[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TIME AND ATTENDANCE ABUSE AT THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 7, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-128
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-007 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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 OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Columbia
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina TED LIEU, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
KEN BUCK, Colorado MARK DeSAULNIER, California
MARK WALKER, North Carolina BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
ROD BLUM, Iowa PETER WELCH, Vermont
JODY B. HICE, Georgia MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Jennifer Hemingway, Staff Director
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Kevin Ortiz, Professional Staff Member
Willie Marx, Clerk
------
Subcommittee on Government Operations
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman
JIM JORDAN, Ohio GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia,
TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair Ranking Minority Member
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina Columbia
KEN BUCK, Colorado WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 7, 2016................................. 1
WITNESSES
The Hon. Russell Slifer, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Deputy Director, U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office
Oral Statement............................................... 3
Written Statement............................................ 5
Mr. David Smith, Acting Deputy Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Ms. Pamela Schwartz, President, Patent Office Professional
Association
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Mr. David Chu, Ph.D., Panel Chair, National Academy of Public
Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 25
Written Statement............................................ 27
APPENDIX
Questions for the record, submitted by Mr. Meadows............... 58
Questions for the record, submitted by Mr. Connolly.............. 102
TIME AND ATTENDANCE ABUSE AT THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
----------
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Operations,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:22 p.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Meadows, Jordan, Carter, Grothman,
Connolly, Maloney, Norton, and Clay.
Also Present: Representative Hice.
Mr. Meadows. The Subcommittee on Government Operations will
come to order. And, without objection, the chair is authorized
to declare a recess at any time.
I want to thank all of you for being here. It was in August
of this year that the Commerce Department's Office of Inspector
General released what I would say is an alarming report
detailing the potential time and attendance abuses at the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office. The OIG compared hours certified
as worked by nearly 8,400 patent examiners with data such as
records from either virtual private networks or computer
workstation records or the like. This comparison actually
allowed the OIG to assess whether or not the hours claimed by
examiners were backed up by quantifiable data.
The results are shocking. The OIG identified some 288,479
unsupported hours by patent examiners over a 15-month period.
Now, these hours equate to $18.3 million in potential waste.
415 of the examiners covered in the analysis had 10 percent or
more of unsupported hours. And, indeed, 310 of these examiners
received above-average annual performance ratings and accounted
for nearly 98,000 of the unsupported hours. The unsupported
hours could have been helped to reduce patent application
backlog, which currently stands at 540,000 or by some 15,990
cases.
What is most troubling is the numbers provided by the OIG
are a conservative estimate. The OIG wanted to make sure that
everything was done in an appropriate manner, and actually
received the benefit of the doubt when making their analysis.
By some less conservative assumptions, we could push the amount
of unsupported hours to be nearly twice as high as the OIG
reported. And this, indeed, is unacceptable.
The report comes on the heels of a previous OIG
investigation into examiner A. This examiner would often leave
work early to play golf, and overall, examiner A committed to
at least 730 hours of time and attendance abuses. This resulted
in nearly $25,500 for time not worked. And I want to add is,
when we have this, it has a chilling effect on other people in
the workforce. So, conveniently for examiner A, he or she
resigned on the advice from the union before action could be
taken against him or her. Now, when the OIG retroactively
tested it's methodology for the new report on examiner A's
unsupported hours, it received a similar unsupported hour
total. This shows that the OIG's methodology accurately
measures the unsupported hours.
Now, while not necessarily widespread, the OIG's findings
do show that, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, internal
controls for fighting time and attendance abuse are lacking.
The OIG has six recommendations that would help safeguard
taxpayers from fraud at that agency. They include a requirement
that examiners provide their supervisors with work schedules;
examiners use their ID badges to exit the agency in turnstile
facilities; and all examiners log into the USPTO network during
their working hours while teleworking. Now, these commonsense
recommendations should be adopted now.
Now, while some may argue that the total amount of
unsupported hours is less than 2 percent of the total work
hours logged in by patent examiners, even 1 unsupported hour is
too many. The American people deserve better. And I look
forward to hearing your testimony on how we can not only
address this issue but make sure that we have an accountable
workforce going forward.
Mr. Meadows. I'm going to wait and recognize the gentleman
from Virginia for his opening statements here in a few minutes.
And I will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any
member who would like to submit a written statement.
The chair notes that the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice,
will be attending today. He was here earlier. We appreciate his
interest in this particular issue. He is here now. I ask
unanimous consent that Representative Hice be allowed to fully
participate in today's hearing.
And, without objection, so ordered.
In addition to that, I make a unanimous request that we
enter into the record the investigative report of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office which would actually be the IG's
report, the investigative report.
And, without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows]:
[This report can be found on The Department of Commerce
website at: https://www.oig.doc.gov/oigpublications/14-
0990.pdf]
Mr. Meadows. I'm pleased to actually welcome here the
Honorable Russell Slifer, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce
for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director at the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office. Welcome.
Mr. David Smith, acting deputy inspector general at the
U.S. Department of Commerce. Welcome, Mr. Smith.
Ms. Pamela Schwartz, president of the Patent Office
Professional Association. Welcome, Ms. Schwartz.
And Dr. David Chu, panel chair of the National Academy of
Public Administration.
Welcome to you all.
And pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be
sworn in before they testify. So if you would please rise and
raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that
you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth?
Thank you. You may be seated. Please let the record reflect
that all witnesses answered in the affirmative.
In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your
oral testimony to 5 minutes. However, your entire written
statement will be made part of the record.
And so, Mr. Slifer, we'll come to you for 5 minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RUSSELL SLIFER
Mr. Slifer. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
discuss the United States Patent and Trademark Office's
management of employees' time and attendance.
I am proud of the work that our nearly 13,000 employees,
including more than 8,300 patent examiners, to help our
Nation's innovators secure intellectual property rights. The
overwhelming majority of these employees are hard-working,
highly educated, and highly skilled professionals who perform
their jobs with the utmost integrity and dedication. We take
seriously any allegation of abuse in our workplace. Any abuse
of time and attendance by an employee is unfair to our
stakeholders who rely on our agency and to the employees who
abide by the rules. It is unacceptable and will not be
tolerated within the USPTO.
In recent years, we have made workforce management a
critical focus and have invested a significant time and effort
in improving our overall management for all employees,
including teleworking employees and those stationed at our
physical facilities. We have taken a number of concrete steps,
including requiring new training for employees and supervisors,
updating policies, adding controls, and building tools for
supervisors to enable our supervisors to engage and manage
their employees more effectively.
Today, at the USPTO, supervisors receive extensive
training, and they have a variety of tools in place to help
monitor employees' attendance and work levels, regardless of
where the employees are working. We have addressed our
workforce management issues by providing new tools, policies,
and guidance. My written testimony provides more detail on our
extensive efforts to date. In the interest of time, I'll
highlight just a few of those now.
We created an IT dashboard tool to review employee-specific
data to monitor examiners' production and timeliness, which can
show early signs of changes in performance and potential time
and abuse--time and attendance issues. We implemented a policy
requiring all USPTO employees, supervisors, and full-time
teleworkers to remain logged into the USPTO's IT system during
working hours. We updated the overtime policy for patent
examiners, emphasizing that exceeding production goals does not
excuse employees from actually working claimed hours.
We appreciate the work of the office of inspector general
in preparing the August 2016 analysis of patent examiners' time
and attendance. The findings and recommendations in the report
serve as a valuable resource as we further enhance the
extensive measures we have already taken to focus on time and
attendance compliance among USPTO employees.
We also appreciate the work of the National Academy of
Public Administration for their study of our telework programs
and controls.
The USPTO is committed to implementing additional
improvements as necessary in response to the IG's report.
Because the report identified overall trends and didn't examine
individual employee's cases, our team has worked to rigorously
analyze the data in detail to better identify the nature of the
unsupported hours. This refined analysis is helping us make
tailored improvements to our overall workforce management.
While the USPTO is certainly unique among Federal agencies in
our ability to quantify the productivity of a majority of our
employees, striking the right balance between management tools
and employee productivity is a challenge faced by all
employers, both public and private sector, and something that
we strive to achieve in an effort to ensure the effectiveness
and efficiency of our agency in order to better promote
American innovation. We have and will continue to work toward
ensuring proper and accurate accounting of all time and
attendance. Any hour of time claimed and not worked is
unacceptable.
In closing, I want to underscore our continuing commitment
to detect and address all cases of abuse and hold any employee
who commits that abuse accountable while also strengthening our
overall management and operations. As we continue to support
our Nation's innovators, we know that we owe nothing less to
our hard working and dedicated employees, to the stakeholders,
and to the public we serve. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Slifer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you.
Mr. Smith, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID SMITH
Mr. Smith. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and
members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify today. First, it is important to mention that our
investigation found the vast majority of patent examiners'
claimed hours were supported by evidence contained in the
various records of computer activity that we examined. Our
findings do not indicate this is a widespread problem, which
echoes the NAPA report.
