U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

89–374 2015

REVIEW OF AWARDING BONUSES TO 

SENIOR EXECUTIVES AT THE 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 2014 

Serial No. 113–75 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice-Chairman 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

PAUL COOK, California 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

DAVID JOLLY, Florida 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

MARK TAKANO, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JON TOWERS, Staff Director 

NANCY DOLAN, Democratic Staff Director 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Friday, June 20, 2014 

Review of Awarding Bonuses to Senior Executives at the Department of 

Veterans Affairs ................................................................................................... 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Hon. Jeff Miller, Chairman ..................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 33 

Hon. Michael Michaud, Ranking Minority Member ............................................. 4 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 35 

Hon. Ann Kirkpatrick 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 35 

Hon. Timothy Walz 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 35 

WITNESS 

Hon. Gina Farrisee, Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs .................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 37 

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Statement From: SEA ............................................................................................. 43 

Letter and Questions From: Minority Member ..................................................... 48 

Questions for the Record ......................................................................................... 50 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
(1) 

REVIEW OF AWARDING BONUSES TO SENIOR 

EXECUTIVES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Friday, June 20, 2014 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Miller [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Miller, Lamborn, Bilirakis, Poe, Runyan, Benishek, Huelskamp, Coffman, Wenstrup, Cook, Walorski, 

Jolly, Michaud, Takano, Brownley, Titus, Ruiz, Kuster and 

O’Rourke. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JEFF MILLER 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Thank you all 

for being here this morning. We had planned on a business meeting 

this morning to subpoena two sets of documents from the VA that 

were long-standing requests from the committee, but yesterday VA 

delivered information regarding the removal of six SES employees 

for the past two fiscal years. This request was made by multiple 

members of this committee, including myself, in multiple hearings 

going back to February. This morning VA delivered the second set 

of documents, which I requested via letter in October of 2013. The 

documents cover the performance reviews for each SES individual 

for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. 

Now, although VA’s response to our request was delayed, their 

production of the requested materials is sufficient, and therefore, 

after consultation with the ranking member, we will no longer be 

having a business meeting this morning. 

This morning’s full committee hearing is entitled Review of 

Awarding Bonuses to Senior Executives at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and we’re going to examine the outlandish bonus culture at the VA and the larger organizational crisis that seems to 

have developed from awarding performance awards to senior executives despite the fact that their performance fails to deliver on our 

promise to our veterans. 

As the committee’s investigation into the Department continues, 

and new allegations and cover-ups are exposed, it’s important that 

we examine how the Department has arrived at the point where 

it is today. Sadly, it’s come to a point which has eroded veterans’ 

trust and America’s confidence in VA’s execution of its mission. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
2 

Part of the mistrust centers on a belief that VA employees are motivated by financial incentives alone, and I can certainly see why 

that perception is out there. 

It appears as if VA’s performance review system is failing the 

veterans that they are supposed to be serving. Instead of using bonuses as an award for outstanding work on behalf of our veterans, 

cash awards are seen as an entitlement and have become irrelevant to the quality of work product. 

I know we all agree that preventable patient deaths, delays in 

care, and continual backlogs of disability claims, cost overruns and 

construction delays for VA facilities, and deliberate behavior to falsify data are not behaviors that should be rewarded, yet despite 

startling issues that continue to come to light, as well as numerous 

past IG and GAO reports highlighting these same issues, a majority of senior VA managers received a performance award for fiscal 

year 2013. According to VA’s own data, over $2.8 million was paid out in 

performance awards to senior executives for FY13. These performance awards went to at least 65 percent of the senior executive 

workforce at the Department. In fact, not a single senior manager 

at VA out of 470 individuals received less than a fully successful 

performance review for the last fiscal year, not one. 

Based on this committee’s investigations, outside independent reports, and what we have learned in the last few months, I wholeheartedly disagree with VA’s assessment of its senior staff. It 

should not be the practice of any Federal Agency to issue taxpayer 

dollars in addition to paying six-figure salaries to failing senior 

managers just because a current OPM statute for members of the 

SES allows that to occur. Bonuses are not an entitlement; they are 

a reward for exceptional work. VA’s current practice only breeds a 

sense of entitlement and a lack of accountability and is why we are 

here today. 

This issue, unfortunately, is not a new one for the VA. The committee has focused its oversight on bonuses for years, and if Members were to go back and review the 2007 Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation hearing on awards and bonuses, you would 

find that the issue we raise today was questioned 7 years ago. 

There seems to be little, if any, improvement. 

In a May 2013 hearing, VA construction chief Glenn Haggstrom 

admitted that he could not explain why he collected almost $55,000 

in performance bonuses despite overseeing failed construction plans 

that cost our government nearly $1.5 billion in cost overruns. In 

December of 2012, an investigation by this committee revealed a 

legionella outbreak in the Pittsburgh Healthcare System that led 

to at least six patient deaths. Nevertheless, the Director there, 

Terry Gerigk Wolf, received a perfect performance review, and the 

regional director, Michael Moreland, who oversaw VA’s Pittsburgh 

operation at the time, collected a $63,000 bonus. To the average 

American, $63,000 is considered to be a competitive annual salary, 

not a bonus. 

The medical center director in Dayton, OH, received a nearly 

$12,000 bonus despite an open investigation into veterans’ exposure to hepatitis B and C under his watch. The Director at the Atlanta VA Medical Center, who oversaw multiple preventable 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
3 

deaths, received $65,000 in performance bonuses over his four 

years there. The former director of the VA regional office in Waco, 

Texas, received more than $53,000 in bonuses. While under his 

tenure the Waco office’s average disability claims processing time 

multiplied to inexcusable levels. 

Unfortunately, I could go on and on. These are not the only instances of those charged with managing VA programs and health 

care facilities falling far short of the quality that veterans and their 

families deserve. So, in short, there are far too many examples that 

prove that bonuses do not ensure good performance. 

As we have previously heard from several witnesses in this committee, including those from VA, the quest for monetary gain rather than public service has led to data manipulation and secret lists 

designed to create a false impression of quality health care that is 

timely and responsive to veterans. This is scandalous, even criminal, I would argue, and it runs far deeper than just Phoenix. 

Today we’ll explore the circumstances surrounding the award 

and eventual rescission of a performance bonus award provided to 

the former Director of the VA Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona, 

Miss Sharon Helman. In February of 2014, Ms. Helman was given 

an $8,500 bonus for her performance during fiscal year 2013. Only 

after allegations against Ms. Helman came to light as a result of 

this committee’s work did a conscientious VA employee examine 

whether she received a bonus in fiscal year 2013. When we questioned the award, VA determined that she was given this bonus 

due to an administrative error. However, past documentation from 

VA has stated that all performance reviews and awards are ultimately reviewed and signed by the Secretary. Furthermore, Ms. 

Helman’s direct supervisor, former VISN 18 network Director 

Susan Bowers, stated in May that Sharon Helman received her 

bonus for a highly successful rating and for improving access concerns and wait lists. Perhaps we should also question Ms. Bowers’ 

qualifications. 

These stories do not match up, and I believe it further brings 

into question VA’s transparency as well as diligence when issuing 

thousands of dollars in bonuses. 

Although Acting Secretary Gibson has rightly put a freeze on all 

bonuses for senior executives at VHA for the time being, it is still 

this committee’s responsibility to understand the rationale for 

awarding five-figure bonuses to individuals who have clearly fallen 

short of the Department’s mission and their commitment to those 

who have served. 

