Message from the Inspector General
In accordance with the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, I herewith submit the semiannual report for the period April 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015, which summarizes the major activities of our office for the reporting period. Section 5 of the Inspector General Act requires the Chair to transmit this report to the appropriate committees or subcommittees of Congress within 30 days of its receipt.
During this period, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued 3 final audit/evaluation reports, completed 5 investigations, and received 305 investigative inquiries, of which 144 were charge processing issues, 91 were Title VII complaints, and 70 were other investigative allegations.
As the Commission continues to commemorate its 50th anniversary at the forefront of enforcing federal laws intended to “Stop and Remedy Unlawful Employment Discrimination” the OIG remains unwavering in its commitment to assist the Agency in effectuating its mission, by promoting effective, efficient and accountable management of Agency programs, operations and personnel.
We thank Chair Jenny R. Yang, the Commissioners, and the employees of the Commission for your continued support of our office.
Respectfully,
Milton A. Mayo Jr.
Inspector General
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This semiannual report is issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) Office of Inspector General (OIG) pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. It summarizes the OIG’s activities and accomplishments for April 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015.
During this period, the OIG issued 3 final audit/evaluation reports, completed 5 investigations, and received 305 hotline inquiries, of which 144 were charge processing issues, 91 were Title VII complaints, and 70 were other investigative allegations.
The OIG’s completed, newly initiated, and ongoing audit, evaluation, and investigative projects include the following:
- The OIG reported to the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs that no non-career officials had been involved in the Freedom of Information Act process at EEOC from January 1, 2007, to the present.
- The OIG contracted with the Urban Institute, a nonprofit organization located in Washington, D.C., to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of EEOC’s Outreach and Education Program. The five-month evaluation concluded with a final report, issued May 8, 2015, which provided a broad overview examining the EEOC’s outreach and education efforts and, where appropriate, suggested areas the EEOC might improve its effectiveness or efficiency.
- Agency policy directive EEOC Order 195.001 Management Accountability and Controls requires the OIG to annually provide a written advisory to the Agency head regarding whether the management control evaluation process complied with Office of Management and Budget guidelines. Fieldwork is underway to ensure that the OIG meets its mandated reporting deadline requirement.
- In several field offices, ongoing investigations continue, involving ethics violations, conflicts of interest, fraud, mismanagement, falsification of government records, impersonation of a Federal official, misuse of travel and purchase cards, theft of government property, misuse of computers, misuse of position, and threats against the Agency.
INTRODUCTION
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the Federal agency responsible for enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; the Equal Pay Act of 1963; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (in the Federal sector only); Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008; the Civil Rights Act of 1991; the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009; and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-233 Stat. 881), also referred to as GINA. These statutes prohibit employment discrimination based on race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information.
EEOC is also responsible for carrying out Executive Order 12067, which promotes coordination and minimizes conflict and duplication among Federal agencies that administer statutes or regulations involving employment discrimination.
EEOC is a bipartisan commission composed of five presidentially appointed members, including a Chair, a Vice Chair, and three Commissioners. The Chair is responsible for the administration and implementation of policy and for the Commission’s financial management and organizational development. The Vice Chair and the Commissioners equally participate in developing and approving EEOC policies, issuing charges of discrimination where appropriate, and authorizing the filing of lawsuits. In addition, the President appoints a General Counsel, who is responsible for conducting litigation under the laws enforced by the Commission.
The Office of Inspector General
The U.S. Congress established the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at EEOC through the 1988 amendments to the Inspector General Act of 1978; these amendments expanded the authority of designated Federal entities to create independent and objective OIGs. Under the direction of the inspector general (IG), the OIG meets this statutory responsibility by conducting and supervising audits, evaluations, and investigations relating to Agency programs and operations; providing leadership and coordination; and recommending policies for activities designed to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in administering programs and operations.
