[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BUDGET CONCERNS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAPITOL SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 29, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-000 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman
ZOE LOFGREN, California, DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California,
Vice-Chairwoman Ranking Minority Member
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts KEVIN McCARTHY, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
Professional Staff
Jamie Fleet, Staff Director
Victor Arnold-Bik, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAPITOL SECURITY
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts, Chairman
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
HEARING ON U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BUDGET CONCERNS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 29, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Capitol Security,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m., in
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Michael E.
Capuano (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Capuano and Lungren.
Staff Present: Jamie Fleet, Staff Director; Matt Pinkus,
Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; Kyle Anderson, Press
Director; Joe Wallace, Legislative Clerk; Darrell O'Connor,
Professional Staff; Ryan Caimi, Intern; and Katie Ryan,
Minority Professional Staff.
Mr. Capuano. The hearing will come to order. The purpose of
the hearing is to exercise the subcommittee's oversight
function. In considering the Inspector General's audit of the
Capitol Police budget, formulation process, significant
problems were discovered earlier this year. The subcommittee
would like some explanation as to what went wrong and how it is
being corrected.
Today we have I believe only two people testifying, Chief
Morse and Mr. Hoecker from the Inspector General. And with
that, I am going to forgo any introductory comments and yield
to the ranking member.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is an
important hearing. We all agree the Capitol Police are a vital
part of the operation here. They protect this institution, both
the Members and the staff, as well as the millions of
constituents who visit here every year, and we shouldn't forget
that we have had members of our force that have lost their
lives in defense of our safety. That is why I think it is so
important that our oversight proceed.
We are here to discuss concerns of the Capitol Police
fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 budgets. After
miscalculations were discovered earlier this year the Inspector
General for the police performed an audit of the Department's
budget formulation process.
I would say let's be blunt, the audit does not reflect
well, to say the least, on the financial and administrative
management of the Capitol Police. The findings suggest that
there was not an accurate formulation of the original fiscal
year 2010 budget submission. And that these miscalculations
unfortunately carried over into fiscal year 2011 budget
formulation. When the revision of both budgets were resubmitted
to the Congress, they too had errors. The root causes appear to
be from a lack of adequate controls of the budget formulation
process, inconsistent application of past budgetary practices
and processes and ineffective management of the administrative
division.
So here we are, the expected shortfall for fiscal year 2010
is somewhere between 3.8 and $5.1 million. And despite an
amended fiscal year 2011 submission the Department is still
expecting a fiscal year 2011 shortfall between 9.3 and $14.8
million, $5.4 million more than stated in the amended fiscal
year 2011 budget.
With all due respect, I don't think those are small
discrepancies. Furthermore, the report states that a potential
shortfall exists in the funding of the radio modernization
project. This project is one of the most important that we
have. At every hearing that we have had I raised my concern
about whether we can move forward on this more expeditiously,
whether we have the proper funding. And I was disappointed to
find that there is a question about that now.
And I found it deeply troubling to read in the report, and
I quote, ``Other matters came to our attention during field
work which we believe resulted from behavior which was
considered deficient or improper when compared with behavior
that a prudent person would consider reasonable and necessary
business practice given the facts and circumstances.'' The
Office of Inspector General identified potential conflicting
statements, procurement, time and attendance, pay and ethical
issues.
This is serious stuff. I hope we have a chance to go
through this in some detail because I view this as a very
critical report from the Inspector General. So I look forward
to hearing from our witnesses and discussing the specifics of
the report as well as any plans the Department has to address
these issues and return the administrative office to one that
exhibits integrity, reliability and professionalism, because
that is what we would expect, it seems to me, from such an
important agency.
This is very serious, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for having
this hearing. And I hope that we can find out what the problem
is, how we solve the problem and how we go forward in the
future. So thank you very much.
Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Lungren, and before we hear
from the witnesses I would like unanimous consent to place my
full statement on the record and to keep the record open for 5
days to receive any written questions or additional material
from witnesses or other members.
Without objection, that is so ordered. I guess we will
begin with Chief Morse.