Second, I would like to thank the employees at USPTO who
reviewed our analysis and findings and helped us achieve the
more accurate results contained in our report. It's rare that
such a collaborative effort on such an investigation occurs,
which is testimony to the professionalism of those employees.
Even though it may not be widespread, the data establishes
that claiming hours not actually worked is a problem at USPTO.
An earlier OIG investigation uncovered paralegals at the Patent
Trial and Appeal Board being directed by management to falsify
hours over several years, and totaled more than $5 million in
waste.
Next, OIG reported on patent examiner A, who falsely
claimed to work at least 730 hours in 2014 alone, which
amounted to more than $25,000 of waste.
Lastly, in August 2016, my office issued a report that
identified over a 15-month period approximately 288,000 hours
not supported by the data, which equates to over $18 million in
potential waste. The analysis compared the time examiners
asserted as computer-related work on their time sheets against
four sets of data that evidenced computer work. For the hours
examiners claimed but lacked any supporting data, we considered
those hours to be unsupported. Our analysis included a separate
9-month period when a policy change required full-time
teleworkers to be logged into the USPTO network for all the
hours claimed as teleworking. Evidence of substantial abuse by
some patent examiners is particularly troubling, especially
considering my office analyzed the data in a light most
favorable to the patent examiners. OIG assumed for examiners
working on campus that all computer-related worktime claimed
supported from the time of arrival until the time they left or
10 p.m., whichever occurred first, regardless of when they
actually left the office.
I want to emphasize again that the vast majority of patent
examiners had few, if any, unsupported hours, and appeared to
be working the hours certified on their time sheets. However,
our approach identified 415 examiners who accounted for
approximately 124,000 unsupported hours over a 15-month period.
That amounted to almost 45 percent of the total unsupported
hours we found.
Of additional concern, approximately three-quarters of
those 415 examiners received above-average performance ratings,
and 30 percent of the unsupported hours for these high
performers was claimed as overtime. Fifty-six of the 415
examiners averaged 24 or more unsupported hours per 80 hours of
analyzed time, which equates to 3 or more days of work for
every 2 weeks of analyzed time. Seventy other examiners
averaged between 16 and 24 unsupported hours per 80 hours of
analyzed time.
Our methodology may have been actually overly generous.
When we analyzed the data for examiners, we switched to a
router that provided more precise indication of online
activity, the OIG found that the total number of unsupported
hours actually doubled. In addition, the use of a less
conservative methodology for on-campus examiners, using
computer logoffs and other activity to determine work stoppage,
increased the total unsupported hours by an additional 327,000.
The OIG recognizes that examiners could conceivably perform
examiner-related work offline. However, that would mean that
those examiners are working offline for the entire day without
logging into the USPTO network, without logging any activity in
the patent examining application, and without checking their
email. However, during the initial 6-month period where there
was no requirement for them to be logged on, we found almost
1,300 days in which full-time teleworking examiners had zero
computer activity, not even checking their email once for 2 or
more days in a row. Therefore, we recognize that it's possible
on an individual basis; we believe it's just not a plausible
explanation for the volume of unsupported hours.
While we acknowledge the changes USPTO management has
implemented in response to the previous OIG reports, there's
still a lot of work yet to be done to improve internal controls
over time and attendance reporting. Some of those improvements
include empowering supervisors with the tools needed to enable
them to properly monitor work performed by employees, a
recommendation also contained in the NAPA report.
In closing, we note that the OIG interpreted the exceptions
to the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 to
prohibit pursuing criminal prosecution or civil remedies in
recommending that the agency take administrative action against
those examiners engaged in misconduct. In a September 13, 2016,
hearing, the question was asked if the OIG report would be more
accurate if the OIG had interviewed individuals. And the
correct answer was yes. Therefore, if POPA and the other unions
would encourage their members to voluntarily be interviewed by
the OIG, we would be happy to interview the examiners to
determine if any evidence exists to support their claims of
hours worked. This would be done with the understanding that
those results of the interviews would be made available to the
USPTO to take appropriate action against any examiners found to
have claimed hours where there was no actual work performed.
I want to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to
testify today. And I look forward to your questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Ms. Schwartz, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PAMELA SCHWARTZ
Ms. Schwartz. Chairman Meadows Ranking Member Connolly, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
present the views of the Patent Office Professional
Association, POPA, on the inspector general's report on patent
examiners' time and attendance.
The OIG's conclusions contradict those of the National
Academy of Public Administration, which reported in 2015 that
it is, quote, ``unlikely that time and attendance abuse is
widespread or unique to teleworkers, and it does not appear to
reflect the activity of the workforce as a whole. The USPTO has
requisite procedures in place to monitor time and attendance,''
closed quote.
The OIG's analysis is based on flawed methodology and
faulty assumptions. Reliance on turnstile, VPN, and workstation
records does not reliably capture all the work performed by the
examiners. The OIG did not account for unrecorded,
uncompensated overtime regularly worked by examiners to meet
their production goals, which far exceeds the 2 percent
unsupported time. The GAO recently issued a report on patent
quality in which it concluded that 70 percent of examiners must
work extra uncompensated hours to meet their required
production quota. A companion GAO report found that examiners
worked between 5 to 10 hours of uncompensated overtime each pay
period on average. Even the OIG's report acknowledges that
there were, quote, ``many days where the evidence of computer-
related work activity appeared to exceed the time claimed for
the day,'' closed quote.
Even if a teleworker was not connected to the agency's
computer system, this doesn't mean that she wasn't working.
Many aspects of an examiner's job can and are routinely done
offline, like working from printed application documents and
studying printed copies of prior art patent and nonpatent
literature. Furthermore, there was no policy requiring
teleworkers to be logged into the agency's servers during all
their working hours for a substantial portion of the 15 months
studied.
The OIG acknowledges that there was a statistically
significant reduction in the number of unsupported hours
following the issuance of the agency's full-time teleworker
policy in February 2015. To the extent that some teleworkers
did not consistently log into the agency's servers in the 9
months immediately following the issuance of the policy, it
only means that they were not yet conscientious about complying
with the new policy.
Buried in the OIG's report on page 17, footnote 39, is this
important concession that undermines the report's conclusions,
quote: ``Since the OIG methodology uses VPN and workstation
records to support worktime for teleworkers, this approach
could incorrectly determine that certain hours were unsupported
if the examiners were working but did not connect to the USPTO
network,'' closed quote.
Even assuming that the OIG's methodology was accurate, the
ostensibly unsupported hours equal only 1.6 percent of overall
time, less than 8 minutes a day on average. A 98.4-percent time
accounting efficiency rate demonstrates an extraordinarily high
level of productivity for any employer. As a result of this
extraordinary productivity, the examining corps has reduced
both the backlog of unexamined patent applications as well as
the average time for completing examination by 25 percent in
the last 5 years.
While potential amount of loss estimated by the OIG was $18
million over 15 months, the USPTO saves over $100 million a
year due to its extensive telework program, including over $38
million in real estate savings. According to the USPTO, in
fiscal year 2015, the 2,000 full-time teleworkers who
participate in the Telework Enhancement Act pilot program were
actually 6 percent more productive than other examiners in
terms of annual production units, resulting in a revenue gain
of over $35 million, far more than the alleged potential loss
estimated by the OIG.
Nonetheless, POPA is in full accord with the agency's
efforts to ensure that all employees work their full 80 hours
each pay period. POPA has worked with our management regularly
to achieve full compliance with time and attendance
requirements, and we will continue to do so. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Schwartz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Ms. Schwartz.
Dr. Chu, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID CHU, PH.D.
Mr. Chu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the
subcommittee, it is indeed a privilege to appear before you to
summarize the report by the National Academy of Public
Administration on the telework program of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
I should emphasize the report was undertaken in response to
the issues you identified earlier in this time period, really
work in the fall of 2014, the spring of 2015. I should also
emphasize that I'm appearing today as a fellow of the academy
and not in my position with the Institute for Defense Analyses.
The National Academy effort comprised two parts, an
internal controls review undertaken in partnership with Grant
Thornton, an accounting firm, and a program review on the
efficacy of the telework program. The conclusions of the
internal controls review were generally positive in character.
Several essentially small deficiencies were identified that
could easily be corrected. Much of the report is focused on the
program review: How well does this program actually perform?
And it's our conclusion that it is a valuable program from the
perspective of managing the United States Patent and Trademark
Office. Indeed, it's a foundational element of its business
model as we're all aware. We conclude there's no difference in
productivity between those who telework and those who do not.
And our further conclusion was the telework program at USPTO
ought to continue.