In October 2008, Congress passed the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, which generally buttressed the independence of IGs, increased their resources, and held them more accountable for their performance. The OIG is under the supervision of the IG, an independent EEOC official subject to the general supervision of the Chair. The IG must not be prevented or prohibited by the Chair or any other EEOC official from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit, investigation, evaluation, or other inquiry or from issuing any report.
The IG provides overall direction, coordination, and leadership to the OIG; is the principal advisor to the Chair in connection with all audit and investigative matters relating to the prevention, identification, and elimination of waste in any EEOC program or operation; and recommends the proper boundaries of audit and investigation jurisdiction between the OIG and other EEOC organizations. The IG also develops a separate and independent annual budget for the OIG; responds directly to inquiries from the public, Congress, or the news media; and prepares press releases, statements, and other information about the OIG’s activities.
The Deputy Inspector General serves as the IG’s alter ego and participates fully in policy development and in management of the OIG’s diverse audit, investigation, evaluation, and support operations.
The Counsel to the Inspector General is the sole legal advisor in the OIG, providing day-to-day guidance to the OIG’s investigation team, and is the primary liaison with Agency legal components and the Department of Justice.
In addition to these positions, the OIG staff includes a chief technology officer, an evaluator, two auditors, two criminal investigators, an administrative specialist, and a confidential support assistant.
THE AUDIT AND EVALUATION PROGRAM
The Audit and Evaluation Program supports the OIG’s strategic goal of improving the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of EEOC programs, operations, and activities.
COMPLETED PROJECTS
Non-Career Officials Involvement in the EEOC Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Process
The OIG responded to a June 23, 2015, Congressional request to determine if any non-career EEOC officials' had any involvement in the Agency’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response process for the period of January 1, 2007 to the date of the request. The OIG was asked to analyze whether non-career officials' involvement, if any, resulted in any undue delay of a response to any FOIA request or the withholding of any document or portion of any document that would have otherwise been released, but for the non-career official's involvement in the process. The request also asked the OIG to obtain a written certification from the agency's chief FOIA officer that 1) no non-career officials were involved in the agency's response to any FOIA request or 2) if such involvement occurred, the involvement of non-career officials had ever resulted in undue delay of a response to a FOIA request or the provision of less information than would have been provided but for the involvement of the non-career officials. Based on interviews and analysis, the OIG found non-career officials had not been involved in the FOIA process at the EEOC during that period. The OIG also provided a written certification from the chief FOIA officer stating the same.
Compliance with the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act (IPERIA)
On May 13, 2015, the OIG reported that the Agency complied with the Improper Payments Information Act, as amended by the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act. The Agency conducted an Agency-wide risk assessment of vendor and travel payments made in fiscal year (FY) 2014. In addition, the Agency relied on internal controls currently in place relating to payments and indicated it would use the U.S. Treasury’s FedDebt System to recapture any potential improper payments.
Evaluation of EEOC’s Outreach and Education (OIG Report No. 2014-03-OE)
The office of the OIG contracted with the Urban Institute, a nonprofit organization located in Washington, D.C., to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of EEOC’s Outreach and Education Program. The key questions for the evaluation included the following:
- How are outreach and education efforts organized and managed at the EEOC?
- How are financial, human, and other resources used in the EEOC’s outreach and education efforts?
- How does the EEOC establish and accomplish its outreach and education objectives, goals, and performance measures?
- What can the EEOC learn from other organizations regarding management of outreach and education?
- How can the EEOC improve its organization, management, and delivery of outreach and education?
The five-month evaluation concluded with a final report, issued May 8, 2015, which provided a broad overview examining the EEOC’s outreach and education efforts and, where appropriate, suggested areas the EEOC might improve its effectiveness or efficiency.
The evaluation relied on two sources to build its findings and conclusions: a series of interviews with key staff involved in outreach and education and an examination of relevant documents. Those interviewed included staff at the EEOC headquarters, staff at the EEOC district and field offices, representatives from some Fair Employment Practices Agencies, one interview with the outreach and education office at the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, and three interviews with the staff working on outreach at the Department of Labor.