[The statement of Chief Morse follows:]
STATEMENT OF PHILLIP D. MORSE, SR., CHIEF OF POLICE, UNITED
STATES CAPITOL POLICE
Chief Morse. Chairman Capuano, Ranking Member Lungren, and
other members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity
to appear here today regarding the U.S. Capitol Police budget
concerns. I would also like to thank you for your sustained and
unwavering support for all the men and women of the United
States Capitol Police.
As you know, earlier this year the Department discovered
that we had made a salaries calculation error in fiscal year
2010 and 2011 budget requests, which has resulted in a
projected fiscal year 2010 salary shortfall. As a result, the
Department submitted a budget amendment for our fiscal year
2011 budget request.
Once I learned of the problem I took immediate action to
assess the issue, coordinate with the Capitol Police Board,
notify our oversight committees, stabilize our fiscal year 2010
budget execution, and develop a plan to address the problem.
As part of addressing the problem I asked my Executive
Management Team to conduct an Investment Review Board to
identify general expense funding for potential reprogramming to
address the salary shortfall with a primary focus on
maintaining our security and law enforcement mission and
mitigating possible impacts on our workforce. This effort
resulted in the set-aside of critical general expense funding
sufficient to address the shortfall within our stated goal of
mitigating those impacts.
Additionally, the Capitol Police Board provided their
technical experts to assist the Department in validating our
2011 budget resubmission, as well as providing technical
guidance on our efforts to address the 2010 shortfall.
Further, the Government Accountability Office continues to
provide its assistance and guidance to the Department in
addressing outstanding audit recommendations and incorporating
best practices into the Department's efforts to resolve our
budget formulation issues.
Concurrent with this effort, I asked the U.S. Capitol
Police Inspector General to conduct an audit of our fiscal year
2010 and 2011 budget formulation processes and provide me with
a report as soon as possible so that I can take any necessary
or immediate actions.
Specifically, I requested that he take a look and validate
the 2010 impact, review and validate the 2011 budget request
and make recommendations to me on how to improve our processes
so we could implement changes for our 2012 budget formulation
process.
The Inspector General has completed his audit and provided
an audit report of his findings to me and the Capitol Police
Board. His report contains several recommendations to assist
the Department in strengthening its financial management
practices, to include our future budget formulation processes.
I have reviewed the report and its recommendations, and I
generally agree with them.
To address the recommendations with a focus on ensuring
that this failure does not occur again, we are actively
realigning our processes to adopt those suggestions from the
report. We are developing standard operating procedures to
formalize our budget formulation processes and we are working
in a collaborative manner with the Capitol Police Board to
implement their guidance and recommendations.
Our focus is on ensuring that we have necessary people and
processes in place to perform the financial management
requirements of the Department in a fiscally responsible and
transparent manner consistent with the expectations of our
stakeholders and the public.
In closing, I want to assure you that we understand the
gravity of these issues that caused this problem and we are
taking the necessary steps to correct them. While these issues
have been significant, please be assured that we have taken
every measure to mitigate the effort on our mission and our
personnel.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The statement of Chief Morse follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Chief.
Mr. Hoecker.
STATEMENT OF CARL W. HOECKER, INSPECTOR GENERAL, UNITED STATES
CAPITOL POLICE
Mr. Hoecker. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lungren, my name is Carl
Hoecker. I am the Inspector General for the United States
Capitol Police. Thank you for inviting me here this morning to
discuss our work with the Department's budget formulation
process.
As the Chief requested, my office conducted the audit of
the budget formulation process. Our objectives were to assess
whether the Department has adequate controls over the budget
formulation process to ensure that accurate data is collected
and developed.
Two, to determine if staff complied with those controls
during the formulation of the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year
2011 budget process.
Three, if not, note the exceptions and root causes and
finally determine the reasonableness of the fiscal year 2010
and 2011 revised budgets for personnel compensation and
benefits. Our scope included the original and revised amended
fiscal year 2010 and 2011 budget submissions and processes/
controls utilized to formulate those submissions.
The OIG found that the Department did not have adequate
controls over the budget formulation process to ensure that
adequate data was collected and developed. The Department's
policies and procedures did not accurately document or define
its budget formulation processes. And the budget execution and
monitoring standard operating procedures are incomplete and
outdated.
