just give me one of them that you think was important or pertinent that was not dealt with by the Inspector General.
Mr. TRUESDELL. Excuse me?
Mr. CLYBURN. Can you give me one issue outside of these 27 that you think should have been brought to the IG's before the attention or should have been dealt with in this report which was not dealt with? You're telling me that there are allegations made that the Inspector General did not pursue. Isn't that what I understand you to say?
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. CLYBURN. Can you give me one allegation that should have been pursued by the Inspector General which was not pursued that you can report to us here today?
Mr. TRUESDELL. The one by an employee in the operating room is not in there.
Mr. CLYBURN. What's the allegation?
Mr. TRUESDELL. The allegation that an anesthesiologist left the operating room while surgery was going on.
Mr. CLYBURN. That's an allegation that was made, and the Inspector General did not deal with that in the report?
Mr. TRUESDELL. No, sir.
Mr. CLYBURN. You don't think it's—I saw something over here, allegation No. 26, yes, allegation No. 26, where they talked about the nursing staff; that's not covered in there, is it?
Ms. SMITH. No.
Mr. CLYBURN. Okay. So are you saying that Mr. Billik refused to deal with the issue when it was brought to his attention? You certainly can't blame him for the anesthesiologist walking out of the room. Do you know whether this was brought to the attention of Mr. Billik and was not dealt with?
Mr. TRUESDELL. I can't——
Mr. CLYBURN. That would be the management issue.
Mr. TRUESDELL. I can't say that it was taken to Mr. Billik, because of the anonymity of the employee at the time.
Mr. CLYBURN. But what I'm saying to you is that the Inspector General was there to investigate allegations of mismanagement. You certainly cannot blame the manager for the negligence or stupidity of any one employee unless that negligence or stupidity was brought to the attention of management and not dealt with. So are you saying that the anesthesiologist that walked out of the room, that this problem was brought to the attention of management, and management refused to deal with it? Is that what you're saying?
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TRUESDELL. No, sir. It was brought to the attention of the IG for the IG to deal with it, so the employee wouldn't have to come forward.
Ms. SMITH. The incident was taken to the attention of management.
Mr. TRUESDELL. That I didn't know.
Mr. CLYBURN. And management did not do anything about it?
Ms. SMITH. There was a report of contact written, and it was torn up and thrown back in the face of the employee.
Mr. CLYBURN. You said—please, say that again?
Ms. SMITH. The employee reported something that she thought was significant and took it to management, who tore the document up and threw it back at her.
Mr. CLYBURN. Can you identify—this is not Billik? This is a supervisor, is that what you're telling us?
Ms. SMITH. It's the same incident he's referring to.
Mr. CLYBURN. Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of stuff I think we probably need to deal with. If there are things like this where management refused to respond, I think we probably may need to get maybe some written report or something; I don't know if you want to do this in open testimony, but this is the kind of stuff that I think that we may need to look at. I don't want us to rehash the same thing over and over again, but if there's something that shows a problem, and that person is still there——
Ms. SMITH. That person is still there and isn't testifying today because that person's been threatened with being fired.
Mr. CLYBURN. No, I'm talking the manager still being there. The supervisor——
Ms. SMITH. Yes.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CLYBURN (continuing). That tore the document is still supervising, and the new management has or is cognizant of this and not doing anything about it?
Ms. SMITH. I can't answer for what management passes on to its own.
Mr. CLYBURN. Right. Well, that's what I'm saying. You know, what we want to do is get at the culture and see whether or not the new management, Mr. Vogel and his team, whoever they may be, are dealing with these problems. And so that's a problem if it's brought to his attention, whether or not he's dealt with that kind of a supervisor to see—to make sure that that kind of attitude is taken out of the system, and that kind of action will not be tolerated. So that's what I'm talking about, is whether or not we can find out whether or not that kind of issue has been dealt with by management.
Ms. SMITH. Well, I think we're singing off the same song sheet. Mr. Billik created a culture which is still there somewhat.
Mr. CLYBURN. Somewhat?
Ms. SMITH. He may be gone, but some of the culture is still behind.
Mr. CLYBURN. Oh, we understand that. We understand that maybe more problems will be there today than will be there 6 days from now, and maybe in another year from now all of it them will be gone.
Ms. SMITH. There has been——
Mr. CLYBURN. But the question is whether or not there is any systemic movement toward the eradication of that culture or whether or not the actions being taken by current management simply undergird or reinforce the culture rather than to extricate it from the system. And that's why we're here.
