GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Agency watchdogs need to be watched, critics say

• 2054
  

  After having worked for DLA for over 12 years I know that before any IG associated with DLA can be watched, they will have to be found. The lack of IG oversight really shows.

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 5, 2003 5:47 PM
• 2047
  

  "Clay Johnson, the deputy director for management at the White House Office of Management and Budget, said the IG firings at the start of the administration were not designed to deter criticisms but instead reflected concerns that those IGs focused too much on finding wrongs after they occurred rather than on preventing them."

  Come on Clay! The IG is an audit function, not a policy evaluation function. IGs should fine wongs after they occurred and not prevent them. IGs prevent wrong by finding past wrongs and suggesting the proper controls for the program. IGs should not evaluate programs per se! IGs should focus on control of existing programs, not the value of proposed programs! Management and Congress should decide the value of programs, IGs should audit the process to see that no one is stealing or doing things out of line with the program. OMB and Clay should make the decisions about the programs themselves and prevent wrongs from happening. Additionaly, when IGs report wrongs, Clay and management must do something to correct the wrongs! As I see it, management just agrees with everything the IG writes up and they go on their merry way doing what they want. There is no accountibility of management - the problem is not the IGs but is the management. The IG simply should point out bad management and control of processes and not evaluate the process before it exists.

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 5, 2003 8:22 AM
• 2030
  

  I watched the IG's on CSPAN and they have credible stories to tell. However, they are slowly being used by presidents as tools to be used against the people to make the administration in charge happy with their bad decisions. The IG allows them to get away with bad decisions by simply not pursuing where the evidence goes.

  I give you the 3-star general talking hate in the church. Bet he gets away clean as a whistle. If that same person was an enlisted person saying the same thing, the decision would be completely different. Dishonorable discharge and kicked to the curb.

  The IG is going the way OPM has gone.

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 4, 2003 8:14 AM
• 2022
  

  Foes of the IG are usually within agencies where it becomes very clear what level of corruption passes for business-as-usual in government. To mix up whistleblowing with improper actions against supervisors is really just reinvesting the managers with more power against "betrayal," or, as most taxpayers would call it, compliance with law. People outside the agencies who fault the IG for personnel matters might think to enforce the "non-frivolous" standard of disclosure at a juncture previous to the investigation. That said, the statement that whistleblowers might be trying "just" to retaliate against disliked managers is nonsense, the contradiction in terms is clear and people promulgating this as a problem need to reassess their agenda.

  Christine Tomei Posted November 3, 2003 12:59 PM