A performance bonus award should not be received because you 

are able to check off a few boxes on a form. A performance award 

should not be an expectation. A bonus is not an entitlement. Those 

at the Department of Veterans Affairs are there to serve the veterans and their families. Anything less than the highest possible 

quality should not be rewarded. Gaming the bonus system is not 

a business that VA should be in. 

Today we’ll hear what VA has to say about their performance review system, why senior managers who have overseen failure have 

received thousands of dollars in bonuses, and how these large performance bonuses could have led to the terrible situation that the 

Department is now in. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
4 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JEFF MILLER APPEARS

IN THE APPENDIX] 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, I now recognize the ranking member 

for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MICHAUD, RANKING 

MINORITY MEMBER 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having 

this hearing. I want to thank the witness for coming this morning 

as well. 

Michael Leboeuf in his book entitled The Greatest Management 

Principle Ever said, and I quote, ‘‘The things that get measured are 

the things that get done,’’ end of quote. We have seen this statement borne out recently within the VA in a very negative way. As 

witnesses have stated in recent hearings, VA’s focus on unrealistic 

wait time measured resulted in employees manipulating the system to seem like they were meeting the measured standards. 

Leboeuf went on to say in a later book, and I quote, ‘‘The things 

that get measured and rewarded are the things that get done well,’’ 

end of quote. Today we’re going to look at the second piece, how 

VA senior executives are awarded, and how the system does or 

does not incentivize things to get done well. 

Before we get into that discussion, let me also recognize that 

there are a lot of VA employees who do things well. As we shine 

the light on those who do not, let me pause for a moment and shine 

a brighter light, more positive light on the hard-working employees 

at VA who does things well, and we must not forget that, and to 

them I say, thank you for your service and for setting an example, 

and hopefully all employees within the VA look at keeping their 

bottom line on how we serve the veteran. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I know we have votes this morning, 

so I would ask unanimous consent the remainder of my remarks 

be entered into the record, and with that I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL MICHAUD APPEARS

IN THE APPENDIX] 

The CHAIRMAN. Members, we’ll hold opening statements. Your 

opening statements, should you have one, will be entered into the 

record at the appropriate time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for being here with us today. We have 

one panelist. We’re going to hear from the Honorable Gina 

Farrisee, Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration at the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

I would ask that you would please stand, raise your right hand. 

[Witness sworn.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. You may be seated. 

Your complete written statement will also be made a part of the 

record. Thank you for being here with us this morning, Secretary 

Farrisee, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
5 

STATEMENT OF HON. GINA FARRISEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR HUMAN RESOURCES AND ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

STATEMENT OF HON. GINA FARRISEE 

Ms. FARRISEE. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Michaud, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss VA’s senior executive performance management system. 

I would like to express on behalf of the VA workforce our commitment to the Department’s veterans. To accomplish this mission, 

we must recruit and retain the best talent, many of whom require 

special skills in health care, information technology, and benefits 

delivery. 

In particular, VA requires talented senior executives to manage 

the complex set of VA facilities and programs. We are competing 

in tough public and private labor markets for skilled personnel. To 

remain competitive in recruiting and retaining, we must rely on 

tools such as incentives and awards that recognize superior performance. However, we also acknowledge that we must do a better 

job in holding our employees and our leaders accountable. 

Our senior leadership must become more engaged in managing 

executive performance plans, to include counseling, midyear assessments, and documentation. We realize that improvement in SES 

performance management also serves as a model for the General 

Schedule workforce performance appraisal process. 

The key is stringent and precise implementation and oversight of 

all performance plans, whether for executives or General Scheduled 

employees. Equally important is that we have good performance 

training programs for executives. 

Performance management has many challenges. By its nature it 

is very subjective and complex. It is used to identify superlative 

and poor performers, and it is the foundation of development and 

mentoring. Senior executives must understand how to craft good 

critical elements for their subordinates that are practical for performance management purposes. They must also fully understand 

the process and know how to document assessments so that decisions on poor performers will be defensible. Leaders must confidently communicate directly with the subordinate and prevail 

during the due process steps that follow such decisions. 

The VA is fortifying existing efforts to train executives on the 

fundamentals of performance management and how to confront 

poor performance. We cannot assume that our executives are 

skilled in these areas. Our executives must receive frequent and 

better training on the performance process and guidance on confronting poor performers. 

The data shows that VA’s implementation of the SES performance process has become more rigorous over the last few years. 

From 2010 to 2013, the VA decreased the percentage of outstanding ratings from 35 percent down to 21 percent. 

We presently have an OPM-certified senior executive performance appraisal system. To receive OPM certification, agencies must 

demonstrate adherence to laws and policies in the evaluation of 

senior executives and distribution of awards. Agencies must also 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
6 

make meaningful distinctions in the evaluation of senior executive 

performance plans to receive the certification. The certification is 

rigorous, and failure to receive certification has significant consequences to a Federal agency. 

As outlined in the statute, monetary awards were designed to be 

part of SES compensation. That is the premise of pay-for-performance law. Failure to recognize value and performance puts VA at 

the risk of accelerating retirement, resignation and/or transfer to 

other agencies or the private sector of some of the Department’s 

most effective senior talent. 

The process VA uses is described in my written testimony, but 

I would like to just touch on some of the high points. Most important is that the VA has uniformity in evaluating executives, and 

has a single performance management system for both Title 5 and 

Title 38 employees. We use five rating levels in the VA and have 

published standards for these five ratings. 

Presently VA certified performance appraisal system goes beyond 

the minimum standards set by OPM. In 2011, VA added a reviewing official, which is not required, as part of the rating process for 

most senior executives. This reviewing official is responsible for 

highlighting any areas of disagreement with the rating official and 

providing a second, more senior review. In addition, the Department formed performance review committees that conduct an initial review of appraisals prior to the review of the VA Performance 

Review Board. The addition of a review by the VA committees prior 

to the VA Board is an added feature that looks at consistency 

throughout the VA lines of business. We are also currently refining 

our policy on deferred ratings to ensure clear, concise guidance on 

the process, step by step. 

In closing, it is clear that VA must do a better job of holding our 

executives and employees accountable for poor performance. Good 

organizations establish clear standards, train employees to meet 

those standards, and then hold them accountable. VA cannot assume that our executives are adequately skilled in performance 

management, so we are taking steps to refine our training courses 

to address the shortfalls. In order to better serve our veterans, VA 

must continue to attract and retain the best and brightest leaders. 

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today, and 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GINA FARRISEE APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for being here with us. According to your testimony, from FY 2010 through 2013, not a single 

member of the SES, a pool of 470 individuals, received a less than 

fully satisfactory or successful rating; is that correct? 

Ms. FARRISEE. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Knowing what we know now about the fraudulent actions being taken in facilities all across this country that 

have harmed our veterans, do you think that the Department’s assessment that 100 percent of senior managers at VA have been 

fully successful in the past four years is in line with reality? 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
7 

Ms. FARRISEE. Mr. Chairman, if we knew what we knew today 

at that time, it is unlikely that their performance would have reflected what it reflected at the time the reports were written. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you go back and change a performance review 

based on information that’s gathered after the fact? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Mr. Chairman, you cannot go back and change a 

rating once it has been issued to an employee as the final rating. 