Ms. SMITH. Well, that's difficult to answer yes or no, because while there are significant improvements in one area, there have been instances where the same system has been going on.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CLYBURN. In other areas?
Ms. SMITH. Yes, there is.
Mr. CLYBURN. Yes.
Ms. SMITH. There's a definite incident that occurred that——
Mr. CLYBURN. My time's up, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Mascara? And there are no questions for this panel?
Mr. MASCARA. Not for this panel.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let's continue on. Mr. Clyburn made the comment earlier, I guess in his opening remarks, something about not dwelling in the past, and that certainly is true. What we want to try to do is to get at the roots of everything and try to get things straightened out. Obviously, we have to learn from the past in order to be able to do that. So this is why we're still in the past.
But you said that this employee was threatened with the loss of her, his or her job, if they testified? And this happened today——
Ms. SMITH. No. If any information were ever told outside of that department.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay, but that individual was threatened by the current administration at Charleston?
Ms. SMITH. Required to sign a document——
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Even though the occurrence that we're talking about took place under the prior administration?
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. SMITH. There's an ongoing problem in one department in which employees are continually reminded and being told they must sign an affidavit that says that anything in that department will not be discussed outside the department. That is not just exclusive to patients, but just personnel policies, and that if anybody crosses that line, they will be fired.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, you know, we've got to be open-minded up here. We should be. Otherwise, we can't really do our job adequately.
To be a manager at any level is tough. I think in today's world it's even tougher than it ever has been. There's no question about that.
So really this—whether anybody believes it or not, this is not intended to be a witch hunt. It's intended to get to the dadblasted gist of why things are taking place, and try to improve them, and see that they are improved.
You know, what bothers me is statements like this, Mr. Chairman, where a person is being threatened with maybe being fired. What bothers me is where there is a concern about walking down the hall to the in-house IG because the concern is that that in-house IG might be sort of part of the culture, that we're talking about a pal of someone in the chain of command.
Mr. Truesdell, ''there are many more cases''—I'm repeating from your testimony—''many more cases of employees suffering the consequence of utilizing the confidential IG hotline. How can we stamp out the waste, fraud, and abuse if no one feels safe to speak out? The same scenario is true in reporting harassment of any sort. We are told to go up the chain of command. In most cases the guilty parties in that chain are a pal of someone in that chain.''
That really bothers me because an IG—and I was talking to the chairman walking over to the Floor to cast that very important vote that we had to cast on the journal that interrupted an important hearing, but that's the way it is up here. So maybe we need some IG work up here, too.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I remember when I was in the military I went to the IG once, not on behalf of myself; on behalf of another soldier. And I didn't feel any trepidation in having done so. I didn't feel it was going to hurt that other military person in any way whatsoever. And I was comfortable in doing it because that was the job of the IG. And if you're not comfortable in doing something like that—I mean, you know, we're supposed to be living in a system of freedom here. And if you work under conditions of fear, there's nothing free about all that.
And you all have your job to do as presidents of the union, but I'd like to think, more importantly, you have your jobs to do as people who are concerned about veterans and who have been serving veterans for a long, long time.
So let's go back to this in-house IG. Where is his—is it a he? Is it a man, to clear up Mr. Clyburn's concern? Is it a he or a she?
Mr. TRUESDELL. It was a he.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. It's a he? All right.
Mr. TRUESDELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. So where is his office located as against the rest of the offices? Is he in the middle of everything or——
Mr. TRUESDELL. No, he was from Washington.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. But you mentioned in-house IG. In Washington? There is no IG located at the Charleston Medical Center?
Mr. TRUESDELL. No, sir.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Oh, there is no IG? Is that usual?
Ms. SMITH. We have no permanently assigned IG.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. You have no permanently assigned IG.
Ms. SMITH. In Charleston the IG has no office.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. Well, we——
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. SMITH. He came into town and——
Mr. BILIRAKIS. We will be talking to the IG's office in a couple of minutes. So I guess we can go into that.
So, basically—but you used the term, Mr. Truesdell, you have to go to an outside, or something to that effect, IG? What does that mean?
Mr. TRUESDELL. It means that they're not—that the employees don't feel that they're protected inside.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, what's ''inside'' mean if——
Mr. TRUESDELL. Inside the VA, inside of the walls of the VA. I mean——
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Oh, inside the VA system?
