**Federal Communications Commission**

## Office of Inspector General

![](media/image1.png){width="3.7069444444444444in"
height="3.6243055555555554in"}

**FY 1999 Field Inspection Program**

#### Summary Inspection Report

### **Assignment No. 00-AUD-01-15**

### **January 21, 2000**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # H. Walker Feaster III                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Inspector General**                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

EXECUTIVE DIGEST

In 1994, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) established the Field
Inspection Program (FIP). The primary objective of the FIP program is to
evaluate the operational effectiveness of offices operated by the
Compliance and Information Bureau (CIB)[^1]. Since 1994, the OIG has
conducted inspections at ten (10) CIB Field Offices, and three (3)
Resident Agent sites. In addition, OIG staff has visited Regional
Management in Chicago, Kansas City, and San Francisco. This report
summarizes the results of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 FIP. As part of the
FY 1999 FIP, OIG inspectors visited the following Field Office
locations:

-   Office of Regional Director, Chicago

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chicago Field Office

-   New York Field Office

-   Detroit Field Office

-   Philadelphia Field Office

OIG inspectors follow a detailed checklist to conduct each office
inspection. The scope of the inspection included the evaluation of
internal controls over payroll, imprest funds, credit cards and other
government assets. The Inspection Team assessed compliance with FCC
policy and directives and evaluated the professionalism and performance
of field office personnel. Employee feedback was obtained and each
employee was afforded the opportunity to raise any topics of concern or
interest with the Inspection Team. Additionally, equipment and
facilities were assessed and evaluated by the Inspection Team. The team
also sought out best practices in individual offices that could be
adopted on a Bureau-wide basis. Following each inspection, OIG
inspectors prepared reports summarizing the detailed results of each
visit. Draft copies of individual Field Office reports were forwarded to
each District Director for review and reports were revised based upon
the comments provided. Copies of the individual Field Office reports are
attached to this document. This report provides a general summary of the
results of the FIP program conducted during the FY 1999 fiscal year and
contains observations that cut across those District Offices that were
visited or identifies issues that we determined warranted highlighting.
As this is not a formal audit report, no recommendations for corrective
action are developed within the context of this report. We would like to
thank those offices visited for their courtesy and enthusiastic support
for this program.

In general, OIG staff was impressed by the professionalism and demeanor
exhibited by the field employees. It has been our observation that field
office personnel display an overriding pride and resolve to provide
meaningful services to customers of the FCC. However, in general,
employees interviewed cited the lack of training, travel funds, state of
the art equipment and vehicles, and inaccurate information maintained in
FCC information systems as impediments to successful mission completion.
Another issue raised by some employees focused upon concern over their
personal safety when responding to interference complaints or
unauthorized transmissions. This issue was especially significant as
relates to the Detroit District Office and their experience in dealing
with militia entities. Internal controls over payroll and government
assets were identified, evaluated and tested. OIG inspectors identified
some minor payroll and inventory discrepancies that were either resolved
on-site or were being resolved at the time this report was prepared.
During the inspection, no instances of waste, fraud, abuse or
mismanagement were identified.

As noted in prior FIP reports, the field clearly feels themselves to be
on the Commissions' periphery. In general, they are unaware as to major
initiatives being undertaken by other Bureaus and Offices and how, or
if, they can contribute to these programs. Given the opportunity to work
on high visibility and meaningful projects the staff reacts in an
aggressive and highly motivated manner. For example, employees that had
the opportunity to participate on "pirate" radio enforcement teams spoke
favorably of their experience and the constructive nature of the work
performed and the constructive liaison with other field personnel.
However, such work appears to be the exception rather then the rule for
field personnel.