The CHAIRMAN. Even if there’s information that was hidden from 

the raters? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Even if there’s information that was hidden. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that a law or a rule? 

Ms. FARRISEE. It is a law. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is it a law that needs to be changed? 

Ms. FARRISEE. There are other ways to discipline employees for 

misconduct. If you find out—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Wait, wait, wait, wait. You’re telling me if you 

find out somebody does something that specifically harms veterans, 

is potentially criminal, that the Department’s position is you would 

not go back and change somebody’s rating if you had the ability to 

do that? 

Ms. FARRISEE. If we had the authority, we would use all authorities provided to us. 

The CHAIRMAN. And so my question to you, is that something 

that you would recommend that this committee do is to look into 

having the law changed so that you can go back and change performance reviews? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Mr. Chairman, if that was for across the Federal 

Government, I could agree with that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we’re focused on the VA, okay? And the VA 

hasn’t been doing very well lately. And I would hope that the anger 

and the frustration that I hear in the Acting Secretary’s voice 

would filter through every employee and especially in the central 

office. Things have to change. We can’t keep doing it the way it’s 

being done. 

Ms. FARRISEE. I concur, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. You’re aware this committee has spent considerable time looking at the outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease in Pittsburgh in the water system where it has been proven that there 

were at least six preventable deaths? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. During this time period Mr. Moreland, who was 

then the Director of the VISN, had the responsibility of overseeing 

this facility and was given a one-time $63,000 bonus. Are you 

aware of that? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I am aware of it. 

The CHAIRMAN. During questioning at a September 9th field 

hearing in Pittsburgh, then-Under Secretary Petzel told this committee that it was his understanding that Secretary Shinseki did 

not have the authority to rescind the bonus, but that he would look 

into that. Are you aware of that? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I am, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did anyone ask you about VA’s authority to rescind bonuses prior to Miss Helman’s case? 

Ms. FARRISEE. No, Mr. Chairman. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
8 

The CHAIRMAN. Anyone ask the Office of General Counsel? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Mr. Chairman, I’m not aware. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is it safe to say that Dr. Petzel then sought his 

own legal counsel on the matter and then never looked at it at all? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Mr. Chairman, I would assume that he discussed 

this with General Counsel. General Counsel’s views when I have 

talked to them about rescinding bonuses, that rescinding awards 

based on a rating that was already given to an employee in finality 

is we have no authority to take the rating back nor the award 

which is the result of that rating. 

The CHAIRMAN. So how did we take Miss Helman’s bonus back? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Miss Helman’s bonus was erroneously released. 

The VA does have a standard operating procedure of any employee 

who has an investigation ongoing that we have been made aware 

of by the IG or Equal Opportunity or other venues, we put them 

on a deferred list. Miss Helman’s name was on the deferred 2013 

list. Her rating should not have been released. It was never definitively said that was her final rating, it was not her final rating, 

and because it was not final, we took the opportunity to rescind 

that rating. We worked with General Counsel and also OPM. 

It is unprecedented for that to have happened, but based on the 

fact that the VA has a standard operating procedure of maintaining deferred ratings, it was proven that that was not a final rating 

that was determined by the Secretary to be released. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is it final now? 

Ms. FARRISEE. It is not, Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you explain why? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Her—it was rescinded. Her name is still on the 

deferred list. Until the investigation is complete, no decision will be 

made on that rating. 

The CHAIRMAN. And she still is employed by the Department of 

Veterans Affairs and being paid her full salary? 

Ms. FARRISEE. She is, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. And so you don’t believe that it was extenuating circumstances or—I forgot what the term was that you 

used—that Dr. Moreland, who oversaw the VISN, that there were 

six preventable deaths, he got a $63,000 bonus, and nobody 

thought that was worth looking into to see if that could be rescinded? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Mr. Chairman, I can’t answer that. I wasn’t there 

when that award was given. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, thank you. Mr. Michaud. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Once again, thank you for your testimony. 

Sometime my colleagues use the words like ‘‘bonus award’’ and 

‘‘performance pay’’ interchangeably, but I understand they are different. Can you please explain—describe to us the different categories of additional pay available to VA senior executives? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Yes, I can. There are several different kinds of incentives. There are relocation, recruitment and retention incentives 

that can be given in proper situations to employees. There are 

standards that we must meet in order to provide any of those incentives for our health care, doctors, and dentists. They receive 

what is called market pay and performance pay, which are in addiVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:00 Mar 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\89374.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
9 

tion to a base pay. They all have different complex ways of calculation, but a normal Title 5 employee is not authorized for those 

pays. That is only for our physicians and our dentists. 

Mr. MICHAUD. The Title 38 employees? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Title 38, yes, sir. 

Mr. MICHAUD. What’s—can you discuss the performance award 

bonus initiatives and the tiered pay? 

Ms. FARRISEE. The tiered pay for our awards is based on the ratings, the highest rating being outstanding, and then exceeds fully 

successful, and then fully successful. A determination is made by 

the Secretary at which level he will provide awards based on the 

ratings. 

For the last two years, employees who received exceeds fully successful and outstanding were the employees who received awards. 

Those awards are calculated at different percentages. Part of the 

certification system by OPM requires that there be a differentiation 

made between levels of performance and those awards that are provided to those employees. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Okay. What’s the difference between a performance award and a bonus? 

Ms. FARRISEE. We don’t use the word ‘‘bonus.’’ We only use the 

word ‘‘performance award.’’ 

Mr. MICHAUD. So just performance award. 

Who’s eligible? When you look at this issue, and I actually just 

got—the chairman and I received a letter on the 19th from the 

Senior Executive Association, and actually what was interesting in 

it as I went through, it says, reports for claiming large bonuses for 

Senior Executives at the VA often fail to note that few employees 

on the list provided are Title 5, which are SESs; that the largest— 

nearly all the large bonuses are for Title 38 employees. So what are 

the criteria used to determine who is provided each? I mean, is it 

different with Title 5 versus Title 38? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Congressman, as far as the bonuses for Title 5 

and Title 38, when we look at our SES performance awards system, 

they are the same. They would fall under the same categories of 

outstanding, exceeds fully successful, fully successful, and those 

percentages. 

What is different about Title 38 employees is in addition to performance awards, they can receive market pay and a performance 

pay that is based on a separate contract if they are a health professional, if they are a physician or a dentist, with their superior at 

the medical center. So they have things in addition to Title 5 which 

are not—they are not a part of the performance appraisal SES system that I was speaking of. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Some of the criteria for OPM certification includes 

alignment; that is, linking individual performance objective to organizational mission. The second is results; that is, performance expectation are linked to outcomes. And number three, the overall 

agency performance that is linked between individual performance 

objectives and overall agency performance. 

If VA receives OPM certification, it must have met these criteria 

in aggregate. How do you explain the specific failures to this committee that we have discovered recently over the past several 

months? 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
10 

Ms. FARRISEE. Congressman, as people received awards based on 

their performance appraisal, those decisions were based on them 

meeting critical elements that were written in their performance 

plans and proven by metrics, the words written in their performance appraisals by their superior. That is what the Performance 

Review Committee and Performance Review Board saw, basically 

the four corners of the paper, what was written, and that’s what 

they went by. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Okay, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Roe, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROE. Thank the chairman. 

