The 3 Responses of Doan
By Daniel Pulliam | Thursday, May 24, 2007 | 11:01 AM
By Daniel Pulliam | Thursday, May 24, 2007 | 11:01 AM
Reporters typically try to get both sides of a story. So, when someone alleges or rules that an individual, say, violated a law, a reporter asks the accused for a response.
That's what we did when the Office of Special Counsel ruled that Lurita Doan, the head of the General Services Administration, violated the Hatch Act. Typically, a reporter will get one response. But Doan gave us, over a three-hour period, three slightly different statements.
Listed below are her statements sent via email. The bold portions are words that were either altered or removed in the succeeding response.
Government Executive received its first statement via email from Doan at 2:37 p.m., Wednesday:
I received the staff-drafted report, and I disagree with its preliminary findings. I have concerns with the leaps in logic and the many inaccuracies contained in it, such as an error as simple as citing a non-existent employee in my office. I have an opportunity, which I will take, to work with the Office of Special Counsel to correct the many inaccuracies before the final report is issued.
Doan then sent a second response via email at 5:07 p.m., Wednesday:
I received the staff-drafted report, and I disagree with its preliminary findings. I fundamentally disagree with the approach taken by investigators to include facts and information that were not included in the report. I have an opportunity, which I will take, to work with the Office of Special Counsel to correct the many inaccuracies before the final report is issued.
The final statement was received by Government Executive at 5:27 p.m., Wednesday:
I received the staff-drafted report, and I disagree with its preliminary findings. I fundamentally disagree with the approach taken by investigators, including the omission of important and relevant facts from the report. I have an opportunity, which I will take, to work with the Office of Special Counsel to correct the many inaccuracies before the final report is issued.
Comments
Compliments to Govexec for diligence on reporting this type of political shenanigans and malfeasance. Taxpayers should be outraged about this - they pay Doan's salary. Feds and Contractors should be outraged because they are depending on GSA contracts and supposed fair contract administration to accomplish critical government missions. However, the Hatch Act violations are indeed only part of the story. Whatever happened to the allegations that a friend of Doan's was given a no-bid contract and the "mishandling" of a multimillion dollar contract with Sun Microsystems. While appalling and dispicable, most expect "political appointees" to be political. The breach of trust regarding contract malfeasance crosses into the criminal zone. Doan should resign and try to make the best of what's left of the situation - it could get much worse.
Don | Friday, May 25, 2007 | 07:24 AMIn his commentary on the "3 Responses of Doan", Don Chavez writes " I can never recall a similar situation where supposedly secret and protected information is so readily provided to the media." Oh really? Hey Don - can you say "Valerie Plame"?
John Q. Public | Thursday, May 24, 2007 | 04:32 PMWho cares if Doan violated the Hatch Act? Everyone who takes the oath as a Fed should care. The Preseident should care. All American taxpayers (who pay Doan's salary and benefits) should care. What the focus should be on is not just what appears to be Hatch Act violations, but the allegeded malfeasance with regard to no-bid contracts (in one case to a personal friend of Ms. Doan) and with a large Sun Microsystems contract. I think those events should be priority over the Hatch Act violations (alleged). If anyone thinks Doan is "catching it" now, believe me - it could get worse (criminal).
Don | Thursday, May 24, 2007 | 03:02 PMYou miss the point Daniel. There is a much more interesting question. Just who exactly leaked the OSC report to GovExec? I have been following this whole story with great fascination for the past several months. It began with a comment from Doan to the GSA IG, that the IG was terrorizing GSA employees. That comment was quickly leaked to the Wash Post by the GSA IG and twisted around a bit to make sure it put Doan in as much hot water as possible. Next came a report that the IG had opened up an IG investigation. Now the curious thing here is that investigations are supposed to all be strictly confidential and leaking details of an ongoing investigation is a federal crime. But just the same, GovExec got a complete file of an on going investigation, which no doubt came from the IG. Next we had detailed budget information regarding the GSA's IG that appeared in great detail before it was ever submitted...again an unprecedented move that violates rules (but is not to my knowledge a federal crime). Now we get the juicy details from GovExec of yet another ongoing investigation initiated by the IG and conducted by the OSC, on Doan's conduct. This too is a criminal offense. I do not know whether or not she violated the Hatch Act, but at this point who cares...The really interesting thing is that someone really wants this lady's head and is willing to do just about anything, to get it. Would'nt you like to know why? I can never recall a similar situation where supposedly secret and protected information is so readily provided to the media. There is also a definate connection of all of this to the IG. Why would he want to risk prosecution and violate so many legal issues? Sure looks like there is a personal vendetta going on here and GovExec is right in the middle of it. So, come on...help us unravel this melodrama ... who is leaking all the juicy stuff???????
Don Chavez | Thursday, May 24, 2007 | 12:44 PMABOUT THIS BLOG
Allan Holmes on what's happening and what's being discussed in the world of federal information technology.
feed