Shows & Panels
- The 2014 Big Picture on Cyber Security
- AFCEA Answers
- Ask the CIO
- Building the Hybrid Cloud
- Connected Government: How to Build and Procure Network Services for the Future
- Continuing Diagnostics and Mitigation: Discussion of Progress and Next Steps
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal Tech Talk
- The Future of Government Data Centers
- The Future of IT: How CIOs Can Enable the Service-Oriented Enterprise
- The Intersection: Where Technology Meets Transformation
- Maximizing ROI Through Data Center Consolidation
- Mitigating Insider Threats in Virtual & Cloud Environments
- Modern Mission Critical Series
- Moving to the Cloud. What's the best approach for me
- Navigating Tough Choices in Government Cloud Computing
- The New Generation of Database
- Satellite Communications: Acquiring SATCOM in Tight Times
- Targeting Advanced Threats: Proven Methods from Detection through Remediation
- Transformative Technology: Desktop Virtualization in Government
- The Truth About IT Opex and Software Defined Networking
- Value of Health IT
- Air Traffic Management Transformation Report
- Cloud First Report
- General Dynamics IT Enterprise Center
- Gov Cloud Minute
- Government in Technology Series
- Homeland Security Cybersecurity Market Report
- National Cybersecurity Awareness Month
- Technology Insights
- The Cyber Security Report
- The Next Generation Cyber Security Experts
Shows & Panels
DorobekInsider: The VA IG reports — what are the next steps? We ask government IT veterans
Monday - 8/24/2009, 8:36am EDT
Late last week, we told you about two scathing reports from the Department of Veterans Affairs inspector general’s office. And they are still the buzz around town.
You can download PDF of the two reports for yourself here:
Friday on Federal News Radio 1500 AM’s Daily Debrief with Chris Dorobek and Amy Morris, we spoke with Gautham Nagesh is a reporter for Government Executive and Nextgov, who has been reporting on this story. Hear our conversation here.
The questions now: What will be the ripple effects? (There are almost always unintended consequences that result from these kinds of events.)
As I mentioned last week, the current VA CIO Roger Baker was not involved in any way. In fact, he didn’t come on board until months after these events had happened. But they will likely have a significant impact on his agenda for the VA IT shop.
One of the big concerns that people are talking about are the sheer number of names in these reports. I haven’t sat down to count them, but… there are more then a dozen names redacted from these reports. Does that mean that these actions, if true, were pervasive through VA?
Baker has made a real effort to transform Earlier this year, of course, Baker put a hold on 45 IT projects because they were behind schedule or over budget — they were troubled. It is unclear if it was going to work yet. There have been other attempts to transform VA’s IT shop — and they have often been characterized by two steps forward, followed by one step back.
One government IT veteran I was talking to over the weekend said Baker could actually turn this into his advantage — this could further his case that change is necessary.
And Baker is perhaps uniquely qualified to deal with these issues having served as the former Commerce Department CIO.
And Nextgov’s Nagesh posts a response from VA:
A VA spokesman issued the following statement about the reports: “VA is aware of the findings detailed in the OIG reports. VA expects our employees to set the highest levels of personal and professional conduct; therefore, we are extremely concerned by the descriptions of alleged improper conduct by VA staff. The department is aggressively pursuing a thorough review of the situation and will continue to work with the appropriate authorities. VA does not condone misconduct by its employees and will take the appropriate corrective action for those who violate VA policy.
I have asked some of the best government IT minds for their advice to VA — and to Baker. The only caveat was that I would not identify them so they could speak their minds freely.
Here are some of what they said…
* Verify that the facts in the report are accurate. If so, then start making reassignments and bring in a new team.
* It is a tough call – but fair and even-handed treatment is necessary. Generally the IG recommendations are reasonable – but some of this behavior costs the taxpayers plenty and did nothing to benefit the Veteran. It seems Mr. Baker concurred with the IG recommendations and we will have to wait and see what the final decisions are. It is noteworthy that the “pat” answer includes the phrase “General Counsel”. The IG never made a statement about referral to Justice – but in my experience that is usually not written down or part of the printed file. Some of these issues I would imagine are referral-able.
If nothing else those that are SES’ers should be thrown from the corp – to not do so is to sully the ranks of all SES’ers. That corp of gov execs should be beyond reproach. Speed will be of no importance here – this will linger until the press goes on to other things!
* They have to deal with the personnel aspects and demonstrate they have taken steps to correct the conditions that got them to this end. [Some of these situations were] well known in the halls of VA and no one took action…
In general VA is a Peyton Place of this sort of thing — people with new found power want to use it….