Let me start by asking, I looked from FY 2010 to FY 2013. You 

mentioned in your rating system outstanding and exceeds fully successful. I just did the percentages, and they’re unchanged. You just 

changed the mix a little bit, and if you add the outstanding and 

exceeds fully successful in 2010, it was 73 percent. If you look at 

2013, it’s 78 percent. Actually it went up. So that means there’s an 

expectation, and it varied between 75 and 73. So you really didn’t 

change anything other than the very top ratings so that the bonus 

or performance award or whatever you want to call it went down 

just a little bit. So fully 80 percent of people last year got an award 

and were exceptional out of the 470. Do you think that’s normal in 

business, that every single executive is exceptional? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Congressman, I can’t answer that question about 

business. 

Mr. ROE. Well, I mean, the awards here seem to say that. I 

mean, if you look at your own data. I’m not making this up. This 

is your data I’m looking at. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Congressman, I understand. Based on the critical 

elements in the performance plan for those SESs and the results 

that were on those plans, that is what was—— 

Mr. ROE. Well, that means that you put the bar down here then 

so that anybody could step over it. If your metrics are low enough 

that almost everybody exceeds them, then your metrics are not 

very high. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Congressman, that is something we should look 

at. Every performance plan is written for the fully successful level, 

and if they exceed that—— 

Mr. ROE. I got that. What I want to also understand is—I’ve 

asked this question for the last five or six hearings—is that to get 

a bonus or a performance award, whatever you want to call that, 

do you—is not sending veterans to the outside, to private care, is 

that part of the metric? And no one has answered that question. 

Is it yes or no? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Congressman, I don’t know, and I’ll take that for 

the record. 

Mr. ROE. Okay, thank you for that. 

You mention, or at least it’s in the evaluations that you have, the 

elements outlined for—is leading change, leading people, business 

acumen, building coalitions, and results driven. Those are the 

metrics that you go by. What are the specifics in there? I mean, 

how are they set up? I mean, all that sounds good, but what do you 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
11 

actually have to do to get a $10,000 or in some cases $60,000 

bonus? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Congressman, in each of the performance plans, 

there is a template that goes out that says the guidance for the 

strategy of VA and what the employees must do to tie their organization and individual performance to the strategies of VA. That is 

how it is determined, and if they exceed, there are different critical 

elements, and—— 

Mr. ROE. And who decides that? 

Ms. FARRISEE. It starts with the Secretary, who will put out VA’s 

strategy plan and guidance, and then it is given to the administrations. They put additional metrics into their template. 

Mr. ROE. Let me ask you this question: If you fraudulent, if you 

knowingly cook the books, as apparently what happened in Arizona—because if you do that with the IRS—let me give you an example. If you falsely put your claim out with the IRS and claim deductions you don’t have, let me tell you what’s going to happen to 

you. You’re going to get penalized, you’re going to pay the taxes, 

and you might go to jail. 

Do you think that should happen to people who fraudulently put 

out information that led to the deaths of people, a lot worse than 

not paying your taxes. Do you think that should be part of what 

we should be doing here today, to look at people who absolutely 

played, gamed the system so that they could make some extra 

money, and veterans didn’t get care? Because that’s what will happen to you in other government agencies. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Congressman, I believe when these investigations 

are complete that the Acting Secretary will ensure there will be accountability for those actions. 

Mr. ROE. That’s not an answer. I mean, my answer is somebody 

who—I mean, accountability to what? What does that mean? The 

question I asked is right now today in the IRS, you know this, if 

you and I put something down wrong, and we’re audited, you know 

what’s going to happen. We’re going to pay back taxes, we’re going 

to pay penalties, and we might go to jail if it’s really bad. So the 

question I have is, should that metric, that same standard, apply 

to people who are in the VA who have fraudulently done this, if 

they have? 

Ms. FARRISEE. If given that authority, I am sure it would be 

used, Congressman. 

Mr. ROE. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Takano, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Farrisee, can you tell me how many employees under Title 

5—and Title 5 is what we’re talking about, the Title 5 employees 

who were involved in the bonus system. I know there’s Title 38, but 

the Title 5 employees are the ones who were in charge of managing 

and responsible for the scheduling. How many employees received 

bonuses? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Across the complete VA or only SES? 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, give me the SES number first. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Who actually received? Of the—about 78 percent 

of the SES, but that includes Title 5 and Title 38. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
12 

Mr. TAKANO. Okay. 

Ms. FARRISEE. And there are Title 5 and Title 38 employees at 

the medical centers. 

Mr. TAKANO. Okay. But with regard to the accountability for the 

gaming of the system, I’m trying to get a handle on how many of 

the employees are sort of accountable for that. I mean, I’m thinking 

the Title 38 are the providers that—you know, the medical practitioners that for other reasons are getting pay beyond their base 

pay, right? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Correct, but it is possible there are some Title 38 

employees involved in the scheduling as well. 

Mr. TAKANO. Okay. But just give me an idea of how many employees were involved. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Involved overall? I don’t have that number, but I’ll 

take it for the record. 

Mr. TAKANO. Okay. 

Ms. FARRISEE. The IG has not completed their investigation, so 

we really probably do not have the final number right now. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, how much of the—I mean, we’ve talked somewhat about how the incentives maybe should be based on outcomes 

rather than these metrics, but I’m trying to get a handle on why 

the metrics—we lost control of them. I’ve heard testimony that had 

to do with the technology, that we didn’t have a—that we had a 

scheduling system that was easy to game. Is that your assessment, 

too? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I don’t know enough about the scheduling system 

to make that assessment. 

Mr. TAKANO. Okay. Well, because I just wanted—the number of 

employees that were involved just made it very difficult for anyone 

to, you know, look at how people were scheduled, how veterans 

were scheduled, and if there’s a lot of employees, I can imagine 

that the scheduling component of the Vista system apparently was 

vulnerable to this sort of gaming. But you don’t have—this is not 

in your expertise? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Unfortunately it is not, Congressman. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, what other incentives could the VA use to recruit and retain health care providers beyond bonuses and performance pay? 

Ms. FARRISEE. We have recruiting incentives, relocation, retention incentives once they are on board. We have authorities from 

OPM to give those type of incentives for hiring difficult-to-fill positions, difficult locations sometimes, and skills. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, we know that the VA loses health care providers to the DoD. Why hasn’t the VA considered increasing the 

base pay of the VA health care employees so that they receive comparable pay to the DoD? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I’m not aware that it’s not comparable pay to 

DoD. I’ll have to look at that. 

Mr. TAKANO. Okay. I would appreciate that. Thanks. I just wanted to know if that’s true. 

Has the VA considered offering other incentives such as loan repayments or increased pay for VA providers willing to work in 

rural and underserved areas? 

Ms. FARRISEE. We have not looked at that, Congressman. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
13 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, that’s interesting. 

So my understanding is the rural areas, the rural areas and underserved areas, is this typically—well, we don’t know enough 

about the investigation to know how this gaming of the system sort 

of matches up, whether we’re seeing the manipulation of wait times 

sort of be more prevalent in these underserved or rural areas. 

What additional professional opportunities could the VA offer its 

health care providers to recruit and retain those who are dedicated 

to serving veterans? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I think we are doing things like market pay, 

which gives them an additional pay to the base pay, the performance pay, the contracts that they do with their individual superiors. All of that gives them additional pay for us to try to meet the 

external payments. We’ll never meet it, but we do try to make it 

more attractive. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Takano. 

