Investigations could lead to tighter controls on agency spending

Four congressional committees staged hearings in recent days in response to an investigation by the General Services Administration’s (GSA) inspector general (IG) that discovered more than $820,000 in spending on a lavish Las Vegas conference in 2010.

Several pieces of legislation have been drafted that would limit federal agency conference spending, including Sen. Claire McCaskill’s, D-Mo., proposal. Her bill, recently introduced, would cap agency meeting spending at $200,000 per conference, unless the chief agency administrator approved a higher cost. McCaskill’s measure also would require annual conference spending reports.

But will the hubbub, hearings and investigations in Congress really lead to agency spending reforms? Govpro got the following answers from Ken Donohue, a former inspector general for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Currently, he is a principal and consulting expert on waste, fraud and abuse at the Bethesda, Md.-based Reznick Government, an operating division of the Reznick Group. The company is a top 20 national accounting, tax and business advisory firm.

Govpro: What will be the outcome of the hearings in Congress concerning excess spending at a GSA Vegas conference? Will the hearings lead to a closer watch on government spending?

Ken Donohue: The answer is yes. I believe, as a former inspector general, that any kind of hearings on the Hill can only help and enhance oversight and transparency — to the detriment of waste, fraud and abuse. The hearings bring notoriety and media attention to the spending issues and concerns. The aggressiveness on the part of the inspector generals, and this kind of congressional attention, can only enhance efforts to monitor unwise government spending. This kind of transparency and oversight prevents this kind of wastefulness on the part of government administrators in their programs.

Govpro: In 2012, is it more difficult for government officials to improperly spend tax dollars, thanks to increased media scrutiny, more congressional oversight, 24/7 social media and web documentation and electronic surveillance?

KD: I believe that what we are seeing, regarding the wasteful spending, is that this instance is not a particular anomaly — I think it’s gone on for some time. I do, however, think that the proactive approach on the part of the IG’s, and the aggressive oversight on the part of the Congress — it helps bring these things to the surface more quickly and yields a more positive response.

Govpro: Is a lot of excess spending in government still going undetected?

KD: I believe it is, and I believe it continues to be, and I think we are seeing more evidence of this by the fact that federal spending and tax dollars are being watched more carefully and aggressively. Certainly, the downturn in the economy has generated and promoted that reaction and interest level. Some evidence of that are the Recovery.gov website and transparency boards created to monitor the federal stimulus program and the dollars that went into it.

Govpro: Do we need to look at state and local government spending also?

KD: Absolutely. I testified on this topic four months ago before the House Financial Services Committee. I believe that much activity on the part of the federal government is at the grant level, but my concern has always been the egregious behavior sometimes on the part of sub-grantees, and you don’t uncover sub-grantee wrongdoing unless you have a very proactive oversight and transparency effort on those grant programs. Anytime at HUD that you have seen this activity, is that, primarily, the major amount of fraud and waste is at the sub-grantee level, and that often means state or local government funds, or the sub-grantee programs that the state distributes the dollars to.