We did have a series of recommendations to strengthen the
ability of the program to perform effectively. And I'd like to
touch very briefly on four of those recommendations. First, we
felt there should be stronger tools in the hands of supervisors
with regard to their ability to manage the examiners for whom
they are responsible. We did a survey of supervisors. An
important minority reported that they thought they needed more
instruments in order to be effective as managers. It's a very
simple step and which I'm pleased to understand that the office
has taken--at least up to a certain point--is requiring a
presence indicator be used. And the office now requires that of
full-time teleworkers. We recommend it be done for all PTO
employees. It's valuable, not only for the purpose of time and
attendance, but also from the perspective of encouraging a more
collaborative approach to the patent process.
Second, the one difference we found between the Patent and
Trademark Office telework program and telework programs
elsewhere, both in governmental units and the private sector,
is, in most other programs, telework is emphasized as a
privilege, not a right. And we thought it would be useful for
the office to signal that important distinction by requiring
employees to re-sign their agreements every 2 years. It's my
understanding that the agency has undertaken that step.
Third, we believed it was timely to begin reviewing what
standards for productivity we expect by art unit. These art
units differ significantly in terms of their complexity and
nature of the applications. Many of these standards date back
to the 1970s and have not been substantially reviewed since
that time. And, again, I'm pleased to understand that that
series of reviews has just started. That is not a short-term
fix. It will take time to understand what kind of productivity
standards should Patent and Trademark Office employees sustain.
And, finally, we felt there should be more attention not
just to the volume of output but the quality of the patents
that are granted. Ultimately, as we all understand, the ability
to protect intellectual property correctly is a foundational
element for the success of the American economy. That turns on
the quality of the patents that are granted.
Much of our discussion is today about inputs and outputs in
the terminology of the government performance community. What
really counts here are, what are the outcomes? And that
importantly does turn on the quality of the patents that are
granted.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Chu follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you so much.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Connolly, for his opening statement.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
holding this hearing on the penultimate day of the 114th
Congress. There is no human problem that cannot be improved
with another hearing.
Looking at the findings in the recent Department of
Commerce IG report on time and attendance issues of patent
examiners at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office--and I want
to thank the IG for his report--who found that 1.6 percent of
the total hours that PTO examiners claimed they worked during a
9-month period in 2015 lacked supporting computer evidence of
actual work activity. The IG concluded that this could have
resulted in potential waste of $8.8 million. The IG also looked
at an overlapping 15-month period and concluded that the
unsupported hours could have resulted in potential waste of $18
million. However, the IG has found no proof of actual
misconduct in this latest report. Let me be clear about my
views on time and attendance abuse. It's unacceptable. Any
amount of fraud, whether it's 1.6 percent of total claimed
hours cited in the IG report or twice that amount, is
unacceptable if proved true. The IG found that, for about 10
percent of the hours worked by a small fraction of patent
examiners, apparently no evidence of work activity from an
evaluation of their computer use could be found. The IG notes
that this problem was not widespread. The National Academy of
Public Administration conducted a review of PTO's internal
controls and came to that same conclusion. The IG's audit is
valuable but incomplete. The IG's approach does not reflect any
offline work done by patent examiners. The Patent Office
Professional Association has already testified that many
examiners routinely spend a portion of their work hours working
offline, and even work overtime without claiming it.
I understand that the IG has provided its data and
algorithms to PTO to allow the agency to determine whether
there in fact were cases of actual abuse of the agency's time
and attendance policy.
Another question raised by the IG's findings was whether
there is a reasonable explanation for why the most unsupported
time is associated with PTO's highest performing examiners. Do
the findings suggest an indication of a complex managerial
problem? A conflict between an examiner's production goals and
time and attendance requirements? How can we resolve these
conflicts to incentivize the agency's most efficient examiners
to take work beyond their production goals?
Lastly, I'd like to know, Mr. Chairman, as an original
cosponsor of the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010, I take a
special interest in PTO's telework program, which many agencies
have viewed as a model. I understand some of my colleagues may
suggest that the IG's report indicates a problem with PTO's
telework program. But the IG's analysis does not make a
comparison between teleworkers and on-campus workers. However,
NAPA's 2015 study of PTO's telework program found no difference
in the performance or conduct between these two groups of
employees.
The benefits of telework are significant. PTO's telework
program has saved the agency more than $7 million during
government closures, and the agency avoided more than $38
million in rent in this last fiscal year alone.
In addition, there's potential for traffic congestion
relief--and as somebody who represents this area, we need it--
and widespread adoption of telework policies governmentwide.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today, and
thank you for your indulgence in my being here a little bit
late. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan,
for a series of questions.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Chu, what does NAPA stand for again?
Mr. Chu. The NAPA report was----
Mr. Meadows. Hit your red button there. Or make it red.
Mr. Chu. My apologies. That report was based on work----
Mr. Jordan. What's the organization? What's the acronym
stand for?
Mr. Chu. I'm sorry?
Mr. Jordan. What's the acronym stand for, NAPA? What's it--
--
Mr. Chu. Oh, National Academy of Public Administration.
Mr. Jordan. National Academy of--okay. And you guys did a
study that reaches a different conclusion than the IG's report.
Is that right?
Mr. Chu. Well, our study is for a period prior to the most
recent IG report.
Mr. Jordan. You reached a different conclusion, different--
different--your report----
Mr. Chu. I believe the IG testified that he did not think
it was widespread, time and attendance abuse. That is also--was
also our conclusion. We did not see it as a widespread issue.
Mr. Jordan. Well, the USPTO cites it as showing that
different conclusion than the IG's report. Is that fair?
Mr. Chu. I think we're all agreed that the fraction of time
that is believed to be abusive is small. A goal, as I think the
chairman emphasized----
Mr. Jordan. Is your report different--is your report
different than the IG's report?
Mr. Chu. Excuse me?
Mr. Jordan. Is your report different than the IG's report?
Mr. Chu. Our report is different from the IG report in the
following sense: we did not do the kind of analysis the IG
undertook. What we sought to do was two things: First, look at
the internal controls structure. That seemed basically sound.
There were some small tune ups that came out of that process.
Second, look at, how well does the program as a whole work?
Yes, there have been abuses. Those were the product of earlier
controversy that led to the NAPA report. There are anecdotes
that we recommended. I'm delighted that the IG found that one
of those anecdotes, the use of the presence indicator, has had
some helpful effect.
Mr. Jordan. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Chu. You could go further in that direction, and we did
so recommend.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. Let me change the direction. What's the
Elliot Richardson Prize?
Mr. Chu. I'm sorry?
Mr. Jordan. What's the Elliot Richardson Prize?
Mr. Chu. It's a prize given by the academy for
extraordinary public service to the United States.
Mr. Jordan. Your academy. Right? NAPA? The one you just
told me about. Right?
Mr. Chu. Right.
Mr. Jordan.Okay. And who was the recipient of last year's
Elliot Richardson Prize.
Mr. Chu. I don't remember who last year's recipient was.
But I do remember it was Bob Gates a couple years before that.
Mr. Jordan. What about the 2016? Who won the 2016 prize?
Mr. Chu. I apologize. I don't recall.
Mr. Jordan. Do you know what the criteria is that is used
in selecting who's going to win this Elliot Richardson Prize?
Mr. Chu. It is sustained excellence to the service of the
United States, essentially.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. And you don't know who won last this
current year, 2016.
Mr. Chu. I should remember, but I don't remember.
Mr. Jordan. Are you on the board who selects that person?
Mr. Chu. No. I do not select.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. But you're here representing today NAPA.
Right?
Mr. Chu. I'm here as chair of the panel that did the United
States Patent and Trademark Office review of the telework
program.
Mr. Jordan. Are you of--and you're part of NAPA, correct?
Mr. Chu. I'm a fellow of NAPA. Right.
Mr. Jordan. You're a fellow at NAPA, and they have this
award, the Elliot Richardson Prize, and last year's winner--and
you don't know who this year's winner of that prize was.
Mr. Chu. I don't, sir. I'm terribly sorry.
Mr. Jordan. Would it surprise you if it's the IRS
Commissioner, John Koskinen? Would you be surprised that that's
the guy who was selected for outstanding public achievement?
Mr. Chu. I think that was--I think you're right, sir. I
think they did select Mr. Koskinen.
Mr. Jordan. Oh, you can remember now, right? So it was Mr.
Koskinen.
Mr. Chu. You refreshed my memory.
Mr. Jordan. I refreshed your memory. Good. And I look at
the criteria for that award and it says ``significantly
advancing the public good.'' You all felt that John Koskinen
significantly advanced the public good last year?
Mr. Chu. That was the conclusion of the selection panel.
I'm not part of that process.
Mr. Jordan. Do you know who else might have been considered
for last year--for this year's 2016 award? Who else may have
been in the running for that?
Mr. Chu. I don't, sir.
Mr. Jordan. I'd be curious to see who was turned down, who
was not given that award and Mr. Koskinen was selected over
them.
Do you understand, Dr. Chu, that Mr. Koskinen gave false
statements to this very committee? Do you understand that
happened?