Mr. Runyan, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And it’s really two observations, and I want to say there’s probably not a lot of people—on the basis of what all these discussions 

we’re having, I don’t think there’s a lot of people on this committee 

that really have much faith in a lot of the metrics that we use VAwide, because I know we all go to whether it’s our health centers 

or our regional offices and are totally confused by any metric they 

throw at us, and to be able to award performance awards off of 

those type of metrics are mind-numbing to me. And to go back to 

what Dr. Roe really said, and I think you testified to it, you’re setting out a template, the Secretary is setting out a template. How 

low is that bar really? 

Obviously in my past career, we had performance incentives all 

the time. We had several tiers of it. We would have two categories 

would be ‘‘likely to be earned’’ and ‘‘unlikely to be earned,’’ and it 

would actually count against the salary cap of that team. It wasn’t 

either all in or all out; there were tiers to it. 

But I just wanted—and I’ll end here and I really don’t have a 

question. I just want to say; to be able to have something you’re 

going to set a bar that low and not be able to really truly measure 

it, incentives are great, and I don’t think anybody here would agree 

that uniformly across the VA that they’re being applied equally. 

And you’ve said it, too: It’s very subjective. The basis of it is getting 

the facts, and I think we’re so far away from that at this point, I 

really don’t even have a question for you, because until we fix that, 

having the discussion about performance incentives, you can’t even 

have the discussion because there’s no basis of fact to have it on. 

So with that, I yield back, Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Kuster, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for your testimony before us today. 

I’m feeling like we’re experiencing what they would call in the 

academic world grade inflation, or what Garrison Keillor would 

refer to as all of the children are above average. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
14 

Coming from the private sector, it’s hard for me to believe that 

80 percent of employees can be either outstanding or this other category that is above and beyond what the expectation is, and it 

makes me feel like the expectation is lowered to a place that 

doesn’t serve our veterans the way we had wished. 

But I want to focus in on where we go from here and how we 

can fix this problem, because obviously this is a bipartisan issue. 

We are all concerned. Fortunately, this is one of the few bipartisan 

committees where we can work together and make a difference. 

My concern lies in how we can fix this situation or help the VA 

to fix this situation, because it doesn’t appear that the policies provide for a methodology to make this kind of change, and by that 

what I mean is that we have had some oversight, but at the end 

of the day, it doesn’t seem to change. And I just want to make reference to the VHA is unable to assure that although they identify 

problems, that the problems will be corrected and to not recur. This 

is a review of one medical center a year later found the identical 

problems, but it doesn’t—you don’t end up with a change. 

And I want to focus in on is there ever an opportunity in the system that we have now where 80 percent of the people get enhanced 

pay—is there ever an opportunity for reduction or denial of this enhanced pay? And just moving forward, now that we know what we 

do know, what will be the consequences to people that, frankly, 

were lying and cheating and stealing both veterans’ health care 

and taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Yes, Congresswoman, thank you for that question. 

I do believe there is room for change. Part of that change will 

come with more training of our Senior Executives and understanding our critical elements that are put in the performance 

plans in establishing very real goals; and the metrics we have 

talked about, and ensuring that our metrics are not too low; that, 

in fact, you must perform to reach that ‘‘exceeds’’ and that ‘outstanding’ rating; that we pay much more attention. 

We have now automated the system of the performance appraisal 

system. I personally could not see them until they came into hard 

copy previously. This is the first year it’s an automated system; 

we’ll have a chance to look at all the metrics in advance. We will 

do a lot more training with our Senior Executives on what these 

critical elements mean and how our Performance Review Committees and Performance Review Boards need to view these metrics. 

I am certain also—— 

Ms. KUSTER. What about lack of performance? Can someone lose 

their job? Can they get docked pay? Is there any capacity in this 

system to take action when performance is less than stellar, which 

apparently it is for 80 percent of the people? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Yes, Congressman, there is absolutely a process to 

do that. You can—— 

Ms. KUSTER. What does that entail, how someone would get 

fired? 

Ms. FARRISEE. It entails proposal of removal, if we are talking 

about removing somebody from the Federal Government. That employee would have a right to respond. They get a 30-day notice period. Then they can respond orally, say if there’s any mitigating circumstances. That paper then goes to the deciding official, who 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
15 

would take into consideration what the employee says. And then a 

decision maker will make within 30-days a decision on the personnel action to happen. Depending on what the evidence is for 

what the employee has done wrong, there is a range of things you 

can do to an employee. 

Ms. KUSTER. Well, can I ask you, would criminal conduct be evidence of lack of performance? 

Ms. FARRISEE. It would be misconduct. 

Ms. KUSTER. And would misconduct be sufficient for someone to 

lose their position? 

Ms. FARRISEE. If the evidence proves that through investigation, 

yes, that is possible. 

Ms. KUSTER. And how about lying to the extent that it wasn’t a 

crime, but it was certainly harmful to veterans being able to get 

access to care? 

Ms. FARRISEE. There is certainly a range of punishment, and depending on all of the details of that, it is possible they could be proposed for removal depending, again, on the evidence and the details. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you very much. My time has expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Kuster, thank you very much. 

Mr. Benishek, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here, Ms. Farrisee. 

Dr. Petzel testified in February of this year in the Subcommittee 

on Health that six SES employees had been involuntarily removed 

in the last two years. However, we’ve tried to get the information 

as to what the details are of that, and we haven’t gotten that. Are 

you aware of this? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Congressman, you did receive that yesterday. I 

know it just came yesterday, but the committee did receive that 

from the VA yesterday. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Okay. So if that’s correct that six people were removed, and not a single person in the SES received less than a satisfactory rating, how does that removal take place? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Removals—once they were removed, they did not 

receive a rating, so they would not show up in having received a 

less-than-satisfactory rating. So when you see numbers that show 

no unsatisfactory ratings, it’s a little misleading because those employees then did not get followed up with a rating because—— 

Mr. BENISHEK. So you’re telling me that there is actually unsatisfactory ratings, but they’re just not listed? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Congressman, once somebody departs, they do not 

receive that rating. 

Mr. BENISHEK. That’s not accurately depicting what’s really 

going on. 

Ms. FARRISEE. That is true, Congressman. 

Mr. BENISHEK. I am kind of concerned, too. Let me ask you this 

question. This is from my briefing here that an SES employee 

works with their supervisor to create a performance review plan for 

each fiscal year, and then they rate their own performance on each 

critical element at the end of each fiscal year. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Yes, Congressman, and then—— 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
16 

Mr. BENISHEK. That’s then reviewed by their direct supervisor. 

Ms. FARRISEE. By their direct supervisor, their rating official, 

and then a reviewing—— 

Mr. BENISHEK. So they rate themselves? 

Ms. FARRISEE. They put down all their accomplishments. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Right. But they rate themselves, according to 

this, right? And then that process is reviewed by their direct supervisor? 

Ms. FARRISEE. It is, and then it’s—— 

Mr. BENISHEK. And that either then is approved or disapproved 

by that direct supervisor? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Correct. 

Mr. BENISHEK. So the direct supervisor doesn’t actually write the 

performance review themselves. The actual employee writes the 

performance review and the supervisor just okays it or disallows it. 

Is that what happens? 

Ms. FARRISEE. The portion on the appraisal, there is a self-assessment on there that is optional, so the employee can put a selfassessment in there, but the rating—— 

Mr. BENISHEK. Does that usually occur? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I’m sorry? 