During the formulation of the fiscal year 2010 and 2011
budgets, the Department did not follow proven past practices or
comply with prior controls over budget processes. During the
formulation of the 2010 budget, the Department did not fully
utilize its Force Development Process, nor did it apply the
fiscal year 2009 format or consistently follow best practices
for developing personnel compensation and benefits. We also
noted noncompliance with fund control processes was permitted.
As a result, the Department is at risk of requesting
insufficient funding or overspending its appropriations.
The OIG concluded the overarching root cause is the
Department's administrative management has allowed inadequate
financial weaknesses to persist, neglected to hold individuals
accountable for implementation of GAO and OIG recommendations,
and ineffectively managed its workforce.
The OIG found that miscalculations, omissions, and other
factors contributed to the insufficient budget submissions for
fiscal year 2010 and 2011 resulting in a significant deficit
for the Department. For fiscal year 2010 OIG projects the
benefits and salaries and benefits budget shortfall to range
between 3.8 and $5.1 million. This deferential depends upon
actual attrition for the remainder of fiscal year 2010 and the
impact of the Department's cost cutting measures implemented by
the Chief. Since our projection for the budget shortfall is
about $1.7 million less than the Department's, OIG believes
that the fiscal year 2010 revised budget shortfall is
reasonable.
For fiscal year 2011, OIG projects that the salary and
benefits budget shortfall to range between 9.3 and $14.8
million. This is based on the Department's budget estimate
submission and depends on the actual attrition and the
Department's cost cutting measures. OIG's projection of the
fiscal year 2011 shortfall is about $5.4 million more than the
Department's $9.4 million.
OIG made eight recommendations which provide a genuine
opportunity to strengthen controls over processes involved in
budget formulation. Specifically, OIG recommended that the
United States Capitol Police establish a formal budget
formulation and allocation process that links all costs to its
mission, goals, and objectives within its strategic and human
capital plans. This process should include written policies and
procedures delineating each office's role and responsibility,
to include specific methodology, sources of data and records
management for calculating compensation of benefits.
Also, the Capitol Police should establish a mechanism for
the Investment Review Board and the Executive Management Team
to review specific programs each year, evaluating their
effectiveness, efficiency and how they contribute to achieving
a specific strategic goal. The Department should implement and
document processes, procedures, and controls to identify and
help ensure that key funds control personnel are properly
trained. The OIG recommended that the Chief evaluate whether
the Department has appropriate leadership and management within
the Office of Administration.
This concludes my testimony. I will be pleased to answer
your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Hoecker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Capuano. Thanks, Mr. Hoecker.
Chief, do you trust Mr. Hoecker?
Chief Morse. I have read the report and the recommendations
and have reviewed the----
Mr. Capuano. No, Chief, do you trust the man?
Chief Morse. Yes, I have no reason to distrust him.
Mr. Capuano. Do you trust his judgment?
Chief Morse. Yes.
Mr. Capuano. Do you trust his professionalism?
Chief Morse. Yes.
Mr. Capuano. Chief, you are a great cop. I think you have
done a great job as far as the policing aspect of it. I feel
very safe as a Member of Congress. I think this is the safest
place on Earth because of what you and your staff have done.
Mr. Hoecker is a professional accountant, a professional
Inspector General. The issues here have nothing to do with the
actual policing of the Hill. I am not questioning you on that.
These issues are administrative. His training to me is
unquestionable, in fact more training than I could imagine.
If he were questioning you on police deployment, I would
ask him the same questions. The questions are on financial
management. None of us can know all things about what we do. I
am a former mayor. I had to do everything just like you have to
do everything. I couldn't do everything, I couldn't be the
police chief, the fire chief, the DPW commissioner, the city
auditor, and on and on and on. I had to delegate those things
to people who were qualified in their role.
When the Inspector General says something and when now
after a year and a half, depending on when you measure the
time, we are now into our third serious financial problem that
I am aware of, two years of personnel items and personnel items
in any budget, particularly in the police department, in this
case 80 percent, that is not unusual, that is typical. And now
the radio program, of which I have been a strong proponent on
every measure, at every step. Now we are in problems
financially, not on problems of the radio but financially on
the radio issue.
Chief, I have got to tell you, here is my strong advice to
you: Take Mr. Hoecker's report and say, yes, sir. Several
places here you disagreed. On funds availability control you
say that you have actually accomplished certain things that the
IG then comes back and says you didn't. You didn't provide us
documentation.