The report disclosed that the EEOC performs a significant amount of outreach and education. The EEOC’s outreach and education is diffused throughout the different offices of the EEOC. The primary outreach and education responsibilities fall within the Office of Field Programs (OFP). Nineteen program analysts (who are spread among 15 district offices) conduct and organize a significant portion of the EEOC’s outreach and education. Many other staff, including regional attorneys, investigators, legal counsel, and attorneys both at the EEOC headquarters offices and in district and field offices, participates in presentations and events that occur throughout the year. Overall, the report contained 14 recommendations:
- Create a more centralized operation for outreach and education, perhaps developing a role for a director of outreach and education.
- Alleviate some of the administrative burden that program analysts in the district and field offices experience in organizing outreach and education.
- Evaluate the feasibility of funding more local outreach and education through EEOC’s Fair Employment Practices Agencies.
- Seek more “earned media” (regular opportunities to evoke news coverage), possibly through a regular update on the state of employment discrimination; deliver EEOC’s message in an empowering way with a human connection.
- Improve the EEOC website. Specifically, improve navigation, tailor content to various audiences and keep information updated about ongoing outreach and education opportunities.
- Evaluate how EEOC’s audiences view the agency; one way to achieve this is to conduct a brand evaluation, possibly including an audit of communications materials and/or surveys of audience opinion on EEOC’s image and communications.
- Use the EEOC’s internal intranet (InSite) to facilitate communications among program analysts including the creation of an outreach and education “clearinghouse” with past materials used by program analysts for presentations and events.
- Provide analytical support to district and field offices to help in prioritizing audiences and subject matter based on a thorough examination of charge data.
- Regularly survey event attendees to measure the effectiveness of outreach and education efforts.
- Review website analytics regularly; look specifically at the EEO guidance consumers view.
- Regularly survey EEOC’s significant partners to track how partners are using EEOC materials and information.
- Track the source of charges to identify the extent to which significant partners or other sources have helped those who have been discriminated against access EEOC’s services.
- Use charge data to provide evidence of the outreach and education outcomes.
- Change the position title of “program analyst” to something like “outreach and education coordinator.”
The Agency’s response to the draft report stated that many of the recommendations were consistent with the Agency’s assessment, and that the Agency had already begun to implement changes to how it integrates and coordinates outreach and education work in a number of areas. The Agency’s response also stated EEOC would seriously consider all of the recommendations, recognizing their need to prioritize their activities, in light of limited resources.
NEW AND ONGOING AUDIT AND EVALUATION PROJECTS
FY 2015 Audit of the Consolidated EEOC Financial Statements
The public accounting firm of Harper, Rains, Knight & Co., P.A., is performing the 2015 financial statement audit of EEOC, which is required by the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002. To ensure that the OIG meets its mandated reporting deadline requirements, fieldwork is ongoing, and the audit opinion will be included in the Agency’s 2015 Performance and Accountability Report. In addition, shortly thereafter, the auditor will issue a management letter report identifying any internal control weaknesses.
Agency Compliance with the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA)
Agency policy directive EEOC Order 195.001 Management Accountability and Controls requires the OIG to provide an annual written advisory to the head of the Agency regarding whether the management control evaluation process complied with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines. The OIG’s independent assessment is to determine whether the Agency’s management control evaluation process was conducted in accordance with OMB standards. Fieldwork is underway to ensure that the OIG meets its mandated reporting deadline requirement. Evaluation results will be included in the 2015 Performance and Accountability Report.
FY 2015 Independent Evaluation Regarding Agency Compliance with Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA)
The OIG contracted with Brown and Company, PLLC, to perform an independent evaluation of the EEOC's information security program compliance with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014. Fieldwork is underway and is scheduled to meet the OMB Cyberscope reporting deadline.
