Page 48 - FCW, August 2017

Point/Counterpoint Independence,
accountability and the IG
Two longtime federal IT leaders discuss the balancing act required to maximize the effectiveness of inspectors general
BY ALAN P. BALUTIS AND DON UPSON
Editor’s Note: Alan Balutis and Don Upson are longtime friends who sit on different sides of the political fence. Both have served in govern- ment and now work in the private sector — Balutis as a distinguished fellow at Cisco Systems and Upson as founder and president of the Government Business Executive Forum. Between them they have won 13 Federal 100 awards.
This is the first in a series of Point-Counterpoint articles they will be writing for FCW that will focus on current management challenges.
Upson: Washington today is a city of too many leaks, “gotcha” govern- ment, and Republicans and Demo- crats alike who are too often overly partisan.
The answer? Many in Congress, the media, even the executive branch embrace “independence”
as the key guidepost to truth and justice and the solution to pressing issues: independent counsels, special commissions and inspectors general. Too often, policy differences in today’s charged atmosphere produce calls from one side or the other for some form of “independent” review or for greater independence added to one authority or another.
Our focus in this column is on independence, accountability and
IGs, but we start with this propo- sition: “Independence” in Ameri- can government was not what our Founding Fathers envisioned or desired in constructing our govern- ment’s framework. Accountability, on the other hand, was.
Accountability means checks and balances. It means everyone has a boss, whether you are a member of Congress, a Supreme Court justice or president of the United States. Pro- cesses exist for each to override the other when circumstances warrant — elections, super-majority votes, the constitutional amendment process.
When the balance between independence and accountability is skewed, problems arise and unin- tended consequences occur.
The Office of Inspector General was created in 1975 because of the perception by members of Congress that waste, fraud and abuse were rampant in the Department of Health and Human Services. A “pilot” IG
at HHS validated that assumption and led to enactment in 1978 of the Inspector General Act.
The act has been amended sev- eral times in the past 40 years. Law enforcement, subpoena and search warrant authorities have been added, and the number of IGs expanded. Today, IGs function in all depart- ments and every major federal agency — around 70 in total.
Balutis: Let me add some “good news, bad news” to that, Don. There are currently 73 IGs, 34 of whom require appointment by the president. The rest are appointed by the agencies themselves. The Trump administration has been slow to fill top Cabinet positions, and this is true for the IG positions as well.
The president has yet to fill 12 vacant IG spots at federal agencies, including the Defense and Energy departments, CIA, National Security Agency, and Office of the Director for National Intelligence. The Inte- rior Department has been without a permanent IG since February 2009. The CIA vacancy dates to Jan. 31, 2015. Acting IGs have filled those roles but typically don’t have the enforcement clout or standing to make lasting changes. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial deemed them “temporary and toothless.”
Upson: In the minds of many,
the envisioned IG independence/ accountability balance today is skewed too much in favor of Con- gress. IGs too often are viewed by the executive branch as “insider threats” whose reporting is designed for “gotcha” findings that can pro- vide fodder for sensational congres- sional hearings.
Those beliefs engender sus-
42 August 2017 FCW.COM