Mr. TRUESDELL (continuing). It's in the management system.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Ah, so what you're saying is that they feel that they have to go to an IG outside of the VA system?
Mr. TRUESDELL. They were reluctant to even to go to the IG, but talking to the employees and telling them that everything would be all right and they would remain anonymous—to bring the problem out, to air it, to have somebody come in and take heed to what's going on.
Ms. SMITH. I think part of the confusion might be that the employees felt more comfortable testifying to someone off the hospital compound at somewhere independent in town, so that you're not seen talking to——
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, all right, but Mr. Truesdell's already told us that the IG is located in Washington and not—and there is no IG located geographically on the compound.
Ms. SMITH. He came to Charleston.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BILIRAKIS. He came to—I see. But, still, they were not comfortable with talking to him?
Ms. SMITH. This Inspector General made arrangements to see people wherever they were most comfortable.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, I kind of commend that. But they still weren't comfortable?
Mr. TRUESDELL. No, sir.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, therein I think likes much of the problem, I think, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you. Mr. Doyle?
Mr. DOYLE. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EVERETT. All right, before I dismiss this panel, let me ask you to furnish for the record a detailed description of all cases of mismanagement reported to the IG that were not addressed in the IG report, and any other mismanagement cases that have occurred since the first issue of allegations to the IG.
[The information follows:]
Offset folios 1 to 77 insert here
Makes pp. 32 to 108
Mr. EVERETT. And at this point we thank you very much for your testimony, and this panel is dismissed.
We will now ask for panel three to be seated—Mr. Merriman. Let me ask you to rise again and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you. Please be seated.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM T. MERRIMAN, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY MAUREEN REGAN, COUNSELOR TO THE VETERANS AFFAIRS INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND MICHAEL STALEY, DIRECTOR, HOTLINE AND SPECIAL INQUIRIES
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Merriman, if you'll introduce your staff, and then please feel free to start.
Mr. MERRIMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss two reviews conducted by the IG of alleged mismanagement by senior officials. These reviews involve the VA Medical Centers in Charleston, SC and Pittsburgh, PA. With your permission, I'd like to enter my prepared statement into the record, which addresses these reports, and use this opportunity to discuss the IG's role and responsibility when reviewing and reporting on allegations of mismanagement.
Mr. EVERETT. Without objection.
Mr. MERRIMAN. I'd like to start by saying that the IG takes allegations of mismanagement by senior managers very seriously, and when such allegations are brought to our attention, they are pursued vigorously. In doing so, our goal is to perform an independent, objective review of the facts surrounding each allegation in order to determine whether the allegation is true or not.
Substantiated allegations can sometimes lead to recommendations for appropriate administrative action. For example, incidents of misconduct involving violations of law, rule, or regulation would generally give rise to a recommendation for appropriate administrative action. However, in accordance with standard practice in the IG community, we do not recommend the specific punishments. The decision whether to take action and the specific action that is appropriate is the responsibility of the management official who supervises the employee in question. In our view, it would compromise the IG's independence if the IG recommended specific penalties or disciplinary actions.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The IG function of objective oversight makes it especially important that the line between VA management responsibilities and the IG responsibilities be respected. Decisions concerning specific disciplinary are a management responsibility vested in the deciding management official who must consider the Douglas factors and whether the action is consistent with the Department's prescribed table of penalties for specific conduct violations. The Douglas factors include such things as the nature and seriousness of the offense, past disciplinary, and work records, the employee's grade level, penalties previously imposed for similar behavior, and other considerations.
On the other hand, substantiated allegations of mismanagement do not often result in recommendations for appropriate administrative action. For example, a finding that doesn't give rise to disciplinary actions, such as a poor management decision, is a performance-based problem that is more appropriately dealt with by VA management in performance evaluations. In such situations the IG's role is to identify the facts, present them to the Department, and make recommendations for corrective action to prevent the identified problem from recurring. A decision to take a performance-based action based on an IG finding is once again a management responsibility.
And I'd like to add that just because the IG does not make a recommendation for appropriate administrative action for performance-related problems, it does not relieve VA management of their responsibility to deal effectively with problem employees. IG managers have been asked why we don't make judgment calls on the overall management of an individual when there are substantiated allegations against that individual. I believe the answer to this is relevant to the two special inquiry reports that are the focus of today's hearings.