Evaluation of Litigation
The OIG contracted with the Urban Institute to conduct an evaluation that assesses the Agency’s Litigation Program. The Urban Institute will assess the Agency’s litigation efforts, focusing on areas where gains in efficiency and effectiveness may be obtained. The draft report is planned for the second quarter of FY 2016 and the final report for the third quarter of FY 2016.
Open Government and Transparency Progress Review
On December 8, 2009, the OMB issued Memorandum M-10-06, known as the Open Government Directive, which requires executive agencies to take specific actions to implement the three principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration that form the cornerstone of open government set forth by the President. Other pressing work priorities prevented the OIG from issuing a progress report during this reporting period. Our report issue in the first quarter of FY 2016.
AUDIT FOLLOW-UP
Audit follow-up is an integral part of good management and is a shared responsibility of Agency management officials and auditors. Corrective action taken by management to resolve findings and recommendations is essential to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Agency operations.
Section 5(a)(1) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, requires that semiannual reports include a summary description of significant problems, abuses, and deficiencies relating to the Agency’s administration of programs and operations as disclosed by the OIG during the reporting period. Three new reports were issued during this reporting period (April 1, 2015–September 30, 2015); one of those reports contained findings.
Reports Issued During This Reporting Period
|
Fiscal Year |
Report Number |
Report Title |
Date Issued |
|
2015 |
2015-01-IPERA |
Agency Compliance with the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act (IPERIA) |
05/13/15 |
|
2015 |
|
Non Career Officials Involvement in the EEOC FOIA Process |
08/24/15 |
|
2015 |
2014-003-OE |
Evaluation of Outreach & Education |
5/18/15 |
As required by Section 5(a)(3) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, semiannual reports shall provide an identification of each significant recommendation described in previous semiannual reports on which corrective action has not been completed. OIG staff met with Agency follow-up officials in September 2015. For this reporting period, the OIG is reporting 15 reviews, with a total of 80 open recommendations. The following table shows those recommendations for which corrective actions have not been completed.
Recommendations for Which Corrective Actions Have Not Been Completed
|
Fiscal Year |
Report Number |
Report Title |
Date Issued |
|
2014 |
2014-08-EOIG |
FY 2014 Federal Information Security Management Act Report |
12/16/14 |
- Update policies and procedures to include file integrity process for detecting unauthorized changes to software, firmware, and information.
- Implement full device encryption or container-based encryption for mobile laptops.
- Develop policies and procedures for managing shared group accounts.
|
Fiscal Year |
Report Number |
Report Title |
Date Issued |
|
2015 |
2014-01-FIN |
Audit of the EEOC’s FY 2014 Financial Statements |
11/17/14 |
- Update controls over the maintenance of official personnel files. Management should perform a thorough review of its employees’ personnel files to ensure that documentation is current and complete.
- Implement procedures to ensure that EEOC has a complete understanding of policies and procedures at its service providers.
|
Fiscal Year |
Report Number |
Report Title |
Date Issued |
|
2015 |
2014-02-FIN |
FY 2014 Financial Statement Audit Management Letter Report |
01/13/15 |
- Monitor and enforce EEOC policies and procedures over sensitive property to ensure that controls remain adequate and continue to operate effectively.
- Update EEOC policy and procedures to correctly state the current process.
- Monitor and enforce EEOC policies and procedures over record retention for purchase and travel card transactions to ensure that the controls remain adequate and continue to operate effectively. Enforce penalties such as disciplinary action including restitution to the government and/or dismissal.
- Implement and monitor controls to ensure Approving Officials review and approval are documented for each purchase and travel card transactions. This should establish an appropriate period of time for retention of records, monitoring by the Purchase Card Program Manager, and appropriate disciplinary action for non compliance.
- Follow EEOC guidelines for all expense transactions and develop an assessment of EEOC’s internal control process in order to proactively manage internal controls to get the most from them.