The report also questions--questions the relationship, the
way the IG's office has been treated by certain people in your
department. I understand the normal human nature when being
questioned by somebody who might not say good things about
whatever it is you are doing is to be defensive, but honestly
it all comes back to you. You are the Chief. This isn't the
first time we have had a similar, a comparable issue in just
the last couple of months. When there is a problem, you say
yes, sir. And I would strongly say that if the roles were
reversed and you were saying you should have 14 cops on the
corner and you should say no, you shouldn't, you should have
some other number, I would be on your side because you are the
professional police officer.
He is the professional accountant. Do what he tells you. Do
it quickly. I have got to tell you, personally, on a personal
basis, I am tired of this. I think I have done everything I can
to defend the Department's record since I have been on this
committee, and I will continue to do so because I think you
have been great on many different levels. We have certain
disagreements, but they have been fine. I am tired of defending
this issue. As a matter of fact, I won't do it anymore. And I
won't do it anymore because I don't mind human error, everybody
makes mistakes. I am not measuring somebody by the mistakes
they make, unless they are repeated. This is a repeated mistake
and the reaction to the mistake has been typical defensiveness
as opposed to simply saying, okay, we screwed up, we will fix
it as you say to fix it.
Honestly, I am a little bit concerned and personally
disappointed in the fact that we are here on this issue again
today. This is not a new issue.
As a matter of fact I want to ask you, as I understand it,
according to the report in March 2009, was the first alerting
to wait a minute, your budget isn't 80 percent. It was 80
percent of personnel last year, now it is only 65 percent of
personnel this year. Honestly, that should stick out as a red
flag to anybody. I do my own office budget every year. I know
what my personnel numbers are. They fluctuate a little bit, but
really not much. Mine is in the same range, about 80 percent.
If all of a sudden I did my numbers and it came up with 65
percent on a personnel basis I would say, yeah, I must have
missed something. If you knew--when did you--when did it come
to your attention that there was some serious questions? Now
was this March 2009 commentary made to you or to one of your
staffers?
Chief Morse. That was not made to me, but to one of the
staff, I believe.
Mr. Capuano. Did staff alert you to it?
Chief Morse. No.
Mr. Capuano. Here is the problem, holding your personnel
accountable. There are lots of different ways to hold people
accountable, but if you have a staff that is being asked that
question, that then didn't react to it and didn't bring it to
your attention, that is a problem. That is a staff who is not
protecting you, and not protecting the Department, and not
protecting the Congress and not protecting the taxpayer.
Again, I don't want to--personally I am not focused on the
mistakes. Mistakes get made every day and in every profession,
everywhere. My focus is on the reaction to those mistakes when
they become aware--when you become aware of them or when
somebody who should tell you becomes aware of them.
As I understand it, there still has been no suggestion on
how to reprogram the money this year or next year, is that
correct or is that out of date?
Chief Morse. Our reprogramming has been sent to the Capitol
Police Board for review today. And we expected for it to be
accomplished at this time because we now have a pretty good
outlook on what the remaining funds requirements would be. And
we certainly wanted to be as close as we could be so that we
would not be adverse to our general expenses any more than we
needed to be. So we are now prepared to move our reprogramming
letter forward.
Mr. Capuano. With the indulgence of the ranking member, Mr.
Hoecker, would you say now, knowing what you know now after the
inspection, after the reports and the give and take, should we
leave the financial functions of the Capitol Police within the
Capitol Police or should they be moved into an independent
entity?
Mr. Hoecker. One sense tells me that is way above my pay
grade, sir.
Mr. Capuano. I just asked you a question. That makes it
within your pay grade.
Mr. Hoecker. Right, sir. I think the police with a little
help can get it done this year and can move forward. Since we
have issued the report we have seen some progress on the
recommendations and, for instance, there was a control that was
not in place. When we were at the exit interview talking to the
Chief about that control, shortly before that, they had
reinstituted that control. So there are indications that they
are taking this serious and they have formed a team I believe
to go in there and to proceed on the fiscal year 2012 budget.
Mr. Capuano. Has the cooperation between the Department and
your office been improved?
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir, and I can clarify.
Mr. Capuano. Has it been improved sufficiently?