Mr. Chu. I know there's been considerable exchange between
this committee and Mr. Koskinen, yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. Do you understand, when Mr. Koskinen was
brought in as Commissioner of the IRS, that 422 backup tapes
containing 24,000 emails were destroyed under his watch? Do you
understand that fact? Or did the folks at NAPA understand that
fact? I'd be curious to know.
Mr. Chu. I know the public discussion between this
committee----
Mr. Jordan. Do you know that he withheld information from
Congress? After he learned in February, he waited 4 months
before he told Congress about missing Lois Lerner emails. And
you come in here and tell us your organization, which reaches
different conclusions or slightly different conclusions than
the inspector general, and last year, you gave the outstanding
public achievement by--the achievement says significantly
advancing the public good. You gave that award to John
Koskinen?
Mr. Chu. I didn't, sir. The----
Mr. Jordan. No, the organization. But you're representing
NAPA, right?
Mr. Chu. I'm a fellow of the organization. That's correct.
I'm not part of the award process. I would point out----
Mr. Jordan. Do you know if John Koskinen was a contributor
to NAPA? Do you know if he's given money to that organization?
Mr. Chu. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. Okay. All right. And you don't know who
was passed over so that Mr. Koskinen could receive this
outstanding public servant award last year.
Mr. Chu. I'm sorry. What's this?
Mr. Jordan. And you don't know who was passed over, who was
not given the award, who was under consideration and not given
the award so that Mr. Koskinen could----
Mr. Chu. Sir, no, I have no insight into the process.
Mr. Jordan. All right.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Meadows. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Well, Mr. Chu, for a different point of view,
congratulations on naming an honorable public servant, Mr.
Koskinen, as your outstanding awardee last year. And no amount
of innuendo or smear is going to tarnish his reputation. I've
known him for a long time. And I consider him one of the most
honorable public servants I've known in a long time. So I guess
we're all entitled to our point of view. But I wanted you to
know right away there is a different point of view. And
congratulations. He deserves it. And I thank you for doing it.
Mr. Smith, I'm looking at your report. And I want to be
real clear. You found potential waste in roughly 1.6 percent of
the time and attendance records you looked at. Is that correct?
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. You did not in fact document actual waste.
And I'm not--I mean, it's out there potentially, but there's no
dollars or cents to actual documented waste. Is that correct?
Mr. Smith. Well, Mr. Connolly, as I was mentioning in my
opening statement--you might have missed it--that we would be
more than happy to interview these employees with POPA
encouraging their employees to come be interviewed. The problem
is we ran against the Computer Matching Act, which does not
allow the combination of information from various computer
databases to then proceed and contain any kind of disciplinary
reaction. However, I would like to read for you a quote that
was in one of the IP Watchdog newspapers or articles. It says:
Some patent examiners have contended on IP Watchdog and
attempted to explain their actions are innocent but have
actually admitted to committing fraud. These patent examiners
have explained that, because of their superior talents, they're
capable of doing their work in a fraction of the time the
office thinks it should take them to do the work. Multiple
examiners have said here on IP Watchdog that if they are, for
example, allocated 3 hours to do a task and can do it in 2
hours, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with them claiming
all 3 hours on their timesheet. One examiner actually said that
he or she is capable of doing work twice as fast, using an
example where the office allocates 20 hours to complete a task,
presumably an entire application, but the examiner's able to
get it done in 10 hours. Of course, that examiner explained
he's completely justified in claiming all 20 hours worked on
his timesheet.
So I have a confession here by at least one that they did
fraudulently fill out their timesheet.
Mr. Connolly. Well, are you contending, Mr. Smith, that
that one so-called confession somehow characterizes widespread
fraud within PTO?
Mr. Smith. Sir, there is nowhere in our report that we use
word ``widespread.'' And as I said in my opening----
Mr. Connolly. I'm asking you, sir, a question on what you
just said. What conclusion are you drawing from one person, one
interview?
Mr. Smith. That was not one person. The author cited
multiple people----
Mr. Connolly. Who admitted to fraud? Excuse me. Who
admitted to fraud?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Multiple people?
Mr. Smith. Multiple people.
Mr. Connolly. What did you do with that? Did you refer it
to legal authorities?
Mr. Smith. As I mentioned, the Computer Matching Act does
not allow us to go after these individuals. Now that the IP--
Empowerment Act has been passed that exempts us from the
Computer Matching Act, we can now go forward under this. But
for right now, our hands are tied unless the individuals want
to come in voluntarily for an interview.
Mr. Connolly. Well, I think one needs to be a little bit
careful about drawing broad conclusions from particular
incidents. None of us want to see timecard fraud. And in fact,
if you uncover it, we want to see it pursued. But I am
concerned that it comes to characterize an agency where it may
or may not in fact be at all characteristic of normal practice.
Mr. Smith. And, sir, I stated that twice in my opening
statement.
Mr. Connolly. Good. But you know how this works, Mr. Smith.
That's not what the story will be.
Mr. Smith. Sir, I can't control what people do with the
facts we've reported.
Mr. Connolly. No. No, I know. You have no responsibility
for that. I've seen a lot of IGs take the same position as they
do damage to the reputations of individuals and agencies.
Mr. Slifer, do you want to comment on that, that people
apparently in your organization admitted to fraud, according to
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Slifer. Well, thank you. I certainly can't comment on
the anecdotal article in a blog that was just quoted as being
evidence or admission of a particular examiner.
Our examiners have a very difficult job. Our examiners have
got scientific, engineering, advanced degrees and have a very
difficult job to examine patent applications and understand
prior art, legal arguments, and synthesize all of that data
into an examination for----
Mr. Connolly. All right. All right. I got it. But you're
sitting next to the acting deputy inspector general, who,
through his words, is clearly making a statement about a
practice, not widespread, but it's occurring, and it's fraud.
That's the word he uses. I want you to respond to that. Is it
in fact a big problem or a contained problem, but nonetheless a
problem, from your point of view?
Mr. Slifer. No. It's not a widespread problem.
Mr. Connolly. I didn't say ``widespread.'' Mr. Smith
corrected me properly. Their report doesn't say ``widespread,''
nor do I. I'm asking you, is it a contained problem? Is it
something you're worried about? Is it something you recognize
as in fact a practice that has to be addressed by these
examiners who are specialized and doing difficult work?
Mr. Slifer. The Patent Office takes----
Mr. Connolly. I can't hear you.
Mr. Slifer. I'm sorry. The Patent Office takes any----
Mr. Connolly. I know. Yes, yes. I know; we all take it
seriously. But I'm asking you to comment on what Mr. Smith said
in his findings. Is that consistent with what you know about
your agency?
Mr. Slifer. It is not consistent----
Mr. Connolly. It is not consistent.
Mr. Slifer. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Why is that?
Mr. Slifer. Because I know that our examiners are working.
I know, looking at their production requirements. I know,
talking to our----
Mr. Connolly. Would you take issue with Mr. Smith that
people, according to him, self-admitted fraud, timecard fraud?
Mr. Slifer. If we had an examiner who self-admitted--that
admitted to fraud, we're certainly going to----
Mr. Connolly. Well, he gave one example, but he claims
there were more than one.
Mr. Slifer. I'm not aware of any.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes himself for a series of questions.
Mr. Slifer, let me come to you, because I find this
fascinating. You're saying that you do not have a problem, in
spite of what the inspector general's report suggests, that you
do not have a problem. That's your sworn testimony here today?
Mr. Slifer. It is.
Mr. Meadows. With 400--in at least 400 different cases, you
don't have a problem?
Mr. Slifer. The data that the inspector general looked at--
--
Mr. Meadows. That's not my question. You just testified
that you do not have a problem. Is that your sworn testimony
here today? Because I'm going to drill down on it if that's
your sworn testimony.
Mr. Slifer. It is.
Mr. Meadows. So what you're suggesting, there is no time
and abuse problems with regards to reporting?
Mr. Slifer. I did not say there's no time and abuse
problems. We have disciplined 30 people.
Mr. Meadows. So how many people have you let go?
Mr. Slifer. We have either----
Mr. Meadows. Because of this.
Mr. Slifer. We're not----
Mr. Meadows. I know the answer. You go ahead. I mean, how
many people have you let go because of this?
Mr. Slifer. Because of the inspector general report?
Mr. Meadows. Yes.
Mr. Slifer. Zero.
Mr. Meadows. Yes. That's the answer.
Mr. Slifer. We're not allowed----
Mr. Meadows. So how are you taking it seriously? So what
other kind of punishment have--here's my problem, is I go to
Federal agencies, and I find that we have some of the greatest
Federal workers, truly, in not only just in the public sector
but in the private sector. And so you've got over 8,000 great
employees, and you've got 400 or so who are taking advantage of
the system and perhaps giving a bad report because--and
actually giving a bad taste to teleworking, which I don't know
that that is a hypothesis that I would support, because of the
400 that don't log in. Are you suggesting that it's okay to not
log into their computer for 2 days and actually they're doing
work? Because according to Mr. Smith, he said, even if they
checked their email in a 2-day period, he'd give them the
benefit of the doubt. So do you think that you can actually do
your work without checking an email or actually going--do you
think you can actually do that for 48 hours and actually be
working, Mr. Slifer?
