New Allegations Against GSA Administrator Lurita Doan: Retaliation Against Government Officials Cooperating with Investigators

New Allegations Against GSA Administrator Lurita Doan: Retaliation Against Government Officials Cooperating with Investigators

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With all due respect, I cannot for the life of me figure out what we're doing here this morning.

The Committee and its many subcommittees hold just one hearing this week, and this is the topic we've chosen? Somehow, somewhere, we've lost track of the "good government" agenda we pledged to pursue.

The Majority says they are concerned about "retaliation" against government officials who have cooperated with investigators. But no such retaliation occurred. The real retaliation here is against an entrepreneurial African-American woman who - stop the presses -- supports the Administration and is paying the price for trying to make her organization a better, more efficient and effective place.

Today's hearing is a gross misuse of Committee resources, built on an unprofessional and seemingly preordained report from the Office of Special Counsel. It is a farce premised on a sham.

There are so many flaws and injustices and fabrications here, I hardly know where to begin. So let me just reel off a few:

Administrator Doan was obligated to cooperate with investigators when she made the comments the Chairman just described. She was compelled to say what she believed. And she did so after assurances of confidentiality were given to her by OSC lawyers.

Nevertheless, before the Administrator had a chance to respond to the OSC report, a draft version was given to the Washington Post - a version that only OSC possessed and only OSC could have leaked.

I think it's preposterous that we are again inserting ourselves into unfinished proceedings - this time, an unresolved OSC matter. But if that's our choice, then our time would be far better spent looking at the unfair investigation OSC conducted and the special legal reasoning in the OSC report.

Lurita Doan was not afforded basic due process rights, such as an opportunity to review the testimony submitted against her. Until this week, she was denied access to the transcript of her own ten hours of testimony to OSC investigators.

The OSC report is remarkably harsh and hyperbolic, and extremely short on support. The report cites no evidence. There are not footnotes, no exhibits. OSC says they "interviewed over 20 individuals in attendance" at the Jennings presentation. But the report quotes testimony from zero attendees. Why didn't they talk to all attendees? How did they choose?

The shoddy evidentiary support is reflected in the report's Hatch Act analysis. The report fails to identify a single election or candidate Administrator Doan sought to assist. The report asserts, without any analysis or finding, that her statement -- "How can we help our candidates?" -- solicited or directed employees to engage in partisan political activity. Yet not one employee responded with any proposal to help any candidate or any election.

How then is her question, in itself, a solicitation? What if the question was heard to mean, "What can we do legally to help our candidates?" A 2002 opinion by the same Office of Special Counsel advised, "The Hatch Act does not purport to prohibit all discourse by federal employees on political subjects or candidates in a federal building or while on duty." Yet Administrator Doan's offhand comment, without any follow-up action, is found to be a solicitation? By that standard, saying "God Bless America" at work would be a violation of the Establishment Clause.

It's clear OSC recognized they were short on evidence. So they resorted instead to absurd hyperbole. "One can imagine no greater violation of the Hatch Act," the report reads. I can.

OSC clearly lacks imagination. How about an employee who actually uses a government e-mail system to send campaign materials, something the MSPB considered this past December in Special Counsel v. Wilkinson? Or, what about making fundraising calls from the Office of the Vice President?

In this OSC report, we're left only with pejorative adjectives like "pernicious," without any nouns - in other words, facts - to support sweeping legal conclusions. No cases cited. No "controlling legal authority" relied upon.

I think the Majority recognizes how tenuous the Hatch Act case is as well. They realize what we're witnessing is an Office of Special Counsel eager to rehabilitate and vindicate itself. And they realize the other issues that originally bought Administrator Doan a summons from the Committee - remember, it wasn't that long ago we were talking about a Federal Supply Schedule contract held by Sun Microsystems, the suspension and debarment process, and a contemplated contract with a diversity consulting company - those issues bore no political fruit. They were, apparently, dropped.

But the Hatch Act! How juicy. How convenient. How short a hop, skip, and jump to the office of Karl Rove.

I'm just not buying the alleged premise of today's hearing. No one is more concerned than I about protecting the institutional integrity of this Committee, and the ability of witnesses to give us the information we need without reprisal. But that's not why we're here today.

After all, if the Majority was so concerned about the integrity of testimony before the Committee, there are other witnesses who should appear to explain their testimony.

Valerie Plame Wilson's sworn statements to this Committee are irreconcilably inconsistent with her statements to the CIA Inspector General and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The GSA Inspector General testified before this Committee that he relied on information from the Majority's website to support a key finding in his earlier report on the GSA Administrator.

The legitimacy of the Committee's work is at stake if we do not question the testimony of those witnesses. I'm concerned the Committee is becoming a place where witnesses can testify with impunity as long as they say whatever fits the Democrats' political agenda.

I think we also need to carefully consider the undue influence this Committee, and attendant media reports and leaks, have had on the OSC proceedings against Administrator Doan. During their questioning of the Administrator, OSC's own lawyers acknowledged the Committee's previous hearing tainted their proceedings, as it became impossible to determine whether witnesses were influenced by press coverage of that hearing.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, you say we're here to protect federal employees. Then why are you demanding personnel files and giving further air time to what the Administrator said about GSA employees? Why are we meeting in public? Remember, Administrator Doan thought her testimony about these individuals would remain confidential. It's only through OSC media leaks and your hearing today that these employees are truly being damaged.

The truth is, I think Administrator Doan's testimony before us in March could have been a lot stronger. I think she was ill-prepared. And I think she could have chosen her words to the OSC more carefully.

But I also think that the Committee and OSC are guilty of grossly overplaying their hands in response to her inelegant truthfulness and good faith.

I urge you, Mr. Chairman, to refocus the Committee's time and resources on the countless issues demanding our attention. REAL ID implementation. Information security. Border control. Emergency preparedness in the nation's capital. Security clearance backlogs. The list goes on and on…

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Source