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir. I didn't want you to misunderstand
our report, and perhaps it could be better written in that
respect, but there were a couple of folks that were not
truthful, we believe, not forward, not cooperative. This was
not from the Chief's office.
Mr. Capuano. Are they still in place?
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Capuano. Not truthful. Did I hear you correctly?
Mr. Hoecker. We have reason to believe that they withheld
information from us, sir, yes.
Mr. Capuano. Not truthful? Chief, accountability. Not
truthful? I understand defensiveness. Not truthful to the
Inspector General? To your own Inspector General? That is
acceptable behavior within the Department?
Chief Morse. No. Lying is not acceptable.
Mr. Capuano. Those people are still in place? How do we
know that once they lied to the IG once they won't do it again?
Chief Morse. Well, before I can make personnel decisions
with respect to conduct or performance, I have to be given all
the facts in order to evaluate that. And at this point I do not
believe that the Inspector General has all the information with
respect to his findings to submit to me yet. So----
Mr. Capuano. Mr. Inspector General, is that accurate?
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir, it is. We have initiated a number of
investigations and we will finalize those investigations and
report them to the Chief so that he can take appropriate
action, if action should be taken.
Mr. Capuano. Chief. Somebody lies on their application to
be a Capitol Police Officer. They are automatically rejected
out of hand; is that correct?
Chief Morse. Yes, sir.
Mr. Capuano. Somebody lies to the Inspector General. If
they are found after fair investigation and fair review, what
happens to them.
Chief Morse. I believe that statutorily if they lie to the
Inspector General it can be a criminal offense, and then of
course if that were to be forwarded then we would wait for the
legal process to be completed.
Mr. Capuano. Sir, I respect that, I am not looking to
convict somebody prior to the appropriate process. But again I
am going to end where I started. Chief, I am begging you, I am
begging you, take the IG's report and just do it. Do it as
quickly as you humanly can, and anybody who stands in the way
get rid of them or at least begin the process of getting rid of
them. Please don't make us have to come back here on this
again. The next thing I hear from the IG I want to hear that
you have implemented all the suggestions he has made.
Chief Morse. If I could just for the record, I would like
to show you the actions that we have taken, the immediate
actions with respect to the audit and the corrective actions
that we plan to implement in the future.
The first thing and immediate thing that I did was take
charge of the situation and mitigate any impact to security or
law enforcement or personnel to the police department.
Mr. Capuano. Chief, hang on one second. Honestly, it is not
me you have to answer to. I am not a CPA, I am not a certified
forensic accountant. He is. And if he tells me you have done
sufficiently, that is really all I need to hear. I am not
qualified to judge whether you have.
Chief Morse. Okay.
Mr. Capuano. I will be very clear. I think you know me well
enough to know by now that if I didn't think you were an honest
person or a capable or a qualified or a truthful person I would
say so. I do. I think you have a good heart and I think you
want to do the right thing. But I also think you have been
dragging your feet on this issue. I am trying to say very
clearly stop dragging your feet. Do what he tells you to do.
And if there are people in the way, get rid of them. Whatever
it takes, do it. If he says you have done it, fine by me. If he
says you haven't done it, no disrespect intended, I am going to
side with him on financial matters. I will side with you on
police matters every day of the week. Listen to him, don't come
back to us.
I think I have to yield to the ranking member, thanking him
for his indulgence.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
reiterate the chairman's comments about the quality of service
from the police force that we are getting from the standpoint
of policing. I think the Chief is doing an excellent job and I
would be upset if he left because I think we have a very
professional force. I think the men and women in uniform here
do a tremendous job under very difficult circumstances.
Having said that, I am, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, very disappointed with the administrative side of
things.
Mr. Hoecker, I want to hone in on some of your comments
here. You said in your prepared statement that the OIG
concluded that the overarching root cause is that the
Department's administrative management has allowed inadequate
financial weaknesses to persist, neglected to hold individuals
accountable for implementation of Government Accountability
Office and OIG recommendations, and ineffectively managed its
workforce.
What are you talking about when you say the Department's
administrative management?
Mr. Hoecker. That would be the CAO, everything under the
CAO's office.
Mr. Lungren. The CAO within the Department?