Mr. Slifer. The nature of the examination process, yes,
there can be.
Mr. Meadows. For 2 days?
Mr. Slifer. Yes. Is that the best practice? No. And we
instituted a change----
Mr. Meadows. So have you implemented all the
recommendations there that the IG----
Mr. Slifer. In the current report?
Mr. Meadows. --recommended? Have you implemented all of
those?
Mr. Slifer. I'd be happy to walk through them with you,
each one.
Mr. Meadows. Just yes or no. Have you implemented all of
them?
Mr. Slifer. We have addressed each one, and we are close to
implementing all of them.
Mr. Meadows. When will you be done with implementing all of
the recommendations?
Mr. Slifer. There is a significant capital investment in
some of the requirements. Our budget is not at this----
Mr. Meadows. So you're saying this is a cashflow problem.
Mr. Slifer. I'm not saying it's a cashflow, but some are
multimillion dollar investments.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Because I'm going to allow you a little
bit of flexibility here. But let me tell you the trouble that I
have with some of your testimony. I read the report. And what I
find in the report is, is there is no logical conclusion that
you could come to, other than someone is gaming the system.
There is no explanation for it. And what I'm going to do is, in
support of the 8,000 good employees that you have, I'm not
going to let the 300 or 400 get by with it. Do you follow me?
And neither should you. Are you going to hold everybody
accountable to the same standard? Because what I saw was that
you gave bonuses, significant bonuses, to some of the people
that actually were perhaps the most troublesome in this report.
Would you agree with that, that you gave them above-average
performance review and bonuses?
Mr. Slifer. Some of the individuals identified in the top
by the inspector general did both receive bonuses and have----
Mr. Meadows. So what kind of message of giving a bonus and
good reviews to someone who does not act the way that the other
8,000 would act, what kind of message does that send to the
good employees?
Mr. Slifer. Well, I would prefer to dig into the data and
find out exactly why there's a difference between the digital--
--
Mr. Meadows. I would prefer that you dig into the data too,
Mr. Slifer, but it doesn't look like you're digging into it.
Mr. Slifer. Well, we have been for several months working
on this.
Mr. Meadows. But you've fired no one. And what other
disciplinary actions have you had?
Mr. Slifer. I'm not allowed to fire anybody as a result of
this.
Mr. Meadows. What other--we have already established that
you fired no one. What other disciplinary actions have you had?
Mr. Slifer. We have actually disciplined and terminated 30
of the individuals listed in the top 300. But that was done
independent of the inspector general's report.
Mr. Meadows. So you fired them for another reason.
Mr. Slifer. No. We had fired them independent of the
report. Our internal controls had already identified those
individuals before the report was published.
Mr. Meadows. So now you can't have it both ways, Mr.
Slifer. Your testimony was that you didn't have a problem. And
now you're saying that you do have a problem, that you got rid
of 30 people. So which is it? Do you have a problem, or you
don't have a problem?
Mr. Slifer. Sir, 30 out of----
Mr. Meadows. Because 30 people may have a grievance that
you fired them for no problem. Do you follow me?
Mr. Slifer. I understand that any agency of our size will
have individuals that need to be disciplined. And we have
policies and procedures to address that. I don't believe that
it is systemic, as identified by NAPA and agreed to----
Mr. Meadows. I'm saying it's systemic within 400-plus
employees that the inspector general's report pointed out. I'm
not saying the other 8,000. In fact, I give them great rewards
for what they're doing. And if they're watching right now, let
me just tell you, I'm telling them that I've got their back.
I'm looking forward to whistleblowers telling me about other
issues. And if they'll call, I promise you I will personally
follow up on it because it's apparent that you're not willing
to do that.
Mr. Slifer. I disagree. The agency has taken substantial
steps and continues. We don't take this lightly ourselves. But
I will----
Mr. Meadows. Okay. You don't take it lightly. So help me
reconcile the two parts of testimony. You don't take it
lightly, but you don't have a problem. So which is it? Because
you just in the last 6 minutes you said you don't have a
problem and now you're saying you don't take it lightly. So
which is it?
Mr. Slifer. I believe my testimony is that we don't take it
lightly, while we recognize that there's always going to be
individuals in an agency of 13,000 who don't follow our rules,
don't follow our procedures, that are going to require
discipline. We take it seriously, and we discipline those
individuals.
Mr. Meadows. So you do have a problem. All right.
I'll recognize the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is an important hearing because, of course, abuse of
time and attendance is always unacceptable, whatever the
amount. The amount here seems low, but it's worthy of some
oversight.
I do have to say something about what the chairman
indicated. He wondered whether or not anyone had been let go
because of the IG report. Of course, you cannot be let go
because of a report, even of an IG. Under civil service law,
it's an accusation, and you'd have to go through the process
for independent substantiation. That is the law so that, of
course, we do have to understand when you can take action and
when you cannot, and of course, you couldn't take it, whatever
the outcome of this report.
And I also have to say, Mr. Chairman, that I was amazed in
the wake of the recent report not to impeach Mr. Koskinen, that
that issue would be raised in an effort to relitigate it at
this hearing. There has just been an overwhelming vote. There
was a privilege resolution on the floor to impeach Mr. Koskinen
based on the findings, I might add, of this committee and
overwhelmingly voted to send it back to committee, to the
Judiciary Committee, which, of course, kills it. You can't kill
some things. They just refuse to die.
And if I may say, for the record, if Mr. Koskinen was given
a reward, it probably had to do with the fact that he has been
called in time and again by Democratic and Republican
Presidents to straighten out troubled agencies, just as he was
summoned to straighten out the IRS. And I'm sorry I had to take
some of my time for that. It seemed to me that those two issues
deserved a response.
What intrigued me about Mr. Smith's report was the number
of those with the best annual ratings who had these time and
attendance issues. I think 81 percent of the unsupported hours,
if I have the record correct----
Mr. Smith. Forty-three percent of the hours, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Forty-three percent?
Mr. Smith. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. Now, Mr. Smith, your testimony, your
report says: The existence of highly rated examiners with large
unsupported regular and overtime hours indicates that these
examiners are likely exceeding their performance goals in less
than the time allotted.
I had staff get me your testimony, and they brought me your
printed testimony. I appreciate it. And on page 3, because my
first question was, when was the last time these performance
goals were looked at? How timely is the data on which we are
relying? And here I am quoting from your report on perhaps the
most important recommendation: We recommended that the USPTO
reevaluate its examiner production goals for each group of
examiners and revise them to the extent necessary.
And here's the operative sentence: Production goals were
last set by art unit, as it is called, in 1976, and much has
changed since then.
I'm astonished. We're working off of goals that--when I
wasn't even thinking of coming to Congress. Could this account
for why so many of the highest performers--in fact, I must ask,
what makes you a high performer? How are you even judged--who
are high performers if 43 percent of the hours were from these
high performers, how are they evaluated?
Mr. Smith. I'd have to defer that to PTO, ma'am. It's a
management issue.
Mr. Slifer. I'd be happy to address that. While the time
that is allocated for an examiner to spend examining an
application based on either the technology or their seniority
and experience hasn't been fully reviewed since the 1970s, we
are undertaking that massive project right now.
But the performance goals for each individual have been
adjusted, and we have looked at it over the course of even the
last couple of years to set those standards. And the GAO
recently came out with a study that indicated that 70 percent
of our employees don't have enough time to reach the production
goals that they have.
We understand that, on a bell curve of individuals, we'll
have some that have the ability to understand the data,
synthesize it, produce their work product faster than others.
We still expect them to finish their full 80 hours. We expect
them to put in all of their time, whether they've completed
that or not. We even have an incentive program to incentivize
them to produce additional work product for the agency to help
us reduce our backlog in pendency, which I'm happy to say, over
the course of the last 6 years, has dropped from over 700,000
cases to the 500,000 we have now.
Ms. Norton. So are these performers moving on to take on
additional work?
Mr. Slifer. That is what----
Ms. Norton. These best annual performers----
Mr. Slifer. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Who apparently have some of the poor ratings
time and attendance ratings.
Mr. Slifer. I want to be careful and I believe----
Mr. Meadows. The gentlewoman's time is expired, but please
do answer the question.
Mr. Slifer. The inspector general is looking at digital
data, security data, security entering our building, security
entering our IT, and looking at that to see if it provides a
verification of an examiner's timecards that they filled out.