- Implement procedures to ensure thatEEOC has read and implemented all Federal guidance issued throughout the year.
- Work with EEOC service providers to implement internal controls that will catch all transactions with a “zero” object class. A monthly review of expense transactions would identify all “zero” object class transactions.
|
Fiscal Year |
Report Number |
Report Title |
Date Issued |
|
2014 |
2013-08-PSA |
Performance Audit of the Agency’s Personnel Security Program |
9/4/14 |
- Identify all headquarters and field offices where classified national security information is safeguarded, handled, processed, reproduced, transmitted, transported, or destroyed.
- Identify all EEOC employees with
- current or prior access to classified national security information;
- a current adjudicated security clearance and the sponsoring agency, if applicable; and
- special access or interim clearance and the sponsoring agency, if applicable.
- Develop and implement policies and procedures to address the safeguarding, transfer, storage, or disposal of classified information. The policy should include the requirements for memorandums of understanding between agencies.
- Designate a senior agency official to direct and administer the program in accordance with Executive Order 13526 and 32 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Parts 2001 and 2003. This senior agency official/office must be provided the resources and authority to achieve compliance with the requirements associated with Classified National Security Information program.
- Implement a formalized training program for individuals who use classified information as part of their duties. If an external agency is to assume the responsibility of training these individuals, this agreement should be documented in an MOU.
- Perform and document an assessment or evaluation of current classified information practices and safeguarding at headquarters and field offices to determine any non-compliance. Immediate corrective action should be taken to address any non-compliance noted.
- Incorporate a review of controls over classified information in EEOC’s annual Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act process.
- Complete risk designations for the remaining estimated 194 EEOC covered positions.
- Complete and begin any outstanding reinvestigations as required bt the CFR
- Adhere to EEOC policy and federal requirements pertaining to reinvestigations. EEOC should follow its internal policy until further guidance is provided by Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
- Update the policy for the Federal Personnel Payroll System (FPPS) with a timeline and implement the revised standard.
- Review all employee electronic official personnel files to ensure proper inclusion of the employee’s certificate of investigation (COI) and in instances where the documentation is missing, insert the COI.
- Report any outstanding EEOC adjudication decisions to the OPM and going forward adhere to the 90-day timeline.
- Develop and implement a procedure to maintain relevant evidence documenting that EEOC has informed OPM of EEOC’s adjudication decisions.
- Explore and document the decision of using alternative staffing options, such as contract employees, part time employees, or obtaining an employee on detail in order to become current on risk designations, reinvestigations, FPPS, COIs, and adjudication reporting.
- Update and implement comprehensive policies and procedures for physical security. These policies and procedures should include but not be limited to:
- providing training for the Federal Supply Class (FSC) member or designee at each field office location at least annually;
- developing and implementing a field office onsite security assessment program, that includes performing assessments and/or spot checks of field office security measures by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) on a rotational basis as it relates to Interagency Security Committee requirements; and
- assisting and ensuring field offices correct noted security weaknesses or document acceptance of risk where EEOC has determined corrective action will not be taken.
- Revise the field office self-assessment checklist to include facility security and credentialing information.
- Immediately correct any known weaknesses. If EEOC determines not to correct a noted weakness, it should document this analysis and its acceptance of the associated risk.
- Increase coordination between OCFO and OFP to improve field office security posture, awareness and training to ensure compliance with applicable EEOC orders and guides; Facility Security Committees, An ISC Standard, 2nd edition, dated January 1, 2012; and other applicable Interagency Security Committee standards.
