United States GAO General Accounting OfEce Washington, D.C. 20548 Office of Special Investigations B-283320 August 3,1999 The Honorable Christopher “Kit” Bond Chairman Committee on Small Business United States Senate Subject: HUD: Review of Bucklin Renort PreDared to Assist HUD in Defending Against EEO Comnlaint bv HUD’s Denutv Assistant Jnsnector General Dear Mr. Chairman: On July 13,1999, you requested the Office of Special Investigations to conduct a comprehensive review of the report prepared by Donald T. Bucklin of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (BUD). Based on time constraints, your office subsequently agreed to limit the scope of our review to identifying factual inaccuracies. The enclosure identifies several inaccurate statements that we found in the Bucldin Report. We will make copies of this letter available to others on request. Please contact Assistant Director Ron Msbi or me at (202) 512-6722 if we can be of further assistance in this matter. Sincerely yours, Robert H. Hast ’ Acting Assistant Comptroller General for Special Investigations Enclosure /4.&x-G/ GAO/OH-99-16R Review of the Bnclclin Report to HUD Enclosure I ERRORS IN THE BUCKLIN REPORT 1. BUCKLIN REPORT: Beginning on or about July 29,1998, HUD contracted for the services of Liston A Jackson of Counter Technology, Inc., a contractor included on the General Services Admimstration’s (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule, to conduct the investigation of the allegations in the EEO complaint by the Acting Ass&ant Inspector General for Investigation (AIGI) (p. 14). FACT: l HUD contracted with Counter Technology, Inc. on May 26,1998. 2. BUCKLIN REPORTz Prior to Counter Technology, Inc. beginning the investigation of the complaint, however, HUD determined that the best interests of the Department required that another contractor be utilized (p. 14). FACT: l HUD decided to use another contractor after Counter Technology, Inc. had already begun its investigation. l On May 26,1998, HUD contracted with Counter Technology, Inc. l On or about June 10,1998, Counter Technology, Inc. assigned an investigator who contacted the complainant’s attorney. l On July 13,1998, the investigator began arranging his interviews. He conducted a number of interviews prior to HUD directing Counter Technology, Inc., on August 5,1998, to put the investigation on hold. l On August 51998, HUD took action to forward a scope of work to potential contractors. l On August 26,1998, HUD awarded contracts to Day, Berry & Howard, L.L.P. and will.iams & connolly. 3. BUCKLIN REPORT: The EEO complainant, who is African-American and had been serving as AIGI since June 1996, alleges that on December 9,1997, HUD’s Inspector General, Susan Gaffney, did not select him for the AIGI position. She instead chose Philip A &saris (pp. 3,4). FACT: l The complainant had been serving as Acting AIGI since June 1997, not June 1996. 4. BUCKLIN REPORT: According to HUD officials, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) directed Ms. Gaf%ey to use traditional, objective DOJ/FBI investigation criteria in targeting participants for HUD’s Urban Fraud Initiative, declining further involvement in the process until she did so. When HUD’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) utilized these new selection criteria, the target areas changed dramaticahy and no longer focused exclusively on cities with African-American mayors (p. 7). 2 GAO/OS&99-16R Review of the Buddin Report to HUD Enclosure I FACT: l The HUD OIG had worked closely with the FBI at every stage of the process of selecting the three candidate cities for the Urban Fraud Initiative. They jointIy developed the investigative criteria. l .DOJ, the FBI, and the HUD OIG were equally committed to finding a method of selection that would not cause more charges of racism. The FBI and DOJ never declined further involvement. 5. BUCKLIN REPORT: HUD, with the full approval of its Chief Procurement Officer, nevertheless decided to utilize an open-bid, expedited procurement procedure pursuant to applicable Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and the Housing and Urban Development Acquisition Regulations (HUDAR). See 48 C.F.R. section 2401.104 (applicability of FAR to HUD procurement); 48 C.F.R. sections 6.302-2,6.302-3,13.602 (FAR requirements relating to sole-source acquisitions and contracting for expert services) @p. 15,16). FACT: l Neither the current version of the C.F.R. nor the version in effect in 1998 contains a section 13.602. The 1995 version of the C.F.R. contained a section 13.602, but it addressed micro-purchase policy and had nothing to do with either sole-source acquisitions or expert services. 