Where there's a mismatch, there's a question because there's no
way at that point to verify whether an examiner was or wasn't
working. We have looked at that data and looked at other data
in the agency, and I can say that, of some of those individuals
that are highlighted, I can show that they worked Monday
through Thursday, 10 hours a day but entered 8 hours a day on
their timesheet, showing that they did not work on Friday,
when, in fact, they worked the full 40 hours that week.
So I know that the data is not 100 percent accurate as a
verification of the veracity of the timesheet, and that's
something that the agency is digging into so that we can make
changes, not only reminding our employees of their requirements
to abide by filling out the timesheet properly, putting in
their full 80 hours, but narrowing up the gap between that data
and their timesheet so that we can more accurately identify any
areas in the agency where we do have time fraud, instead of
losing it in a large analysis like this. Thank you.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentlewoman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. Sure. A couple questions for Mr. Smith. First
of all, the information here says we have 415 patent examiners
responsible for 93--or 43 percent of the unsupported hours. But
I want you to talk a little bit about the methodology as to
whether you think that's a hard number or what it takes to be
considered, I guess, not showing up.
If I come in and I stand there for 5 minutes and document
that I'm there for 5 minutes a day and then I go out golfing
for the day, how do you record that?
Mr. Smith. We did not take an overly harsh look at the time
records that were or the time periods that the employees
actually claimed. If an employee swiped in and said they were
there for 8 hours, then we gave them credit for 8 hours. If we
were to take a more harsher view and go back and look at actual
computer time spent, some type of activity on their computer,
it would increase the number of unsupported hours for the on-
campus employees by 327,000 unsupported hours.
The PTO requires their employees to only swipe out between
10 p.m. And 5:30 a.m., so the employee could go in, swipe his
badge, claim 8 hours, not even turn on his computer at all, not
even do any work. He could be another examiner A.
Mr. Grothman. So this just means that you were basically in
the building, not working?
Mr. Smith. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Grothman. And only in the building for 5 or 10 minutes.
Mr. Smith. But yet I affirmatively charged 8 hours, saying
I was working on my computer.
Mr. Grothman. And even then, if you checked that, could
they be hardworking at their computer playing video games or
something?
Mr. Smith. Potentially.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Wow, it's shocking, shocking, shocking,
shocking. Well, I don't know. I guess it confirms what a lot of
people think about the Washington, D.C., work ethic for some
people.
We'll give you a question here. Now, how many of these
people have been prosecuted, even under your relatively low
standards? I realize you have time constraints yourself. Under
the relatively low standards that you're laying out here, how
many have been prosecuted?
Mr. Smith. We have presented these time and attendance
cases to U.S. Attorney's Office in the past, and they have
declined because they say they have to actually go hour by hour
and prove that the employee was not physically working, and
that's a bit of a burden for them, so they deadline all the T&A
cases we present to them. So the answer to your question: none.
Mr. Grothman. If I had to just put a dollar amount, say on
when some of the guys or gals don't show up, you know, you'd
have to know how many hours they're not showing up, assuming
they're working when they're in, but how many hours they're not
showing up and what their salary is. Can you guess on some of
the most egregious cases over the last few years how much
they're taking the government for?
Mr. Smith. We found that examiner A was taking the
government, on a conservative estimate, for $25,000 just in
2014 alone. And the total of these 415 individuals we figured
was about $18 million just in pay and benefits.
Mr. Grothman. Wow, I remember back home sometimes people
would be caught stealing, some public officials, and they wound
up going to prison for years. So how many of these that you
mention of the golden 415 we have here, how many have been
subject to administrative action?
Mr. Smith. I would have to defer that to PTO, sir.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. But nobody prosecuted. Why not? Can you
tell us, are there any proposals out there that you're aware of
floating through Congress that may do something to improve the
environment a little bit?
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. As I mentioned earlier, we got word
that both the House and the Senate have approved the IG
Empowerment Act, which exempts the IGs from the Computer
Matching Act so that if we were to do this exercise again, we
would be able to turn that information over to the agency to
take administrative discipline.
Mr. Grothman. Do you have any reason why we wouldn't pass
that bill?
Mr. Smith. I don't currently see any reason. CIGI is in
full support of that bill. However, I do understand there is a
hold on that right now.
Mr. Grothman. Okay--do we know who's putting the hold on
it?
Mr. Smith. I don't recall the person's name, sir.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. We should talk about that a little bit
and see who that is. Well, I have a little bit of time left,
only a few seconds, and I know how much Chairman Meadows covets
these seconds.
So I yield them back to him.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for 5
minutes.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Schwartz, how long have you worked at the USPTO?
Ms. Schwartz. Thirty-four years.
Mr. Hice. Thirty-four years. That's a long time. Your
current pay grade, you're GS-14, ballpark $150,000?
Ms. Schwartz. Yes.
Mr. Hice. Okay. It's my understanding that your particular
area of expertise is as a patent examiner for chemical
engineering patents. Is that correct?
Ms. Schwartz. Yes. But for full disclosure, as president of
the union, I have worked for the union for several years
without patent examining.
Mr. Hice. Okay. So how long have you been doing that?
Ms. Schwartz. This is not going to be accurate. I'm going
to say approximately 8 years.
Mr. Hice. Approximately 8 years. So, as an individual to be
looking after chemical engineering patents, you've not been
doing that for 8 years?
Ms. Schwartz. For approximately 8 years, yes.
Mr. Hice. Okay. So you're on official time. Is that
correct?
Ms. Schwartz. Yes.
Mr. Hice. So official time means you were hired to work
with patents and chemical engineering patents, but instead of
doing the job for which you were hired, you're doing union
work. Is that correct?
Ms. Schwartz. I'm doing union work. That's correct.
Mr. Hice. Okay. But that's not what you were hired to do.
You were hired as a chemical engineer patent examiner?
Ms. Schwartz. Yes.
Mr. Hice. Okay. So the American people are paying you to do
something that you were not hired to do. Was anyone hired in
your place to do the work that you're not doing?
Ms. Schwartz. I can't tell----
Mr. Hice. Mr. Slifer, was anyone hired? Do you know?
Mr. Slifer. I left private industry 2 years ago, so I can't
speak to what happened 8 years ago.
Mr. Hice. What's happening now? Has anyone been hired to do
the job that Ms. Schwartz was hired to do that she's not doing?
Mr. Slifer. I don't believe I can speak directly to that,
but----
Mr. Hice. Do you know how many people are doing official
time who were hired to work at the Patent Office but they're
doing union work?
Mr. Slifer. I do not, but I would be happy to----
Mr. Hice. Would it surprise you that there's 154 such
individuals?
Mr. Slifer. Again, I wasn't aware of how many.
Mr. Hice. It would seem to me that being entrusted with the
good faith of the American taxpayer, that you would have an
understanding of how many people have been hired to do work
that they're not doing. This just absolutely is astounding to
me, Ms. Schwartz, that you are hired to work with folks seeking
a patent, but you're not doing that. So the American people are
subsidizing union work and paying you $150,000 to do union
activity rather than to do the work you are hired to do.
Ms. Schwartz. Congressman, a lot of the work I do is
assisting the agency in implementing its----
Mr. Hice. But that is not what you were hired to do. You
were not hired to do union work.
Ms. Schwartz. I am assisting the agency in meeting its
mission by assisting them in developing and implementing
programs. For example, last year----
Mr. Hice. How many clients have you worked with in the last
8 years?
Ms. Schwartz. I'm sorry?
Mr. Hice. How many people who are seeking a chemical
engineering patent have you worked with?
Ms. Schwartz. None in the last 8 years.
Mr. Hice. But that's what you were hired to do. So I'm
really curious about your daily schedule. What do you do on a
daily basis?
Ms. Schwartz. On a daily basis, I deal with a number of
different issues. Many of them are assisting the agency in
developing and implementing programs to meet the mission of
reducing pendency and increasing quality. Over the last year,
my organization has reached many agreements to help the agency
with its----
Mr. Hice. That's fine, Ms. Schwartz, and I'm glad your
agency is doing it. I'm not attacking your union, nor am I
attacking your union work. The problem I have is that you are
using the time that the American taxpayer paid you to do as a
patent examiner, and you're doing zero of that. You've done
none of that in 8 years, and instead, you've been doing union
work on the time that the taxpayers have asked you to be a
patent examiner. You can do your union work, just not during
this. I would like, I'm really curious about your daily
schedule. I would like for you to provide this committee with a
copy of your daily schedule, just your work hours--not
interested in your personal time--but what you do from your
clock-in official time for the last 6 months. Will you provide
that for us?
Ms. Schwartz. I will try to provide that.
Mr. Hice. When can we expect to have that calendar?
Ms. Schwartz. I can probably provide this--I'm going to
have to--I can probably provide this in a reasonable time, but
I can't assure that everything on this--I have a calendar that
I keep. I can't assure that everything on it is accurate, and
it won't have hour by hour because there are hours that are
open that I have not written down every activity during those--
--
Mr. Hice. But everything that you have written down, I
would like to have submitted to this committee for the last 6
months.