Mr. BENISHEK. Does that usually occur? 

Ms. FARRISEE. In some of the ratings. Not all of them. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Have you ever been involved in this process personally? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I am just being involved in it since I’ve arrived at 

the VA personally. I’ve just finished doing my own SES appraisal 

plan. We are at the point of turning in our plans right now. You 

write your own plan. 

Mr. BENISHEK. I guess I don’t know this. How long have you 

been there? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Since September in this role. 

Mr. BENISHEK. So you haven’t been a direct supervisor to anyone 

that’s done their own plan yourself? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I’m just doing that now. 

Mr. BENISHEK. You’re doing your own plan, but are you actually 

a supervisor, a direct supervisor? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I am, and my deputy has provided to me his plan. 

We are not to the point of writing the final appraisal yet. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Do you think this is a good idea, that the employee themselves writes their own plan? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Well, before—— 

Mr. BENISHEK. I mean, it seems to me that would lead to an 80 

percent percentage of people getting good results. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Congressman, I understand, but before that plan 

is written, there is discussion with the ratee and the rater. They 

don’t just go off and write a plan without some sort of discussion 

of what’s reasonable and what should be considered exceptional. 

Mr. BENISHEK. That’s what you say, but the process seems to indicate that the guy writes his own plan; if I do this, this, and this 

over the next year, I’ll be successful. Then he accomplishes that 

and even better, and then he gets a superior rating, you know. I 

mean, this whole—I mean, the questions that have been previously 

brought up here in the committee tend to think that there’s not a 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
17 

real rating going on here, it’s just everybody is getting a good rating. And, you know, I’m very concerned with the fact that people 

are writing their own review plan, and it just gets checked by the 

supervisor, and then the numbers that you present to us aren’t accurate, and zero percent, and there’s six people removed. 

And there’s inconsistencies in your testimony and in the testimony of Dr. Petzel. It’s very disturbing to me that here we are in 

the middle of trying to reform the VA, and we get inconsistent answers, and it makes us not want to trust anything that comes from 

you people. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Mr. Congressman, the numbers that we provided 

as far as the ratings are when there is actually an appraisal plan. 

We did not do those on the individuals who departed. That’s why 

they don’t show up in the numbers. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, it’s very disappointing to me, you know, to 

get these answers from you today. 

I think I’m out of time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Benishek. 

Ma’am, you said that the self-evaluation or senior executive selfassessment is optional. Are you sure it’s optional? 

Ms. FARRISEE. As part of that plan, there is—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I’m looking at the performance appraisal form, 

senior executive performance appraisal form. 

Ms. FARRISEE. The 3482? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, 3482. 

Ms. FARRISEE. And there are rating official narrative that is 

on—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. I guess what I’m looking at, the only place 

I see that’s optional is if the person is asking for a higher-level review for their pay, or it’s optional to put a letter of input, but the 

other two sections, section 3, senior executive self-assessment, does 

not appear to be optional. 

Form 3482, section 3, senior executive self-assessment. Describe 

your accomplishments, outcomes and results. I think you just told 

Mr. Benishek that was optional. Is it? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I’m going to take that back and say I may have 

misspoken. Can I get back with you on this, Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, you can. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. Brownley. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Ms. Farrisee. 

So now I understand you’ve been in this position for a short period of time. Were you in human resources with the VA prior to? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I was not. I retired from the Army. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you. 

So it’s been widely reported in newspapers that the Regional Director in Pittsburgh, I think, received a performance pay award of 

$62,000. You’re aware of that? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I am aware of that. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. So I’m just trying to do the calculations here, 

and I will add, $62,000, the median income in the county that I 

represent is $76,000, so I just want to state that for the record. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
18 

But so if you—if this employee received $62,000 in a bonus, and 

in your testimony you said that the performance pay cannot exceed 

20 percent of the base salary for an SES employee, then if you do 

the math on that, then the base salary is over $300,000. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Yes, Congresswoman. That award was because of 

a Presidential Rank Award. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. And what’s special about that? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Very few of those are given each year and—— 

Ms. BROWNLEY. So that doesn’t follow any of the rules that we 

have been talking about? 

Ms. FARRISEE. It is not an award given by the VA. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. I see. 

So I know this hearing is about performance pay, but there is 

also a retention incentive pay? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Yes, Congresswoman. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. And so the process for awarding retention incentives, I presume, differs from performance pay incentives. And so 

do you have the information on what percentage of SES employees 

received retention incentives last year? Is that—can they receive 

both retention pay and performance pay? 

Ms. FARRISEE. They can receive both, Congresswoman. We currently have 40 SESs out of the 470-some SESs who receive retention incentives. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. And is there a cannot exceed percent for retention pay? 

Ms. FARRISEE. There is. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. What is that? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Twenty-five percent of their salary per year, and 

it can be given up to four years. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Are there other kinds of awards that we’re not 

aware of beyond performance and retention? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Relocation incentives. If you are asking—reassigning someone, you can offer a relocation incentive, and a recruitment incentive for people new joining the agency. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. And the—is there a cannot exceed percentage? 

Ms. FARRISEE. On all of them there is a percentage and a number of years it can be given. That is across the Federal Government. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. In 2010, the VA did its own review. Can you just 

describe what specific actions the VA took to reform and restructure the SES bonus structure from the results of their own internal 

review? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I’ll have to take that for the record, Congresswoman. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Similarly, a GAO report in 2013, and I wanted 

to know what specific action has the VA taken to improve the performance pay policy since that was issued? 

Ms. FARRISEE. We updated our handbook that was missing some 

very key points that the GAO pointed out, and we put out an updated handbook in March to include everything they asked us to 

include. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Can you just describe some of those elements? 

Ms. FARRISEE. One of the elements was not meeting a 90-day 

time frame in which you would counsel and talk about this perVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:00 Mar 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\89374.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
19 

formance pay. It has to be put in a plan that has to be done within 

90 days. We did not have a time frame in the handbook. Things 

were not being done according to policy. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. And finally, can you—have you—as the Assistant 

Secretary for Human Resources and Administration, and given the 

situation that we are in currently, have you been able to assess the 

IG’s ability to investigate this just in terms of personnel in human 

resources, and do you believe that they have enough resources to 

do this? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Congresswoman, I cannot personally assess it, but 

I have heard the IG in testimony say that he has enough resources 

to do this. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. But you don’t do that as a practice to review 

their resources? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Not the IG’s, no, ma’am. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Wenstrup, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WENSTRUP. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have some questions concerning the whole evaluation system. 

And I guess I’d like to compare it to how the military does it for 

officers. And, you know, you can do a support form, you fill out a 

support form for your superiors, you talk about what your goals 

were for the year, whatever the case may be. So, as I understand 

it, that would be part of the process—— 

Ms. FARRISEE. It is. 

Mr. WENSTRUP [continuing]. Currently. 

And, you know, through the process with the military, you do 

have meetings periodically with your rater to see if you are achieving those goals. It also gives the rater the opportunity to add other 

goals that you may want to put in there. Does that take place? 

Ms. FARRISEE. That is correct. 

Mr. WENSTRUP. Okay. 

Do you think that there’s a point in time where the person’s just 

pretty much writing their own evaluation, sending it electronically, 

and maybe the rater is just cutting and pasting and putting it in 

there and sending it off approved? Do you think that happens within the system? I know you haven’t been there very long. 

