At least one General Services Administration employee’s jaw hit the floor after a comment from two senators about GSA’s supposed insensibility.
“As a GSA employee I am appalled by the senators’ broad-brush criticism of GSA’s mindset,” the FCW reader wrote May 21 in response to blog post, “Do you really know what it’s like, GSA?”
Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, wrote in a recent letter that GSA doesn’t understand the pressure of living under congressional appropriations.
“GSA employees, therefore, may be less conscious of budget constraints than agencies that rely on appropriations,” the senators wrote to GSA Acting Administrator Dan Tangherlini May 10.
The senators wrote they often hear GSA considers itself different from other agencies because much of its operating budget comes from fees that customer agencies pay out of their appropriated pockets.
Readers are aghast at that sentiment.
“In all of my years as a federal government employee I have been fully cognizant of my responsibility regarding stewardship of the taxpayers' money,” wrote the reader, who has also worked at the Defense Department and NASA.
The senators' letter was connected to the infamous 2010 Western Regions Conference that put GSA back in the spotlight for some tough criticism. Lieberman and Collins wrote to Tangherlini about his plans for reshaping GSA to avoid the possibility of future waste, abuse and contracting mistakes.
The reader pointed out only 300 GSA employees attended the conference, and fewer went on the earlier “scouting” trips to find the best places to stay in Las Vegas.
“It is grossly unfair to smear the great reputations of the thousands of hardworking, dedicated GSA employees just to score political points,” the reader wrote.
Another reader based in Washington, DC, who works at GSA, said the employees in the fully fee-for-service parts of GSA understand the angst of other agencies. It flows down to GSA, in fact.
“If our customers can’t afford us, then we don’t exist,” he wrote.
SPMayor from Summit Point, WV, wrote that GSA’s budget and funding setup may seem to encourage a less disciplined approach to finances, but it could very well create a more service-oriented organization that is quiet efficient.
“Having their operational budget dependent on the use of their services should encourage a fiscally responsible and entrepreneurial spirit within GSA,” he wrote. He added though that it wouldn’t hurt to rethink how GSA operates and get the agency set on a solid service-delivery model.
In response to the blog post, GSA employees gave their opinion on the senators’ comments. However, the senators still want Tangherlini’s plans to get his employees to think first and foremost as stewards of taxpayer’s money.
Tangherlini has until May 31 to figure it out.
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 11:03 AM0 comments
Can the General Services Administration’s employees empathize with the struggles of the other government employees whose agencies have to work with appropriated funds?
Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), the chairman and ranking member respectively of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, wonder if GSA’s unique budget setup makes its employees oblivious to the stress of wondering when Congress will grant its next meal, according to a letter sent to GSA Acting Administrator Dan Tangherlini May 11.
The senators wrote that they often hear GSA considers itself different from other agencies because much of its operating budget comes from fees that customer agencies pay out of their appropriated pockets.
With that reliance, GSA's setup may be easy and light, letting its employees do their business without worrying much about the next budget cycle.
“GSA employees, therefore, may be less conscious of budget constraints than agencies that rely on appropriations,” the senators added in their letter.
Then, they ask how Tangherlini plans to change that mindset, which the senators say is prevalent inside GSA.
“What will you do to instill in the mindset of GSA employees that they were first and foremost the stewards of taxpayer dollars, whether that money comes directly to GSA or passes initially through other agencies?" they asked.
Posted on May 18, 2012 at 10:04 AM3 comments
One congresswoman believes she has the solution to agencies' declining to implement Inspector General recommendations: more IG power. In effect, under her proposal, agencies would have two leaders, the secretary and the IG.
At a hearing on IGs held May 10, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) said that agencies don’t have to do what the IG says. IGs can only offer recommendations on improving operations. To her, it’s throwing away money if an agency doesn’t do what the IG says, especially since the IG spends time and resources on the audits and reviews.
By doing nothing with recommendations, “I think it’s a waste of taxpayer funds,” she said.
So her idea is this:
“I actually think if we spend the kind of money we do creating offices of inspectors general that when they make recommendations, they should be required to be implemented by the departments,” Speier said.
In essence, make IGs’ recommendations the law of the department. Officials could not even “concur” or “somewhat concur” with a recommendation. Instead, they could only shout, “Sir, yes, sir!”
Posted on May 10, 2012 at 12:25 PM2 comments