Header
IGs: Too Mean or Too Nice?
 By Tom Shoop | Friday, November 09, 2007  |  11:40 AM

Interesting juxtaposition of stories on our home page today. First, Jill Aitoro uncovers the story of two more information technology vendors who have quietly dropped their General Services Administration schedule contracts, one of them openly citing "unreasonable demands" by the agency's inspector general.

At the same time, though, CongressDaily's Dan Friedman reports that a bipartisan group of senators are concerned about IGs who they say "work too closely with agency leaders or succumb to political pressure from the Bush administration." They're pushing a bill aimed at making IGs more independent by, among other things, prohibiting them from accepting bonuses from agency heads and reducing the control of agencies over IG pay.



Comments


Tom - If your friend is arrested by the sheriff for loitering, do you put pressure on the sheriff or get rid of the loitering law? Maybe its time your friend quit loitering, eh?

Anonymous  | Tuesday, November 13, 2007 |  08:09 AM


wrong question. Some IGs are very good and make wonderful contributions. Other IGs puruse personal agendas and cause great damage. Just last week there were examples of both. Govexec reported that the IGs at DoE and the NRC are working closely with their CIOs to minimize risks on specific IT modernizatin projects. This can only be a good thing. On the other hand, you also ran a story about the GSA IG that is so dictatorial, arbitrary and unfair, that companies have decided to voluntarily cancel their GSA Schedules. This a pretty clear vote of no confidence in this particular IG and the damages done and added taxpayer costs are likely to be high. So there you have it, some IGs are good, some are awful.

carter24  | Sunday, November 11, 2007 |  10:38 AM


IGs are a mixed bag. Some are not as independent as they should be, and some are.

One way to insure they do not get too cozy with an agency is to limit their terms to something like five years.

Some IGs may also be protective of individuals they have worked with, or worked for in previous positions, as is apparently the case at the NRC.

Some thought should be given to an IG which oversees more than one agency, to get the most "bang for the buck."

Some IGs save millions of taxpayer dollars a year, and some may actually operate at a net loss if they oversee a small agency such as the NRC, which has relatively few contracts, and is essentially a regulatory agency.

James E. Foster  | Saturday, November 10, 2007 |  04:58 PM


As an IG employee for over 10 years, I have watched with concern as contractors have become increasingly empowered to sway federal policy in the Executive Branch, while pocketing millions in incentive and award fees for goals that are easily acheived. As the political appointees befriend the contractors - some clearly with their next jobs in mind - the IG community is the best, and often only hope to give the taxpayer a seat at the table. Did I mention that the contractors complain about too much oversight?

Anony Mous  | Friday, November 09, 2007 |  11:19 PM



Post a comment



ABOUT THIS BLOG


Government Executive Editor Tom Shoop takes a look at news and events affecting the federal bureaucracy, from the perspective of a longtime observer of government.

SEARCH THIS BLOG


SUBSCRIBE to this blog's RSS feed

ARCHIVES



CATEGORIES