The reason we do not make a judgment call on whether an individual is a satisfactory or unsatisfactory manager, is that our reviews are confined to the evidence that can be collected on specific allegations. Our reviews do not extend to the countless other decisions made by managers in fulfilling their duties and responsibilities, which form the overall basis for evaluating total performance. Even if the IG substantiates allegations, the IG is not in a position to evaluate or comment on an individual's total performance, nor is it the IG's responsibility. Assessing overall employee performance is the responsibility of the managers. The IG's responsibility is to examine the circumstances relevant to the allegations it receives, draw conclusions concerning these allegations, and report the results, along with recommendations for appropriate action or corrective action, if warranted.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to provide my views on this matter. I'll be pleased to respond to any questions you or the committee members may have concerning my statement or the work of the IG office concerning the VA medical centers at Charleston and Pittsburgh.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Merriman appears on p. 170.]
Mr. EVERETT. I hardly know where to begin, but let me start by perhaps repeating and say, did you find mismanagement at Charleston VA Medical Clinic, or waste or abuse?
Mr. MERRIMAN. In certain instances that we looked at, we found the evidence of poor management. Whether Mr. Billik is a poor manager, I can't answer, for the reasons I described in my statement. I don't know his overall performance as a manager.
Mr. EVERETT. State for me again the reasons, if you find incidents where poor management took place, if you can't describe whoever is responsible for that as being guilty of mismanagement.
Mr. MERRIMAN. Well, I——
Mr. EVERETT. That sounds like a bureaucratic runaround——
Mr. MERRIMAN. Well, I really don't think it is, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EVERETT (continuing). After the fact that it's identified.
Mr. MERRIMAN. I understand what you're saying, and I understand the frustration of the issue. But if we look at a decision he made and we find it to be a bad decision, and there was waste involved, we call it that. We expect his supervisors to take that into account with his total performance as a manager of that facility. I can't say that he hasn't improved care to veterans in other things he's doing that we haven't been asked to look at or haven't considered. We expect management to do that. I am not a surrogate for the Department's managers.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. EVERETT. If management is doing the mismanagement, how can you expect management to do that?
Mr. MERRIMAN. Well, I expect that the director of a facility may make some poor decisions. We may call him on that. I would expect his supervisors, the VISN directors, to take this into account when they perform his annual performance rating.
Mr. EVERETT. Would you describe poor management as mismanagement?
Mr. MERRIMAN. In the instances involved, yes.
Mr. EVERETT. Well, again, I get back to what my colleague, Mr. Mascara said: Somewhere it seems to me that we're going to have to find somebody somewhere responsible. And it's getting more and more difficult to do that. We can't pin the tail on the donkey. I don't know what's happening, but apparently, if we're ever going to change the culture in the VA—as a matter of fact, if the VA is going to survive, it has got to change that culture. It cannot continue to exist in its present form. It cannot do that. It's losing the patience of this Congress, of this committee. It's losing the patience of the veterans. It's losing the patience of the public, and unless it wakes up, has a big awakening, it's just not going to survive. Now that's about as plain as I can put it.
Now I don't know if the rules and regulations that have to be followed by the VA office need to be re-evaluated, but somehow somewhere we're going to have find somebody that takes responsibility for this stuff. I am convinced there are millions of dollars wasted each year by the VA. There's no question in my mind about that. And I think that any career employee would tell you that it's probably true.
We cannot continue to pump taxpayer dollars into the VA and tolerate this kind of mismanagement. We just can't do it. These people are making six-figure salaries. Now you ought to be able to expect some degree of capability from people who are making that kind of salary. And this committee has found on occasion after occasion where these people who are making that kind of salary are poor managers, guilty of sexual harassment, and they're just moved to another place—in some cases one was given a $25,000 buyout. This is incredible.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Like my colleague, I come out of a business background, and I tell you what, these people couldn't survive 2 minutes in a business background, but under the bureaucratic situation that we have, the culture we have in the VA, they apparently not only survive, but prosper. And I find that, frankly—it's just despicable. It really is.
Let me mention also, in response to certain requests, you interviewed the former Director and some other VAMC Charleston employees were interviewed, and you determined that the former Director was having a close personal relationship, to use your words, with an employee at the time who was promoted to the GS–13 level. ''Results of these interviews were,'' and I'm reading from your report, ''were reviewed by the OIG counsel to determine whether the relationship created a hostile work environment as defined under title 7 of the Civil Rights Act.'' It was determined that a hostile work environment, as described under title 7, was not created. That is obviously in direct contrast to the testimony that we received from the employees this morning testifying from the Charleston VA facility.