|
Fiscal Year |
Report Number |
Report Title |
Date Issued |
|
2014 |
2013-FIN-01 |
FY 2013 Financial Statement Audit |
12/16/13 |
|
|||
|
Fiscal Year |
Report Number |
Report Title |
Date Issued |
|
2014 |
2013-02-FIN |
FY 2013 Financial Statement Management Letter Report |
1/31/14 |
|
|||
|
Fiscal Year |
Report Number |
Report Title |
Date Issued |
|
2014 |
2013-05-FISMA |
FY 2013 Federal Information Security Management Act Report |
12/10/13 |
|
|||
|
Fiscal Year |
Report Number |
Report Title |
Date Issued |
|
2013 |
2012-09-REV |
Review of Evaluations |
04/09/2013 |
|
|||
|
Fiscal Year |
Report Number |
Report Title |
Date Issued |
|
2013 |
2012-01-FIN |
FY 2012 Financial Statement Audit Report |
11/16/2012 |
|
|||
|
Fiscal Year |
Report Number |
Report Title |
Date Issued |
|
2013 |
2012-03-FISMA |
FY 2012 Federal Information Security Management Act Report |
11/14/2012 |
|
|||
|
Fiscal Year |
Report Number |
Report Title |
Date Issued |
|
2013 |
2012-02-FIN |
FY 2012 Financial Statement Management Letter Report |
12/19/2012 |
|
|||
|
Fiscal Year |
Report Number |
Report Title |
Date Issued |
|
|
2013 |
2012-10-PMEV |
Evaluation of EEOC’s Performance Measures |
03/21/2013 |
|
|
||||
|
Fiscal Year |
Report Number |
Report Title |
Date Issued |
|
|
2013 |
2012-08-PURCH |
Performance Audit of EEOC Charge Card Program |
03/28/2013 |
|
|
||||
|
Fiscal Year |
Report Number |
Report Title |
Date Issued |
|
|
2008 |
2008-03-AMR |
Oversight of Federal Agency Reporting Management Directive 715 (MD-715) and Related Topics |
09/26/2008 |
|
|
||||
|
Fiscal Year |
Report Number |
Report Title |
Date Issued |
|
|
2008 |
2007-11-RFPERF |
Performance Audit of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Education, Training, and Technical Assistance Program Revolving Fund |
08/26/2008 |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
As required by Section 5(a) (10) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, semiannual reports shall include a summary of each audit report issued before the start of the reporting period for which no management decision has been made by the end of the reporting period. The OIG has no audit or evaluation reports that were issued before the reporting period began for which no management decision has been made.
THE INVESTIGATION PROGRAM
The Investigation Program supports the OIG’s strategic goal to focus limited investigative resources on issues that represent the greatest risk and offer the maximum opportunity to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in EEOC programs and operations.
|
Investigative Inquires Received April 1, 2015 – September 30, 2015 |
|
|
Allegations |
Number |
|
Charge Processing |
144 |
|
Other Statutes |
55 |
|
Title VII |
91 |
|
Mismanagement |
1 |
|
Ethics Violations |
1 |
|
Backgrounds |
2 |
|
Theft |
0 |
|
Threats |
0 |
|
Fraud |
4 |
|
Other Criminal Allegations |
4 |
|
Congressional Inquiries |
3 |
|
Total |
305 |
COMPLETED INESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES
Misuse of Position/Harassment of a Charging Party
The OIG received allegations that an employee was misusing his position, acted inappropriately with a charging party (Complaint 1), misused his official agency credentials, and generally engaged in infamous conduct as a federal employee.
The OIG found that the employee’s conduct violated 5 C.F.R. 735.203, which advises employees to avoid engaging in criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful conduct, or other conduct prejudicial to the government. The employee had engaged in inappropriate conduct with a charging party in a charge of discrimination that was assigned to him for investigation.
The employee’s actions were documented in 72 e-mails between him and the charging party. There were also 91 phone calls with the charging party; testimony from the charging party stated that these conversations involved comments of a sexual nature.
The OIG found that the employee’s conduct also violated 18 U.S.C. §912,[1] impersonating a law enforcement officer (LEO), when on December 16, 2010, December 21, 2010, and November 2, 2012, he attempted to bypass normal security procedures in the airports, stating he was traveling armed and with a prisoner in each instance.