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lungren. That is a pretty strong set of findings that
you made here. Inadequate financial weaknesses to persist; in
other words, they did not take your previous recommendations
into account. That is the Administrative Management Team; is
that correct?
Mr. Hoecker. What I meant by that, sir, was every year we
do a financial statement audit and in 2005 and 2006 we
combined--2004 and 2005 were combined, fiscal year 2006 was
standalone, fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. Each year
there has been material weaknesses. Material weaknesses means
that--this is in terms of internal controls, that means that
there is a control that is not working properly and the
auditors are not satisfied that that will not prevent errors or
misstatements.
Mr. Lungren. So you would expect if you point that out that
that would change for the next audit, wouldn't you?
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir. I would expect an organization would
get the financial statement report, look at the internal
controls report that is contained therein, and focus on
clearing any kind of material weaknesses.
Mr. Lungren. You say neglected to hold individuals
accountable for implementation of Government Accountability
Office and OIG recommendations. What do you mean?
Mr. Hoecker. Well, sir, there are the plans to clear
recommendations to provide evidence to the auditors and it
appeared to us that this schedule, they had target dates, and
instead of meeting those target dates for whatever reason the
target date just kept on shifting. Combined with that is that
we found nothing in the performance evaluation of individuals
involved that linked strategic plans, strategic goals, and also
improving financial operations and clearing open
recommendations. We found none of that in the performance
evaluations or in the performance standards.
Mr. Lungren. You are talking about individuals within the
administrative management side of the House?
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lungren. We are not talking about sworn officers?
Mr. Hoecker. No, sir.
Mr. Lungren. Ineffectively managing the workforce, that is
within the Department's Administrative Management Team?
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lungren. I am very, very concerned about a statement
about identifying potential conflicting statements, procurement
time and attendance, pay and ethical issues. That covers a
range of things. Can you tell me what you are talking about
there?
Mr. Hoecker. Well, sir, we have initiated a number of
investigations to address those. When we were conducting this
audit we came across these various issues and they at least
seemed to be some type of misconduct either at least something
in the Department's rules of conduct, a deficiency there or
perhaps worse. But that is what we are looking at in our
investigation.
Mr. Lungren. Are these sworn officers?
Mr. Hoecker. No, sir.
Mr. Lungren. This is the administrative side of the house.
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lungren. In your final statement, of the four
recommendations you made you say, the OIG also recommended the
Chief evaluate whether the Department has the appropriate
leadership and management within the Office of Administration.
What do you mean?
Mr. Hoecker. I mean that the Chief should look at the whole
CAO's shop, look and see if the right skill sets are present,
look and see if the right leadership traits are exhibited by
the individuals through the whole administrative function.
Mr. Lungren. You say earlier in your testimony, the
formulation of fiscal year 2010, 2011 budgets, the Department
did not follow its proven past budget practices. What do you
mean by that?
Mr. Hoecker. Well, sir, fiscal year 2009, although budgets
are estimates by definition, fiscal year 2009 seemed to work.
The people, the stakeholders were generally happy with that, we
didn't have a shortfall, it worked. What did not happen was
they did not use the fiscal year 2009 as a go by, as a sample
of this is our target. What I also mean by that is two budget
officers ago, a budget officer prepared a document. This
document spelled out exactly how to prepare personnel
compensation and benefits and it resides in the electronic
document system for the Capitol Police. That was not used
during the fiscal year 2010 and the fiscal year 2011 budget
submissions.
Mr. Lungren. When you say budget officers, is that a person
or a personnel spot within the administrative side of the
house.
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lungren. You find that a little odd that they would not
follow the practices that worked in prior years?
Mr. Hoecker. I do find that unusual, sir.
Mr. Lungren. You say that during the formulation of the
2010 budget the Department did not fully utilize its Force
Development Process. You used capitals for that, Forced
Development Process. Is that a specific term of art or a
specific program? What is that and what was not followed?
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir. The Force Development Process
developed by the Chief, I believe in 2006, and perhaps the
Chief can expound on that a little bit more, but the way I
understand that process, if they have a new initiative they
have a group of senior people in the Department to evaluate the
environment, the risks, the cost and what is required and what
they are trying to achieve by this new initiative. And that is
applied to the general expense areas. What we found in fiscal
year 2010 is that they weren't using that. And we found an e-
mail that asked why aren't you using that and then from the e-
mail traffic we saw that they had done a modified version of
Force Development.