6. BUCKLIN REPORT: On or about March 17,1998, Congressman Rhjah Cummings (D-MD) wrote a letter to Robert Bryant, Assistant Director, FBI, Criminal Investigation Division, expressing concern over a “pattern of racial bias and discrimination in HUD’s Office of Inspector General.” (Footnote) It is unclear what, if any, action the President’s Council on Integrity and Rfficiency (PClE) has taken regarding Mr. Cummmgs’ concerns @. 6). FACT: l Had Mr. Bucklin inquired, he could have learned that PCIE had referred the case to DOJ on July 13,1998. On August 24,1998, DOJ concluded that there was insufficient information to open a criminal investigation; and the matter was referred back to PCIE for any necessary action. 7. BUCKLIN REPORT: On or about March 12,1997, Ms. Gaffney testified regarding HUD’s Indian housing programs before the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. In his letter, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell said that he found “very troubling” Ms. GaEney’s testimony that abuse and mismanagement in Indian housing authorities were worse than in public housing authorities and that rent collection in Indian country was more difficult because of “cultural factors.” Senator Campbell requested that Ms. Gmey provide “specific documentary evidence” to support the assertions made in her testimony. We are unaware of any evidentiary support the OIG has provided to Senator Campbell @. 8). FACT: l Ms. Gaffney responded to Senator Campbell in a letter dated April 18,1997, explaining that the Senator had misheard and misunderstood her testimony. 3 GAO/OS&9CMB Review of the Bucklin Report to HUD Enclosure I 8. BUCKLIN REPORT: The law firm Williams & Connolly has no conflict with HUD in investigating the complaint. HUD reviewed the allegations against the HUD Official, Helen Dunlop, in the matter styled Ervin and Associates. Inc. v. Helen Dunlan. et al., (D.D.C. 961253 (WBB)), and referred the case to DOJ for its review. On or about July 25, 1996, DOJ, finding no wrongdoing, offered to provide Ms. Dunlop with representation in the matter. Ms. Dunlop accepted the representation, which Williams & Connolly is providing under DOSS authority and supervision Therefore, there is no conflict between Williams & Connolly and HUD relating to this issue (p. 31). FACT: l The HUD OIG did not assert that Williams & Connolly’s representation of Ms. Dunlop in Ervin and Associates. Inc. v. Helen Dunlan, a civil suit, created a conflict of interest for Williams & Connolly. Bather, the OIG complained that Williams & Co~olly’s representation of Ms. Dunlop in a HUD OIG criminal investigation, at the same time that Williams & Connolly was investigating allegations of racial discrimination by the HUD OIG, created a conflict of interest. 9. BUCKLIN REPORT: According to the EEO Complaint Inventory Summary (10/93- g/98), EEO complaints for the OIG totaled 43 during the past 5 years (p. 15). FACT: l Using figures that HUD provided through Mr. Bucldin, the number of complaints totaled 41. 10. BUCKLIN REPORT: The Office of General Counsel, which is approximately the same size as the OIG , registered 27 complaints for the same period @. 15). FACT: l Using figures that HUD provided through Mr. Bucklin, the number of complaints totaled 26. 11. BUCKLIN REPORTz The Office of Community Planning and Development, which is almost twice the size of the OIG, registered 43 complaints (pp. 15,16). FACT: l Using the figures that BUD provided through Mr. ~Bucldin, the number of complaints totaled 39. (600570) 4 GAO/OSI-99-16B Review of the Bucklin Report to HUD Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and Mastercard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 612-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the dailg list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send an e-mail message with Yinfo” in the body to: email@example.com or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at: http9www.gao.gov United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548-0001 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Correction Requested
HUD: Review of Bucklin Report Prepared to Assist HUD in Defending Against EEO Complaint by HUD's Deputy Assistant Inspector General
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1999-08-03.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)