- On December 16, 2010, the employee completed and signed the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Checkpoint Sign-In Log, identifying himself as an LEO flying armed with a prisoner from Seattle, Washington, to Las Vegas, Nevada.
- On December 21, 2010, the employee completed and signed the TSA Checkpoint Sign-In Log, identifying himself as an LEO flying armed with a prisoner from Las Vegas to Seattle.
- On November 2, 2012, the employee completed and signed the TSA Checkpoint Sign-In Log, identifying himself as an LEO flying armed with a prisoner from Seattle to San Jose, California.
- On November 2, 2012, the employee made numerous false statements to TSA officers concerning the EEOC Unique Federal Agency Number (UFAN), stating he could not remember it, that it had changed, and that it had been a while since he had flown, indicating and implying that he knew he was authorized to use the EEOC UFAN.
The OIG also found that the employee’s conduct violated 5 C.F.R. 735.203, which advises employees to avoid engaging in criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful conduct, or other conduct prejudicial to the government. On November 2, 2012, he completed and signed the Alaskan Airlines Notice to Armed Individuals and identified himself as an LEO with a low-risk prisoner. The employee retired from federal service before any personnel action could be taken in this matter.
Disclosure of Confidential Information
The OIG was contacted regarding a breach of confidentiality by an EEOC employee. A private attorney contacted EEOC regarding information received by his/her law firm regarding employees in an EEOC district office.
An employee was immediately identified as a possible subject of this investigation due to his/her access to the information and his/her current disciplinary problems (suspension and being on a Performance Improvement Plan) in the EEOC district office.
The OIG contacted the law firm and obtained the original documents and envelope used to mail the information and determined that the mailing occurred outside the office zip code. The OIG conducted background checks and Internet searches involving the employee and his/her actions around the time the information was sent to the law firm. During this investigation, the employee advised the officer that his/her laptop computer had been stolen on the local transit system.
The employee also engaged in a physical altercation with an employee in the office and was placed on administrative leave during this investigation. During this suspension, the employee was granted disability retirement prior to the OIG’s opportunity to interview him/her on this matter.
Conflict of Interest
EEOC’s Office of Legal Counsel referred to the OIG a matter for investigation consistent with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §535. In June 2014, the OIG conducted a review of the Public Financial Disclosure and identified an employee who may have taken an official action in a matter involving an entity in which he/she had a financial interest.
Title 18 U.S.C. §208 requires an individual to have substantial participation in a particular matter; however, this provision was not intended to prohibit an employee’s involvement in purely ministerial or procedural acts. Accordingly, the regulations interpreting the meaning of substantiality expressly exclude such minor activities. A finding requires more than official responsibility, knowledge, perfunctory involvement, or involvement on administrative or peripheral issues.
The OIG found that the employee’s signatory action on the Certification/Attestation of Records, as the custodian of records in a Freedom of Information Action request was purely an administrative action. Accordingly, the OIG found no violation of 18 U.S.C. §208.
Misuse of Agency Purchase Card
The OIG was contacted concerning allegations of possible misuse of the government purchase card by an Agency employee.
The investigation revealed purchases from the ABC Stores in Virginia, the Virginia Railway Express, CVS Pharmacy, Walmart, and several grocery stores, between November 2012 and April 2015. Purchases totaled approximately $5,600.
Prior to the completion of our investigation, the Agency, using the employee’s admission to the misuse of the government purchase card, took an administrative action against the employee by (1) placing the employee on two weeks’ suspension, (2) demoting the employee to a lower grade and position, and (3) requiring the employee to pay restitution to the Agency.
ONGOING INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVIES
The OIG has ongoing investigations in several field offices involving ethics violations, conflicts of interest, fraud, mismanagement, falsification of government records, impersonation of a Federal official, misuse of travel and purchase cards, theft of government property, misuse of computers, misuse of position, and threats against the Agency.