Mr. Lungren. E-mail from whom to whom?
Mr. Hoecker. Um, it was from the Chief to the
administrative section, sir.
Mr. Lungren. So the Chief asking why this wasn't utilized?
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lungren. Then you say a failure to follow past best
practices for developing the personnel compensation and
benefits. What do you mean by that?
Mr. Hoecker. That is the fiscal year 2009 standard, if you
will, that they used and also the document that resides in the
Hummingbird system, which is their document retrieval system.
Mr. Lungren. And that was not followed?
Mr. Hoecker. It was not, sir.
Mr. Lungren. And you also noted noncompliance with the
funds control process. What does that mean?
Mr. Hoecker. The funds control process, what we mean by
that is it is funds availability control. And what that means
is that I want to expend these funds, I want to buy this piece
of equipment, or I want to hire this person at this level. What
this funds control is, it asks the budget folks do we have
enough money to pay this. That was lifted in June of 2009.
Mr. Lungren. Lifted, you mean removed?
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lungren. Not utilized anymore.
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lungren. Let me ask you this, if you were a new
administrative officer coming into this department and you saw
these things, what would you do?
Mr. Hoecker. What I would do, sir, is scrub each process
from the bottom up.
Mr. Lungren. And if you followed--if you noted that
something had worked in prior years and was not followed then
subsequently, what would you do as administrative officer
coming in and seeing that?
Mr. Hoecker. I would certainly ask a lot of questions as to
why didn't we and how are we going to--and if I thought that
that was not a good answer, I might say that well, we are going
to use it this year.
Mr. Lungren. Chief, you have heard the testimony here of
the Inspector General. It seems to me we have got some real
problems on the administrative side of the house so how--look,
I know you are burdened--let's see, not burdened. I know you
are constrained by certain requirements with respect to
personnel decisions. I realize the system and the way it works,
but what is your response to what appears to be some real
problems, insufficiencies, difficulties on the administrative
side of the house?
Chief Morse. Well, I think also in the audit report, and I
just want to focus on this a minute, is that when I became
Chief I had a vision and a challenge to the organization that
we would have repeatable business practices, that we would be
transparent, that we would validate everything that we would
do. We built that into our strategic plan, we built that in as
we developed our Human Capital Plan. We put in an internal
program called Force Development, which helps us formulate a
budget that is specific to the threats that we face so that we
have the adequate resources and personnel and technology to
address the critical needs of the campus, to keep it safe, and
to keep our personnel well equipped and well trained.
So we had those processes in place. Those processes were
used to help us develop a clean financial statements. They
helped us achieve a 2009 budget that was a good budget and that
focused on all those issues. So we were very pleased in the
direction that we were going, how we had incorporated this into
our overall strategic plan, our Human Capital Plan. It was the
practice of the agency. And as you have noted, our operations
side has worked extremely well. We have had tremendous
successes with that, as well as the administrative side with
leasing vehicles as a new type of program where we save money
and we recycle vehicles. The truck interdiction program to keep
the campus safe.
So those are all programs that come from an assessment of
how we can do better, how we can enhance what we have, how we
can save money doing it and how we can be at most efficient. I
don't know why someone chooses at any level to not follow the
direction, the business processes that have made us so
successful.
Mr. Lungren. Should it take us having hearings for 2 years
to get to this point?
Chief Morse. No. This is very disappointing to me as well.
Mr. Lungren. Well, it is more than disappointing to me. You
know, to use an old football analogy you can have the best Xs
and Os in the game, if your team can't execute it, it doesn't
do a doggone bit of good. And no one has executed the Xs and Os
on the administrative side. I mean that may be simple language
but it looks to me that is how I would summarize Mr. Hoecker's
report. Would you agree, Mr. Hoecker?
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lungren. So with all due respect, knowing what the
rules are and knowing you have to be careful of what you say
and knowing it takes a long time to make changes, frankly this
report cries out for change on the administrative side. And I
hope that will take place sooner rather than later. And I hope
that the tried and true practices that Mr. Hoecker has outlined
that you took pride in putting in place will be followed.