Ms. FARRISEE. I haven’t, so I cannot comment that it does or 

doesn’t happen. 

Mr. WENSTRUP. Okay. Because that would be a concern of mine, 

that this is just kind of a network here. You know, why don’t you 

just fill it out, send it along to me, and we’ll be okay. 

I’m also wondering how much the VA’s core values come into 

play when it comes to evaluation. Can you tell everyone what those 

core values are? 

Ms. FARRISEE. We have core values: ICARE, or integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect, and excellence. That is a part of our performance appraisal plan. 

Mr. WENSTRUP. Is there a part in there where the rater then can 

take those values and comment on those values on that person? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Yes, there is. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
20 

Mr. WENSTRUP. Because it seems to me that some of the people, 

especially the part on integrity, really fell short and yet some people got their performance payment. Would that be correct? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Congressman, at the time it was written, we may 

not have understood there was an integrity problem. If that were 

to be written right now, once the investigation is complete, I would 

expect to see that. 

Mr. WENSTRUP. Okay. Well, I was really just trying to understand your process more, I think. 

And I yield back. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Thank you, Congressman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Ruiz, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

Thank you for being here. 

We know, based on the latest data released in the VA Access 

Audit, that 46,400 veterans who enrolled in the VA health system 

in the past 10-years haven’t received appointments and that more 

than 56,200 veterans have been waiting more than 90 days for 

their first appointment at a VA medical facility. 

Unconscionably, senior executive who oversaw health care facilities with manipulated data were awarded bonuses, based, in part, 

on faulty wait times and, as Mr. Wenstrup said, clearly demonstrating a lack of integrity. 

As an emergency physician, I am appalled by the thought of VA 

officials covering up the fact that they are not providing muchneeded medical care to our veterans and still obtaining bonuses. 

So, in an effort to get to the bottom of this reprehensible behavior and ensure these executives are held responsible, I would like 

to know in what year bonuses started being tied to scheduling 

metrics. 

Ms. FARRISEE. I’ll have to take that for the record. 

Mr. RUIZ. It’s important to know, because then you can clearly 

see the difference between pre-bonus and post-bonus. And things 

don’t move very fast in the VA, including behaviors and performances, so it would be very important to determine which facilities 

had those drastic changes. 

Also, I spoke to some of my veterans back home. There’s a veteran, Major Bill Young, a very well-respected man, good human 

being. And he is in line with the veteran-centered approach, which 

I absolutely agree with. And his question is, are there any bonuses 

based on patient satisfaction feedback? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I’ll have to take that for the record to see if that 

is a metric in any of the appraisals. 

Mr. RUIZ. Okay. I think that there’s a—we need a very drastic 

cultural change so that when that question is asked again it should 

be in the top three answers as to what our VA personnel are measured against. Number one, two, and three, a patient-centered, patient-feedback bonus. Okay? 

And has there been any analysis of the effect of bonuses on 

scheduling metrics? 

Ms. FARRISEE. There has not been analysis to this point. 

Mr. RUIZ. Okay. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
21 

What was the exact criteria for awarding these bonuses regarding scheduling metrics? 

Ms. FARRISEE. The scheduling metric, to my understanding, was 

to have the schedule within the 14-day time period. 

Mr. RUIZ. Okay. 

And, you know, I think my closing comments here—and we are 

talking about bonuses. You know, my father worked in the fields— 

hard manual labor. He was a mechanic, he was a truck driver. He 

did whatever it took to put food on my table and to pay for our education, something he didn’t have. And he taught me the value of 

an honest day’s work. And he said, son, whatever you do in life, 

just work hard, be the best at it. 

And honesty and integrity are the values of this country, and 

those are the values that America was founded on. And lying to get 

a bonus flies in the face of our values as Americans. And I think 

that we really need to have some introspection within the VA system to come back to those root values that make this country great. 

Thank you, and I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Doctor. 

Mr. Cook, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

There has been some conversation about, once the evaluation report is written, that you cannot undo that. Can’t you have a supplemental or a special fitness report, per se, based upon certain circumstances under somebody’s watch? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I’m not aware of doing one in addition to their annual appraisal. 

Mr. COOK. So if something like this happens that shows the character or unsatisfactory performance, there’s nothing that goes in 

the jacket of that individual that gets these bonuses or what have 

you? 

Ms. FARRISEE. That would be included in their current-year appraisal—— 

Mr. COOK. No, no, I’m talking about, because of what happened 

and things that happened on their watch, that they get a special 

fitness report based upon unsatisfactory performance. 

No? Okay. 

I just want to go on to a couple of things here. 

We had a number of veterans testify, I don’t know, maybe six 

weeks. And I asked them—basically, I was using the comparison 

of the military being, you know, fully combat-ready or non-combatready. And I used it analogous to the VA. And everybody was here. 

And across the board, everybody went down the line and basically 

said they’re not mission-capable, which everyone here, I think, has 

that same agreement. 

But it seems as though mission—and we’ve talked about mission 

performance standards and everything, but we don’t apply them. 

We’re not taking care of veterans. That is the bottom line. And 

we’re talking about all these intangibles, and we’re not doing the 

job we’re supposed to do. 

I want to ask you, have you ever heard the term ‘‘truth-teller’’? 

Ms. FARRISEE. ‘‘Truth-’’—— 

Mr. COOK. ‘‘-Teller.’’ ‘‘Truth-teller.’’ 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
22 

In the military, at least in the Marine Corps, you know, you had 

great—everybody’s outstanding, you know, you write your own 

evaluation report, you love yourself, blah, blah, blah, blah. A truthteller takes everybody that’s in the same rank, whoever is writing 

the evaluation, and you have to list them: one, two, three, four, or 

five. Because everybody is outstanding. 

And everybody here is outstanding. But some people are better 

than others. And that evaluator has to do that. And I don’t see that 

happening. I think you need—if you’re going to give everybody bonuses on being outstanding and you rate everybody outstanding. 

Let me ask you a question. Have you ever heard of the term 

‘‘BENESUG’’? 

Ms. FARRISEE. No, Congressman, I haven’t. 

Mr. COOK. All right. ‘‘BENESUG’’—maybe, I don’t know, I guess 

if you’re old or been around a long time. ‘‘BENESUG’’ meant ‘‘beneficial suggestion.’’ It was in at least the Marine Corps; I thought 

it was in the Army. It’s a beneficial suggestion, where you might 

get a promotion, you might get a bonus. And a suggestion normally 

from one of the troops that knows what’s going on. ‘‘Hey, the scheduling system is all screwed up for the following reasons, and this 

should be changed,’’ blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. 

Instead of giving ratings to everybody outstanding, I think you 

ought to look at this, where the people that deal with this have an 

incentive to change it, instead of an automatic bonus, if you will, 

that, quite frankly, when you do that, I think it makes it ridiculous, when a lot of people in this room, even the veterans themselves, think that the Veterans Administration is not performing 

the services that they’re supposed to. 

I got a—let’s see. Going into some of the other things, I had my— 

you talked about core values and everything else. Now, in the evaluation system, going back to mission performance standards, about 

taking care of the veterans, is that part or spelled out? Is that the 

bottom line on the evaluation? You know, because integrity is open 

to interpretation, but this is a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ Is this organization, 

or your organization, fully capable of taking care of veterans, and 

have they done that? Is that part of the evaluation system or the 

evaluative process? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Not stated in those words, but it is part of the 

process. 

