Hearings were held on September 9, 1998, before your committee regarding the state of the Inspector General (IG) community. One of the topics discussed was the importance of the relationship between IG's and agency heads. At your staff's suggestion, Eleanor Hill, Vice Chair of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, asked that we respond to you expressing our views on this topic. Our mission statement for the Office of Inspector General (OIG) recognizes that the Inspector General Act requires the IG to independently and objectively work with the agency head's management team in activities that promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, or that prevent and/or detect fraud and abuse in programs and operations, within both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and non-Federal entities that receive USDA assistance. We emphasize service to management at all levels of USDA by briefing senior officials on major audits and investigations. We also work proactively with agency managers, as part of a united team, by directly encouraging management input into the audit and investigative process to help solve difficult problems impacting program management and operations. Therefore, the relationship between the agency head and the IG is likely to be the most important relationship for the IG in accomplishing OIG's mission. If the agency head has a clear vision of the IG as an early warning system, and not as an adversary, OIG will achieve its mission and the agency head will be advised timely of problems and recommended solutions. The agency head must signal the importance of the IG function and his/her support of that function with the senior management team, and particularly when agency problems are serious, longstanding, and very public. The agency head and the IG must both respect the independence of OIG, but must recognize the valuable contribution OIG can make to better management of the agency. Honorable Fred Thompson Without the mutual respect and support between the IG and the agency head, the recommendations OIG makes will be viewed as criticism rather than valuable advice or cautions about serious problems in the agency. It is also recognized that the IG has a dual reporting responsibility both to the agency head and the U.S. Congress. We must be vigilant in protecting the integrity and independence of OIG if we are to succeed. Should you wish further information on this topic, please feel free to contact me at (202) 720-8001. Sincerely, Mad... ROGER C. VIADERO 2 STATEMENT OF JOHN P. HIGGINS, JR., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSPECTORS GENERAL SUBMITTED TO COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee - Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record of the September 9, 1998 hearing before the Committee on the state of the Inspector General community on the twentieth anniversary of the Inspector General Act. As you requested, I will address the importance of the relationship between Inspectors General and agency heads in successfully achieving the goals and objectives of the federal government. The Office of Inspector General at the Department of Education (OIG) believes that a strong working relationship between an Inspector General and the agency head is one of the critical elements in determining how effective an OIG can be in helping the federal government effectively and efficiently achieve its goals and objectives and prevent fraud, waste and abuse. However, the IG Act does not, as a practical matter, ensure that an agency head and the agency's senior management will use the OIG to get input on the most effective ways to achieve its goals, take action on OIG recommendations and findings or act based upon empirical evidence gathered by an OIG. During my twenty years in the OIG community and eight years as a senior manager in this office, I have observed a variety of relationships between the IG and the Department heads. I can testify from experience that cooperative working relations between agency management and the OIG is the only mechanism to achieve on a sustained basis improvement based upon OIG activity. While the IG Act provides that the most significant disagreements between management and the IG are reported in the semi-annual reports to Congress and that there is the possibility of a seven-day letter from the IG to Congress, these mechanisms serve to force agency action only in the most extreme circumstances when Congress directly intervenes. An IG's recourse to Congress and a willingness on the part of Congress to intervene is critical to preserving the IG concept when relationships between the agency head and the IG sour, as the testimony taken during this hearing demonstrates. An example from my own experience here at the Department is the critical help we received in 1990 from this Committee and its then-Chairman, Senator John Glenn, when the Department's management blocked our IG from hiring an independent counsel until the Committee scheduled hearings. A productive working relationship between the IG and the agency head is a two-way street. The OIG, while maintaining its independence, must offer frontend assistance to the Department's management and not just focus on failures at the back-end. At the same time, the agency's senior heaɗ must know how to use the OIG expertise and invite OIG assistance in achieving critical objectives. Currently at this Department, I believe we have an excellent working relationship with the Secretary and especially with the Acting Deputy Secretary, Dr. Marshall Smith, who is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Department. Dr. Smith has invited OIG's assessment of and recommendations about critical operational decisions, for example in the areas of information technology and Year 2000 activities. I believe the Department has benefited from this OIG-management cooperation. Thank your for the opportunity to comment on this important issue and for your Committee's support of the IG community over these twenty years since the passage of the IG Act. |