WASHINGTON - Nearly two dozen officials who received hefty performance bonuses last year at the Veterans Affairs Department also sat on the boards charged with recommending the payments.
Documents obtained by The Associated Press raise questions of conflicts of interest or appearances of conflicts in connection with the bonuses, some of which went to senior officials involved in crafting a budget that came up $1.3 billion short and jeopardized veterans' health care.
The documents show that 21 of 32 officials who were members of VA performance review boards received more than half a million dollars in payments themselves.
Among them: nearly a dozen senior officials who devised the flawed 2005 budget. Also rewarded was the deputy undersecretary for benefits, who manages a system with severe backlogs of veterans waiting for disability benefits.
Deputy undersecretaries who sit on the review boards, which are appointed by VA Secretary Jim Nicholson, also had input on bonus recommendations involving themselves, fellow members and spouses that made questionable performance claims and neglected agency problems.
The VA, which has defended the bonuses as necessary to retain hardworking senior employees, says board members do not participate in bonus decisions that involve themselves or fellow board members. In those cases, recommendations are made by agency heads in consultation with deputy undersecretaries, who usually serve as supervisors to their fellow board members, the agency says.
But government watchdogs were harshly critical, saying the process does little to instill public confidence in the fairness of awards. In its last known report on the issue one involving NASA the Government Accountability Office in 1980 urged that performance boards add credibility and objectivity to their decisions by including "one or more impartial members from outside the agency," although agencies are not required to do so.
With the exception of a panel tasked with reviewing the VA inspector general's office, all the VA's performance board members come from within the agency.
In one case, Michael Walcoff, associate deputy undersecretary for field operations who sits on two of the review boards, and his wife, Kimberly, a VA director, received a package of bonuses totaling $42,000.
"This is a scandal in the making," said Paul C. Light, professor of public service at New York University who specializes in government reform. He said the VA bonuses pointed to possible "featherbedding" and other favoritism.
Light said given the current problems in veterans care, the department would be best served if Nicholson restricted most performance bonuses for at least a year except in cases of clear improvement.
"This is not the time for largesse for the Department of Veterans Affairs," Light said. "They must not make a link between retention and employees, but employees and performance as an incentive to solve these very serious problems."
Following reports this month by the AP of the $3.8 million in bonuses, groups such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America have called on Nicholson to explain why officials involved in budget foul-ups would be rewarded.
Annual bonuses to senior VA officials last year averaged more than $16,000, the highest average in government.
Rep. John Hall (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., has introduced legislation that would freeze 2007 VA bonuses for "senior politically appointed officers" such as assistant secretaries or deputy undersecretaries until the agency pares its disability claims backlog to under 100,000 cases. The VA says deputy undersecretaries are career employees, and a committee spokeswoman acknowledged that was the case.
"It is simply unacceptable that veterans are waiting longer and longer for benefits they desperately need while senior staff members in charge of bad policy are rewarded so-called performance bonuses," Hall said.
The legislation, originally scheduled for a vote Tuesday, was expected to be considered along with other veterans health care bills later this month, a spokeswoman for Hall said.
Under a federal law passed in 1978 to increase government accountability by tying bonuses more closely to performance, agencies are required to appoint performance review boards yearly to guarantee bonus awards are "fair and credible."
According to guidance by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, performance boards must ensure that bonuses are given based not only on individual accomplishments cited by supervisors, but also the department's overall success.
However, 2006 bonus proposals obtained by the AP show that senior officials who received top payments of $33,000 were sometimes credited for achievements that were questionable, if not inaccurate. Also, no mention was made of agency-wide problems.
For example:
_Rita Reed, deputy assistant secretary for budget: "Demonstrated the ability to design and implement strategies that maximize employee potential and foster high ethical standards in meeting the organization's mission and goals."
While touting her role in launching programs to "leverage the VA's buying power" as well as collecting $5.1 million in erroneous payments, the proposal does not mention Reed's lead role in crafting the VA's flawed 2005 budget.
Months prior to her bonus award, GAO investigators determined the VA had used misleading accounting to justify health cuts, claiming false savings in part by double-counting savings from volume purchasing in government contracts from year to year.
_William Feeley, deputy undersecretary for health for operations and management: "Made numerous contributions to veterans and the Veterans Health Administration in his role as deputy undersecretary." It said he also led systemwide improvements that resulted in a 2.2 percent decrease in wait times for primary care.
Feeley received a top bonus and is credited for yearlong achievements even though he did not take the job until February 2006, nearly halfway into the fiscal year. Previously, he was a VA regional director who played a role in the flawed 2005 budget.
Regarding veterans' wait times to see doctors, a 2005 report from the VA inspector general found that VA schedulers routinely put the wrong requested appointment dates into the system, which made reported wait times appear shorter than they really were. The IG has said problems lingered in 2006 despite VA promises.
_Ronald Aument, deputy undersecretary for benefits: "His knowledge of VBA programs and operations and his breadth of experiences across VA have contributed greatly to VBA's progress in improving services to veterans."
Aument helps manage a disability claims system that has backlogs of 400,000 to 600,000 veterans. The waits average 177 days, two months short of the VA's strategic goal of 125 days to process claims. Nicholson has called the delays unacceptable.
Posts: 259 | From: Humble, Tx. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
(c) 1999-2005. INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS RESERVE ALL RIGHTS TO THEIR POSTINGS ON THIS BULLETIN BOARD WHERE COPYRIGHT IS NOT EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMED. (KANSAS CITY, MO.) *** Junior members, members, moderators, and administrators reserve common-law copyright privileges and rights to their own individual postings, unless expressly disclaimed. By using this bulletin board and in consideration for the privileges of such use, all guests, junior members, members, moderators, and administrators irrevocably agree to grant AGWVA permission and consent to use, store, retrieve, copy, distribute, and edit such message postings without limitation or exception, and irrevocably appoints AGWVA as agent for the purpose of execting any document or instrument necessary to effectuate this agreement. Furthermore, by using this bulletin board and in consideration therefor, all authorized or unauthorized guests, junior members, members, moderators, and administrators agree that the controlling jurisdiction over any dispute or controversy arising from the use or access of this bulletin board shall be governed under the laws of the State of Missouri and jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri. *** While we encourage private messages to be posted in private forums requiring special authorization to enter, some messages on this bulletin board are protected by attorney-client privilege, doctor-patient privilege, and/or priest-penitent privilege, and such messages are intended solely for the use of those posting those messages, the intended recipient of that message, and AGWVA Bulletin Board's management - any disclosure beyond these parties is unintentional. The voluntary provision of medical, regulatory services/VA-representation, or religious services to members of the AGWVA Bulletin Board shall be limited by the case-by-case circumstances of each situation and shall be provided or not provided at the sole discretion of the person providing such services with the understanding that such services may stop or be limited at any time. Voluntary provision of any such service does not guarantee or assure any person a future or further right to such services. *** For posting messages to or from this bulletin board, AGWVA's management (moderators and administrators) are not compensated, directly or indirectly. *** Unauthorized use, copying, or distribution of material posted to this bulletin board is prohibited. Unauthorized access to this bulletin board is illegal and AGWVA reserves the right to prosecute anyone attempting to illegally access this bulletin board. AGWVA has stated explicit rules of conduct for its members posting on this bulletin board and all such rules are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set out hereinbelow. ***
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