Mr. MERRIMAN. I'll let Ms. Regan, who's with me as my counsel, address that in a minute, but I think there's a differentiation here between what is merely a hostile work environment. Clearly, the employees did not like the situation. It created a hostile environment with the employees, but for title 7 purposes of the Civil Rights Act, and whether a person can be prosecuted for a violation of it, it didn't meet the requirements. We're not saying that the employees liked the situation or it didn't have an impact on the employees. We're saying that to take action against him under title 7 of the act, it didn't meet those criteria.
Ms. REGAN. I think there's a difference between a hostile work environment, because people don't like——
Mr. EVERETT. Please state your name for the record.
Ms. REGAN. Maureen Regan. I'm the counselor to the Inspector General.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The term you're using ''a hostile work environment,'' under title 7 is strictly limited, and according to the Supreme Court—has to do with a sexually-charged, unwelcome sexually-charged environment. That's not what was alleged in this environment. There was a relationship. But the case law is replete with quotes from the EEO guidelines that state that, the preferential treatment of a paramour or somebody else based on an intimate relationship does not give rise to a title 7 claim, because everybody, both genders, not having the relationship is treated equally. It may be preferential treatment; it may fall under other statutes. It does not create a hostile environment under title 7.
And nobody complained to us about unwelcome sexual behavior or anything else while we were down there. So the hostile environment issue is not a title 7 claim.
Mr. EVERETT. I noted that an information letter sent last June by Dr. Kizer, the Under Secretary for Health, on the relationship between managers and subordinates, states that the standards require that even creating the appearance of using public office for private gain violates the standard. Is this the situation with Mr. Billik? Did he create that?
Ms. REGAN. We looked at every law that could possibly apply to what occurred in this case. We went down the list, and now we're looking at ethics regulations. We put that together; we have sent the issue to the Office of General Counsel, and they are reviewing it because they are the ethics officer for the agency. If there's a violation, they're the ones to make the call. It would be a public office for private gain under the ethics rules, the standards of ethical conduct for Executive Branch employees.
Mr. EVERETT. Could you give me an example of what would violate title 7? For instance, did you explore whether or not Mr. Billik and this employee were living in the same house?
Ms. REGAN. It would not have made a difference under title 7, and in fact I could not find a single case where because of an individual having a relationship with another, that a third party could claim hostile work environment. They allude to it in the case law if there was a sexually-charged environment. If there was a lot of touching going on at work, if they were kissing in front of other people, whatever they were doing in the work environment that was sexual in nature, that offended other people, it might give rise to a hostile work environment, but not preferential treatment no matter what the relationship was. That might fall into other legal violations.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For example, we looked at whether it a violation of 2302(b)(6), the promotion. It didn't fall into that. We went down the list. We could not find that there was a title 7 violation, and nobody complained about discrimination to us.
Mr. EVERETT. Of course, we have testimony from employees that the employees were well aware of this relationship and were upset by this relationship. Did you talk to employees who said that to you?
Ms. REGAN. We've talked to employees about the relationship, but that relationship, under the EEO guidelines, does not give rise to a title 7 claim, because the men and the women would both feel they were discriminated against, based on that relationship. It does not give rise to a title 7 claim. It may give rise to other problems, management issues, an ethics violation, but not a title 7 claim.
Mr. EVERETT. In other words, although these employees felt that the relationship caused a promotion that was undue and promoted this individual above other individuals, that does not under title 7 create a hostile environment?
Ms. REGAN. It doesn't create a hostile environment, and it does not create a cause of action for discrimination. As the case law and the guidelines say, both genders are equally discriminated against because they're not involved in the relationship.
Mr. EVERETT. In other words, if I discriminate against a man and a woman, then I'm not guilty?
Ms. REGAN. Of a title 7 action. It does not give rise to a title 7 claim. I mean, the guidelines are fairly——
Mr. EVERETT. Remarkable.
Ms. REGAN (continuing). Clear. It says, ''Preferential treatment may be unfair, but it is not discrimination under title 7.'' And that's the EEOC's guidelines. And the case law—I believe it's all the way up to the Supreme Court—cites that in cases.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. EVERETT.