**[BACKGROUND]{.underline}**

In 1994, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) established a Field
Inspection Program (FIP). The primary objective of the FIP program is to
evaluate the operational effectiveness of remote offices operated by the
Compliance and Information Bureau (CIB). CIB is responsible for the
enforcement of FCC rules and serves as one of the Commission's primary
points of contact with the public. Specific objectives of the FIP
program are to:

-   independently assess field operations and propose specific measures
    to increase operational effectiveness and efficiency;

-   evaluate internal controls and compliance with FCC and other
    applicable policies and regulations;

-   serve as a conduit for the field to communicate their concerns and
    issues to headquarters;

-   identify operational initiatives developed in one office or region
    which might translate to other field locations;

-   detect potential instances of waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement;

-   serve as a conduit or tool to address employee concerns they may not
    choose to communicate to their immediate supervisor(s); and,

-   identify and report upon specific conditions that are adversely
    effecting the successful discharge of duties at field locations.

Since the initiation of the FIP program in 1994, field operations and
the placement of field operations within the Commission's organizational
structure has changed significantly. In September 1994, staff from the
OIG visited the Regional Office located in Chicago, Illinois and Field
Offices located in Chicago, Illinois and Minneapolis-Saint Paul,
Minnesota. At that time, field operations within the Commission
consisted of six (6) Regional Offices and thirty-five (35) Field offices
under the Field Operations Bureau (FOB). FOB staffing was three hundred
eighty-four (384) full time equivalent (FTE) positions.

In September 1997, the OIG conducted a second round of field inspection
visits. During this round of visits, OIG staff visited Regional Offices
in Kansas City, Missouri and San Francisco, California; Field Offices in
Tampa, Florida, Kansas City, Missouri, San Francisco, California, and
San Diego, California; and Resident Agent sites in Miami, Florida,
Norfolk, Virginia, and Houston, Texas. By the time of our 1997 field
visits, field operations had gone through a significant reorganization.
FOB had been renamed the Compliance and Information Bureau (CIB), FTE\'s
supporting field operations had been reduced to two hundred fifty-four
(254), and twelve (12) manned monitoring stations were eliminated.
Additionally, nine (9) fully staffed Field Offices were reduced to two
(2) person Resident Agent sites. This activity was undertaken in
conjunction with the introduction of the National Call Center (NCC) and
the adoption of automated monitoring post technology.

On November 8, 1999, the FCC created two new Bureaus -- the Enforcement
Bureau and the Consumer Information Bureau. Effective on that date,
Field Office operations became part of the Enforcement Bureau and the
Compliance and Information Bureau (CIB) was disbanded.

# SCOPE

This report summarizes the results of field inspection visits conducted
during the period from September 13, 1999 through September 23, 1999.
During that period, staff from the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
visited the following offices:

-   Office of Regional Director, Chicago

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chicago Field Office

-   New York Field Office

-   Detroit Field Office

-   Philadelphia Field Office

In addition to the on-site inspection of Field Offices, representatives
of the OIG met with the following senior officials within Headquarters
prior to performing field inspections in order to gather information
relevant to the FIP.

-   David Solomon, Chief, Enforcement Bureau

-   Jane Mago, Deputy Bureau Chief, Enforcement Bureau

-   George Dillon, Engineering Advisor, Enforcement Bureau

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Joe Casey, Chief, Technical and Public Safety Division, Enforcement
    Bureau

-   Pamera Hairston, Deputy Chief, Consumer Information Bureau

A detailed checklist was prepared and utilized in the conduct of each
office inspection. The scope of the inspection included the evaluation
of internal controls over payroll, imprest funds, credit cards and other
government assets. The Inspection Team assessed compliance with FCC
policy and directives and evaluated the professionalism and performance
of field office personnel. Employee feedback was obtained and each
employee was afforded the opportunity to raise any topics of concern or
interest with the Inspection Team. Additionally, equipment and
facilities were assessed and evaluated by the Inspection Team.
Inspection teams also sought out best practices in individual offices
that could be adopted on a Bureau-wide basis.