Ms. Schwartz. I will do that.
Mr. Hice. Thank you very much.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
And we are going to go into our second round of questioning
at this point, and so we will recognize the gentleman from Ohio
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It seems to me if you could summarize, Mr. Smith does his
investigation and finds there are folks cheating the timecard,
415 of them to be exact, accounting for 43 percent of total
unsupported hours. Mr. Slifer says that is not a problem
because it wasn't everyone. And Ms. Schwartz agrees with him
and cites the report done by Dr. Chu, a report that he co-
authored and a report produced by an organization that this
year gave its top public servant prize to a guy who was
censured by this committee. Now if that's not a story line, I
don't know what is. I mean, think about that. Think about that.
Top public servant, they're citing as evidence that it's not a
problem; cheating the timecard is not a problem. They're citing
the NAPA report as evidence to support their claim it's not a
problem, even though it was 43 percent of all unsupported
hours, even though it was 415 individuals. They said an
organization that gave an award to a guy who was censured by
this very committee as support for their position. I just find
this--if you wonder why people have had it with Washington,
D.C., just look at that. Look at the fact pattern in front of
us, Mr. Chairman. So I appreciate you having this hearing.
One other question if I could for you, Dr. Chu. Are you a
fellow at the organization at NAPA?
Mr. Chu. Yes, I'm a fellow.
Mr. Jordan. And who nominates people for consideration for
the Eliot L. Richardson Prize?
Mr. Chu. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Jordan. It's my understanding that fellows nominate
them, nominate those individuals who are considered by the
organization to receive this prestigious award. You didn't
nominate him?
Mr. Chu. No, sir, I did not.
Mr. Jordan. Do you know who did?
Mr. Chu. I don't, sir.
Mr. Jordan. Again, Mr. Chairman, I just find this
remarkable. People cheating the timecard, 415 of them, almost
half of all unsupported hours that accounts for. Mr. Slifer
tells you in your round of questioning ``not a big deal because
it wasn't everybody.'' And Ms. Schwartz says we're going to
rely on this NAPA report co-authored by Dr. Chu, this report by
an organization that gives its most prestigious award to a guy
who's been censured by the very committee now looking at this
issue. I think it's important that we had this hearing. I
appreciate the chairman's indulgence. I yield back.
Mr. Meadows. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And one more clarification. When it comes to the use of
official time by union representatives, like Ms. Schwartz, it's
not a gift to the union. It's not a gift to the worker. If, in
fact, these matters, which, of course, are recognized in our
country, once there has been an election and a union has been
certified and grievances are filed, if, in fact, these matters
were not processed during official time, then they would have
to be done, sir, during overtime, which would mean overtime to
the government for all of those involved. So this is a
carefully worked-out matter.
Once you recognize that, in our country, there still is a
right and certainly in Federal agencies to elect a union and to
process grievances.
I want to get further into the bottom of this matter
involving--what is it?--43 percent of the hours from the best
performers because that doesn't seem to belong together, that
you found that the most unsupported work that the inspector
general found was being claimed by what had otherwise been
declared the most efficient workers. That just doesn't jibe.
They don't fit together. And, of course, raises questions, I
raised some of them about the way in which the Patent Office
measures and rewards its workforce.
Dr. Chu, do these highly efficient examiners have enough
incentive, do you believe, to take on additional work beyond
their productive goals? I'd ask that of Mr. Slifer as well? Are
there enough incentives to take on additional work beyond their
production goals?
Mr. Chu. As Mr. Slifer has testified, the office does have
a set of incentives to encourage staff members to produce more
than is normal and uses those as a judgment for its award
program.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Slifer, what needs to be done about
production incentives to encourage more output by patent
examiners?
Mr. Slifer. If I may, there's an interesting question to be
asked when you look at the high performers that are on the
list, and the first assumption is that they're not actually
working. The other assumption can be that one reason those
individuals are able to be such high producers is that they're
putting in the extra effort. They're taking documents home.
They're working on their--just like I take home a briefing book
every weekend, individuals have different work habits, and
they're putting in extra effort.
Our incentive program that you're asking about has actually
saved the agency over 1.1 million examiner hours a year. It's
the equivalent of over 800 additional examiners that we would
have to hire to meet the same production. So we do have
incentives, and it is paying dividends for the agency without
having to hire close to additional 1,500 additional examiners a
year, and it provides us the flexibility when filing may drop,
the revenue for the agency may, so that we can adjust our
workforce without either having to hire more or fire more. So I
am comfortable that our incentive program does incentivize
those individuals who are capable of producing more work during
their work hours to go ahead and produce more.
Ms. Norton. So do you believe that your production goals,
your production targets rather, and time and attendance
requirements get the most work effort out of the patent
examiners?
Mr. Slifer. We work hard to optimize the balance between
those, including the investment we are making over the last 2
years and improving quality at the agency. The quality of the
time the examiners are spending, the incentives that we put in
place to get them to work harder, not only in quantity but the
quality and the timeliness of their work, are working in
harmony, and we are always tweaking it and trying to find ways
to improve it. The inspector general's report and
recommendations are very informative for us in helping us focus
on additional improvements in areas that he's highlighted.
Ms. Norton. There seems to be some suggestion that the
system in use discourages highly efficient and effective
workers rather than incentivizes them. I'm trying to resolve
this tension between time and attendance and production records
so it doesn't look like we're punishing some of the most
efficient members of our Federal workforce.
Mr. Slifer. It is a concern of mine to jump to the
conclusion that unsupported hours looking at digital data
equates to work that wasn't done. That's why we're digging in
as an agency and trying to answer the question of, why is there
a mismatch between digital data and the certified time records?
When we look at production records for these individuals, the
quality and the quantity of what they're producing doesn't
point to the same result, and we want to get to the bottom of
this so that third parties that are looking at our certified
time and questioning whether our employees are actually working
when they say they are and producing what they say they are is
accurate so that we can resolve the question of whether we have
any systemic problems or whether we have individual issues that
any agency would have with individuals. So we are digging
deeper and continue to work on this and have taken the
recommendations to heart and will work with that and the
inspector general to make improvements going forward.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank you, but I do
want to indicate that the indication of a systemic problem
comes from these figures showing the best performers have the
worst data. That has to be explained. Contraindicated, not what
you'd expect as you look at the Federal workforce, and I hope
we can get to the bottom of that dilemma.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentlewoman. And so the best
performers, according to what matrix? Their supervisor?
Mr. Slifer. It's not just their supervisors. We have
multiple levels of review for the work products that examiners
provide. We do do audits. We do do quality checks, so it's not
simply----
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So here's I guess my--I was in the
business world for a long time. If you did not change your
goals and perspective since the 1970s, as my good friend from
the District of Columbia mentioned, you've got a problem. Do
you realize, in the 1970s, cutting-edge technology was a Texas
Instrument little tiny computer that did nothing? Do you
realize DOS was just being developed as an operating system? Do
you realize that computers the way that we have it, we have got
more computing power in my iPhone today than we had in a
mainframe computer at that particular point, and yet you're
saying your goals and objectives haven't changed since the
1970s? Do you not see a problem with that?
Mr. Slifer. As an electrical engineer who grew up through
that time period, understand, I want to try to clarify if given
a moment.
Mr. Meadows. You're an engineer?
Mr. Slifer. I am.
Mr. Meadows. I love engineers because they've always got a
matrix. What performance matrix would an engineer put forth in
terms of helping the gentlewoman and I figure out this whole
problem of productivity? Is there a rule matrix there, or is it
just some guess on who the best performers are? Do you have a
real matrix?
Mr. Slifer. There are matrix, and with regard to the
production requirement that hasn't been adjusted, shall we say,
since the 1970s, the question is, how much time does it take an
examiner in a particular art, let's say pacemakers, to read an
application provided by the applicant, understand the
invention, study the claims, do a prior art search for that
particular invention, understand the art from their search, and
apply it, and apply the laws to determine whether an
application should be changed? A lot has changed over this
time, including the accessibility using computers, the
efficiencies of that.
Mr. Meadows. So we would assume that, because on those
efficiencies, that we would have a greater output from the
1970s, wouldn't we?
Mr. Slifer. The only flaw to that assumption would be that
we also have billions of additional pieces of prior art that
are now readily available, so the examiner now, while maybe
more efficient in extracting that data, has much more data to--
--
Mr. Meadows. Okay. That is valid. I'll give you that one.
So let me come back to you, Ms. Schwartz, to quote the
Washington Post. And by the way, I want to give them a shout
out because they've done some good work on this. I don't know
that they're watching today, but to quote them: ``The Patent
and Trademark Office has an unusually close relationship with
its unions. Under its labor contracts, the agency does not
require employees who work from home to log into their
computers if they do telework full-time. It allows them to take
up to 24 hours to respond to a call or email from their boss.''
It really only requires poor performers to give a work
schedule.
