GovernmentExecutive.com

My friend and colleague at National Journal, Bara Vaida, has the details of how agencies are starting to detail their contacts with lobbyists, and the Sunlight Foundation evaluates the quality of the agencies' disclosure. The agencies that have reported in include the Army Corps of Engineers, Corporation for National and Community Service, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, Federal Communication Commission, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Small Business Administration.

I like the idea of an initiative that would increase citizen participation in and feedback about policy-making. I hate the language that invariably accompanies such proposals. Instructions like "develop a high-level, interagency governance structure to oversee the implementation of the directive" don't actually mean a lot. Neither does "Take on traditional managerial resistance to public participation in agencies by designating a senior level champion."

There are real challenges here. Trying to find sensible channels for public feedback and integrating that feedback into the decision-making process isn't necessarily easy, and will add to people's workloads. Adding layers of public comment erodes management's power, and that's something that people will have to get comfortable with. But adding a high-level official whose job it is to cheerlead for public comment, or creating a panel to oversee how folks integrate public feedback, doesn't actually solve those very practical problems. And couching them in management-speak, sadly, isn't a very good place to start.

From Rob Brodsky:

The non-profit Center for Public Integrity has obtained some stunning Justice Department data regarding the number of contracting fraud cases that were pursued by the Bush administration.

According to the investigative site, “Defense contracting grew from about $200 billion in fiscal year 1993 at the start of the Clinton presidency to nearly $400 billion in FY 2008 at the end of President George W. Bush’s administration (1993 dollars adjusted for inflation to 2008 dollars). But Defense Department investigators during the Bush administration sent 76 percent fewer contracting fraud and corruption cases to the Justice Department for potential criminal prosecution than were referred under Clinton.”

Richard D. Beltz, director of investigative operations with the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, told CPI that he did not believe case referrals from his agency were down but did not provide any data to support his claim, the report said.

President Obama wrote the following in a signing statement he attached to the omnibus spending bill, referring to a section that protects officials who disclose information about their jobs:

“I do not interpret this provision to detract from my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control and correct employees’ communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.”

The New York Times that Chuck Grassley thinks the signing statement could be interpreted to abridge whistleblower rights. Grassley takes whistleblower rights really, really seriously. But that doesn't mean he's wrong. If the Obama team supports whistleblower rights, clarifying what the signing statement means and issuing a strong statement of support for employees' rights shouldn't be a problem, right?

Chuck Grassley really cares about whistleblowers. He cares about them so much that he's asked President Obama to hold a Rose Garden ceremony honoring them, saying:

“In exchange for risking their livelihoods to do what’s right for the good of the country, most whistleblowers are treated like skunks at a Sunday afternoon picnic and often far worse,” Grassley said. “President Obama could help to change this culture of hostility and uproot wrongdoing in government with a Rose Garden ceremony honoring whistleblowers. It would send a message from the top of the bureaucracy on down that whistleblowers should be heard and treated with rewards not reprisals.”

It seems like a really nice idea, except if folks are afraid to go because it would reveal their identities as whistleblowers. Maybe everyone could wear snazzy masks and disguises? I forsee a run on Groucho-Marx-style glasses with attached noses and moustaches.

My colleage Rob Brodsky emails the following observations from the Senate, Banking and Urban Affairs Committee hearing:

In his first report to Congress, the Troubled Asset Relief Program Inspector General Neil Barofsky said he is starting a pair of audits: one will be a case study on how Bank of America received $45 billion of government funds in three separate bailout programs; the second will investigate how lobbyists are influencing the application process for banks to receive capital infusions.

Barofsky also told the panel that he has begun sending letters to companies that received TARP funds during the past few months and how they plan to spend future funds. The IG will also probe how the companies plan to comply with President Obama’s order, limiting the executive compensation of TARP recipients to $500,000.

And Rob also writes:

Professor Elizabeth Warren, chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program just told the committee that her team has conducted an analysis of the 10 largest TARP transactions made in 2008. Warren found that the Treasury paid $254 billion for assets worth approximately $176 billion, a shortfall of $78 billion.

Warren further told the panel that Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson “was not completely candid” with the American people about how the bailout funds would be spent.

Committee Chairman Chris Dodd called the findings “infuriating.”

Don Kettl is always a lot of fun to talk to about government. But since not all of you call him up and ask him questions on a regular basis, you should read what he has to say about the huge realignments we've been going through in this months Government Executive. He warns:

"We're not very good at asking, let alone answering, such questions. We're likely to carom along from issue to issue, without confronting the big puzzles until the implications begin to accumulate. We'll probably slide sideways into a whole new understanding of whom government will help and how it will act."

And he says a lot of other great things, too. So go check it out!

Looks like the President reads his GAO report, or at least has them condensed and summarized to him. As he said in remarks before an economic briefing this morning:

One last point that I want to make -- the recovery package that we're passing is only going to be one leg in a -- at least a three-legged stool. And some of the reports that we've seen over the last couple of days about companies that have received taxpayer assistance, then going out and renovating bathrooms or offices, or in other ways not managing those dollars appropriately, the lack of accountability and transparency in how we are managing some of these programs to stabilize the financial system, and a recent GAO report that speaks to some of the problems of waste in our government, those all have to be part and parcel of a reform package if we're going to be responsible in dealing with this economic crisis.

Fascinating cover story in Newsweek this week about Thomas M. Tamm, a former Justice Department lawyer who exposed the Bush administration's effort to intercept phone calls and e-mails of people in the United States without court warrants. But it's how he did it that makes it interesting: Tamm went straight to the New York Times, which later published a story exposing the program (based not just on his revelations, it should be noted). He didn't bother with established federal whistleblowing procedures.

Tamm's defenders say he was merely trying to defend the rule of law and expose what he thought was a violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Without his actions, they say, the administration's activities may never have come to light.

Others say going to the media is the wrong approach. "You can't have runoffs deciding they're going to be the white knight and running to the press," Frances Fragos Townsend, told Newsweek. Townsend once headed the Justice unit where Tamm worked and later served as President Bush's chief counterterrorism adviser. "There are legal processes in place for [whistleblowers' complaints]. This is one where I'm a hawk. It offends me, and I find it incredibly dangerous."

I'll admit to a bias in favor of leaks to the media, for obvious reasons. But you can make up your own mind as to whether Tamm is a whistleblowing hero or merely a turncoat.

The Interior Department's Inspector General has released a report detailing the ways the Bush administration approached science in its endangered species policy. The New York Times story is an interesting read because of the way it examines how people deal with a situation where the basic, agreed-upon way of conducting business (the scientific method), runs into the desire of someone to achieve very different outcomes and conclusions than those that would be produced by that scientific method. The story notes that in a number of cases, agency employees pushed back against what they perceived as interference, and prevailed.

I don't know that we'll necessarily see more deference to front-line employees in the Obama administration, but this situation also illustrates some of the value of hearing some more of those front-line voices. Even if the positions were reversed, if a top scientist was heading an agency and wanted to impose different standards of work and evidence on his workforce, it would be valuable to know that there is a debate and a disagreement going on. It's hard to make public policy decisions when all lawmakers and the public see is a smooth facade.