**[INSPECTION OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS]{.underline}**

OIG staff prepared reports summarizing the results of each Field Office
visit. Draft copies of individual Field Office reports were forwarded to
each District Director for review and reports were revised based upon
the comments provided. Copies of the individual Field Office are
attached to this document. Field Office reports contain the detailed
results of each inspection and contain observations that are, in many
cases, relevant only to the field office visited. The following
inspection observations and conclusions represent observations that cut
across those District Offices that were visited or represent issues that
we determined warranted highlighting in this report.

##### Administrative Items

Internal Controls are operating effectively at the Field Offices visited
as part of the FY 1999 FIP program. As part of the inspection process,
OIG staff examined and tested controls over the following areas:

-   Time and Attendance;

-   Employee Evaluations;

-   Reporting of Outside Employment;

-   Reporting of Financial Interests;

-   Travel;

-   Official Property;

-   Seized Property;

-   Imprest Fund;

-   Credit Cards;

-   Motor Vehicles;

OIG inspection teams did not identify any issues related to employee
evaluations, reporting of outside employment or financial interests,
seized property, management of the imprest fund or credit card program,
or motor vehicles. Minor issues were identified during our inspection of
time and attendance, travel, and official property. These issues are
summarized below and detailed in the attached Field Office Reports.

Time and Attendance - The Inspection Team performed detailed analyses of
payroll data over a randomly selected period constituting the first ten
(10) pay periods of calendar year 1999. Minimal discrepancies were
identified during the review process and we are working with
representatives from the Office of the Associate Managing Director --
Human Resources Management (AMD-HRM) to resolve these discrepancies. In
addition, minor procedural discrepancies were identified during our
inspection at the Philadelphia Field Office and these discrepancies were
discussed with the District Director.

Travel - Generally, Field Office staff at each office visited indicated
that limited travel funds restrict the ability of the Field Office to
accomplish all aspects of their mission in an effective manner. One
staff member from the New York Field Office cited Cable Television and
HDTV Capability Inspections on Long Island as an example. According to
this staff member, traffic congestion increases travel time required to
get to Cable stations on Long Island and significantly reduces the
number of stations that can be inspected without requiring an overnight
stay. As a result, Cable stations located further out on Long Island are
not inspected as regularly as those located closer to the Field Office.
Staff from the Detroit Field Office indicated that, as of September, no
visits have been made to Kentucky during the current year and the
District Director stated that it is difficult to accomplish work in many
parts of Ohio without overnight travel funding. However, although
numerous examples were provided of projects that could be accomplished
with additional travel funds, we were assured at each Field Office
visited that funding for emergency related mission objectives was always
available.

Official Property -- As part of the inspection process, OIG staff
judgmentally selected items from recent inventory records and verified
the existence of these selected inventory items. During our inspection
at the New York Field Office, we were unable to locate a Tektronix
Plug-in Spectrum Analyzer that was listed in inventory records dated
September 7, 1999. After returning from the New York Field Office,
inspectors followed up with CIB management to resolve this issue. On
December 22, 1999, we received an e-mail message from District Director
of the New York Field Office indicating that this piece of equipment was
located in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Field Office. The District Director
was unable to explain how the equipment was reported in New York Field
Office inventory records.

##### Training

Lack of training funds has been a recurring theme in past Field
Inspection reports. In general, feedback from staff indicates that this
condition has not changed significantly from past inspections. Several
Field Office staff stated that it has been a decade since they have
received formal training. Staff stated that training is frequently in
the form of video training or is "on-the-job" training provided by other
CIB Field Office staff. Several Field Office staff indicated that they
would like to be able to take more formal training, particularly for new
equipment and technologies. Many staff members expressed frustration
that courses on new Commission software products (e.g., the Microsoft
Office software suite) are being offered by the Information Technology
Center (ITC) for Headquarters Staff but that these courses are not
videotaped or otherwise made available for Field Office staff.

