Legal Meets Practical: Accessible Solutions

Following the Story: The Need-to-Know Updates

For everyone who regularly follows my blog, thank you! I’m doing things a little differently this time by updating some of my prior posts. For example, what has happened with certain disgraced VA employees? What is the VA’s Center for Verification (CVE) up to? How’s that disastrous Colorado VA construction project coming? See below…

  • The VA Accountability Act has passed the House! I blogged on this just last week – this bill gives the VA an expanded right to fire or terminate employees, expands employees’  probationary periods (after which it becomes very difficult to fire them), and it also affords greater whistleblower protection. It now has to pass the Senate and be signed by President Obama (who has expressed that he will veto it). For a particularly insightful take on the bill by a VA employee, see the comments to my prior blog.
  • Colorado VA Construction Project Limps On.  In what has been dubbed as the “biggest construction failure in VA history,” the VA continues to try to stop a major cash hemorrhage. Interestingly, despite coverage several months ago stating that the project was already years behind and billions over budget, the press has been relatively silent this summer. The latest update is that the VA is scrambling to find the money needed to finish the project, and is facing budget cuts within its own programs to come up with the cash.
  • The VA’s Center for Verification and Evaluation’s (CVE) Gripe Session.  In an attempt to seek input from the veteran community, the VA’s CVE (the entity that processes business applications for the VA’s set-aside award programs) is holding focus groups (invitation only). I was invited as a member of the focus group, but was disappointed to learn that I had to appear in person in Washington, D.C. or not at all. Hopefully the CVE will find a way to allow individuals to appear telephonically, as to not do so will limit participation to only those within the Washington, D.C. metro area (or to those who foot their own bill for the travel).
  • VA Employee Facing 50 Federal Charges.  A VA employee accused of altering medical records has been placed on administrative leave and is now denied access to all of VA’s systems. In a federal indictment, authorities allege that the former Chief of Fee Basis at Charlie Norwood, Cathedral Henderson, terminated unresolved consults by saying the patients had completed or refused services. If convicted, he faces a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each count.

That’s the scoop. And as a note, many veteran readers have not been shy about sharing blog topics. This is an open forum, so please do the same if you feel strongly about a particular topic or story.

*Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for Sarah Schauerte’s legal blog on veteran business legal issues at: https://legalmeetspractical.com.

4 Responses to “Following the Story: The Need-to-Know Updates”

  1. I would love to provide input! Third time around and they made in more difficult than first two times. Things that previously met all margins of appropriateness did not hold up to this new group (and that is what “they” kept telling me-they are mostly all new people and are still trying to learn that when you send in only one K-1 document it is clear that there is still only one owner. Plus your resume and explanations for the past two times are not clear enough for them to understand what you do at your company. Whatever happened to making re-certifications a shortened process, especially when nothing has changed in structure and functions?

    • I have been noticing it’s been taking a lot longer recently. Also, I’ve submitted very clear LOEs citing state law as to why certain documents are not required (in particular, stock certificates), and then the next document request ignores the LOE and asks again for the document.

      It’s gotten a lot better in some ways (over the last year and a half in particular), but this isn’t the first or tenth time I’ve heard the complaint that documents passed muster the first and second time but got flagged the third time. Nothing has changed; it’s either: 1) examiner error this time; or 2) examiner error the first and second times (i.e., the document through the gate when it shouldn’t have).

  2. I was made aware of a Contract Officer who was convicted as a child sex abuse offender which I understand is a felony. His name will remain on the child sex offender list for 25 years I am told. Is this acceptable for Government Employees? He was working for the government when convicted five years ago.

  3. Thanks for the updates!! I wondered where some of those stories ended up! 🙂

Mission Statement

My mission is to provide accessible, high-quality legal services to small business owners and to veterans. I will strive to clearly communicate, understand objectives, and formulate and execute effective legal solutions.

Disclaimer

No Attorney-Client Relationship

This website is maintained exclusively for informational purposes. It is not intended to provide legal or other professional advice and does not necessarily represent the opinions of the lawyer or her clients. Viewing this site, using information from it, or communicating with Sarah Schauerte through this site by email does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Non-Reliance

Online readers should not act nor decline to act, based on content from this site, without first consulting an attorney or other appropriate professional. Because the law changes frequently, this website's content may not indicate the current state of the law. Nothing on this site is meant to predict or guarantee future results. I am not liable for the use or interpretation of information contained on this website, and expressly disclaim all liability for any actions you take or fail to take, based on this website's content.

Links

I do not necessarily endorse and am not responsible for content accessed through this website's links to other Internet resources. Correctness and adequacy of information on those sites is not guaranteed, and unless otherwise stated, I am not associated with such linked sites.

Contacting Me

You may email me through the email address provided by this site, but information you send through email or this website is not secure and may not be confidential. Communications will not be treated as privileged unless I already represent you. Do not send confidential information until you have established a formal attorney-client relationship with me. Even if I represent you, please understand that email security is still uncertain and that you accept all risks of such uncertainty and potential lack of confidentiality when you send us unencrypted, sensitive, or confidential email. Email from me never constitutes an electronic signature, unless it expressly says so.