Legal Meets Practical: Accessible Solutions

VA Slammed for Waste and Abuse at 2011 Training Conferences, Key Official Steps Down

How many disability compensation claims could the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pay out with $700,000? How many veterans could avoid foreclosure on their homes, prevent bankruptcy proceedings, and pay grocery and medical bills? These were the first thoughts that crossed my mind when I read the VA’s Office of Inspector General’s report (the Report) on the $700,000 wasted at two VA training conferences held in Orlando in 2011.

The September 28, 2012 Report follows an administrative investigation prompted by  allegations of wasteful expenditures relating to the two VA conferences. You may have heard about this on the news – the VA received a lot of flak, particularly for the $50,000 spent on a parody of General George S. Patton (video not publicly available). It also didn’t help that the public was already hopping mad over the allegations of waste at a 2010 General Services Administration (GSA) conference in Las Vegas. These latter allegations forced GSA Chief, Martha Johnson, to step down.

The September 28, 2012 Report’s conclusions are hardly surprising. It found that while the conferences were held to fulfill valid training needs, the “VA’s processes and oversight were too weak, ineffective, and in some instances, nonexistent.” In fact, the VA could not even provide sufficient accounting to reconstruct the costs of the conferences – the total cost is estimated at $6.1 million, but the Report noted that it could not gain reasonable assurance that the figure reflected a complete accounting for the conferences. Also, some of the costs weren’t sufficiently documented, which made it difficult to clearly justify them, show their necessity, or prove reasonableness in price.

Waste, insufficient oversight, and poor planning weren’t the extent of the Report’s observations. It also concluded that during the pre-selection of hotels for the conferences, VA employees accepted “illicit gifts” from hotels and hotel employees. These included meals, lodging, room upgrades, transportation (including one helicopter ride), spa treatments, and gift baskets. These tokens were considered in the Report as “illicit” gifts from federal government contractors, as these hotels and their representatives may have used these gifts to attempt to secure future contracts from the VA (ie, to sway the VA to use these hotels for future conferences).

As a result of the Report’s findings, John Sepulveda, the Assistant Secretary for the VA Human Resources Department who oversaw the conferences, stepped down. Other members of VA leadership may soon follow, as the Report lists many of the key figures by name. (In particular, the Report notes the names of those who received gifts from the hotels). Accordingly, the Report assigns individual accountability to the persons responsible for the waste and abuse that occurred at these conferences.

While the VA (and the taxpayers) will not recover the monies wasted at the conferences, as noted by George Opfer, the VA Inspector General, “as VA moves forward, this report should serve as lessons learned that all VA management officials and staff share responsibility and accountability for meeting program objectives in an economical manner and reflect proper fiscal stewardship of taxpayer funds.”

In light of this firm hand taken by the VA Inspector General, as well as the public backlash, let’s hope that the waste and abuse at these conferences are not repeated. The money would be better spent elsewhere – such as on our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Report may be accessed at: http://www.va.gov/oig/pubs/VAOIG-12-02525-291R.pdf.

Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog on veterans issues and updates at: https://legalmeetspractical.com. Make sure to click the link sent to your email to activate your subscription!

Comments are closed.

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.