However, we did receive some positive feedback on training. During our
inspection of the Detroit Field Office, the District Director reported
that the office has identified a training program at a local community
college that offers quality training at low cost. The District Director
explained that the program, the Criminal Justice Training Program at
Macomb Community College, offers a variety of courses including money
laundering, problem resolution, etc. The District Director stated that,
in the current fiscal year, training costs for six (6) Detroit Field
office employees to attend unlimited courses in the training program was
\$540. In addition, the community college offers a variety of high
quality computer training classes. With respect to training that is made
available, many Field Office staff members indicated that they take
advantage of no-cost seminars offered by equipment manufacturers. Staff
stated that, although a portion of each seminar is directed at marketing
the new equipment, good technical information about the equipment and
technological environment is generally provided.

##### Equipment

During previous field office inspections, concerns have been raised
about the age and condition of equipment. Inspectors have been informed
that older equipment is not sufficient to address interference and other
matters involving newer technologies. Additional concerns have been
raised about repairing equipment that is no longer supported by the
manufacturer.

As part of the employee interview process we discussed equipment with
each employee. In particular, we were interested in determining if the
lack of state-of-the-art equipment would hamper the ability of the staff
to meet mission requirements (i.e., respond to safety-related
interference cases). Many of those Field Office staff interviewed
expressed some concern about equipment. We were informed that much of
the equipment is technology from the 1970s and that it is not adequate
to support interference cases using newer technologies. One case that
was cited was a case involving interference with a Police microwave
link. In this case, FCC field office staff members were consulted but
were not asked to investigate the interference problem. Field Office
personnel stated that available equipment would not have been useful in
responding to this incident. There were no instances cited in which the
Field Office was not able to respond to an interference case when they
were asked to respond. Several Field Office staff members indicated that
it is conceivable that an interference issue could arise in which the
office was unable to respond with the equipment currently available.
Another issue identified with respect to equipment was the lack of
adequate staffing at the Columbia, MD lab to calibrate equipment. A
Field Office staff member indicated that the quality of available
equipment is deteriorating and will continue to deteriorate unless
adequate resources are devoted to calibrating equipment.

Chicago Field Office staff noted that the equipment situation has
improved somewhat with the receipt of a new direction finding vehicle
but that most equipment that is being procured is not high quality as in
years past. As such, they believe that the equipment will not function
for an extended life period. This equipment is often not state of the
art and is manually intensive which results in slow operations. They
continue to need more modern vehicles and new equipment such as antennas
that can function in upper frequencies. There is also a need for more
portable gear that would be less cumbersome and time-consuming then
equipment currently in use. This may well cross over towards being a
safety related issue as quicker deployment and functionality of assets
results in shorter periods of exposure of FCC field employees to
potentially adverse scenarios.

[Commission Databases]{.underline}

Field Office staff report that Commission Databases do not provide
timely and accurate information. Poor quality of data directly impacts
the ability of Field Office Staff to perform their official duties in an
efficient and effective manner. Staff provided numerous examples of
instances in which poor quality of database information resulted in
additional work (e.g., physically visit broadcast station and examine
license, contact licensee to obtain accurate information, etc.). In
addition, staff reported that some commercial web sites (ex.
radiostations.com) provide better information about Commission licensees
than Commission databases.

During our visit to the Detroit Field Office, we accompanied an Engineer
during an examination of antenna structures as part of the 1999 Regional
Operation Plan. The objective of this project is to raise antenna
structure registration compliance to at least 90% to insure aircraft
navigational safety. As part of the examination process, Field Office
staff examine antenna structures to determine if painting, lighting, and
registration posting requirements are met. In addition, information
regarding antenna location (latitude and longitude) and ownership are
obtained and compared to information contained in Commission databases.
During our examination, we visited an Antenna Structure located at
Latitude: 42 21' 52" and Longitude: 083 32' 51" obtained the tower
registration number and observed the condition of the tower. After the
team returned to the field office, the Detroit Field Office Engineer
used the General Menu Reporting System (GENMEN), to conduct a query of
Commission databases. During the query, the following anomalies were
identified:

-   The "Tow Air" system reported no antenna structures within one (1)
    square mile of the site visited by the review team.

