What Does Accountability Mean?
So OMB's Karen Evans is taking responsibility for the government's failure to meet a deadline of Oct. 27 to complete background checks for employees and contractors who have worked for the federal government for 15 years or less and to begin issuing new identity cards with fingerprints.
"The milestone was to hit this, and we didn't, so we're holding ourselves accountable," she says.
So what happens next? In what way, specifically, will Evans and others be held accountable? Until we find that out, this looks like the standard accountability lite.
By the way, I'm not at all sure Evans and OMB deserve all of the responsibility for this situation. But she's accepted it, and that's the beginning, not the end, of the process of true accountability.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Editor in Chief Tom Shoop, along with other editors and staff correspondents, take a fresh look at news affecting the management and operations of the federal bureaucracy.
Too much emphasis on a fast answer. Government wide problem. Senior officials do not appreciate the details of operations. Too many great thoughts.
Wise Old Owl Posted Monday, October 29, 2007 10:50 AMAs an Agency official involved with the HSPD-12 Implementation, Ms. Evans and her colleagues at OMB should be made to have a "slap" of reality. Between HSPD-12 and FIPS 201, it is clear that those who write are not those who do! Most, if not all, of the mandate is not only unrealistic, but also unclear. Federal Departments/Agencies are still waiting for OPM to publish their final regulations on Suitability (5 CFR 731). Proposed regulations were published in January 2008. One of the many issues with the HSPD-12 mandate is the required background investigations for all Federal employees and contractors. Don't get me wrong, that is not a huge problem, the problem is managers all think their employees need to have the highest level of investigation (public trust positions and/or national security positions). OPM needs to remind all Federal agencies (in plain english) the differences between public trust and national security. The media is continually publishing reports of backlogs of clearances (for NATIONAL SECURITY POSITIONS), not for public trust positions. Again, additional guidance is needed. I find it hard to believe that between DoD and their contractors there is a valid (EO 12968) requirement for all of those NATIONAL SECURITY CLEARANCES. If the over 500,000 active national security clearances holders all have access to classified information, we are doomed. What ever happened with validating "need to know" versus "want to know"? The contracting officers need to have a refresher course on how to review a RFP or a SOW to ensure their is a valid need for access to national security classified information.
Until OPM, OMB and the other decision makers produce some real guidance, we will always be behind, and we will continue to grant clearances when, perhaps, they are not needed.
OH, and do the math, each Top Secret clearances averages $3000.
In the business Posted Monday, October 29, 2007 9:35 PMAs someone who has worked on the new identity card program let me add the following. For 3 years, the rules, regulations and policies for these new IDs has changed. Everytime you start to make progress someone comes up with new policy you have to follow. Some policies are still being worked as you read this. This has caused agencies to be too reactive instead of proactive. Additionally, while its nice to put this in place, its hard to fulfill as an UNFUNDED mandate. Many agencies are spending millions and millions on new IDs and new logical (computer log in) and physical access control (card readers, etc.) systems. But at least the security and ID companies are making tons of money!
Gov Joe Posted Tuesday, October 30, 2007 7:44 AMTom –
You’re right. We’re focusing our attention on achieving results and taking accountability for hitting our milestones. Accountability begins with transparency – and OMB is requiring agencies to provide the public greater insight into how they’re performing in boosting the level of protections for our federal facilities and personnel. Agencies will be required to report their status in meeting HSPD-12 milestones, including the number of background investigations completed and the Personal Identity Verification (PIV) credentials issued. We’ll be consolidating agency information in an easy to access, quarterly progress statement on E-gov.gov for public view starting in December.
Agencies have made a lot of progress since the President issued HSPD-12. Prior to the President's direction in August 2004, there were no trusted government-wide standards and millions of dollars were being investing annually on incompatible systems. Now, we have the standards and the processes in place which allow agencies to rely on other agencies' credentials for access, if authorized. Agencies have been streamlining and integrating their processes, leveraging infrastructure, and will continue to issue PIV credentials. This is a foundational effort and we’re making sure we do it right the first time.
That said, we do have goals we want to hit with the final milestone to be completed in October 2008. At that time, we expect agencies will be issuing PIV credentials as standard practice and all remaining employees will have their background checks completed. We’ll be working with agencies to continue to resolve any remaining technical difficulties in order to meet both the intent and milestones of HSPD-12.
Karen S. Evans Posted Tuesday, October 30, 2007 6:13 PM