So you were mentioning how you spend 100 percent of your
time helping the agency implement things to make it more
efficient. Is that correct? Did I understand you correct?
Ms. Schwartz. Not 100 percent of my time, but----
Mr. Meadows. But a lot of your time?
Ms. Schwartz. A big portion of my time, yes.
Mr. Meadows. So would you be willing to work with the
agency on this strengthening of time and attendance
requirements for its examiners?
Ms. Schwartz. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. So would you be willing to require all people
to give their schedule to their supervisors?
Ms. Schwartz. We would have to look at it terms of what the
agency is asking for.
Mr. Meadows. What do you mean? You're willing to give your
schedule to us. Why would you not give a schedule--I can tell
you that my scheduler knows almost every minute of where I am,
and so do you not think that that would be a reasonable
request, is to have the schedule given to their supervisors?
Ms. Schwartz. It depends on what the requirements are for
doing it. It's something we're willing to discuss and----
Mr. Meadows. It's not the question. What is it--you say it
depends. Depends on what, on how you feel on that given day, or
what does it depend on?
Ms. Schwartz. We would like to look at what it is they're
actually asking for with respect to their work.
Mr. Meadows. Their work schedule. Is it a ridiculous
request to ask a supervisor to have access to a work schedule
for someone who works for them?
Ms. Schwartz. Are we talking about a minute-by-minute
schedule? Because then we have a concern that employees are
going to have to spend a lot of time----
Mr. Meadows. I'm not asking them for a ``5-minute, I'm
going to go get a cup of coffee.'' What I am saying is a real
work schedule that they're accountable to that provides a good
basis for where they are while they're working. Is that a
reasonable request?
Ms. Schwartz. It sounds like a reasonable request, yes.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So, since it's a reasonable request to
you and me and since you're committed to making sure that the
agency works well, is that something as the head of POPA, that
you're willing to advocate on behalf, could that be an action
item that we have coming out of this hearing that we're going
to get the work schedules given to supervisors of all those
people who do work?
Ms. Schwartz. We're willing to work with the agency on what
they ask.
Mr. Meadows. Yes or no. Are you willing to do that or not?
I mean, it's a pretty simple question.
Ms. Schwartz. I would need to see the details of what we're
being asked to----
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Well, let me give you some details. How
about a work schedule, between 8 and 5, if that's when they
work, or between 10 and 7, if that's when they work, and saying
that they're working on this case for this many hours and this
case for this many hours or a full case for the full-time and
that they took an hour off for lunch and whatever the
appropriate breaks. I mean, is there any kind of a schedule
that they keep?
Ms. Schwartz. Not the kind of schedule you're talking about
where they need to provide which applications they're working
on.
Mr. Meadows. So they could give us a schedule that says I
was not golfing? Is that what you're telling me?
Ms. Schwartz. They could give a schedule of----
Mr. Meadows. The American people don't understand this, Ms.
Schwartz. What they've seen is they've seen 400-plus people
that an IG says has not actually accounted for their time
according to computer and other logouts. We have got Mr. Slifer
who says he's working on it, but he's not really sure what it
is, and we have got you who says there's really not a problem,
according to your written testimony and your oral testimony,
and you're basing that on what?
Ms. Schwartz. The IG report----
Mr. Meadows. I didn't ask about the IG. You're basing, your
assumption based on what, that you don't have a problem?
Ms. Schwartz. I didn't represent that we don't have a
problem----
Mr. Meadows. So you do agree that we have some waste,
fraud, and abuse with regards to time and attendance?
Ms. Schwartz. There can always be improvements in time and
attendance.
Mr. Meadows. Do we have a problem with time and attendance
reporting with some of your union employees? Yes or no?
Ms. Schwartz. Are you asking if there are any employees for
which there is an issue?
Mr. Meadows. Sure. Let me give you a softball. Are there
any employees that have a problem?
Ms. Schwartz. I don't have personal knowledge of any right
now, but we received proposals with evidence that----
Mr. Meadows. Ms. Schwartz, so let me be a little bit more
direct. Is it true when we found examiner A with a problem, is
it true that your organization encouraged them to retire so
that they couldn't have any kind of backlash or, quote,
``mark'' on their record? Did you recommend that to examiner A,
you or anybody within your organization?
Ms. Schwartz. Examiner A came to us and after discussing
the issue with examiner A, it seemed that there was going to be
significant evidence, which there was in the OIG report, about
examiner A. And according to the way government protocol works,
we suggested if examiner A wanted to keep their OPF cleaner,
that examiner A could resign.
Mr. Meadows. So answer the question. Did you recommend to
examiner A that they resign in order to make it look better on
their record?
Ms. Schwartz. On their OPF, yes.
Mr. Meadows. Do you think the American people would have a
problem with that?
Ms. Schwartz. I'm not sure. This employee should not have
been working for the agency so having the employee resign was
appropriate. There's no doubt that there was wrongdoing and
losing----
Mr. Meadows. Having them resign and face the consequences--
and not face the consequences is not appropriate, Ms. Schwartz.
Because here's the whole thing is, you had them resign so that
the IG or anybody else investigating it couldn't follow that
because they had resigned. You know this. You know it well. Was
that not the motivation?
Ms. Schwartz. The motivation was--the decision was the
employee's decision. We were----
Mr. Meadows. But you advised the employee.
Ms. Schwartz. We advised the employee that their OPF would
have less information in it if they resigned.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Slifer, is that something that you would
recommend to the 30 people that you've taken action against?
Mr. Slifer. From the agency's perspective, Chairman, we
seek out to find the individuals that are taking advantage of
their fellow employees and the agency and seek to discipline
those individuals.
Mr. Meadows. And you've disciplined, you said either
terminated or disciplined 30 people. Is that correct?
Mr. Slifer. That's correct.
Mr. Meadows. And you will send to this committee a
breakdown of who those 30 people are and what kind of
disciplinary actions?
Mr. Slifer. I'm not sure by law if I'm allowed to. If I am,
I certainly will.
Mr. Meadows. Well, we'll keep it confidential. And I can
tell you from an oversight standpoint, here's what we need to
see. So what you're saying is not based on an IG report, but
based on your own internal investigation, you let 30 people go?
Mr. Slifer. I'm not sure of the discipline for each of the
30. I know it ranges anywhere from the whole suite of
discipline up to termination.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So how many other people are under
investigation out of the 400?
Mr. Slifer. I'm not sure at this moment sitting here what
the nature of----
Mr. Meadows. More than 10?
Mr. Slifer. I can't speculate. I believe the inspector
general and our internal investigation teams would have a
better----
Mr. Meadows. All right. Will you get to this committee the
number of people that are currently under investigation,
internal investigation?
Mr. Slifer. We will.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So, Ms. Schwartz, do I have your
sworn testimony here today that you will be supportive of
efforts to discipline anyone who has taken advantage of the
situation, because in my mind, it's the other 8,000 good
employees that we're not being fair to. Are you willing to work
in a way that actually promotes some kind of disciplinary
action?
Ms. Schwartz. I'm not sure what POPA can do to support
disciplinary action.
Mr. Meadows. So it's your sworn testimony here today that
you think that anybody that is not performing properly or are
falsifying records, that they shouldn't be punished?
Ms. Schwartz. We believe if people are falsifying records
and the agency has the evidence of that and takes action
against them, that that's appropriate.
Mr. Meadows. So you would support their termination if they
were falsifying records?
Ms. Schwartz. If that's what the agency proposed to do and
it was the appropriate level of discipline.
Mr. Meadows. You added the little caveat on the end of
that, and that wasn't the question. If they falsified records,
are you willing to support their termination?
Ms. Schwartz. Are we talking about falsifying their time
and attendance? I would need clarification on that.
Mr. Meadows. So it's okay to falsify some records, just not
time and attendance?
Ms. Schwartz. It's not necessarily okay, but it's possible
that you could falsify some records and the correct discipline
level would not be termination.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Valid. So if they falsified time and
attendance records, would you support their termination?
Ms. Schwartz. Once again, if it was the appropriate level
of discipline----
Mr. Meadows. If they falsified more than 8 hours, would you
support their termination?
Ms. Schwartz. I don't----
Mr. Meadows. Give me a number then, Ms. Schwartz. I'm not
going to keep guessing. What is appropriate?
Ms. Schwartz. I don't have information on the correct
number here.
Mr. Meadows. Well, you're the expert witness.
Ms. Schwartz. Well, we would want to be following the
factors that are normally considered in making a determination
of the correct----
Mr. Meadows. I'm asking, from a union perspective, what
would you support? Because I don't want to get sideways with
you.
Ms. Schwartz. I don't have the information here. I would
have to go back and look.
Mr. Meadows. So, within 30 days, can you get the
information back to this committee?
Ms. Schwartz. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. Seeing that there is no further business
before the committee, I want to thank each of our witnesses for
being here today, and this subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]