Goodness, it would be really tough if we were standing here
and you would be with a great big question mark over your head
and so would Mr. Hoecker, gee, we don't know what to do, there
has been a screw up but we don't know what to do. And yet we
know what to do. It is what you did before apparently. The
practices they had in 2009 were good ones, Mr. Hoecker. Am I
stating you correctly?
Mr. Hoecker. 2009 worked, yes, sir.
Mr. Lungren. Okay. Well, I think that is all I have to say.
Mr. Capuano. Thanks.
Mr. Hoecker, I just want to follow up on something that you
mentioned to Mr. Lungren in response to one of his questions.
If I heard you correctly, I think it was 4 or 5 years in a row
there was material weaknesses in the annual audit?
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Capuano. Were they the same material weakness?
Mr. Hoecker. It started out with two and that was financial
management has always been a material weakness, and the second
one that was always consistent was payroll processing. Those
were consistent among all those years, sir.
Mr. Capuano. And just though you understand and I think I
understand, I want to be clear, in my experience material
weakness is a professional term of art used by accountants.
What it really means to me at the end of the annual audit it is
the auditor basically saying, hey, you have a problem, red flag
warning, do something about it.
Mr. Hoecker. That is very fair.
Mr. Capuano. And in my experience if you get the same, I
mean there are different things you can do, you can get a
different material weakness for something new, but if you get
the same one for 2 years in a row, that generally ends up in
a--if not that year at least in the third year, generally ends
up in a qualified report, is that not your experience?
Mr. Hoecker. Well, it depends if they feel comfortable
about the way the financial statements are represented. If they
feel comfortable, they will render the opinion that is clean as
we call it as unqualified. But it is entirely possible that
because of material weakness it could cause errors and mistakes
in the financial statement reporting. That is exactly right,
sir.
Mr. Capuano. And these annual audits were done internally
or by external auditors?
Mr. Hoecker. They were done by an external audit firm that
works under contract for my office, sir.
Mr. Capuano. Same external auditor for those 5 years?
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Capuano. In today's world don't we generally change
auditors on a regular basis?
Mr. Hoecker. We do. Yes, sir, we do. However, USCP has only
had one clean opinion. So I think where that really comes into
play is where you wouldn't want 5 years of a clean opinion or 6
years, whatever the magical number is, and then you would
probably switch.
Mr. Capuano. So we are pretty much due for a switch?
Mr. Hoecker. We are, sir. And I think we are going to a
single legislative auditor; it has to with the migration of the
financial system to the Library of Congress.
Mr. Capuano. All right. Thank you, Mr. Hoecker.
I don't think I want to pursue today the current radio
situation, but it is my understanding we have had one major
outstanding issue now for 6 months, that every time my office
asks about this issue we get told we are right on the verge of
getting it fixed or getting it addressed, and yet it is not
addressed.
Chief, just on the one issue on the backup location, are we
any closer to resolution than we were 6 months ago?
Chief Morse. My most recent briefing on the leasing
negotiations is that they have addressed all issues and will
have some sort of resolution with--on paper with regard to
negotiations this week or as late as Tuesday. Now, I don't want
to misrepresent any facts there. There is a representative from
my--who is the Director of the Office of Information Systems,
who is in the audience, but that is where I think we stand now
on those issues----
Mr. Capuano. I respect that, but I have heard something
similar to that now for week after week after week after week
and just note that not now, but when we get back in September
if this issue is not resolved I am going to expect a plan B. I
think that is a reasonable expectation after 7 months because I
still believe based on your recommendations that I still trust
that the radio program is absolutely essential and it has to
get done, and we can't allow lease negotiations to hold us up
much longer. Is that fair?
Chief Morse. Yes, sir, that is.
Mr. Capuano. Chief, I am going to end with one simple
question. With all the financial issues that you have, again I
have made myself clear and Mr. Lungren has been clear as to
where we want to go, but I want to be very clear for the
record, in your opinion, even with the financial problems you
face this year and next financial fiscal year, do you believe
that Capitol Hill is safe?
Chief Morse. Yes, I do.
Mr. Capuano. I do, too, but I just wanted to hear you say
it.
We are all set. Thank you, Chief and Mr. Hoecker, very
much.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]