-   The "Site Results" system reported two (2) antenna structures
    located on the site visited although the reported latitude and
    longitude for one of the structures is different from that observed.

The Northeast Region established a task for accumulating information on
Commission databases as part of the 1999 Regional Operation Plan. The
objective of the task is to "assure through field office submissions
that the databases which are most frequently used by the field office
are kept accurate, current and most significant, formatted for field
use."

[Concerns About Legal Representation]{.underline}

CIB Headquarters and Regional Management established unlicensed FM, AM
and HF Radio Operations (i.e., "Pirate Radio") as a high priority in FY
1999. As a result, Field Office personnel spend significant amounts of
time investigating pirate radio stations and taking steps to stop
unlicensed operation including court action (e.g., injunctions) and
direct action (e.g., equipment seizures). As a result of this activity,
Field Office Staff have been increasingly subject to lawsuits. For
example, in the case of LA VOZ RADIO DE LA COMMUNIDAD, et al., versus
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and JAMES BRIDGEWATER, action was
brought against the District Director of the Detroit Field Office. In
this matter, the United States District Court for the Western District
of Michigan ruled in favor of the Commission and the District Director
of the Detroit Field Office. In addition, during our interview with the
District Director of the New York Field Office, we were informed that
other staff in the Northeastern Region (including the Regional Director
and staff from the Philadelphia Field Office) has been sued. Although,
to date, no Field Office staff have been held personally liable in any
pirate radio action or have been financially damaged as a result of
these actions, staff have been affected. For example, the Detroit
District Director stated that he recently applied for a loan to
refinance his primary residence and was confronted with a question about
whether he had ever been sued. He indicated that he had to answer yes to
the question. This issue was raised by several of the field office staff
that we interviewed and is a source of some concern.

[Safety Training]{.underline}

As stated previously, CIB Headquarters and Regional Management
established "Pirate Radio" as a high priority in FY 1999. As a result,
Field Office personnel spend significant amounts of time investigating
pirate radio stations and taking steps to stop unlicensed operation
including court action (e.g., injunctions) and direct action (e.g.,
equipment seizures). Increased activity of this nature increases the
safety risk for Field Office staff. As part of the interview process
during Field Office visits, we asked Field Office staff about safety
issues. During our visit with staff from the Detroit Field Office, we
were informed of a number of scenarios during which staff from the
office found themselves in a position where safety was a concern. In one
instance, Field Office personnel were in the vicinity of a building
housing a suspected "Pirate Radio" station when an individual exited the
building with a weapon and fired the weapon into the ground. Detroit
Field Office staff indicated that they are taking direct action to
reduce the risks associated with investigating these matters. For
example, the office obtained commercially available range finding
binoculars to support activities against unlicensed radio operations.
The binoculars allow Field Office agents to physically locate a station
site without increasing risk to the agents or requiring law enforcement
involvement. Field Office agents locate the station by using Direction
Finding equipment to triangulate the signal (commonly referred to as
"DFing" the signal) then using the binoculars to determine the specific
location of the structure containing the station. Staff further
indicated that they coordinate activities heavily with local and federal
law enforcement agencies. Field Office staff also made it clear that the
Commission's position has always been "safety first" and that this has
been clearly communicated at the Field Office level. However, although
measures to reduce risks are being taken, several Field Office staff
indicated an interest in obtaining formal safety training.

[^1]: ^1^ On November 8, 1999, the FCC created two new Bureaus -- the
    Enforcement Bureau and the Consumer Information Bureau. Effective on
    that date, Field Office operations became part of the Enforcement
    Bureau and the Compliance and Information Bureau (CIB) was
    disbanded. The FIP was conducted a few weeks prior to the formal
    establishment of the Enforcement Bureau. In preparing this report,
    reference is made to the existing organizational structure at time
    the FIP was carried out. Thus, the report includes references to the
    CIB and the structure that existed within CIB prior to the
    establishment of the Enforcement Bureau.