Mr. COOK. It’s not stated—— 

Ms. FARRISEE. In the exact words you just said, but our mission 

is to take care of veterans. 

Mr. COOK. Do you think that’s got to be reinforced over and over 

again? Because right now, from a cultural standpoint, it doesn’t 

seem to be happening. You go back down there and you start with 

that premise. 

It’s like we talked a lot about taking care of veterans, taking care 

of people on the battlefield, band of brothers, band of sisters, et 

cetera, that’s what holds the military and the veterans together. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Congressman, I believe that the majority of our 

employees do advocate for our veterans. 

Mr. COOK. Okay. 

I yield back. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Colonel. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
23 

Mr. O’Rourke for 5 minutes. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I’d like to start by continuing a line of questioning begun by 

Mr. Roe and Mr. Takano and others and look at the local VHA facility level, the hospital or the clinic. And so many of us are concerned about a provider shortage and what it will take to attract 

and retain the best talent possible to serve the veterans that we 

represent. 

And so I’d like to understand how salaries and incentives are set 

for the providers, the doctors, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and others who actually provide the care to our veterans. 

Ms. FARRISEE. It is a complex process of calculations on market 

pay so that we can look at what the national pay is and that is 

used in calculating what we recommend for pay. It’s in addition to 

a base pay. So if we are talking about SESs and we talk about a 

Title 5, there is no addition to any of their base pay. Our Title 38, 

which are our physicians and dentists, will receive in addition to 

that base pay this market pay, which we must do these calculations to. 

And then, also, they can receive a performance pay that has 

nothing to do with an award of performance, but it is a contract 

and objectives that they must meet in order to receive that performance pay. 

Mr. O’Rourke. And so, apart from the formulas and the calculations, does the local VHA director have discretion to deviate from 

those formulas to attract or retain somebody who’s needed in that 

community? 

Ms. FARRISEE. They can request recruitment incentives, and they 

can request relocation incentives or retention incentives. If it’s 

someone that they have already on board they want to keep, they 

can request those type of incentives. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. And is there any—I want to make sure I’m using 

the right words; we don’t use ‘‘bonus’’—but any incentive offered to 

a VHA director for returning money back to the VA or coming in 

annually under budget or not spending a certain amount or over 

a certain amount in a certain category? 

Ms. FARRISEE. There is not—I would not say an incentive. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. So no part of a VHA director’s performance incentive is based on how they performed financially? 

Ms. FARRISEE. They would need to stay within budget, absolutely, but—— 

Mr. O’ROURKE. So there’s a penalty for going over but no reward 

for coming under. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Not that I’m aware of. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Okay. 

One of the things we’re trying to figure out in El Paso is—I’ve 

brought this up repeatedly at this committee. We have a mental 

health care crisis and one that was confirmed by the VHA audit 

release last week that showed we are the worst in the country for 

setting an appointment for an existing veteran patient within the 

VA for mental health care, fourth worse for new patients, second 

worst for specialty care. 

And for those of us in El Paso, it’s not a surprise. We’ve known 

it for a while. And what we’ve been told, as providers and others 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
24 

within the VA in El Paso and the VISN 18 that we’re in start to 

come to our office, in many cases anonymously, is a deep concern 

that the director is not providing those discretionary incentives to 

attract and retain people. 

So if we have these terrible performance measures in terms of 

being able to connect a veteran with an appointment, if we have 

a provider shortage—it was 191⁄2 full-time employees when I started a year and a half ago; it was 131⁄2 as of last month—I’m wondering how we can provide greater incentives or leverage or discretion to the local director to bonus or incent providers to get them 

or keep them in the first place. 

Any thoughts on how you might be able to do that, how the administration might be able to do that, or how we on the committee 

who are interested in this might propose if we need to change legislation to do this? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I would need to know what incentives they have 

already attempted to do, if they have, or if there is anything we 

can do to help them look at those incentives. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. We, again, had an acute issue—have an acute 

issue when it comes to providing mental health care at the El Paso 

VA. And we were told by an anonymous source within the VISN 

that, until we really started to push on the director, he had not 

once deviated from the formula recommendation for what you pay 

someone to practice medicine at the VA in El Paso. And it was only 

through our pressure that there was this one deviation that ended 

up in hiring a much-needed psychiatrist to El Paso. 

It’s very hard to get direct answers from the local VHA and even 

through the administration, as we’ve seen. I look forward to following up with you to find out what those formulas are, how we 

improve them or change them, what discretion there is, and how 

we hold people accountable for their performance, given the discretion and power that they already have. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Yes, Congressman. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Walorski, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WALORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, ma’am, for being here. 

You talked in your opening statement about stringent controls, 

clear standards. In your opinion—on these performance awards. In 

your opinion, what happened? 

Ms. FARRISEE. On the awards? 

Ms. WALORSKI. On the performance awards. How do we go from 

your opening statement of stringent controls and clear standards 

and end up over here with this massive amount of money and the 

revelation of Presidential awards and all these other awards, 20 

and 25 percent of income, the 80 percent amount of people who receive them? 

Was there any red flag? I know you’ve only been there since September, but when you came in and just over the past several 

months, as you look at this structure, were there any red flags or 

alarms or inklings or gut feelings or anything that says, ‘‘Wow, this 

is a lot of money,’’ or anything to set off a red flag in your mind 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
25 

that something is really, really wrong? Because it seems like it got 

away from the stringent controls and clear standards. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Congresswoman, what I said in my opening remarks was we needed to have precise and stringent and clear 

standards. I feel that is what we need to do from here forward. I 

think we do need more stringent and precise written performance 

plans so that when you have—— 

Ms. WALORSKI. But my question is, were you aware of that prior 

to this whole blowup in the VA, that there was something out of 

line with the performance bonuses and that that’s why you needed 

the stringent controls and the clear standards? 

Ms. FARRISEE. No, it was because—prior to this year, we did not 

have an automated system, so you could not see these in advance. 

So having the opportunity to see these in advance and be able to 

look at these across the board prior to the end of the year I thought 

would allow us to have a better look and more precisely see, if we 

do have the correct metrics, if the right things are being done. 

Ms. WALORSKI. So I have a question on the Presidential award. 

The Presidential award doesn’t come out of VA budget, correct? It 

comes out—whose budget does it come out of? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I’m not sure. I’ll come back to you on that. 

Ms. WALORSKI. Okay. And so, is there an allotment of money? Do 

we know how many people—how many employees we have that receive the Presidential award? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Oh, very—very few. But I will get you that number. 

Ms. WALORSKI. Okay. 

Ms. FARRISEE. It’s a very minimum amount across the Federal 

Government. 

Ms. WALORSKI. Okay. I appreciate it. 

Ms. WALORSKI. Could you also then get me for the State of Indiana a list of all the SES-level employees and for the past 5 years 

what their performance bonuses have been, as well? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I will gather that information, and if it is releasable, absolutely, we’ll release it to you. 

Ms. WALORSKI. Okay. Do you know how long it’ll take to get that, 

ballpark? 

Ms. FARRISEE. A couple weeks? 

Ms. WALORSKI. Okay. 

And so, as you look at this, as we move forward and we look at 

this whole question, you know, I echo Representative Ruiz’s question about when these incentives started, when was this thing tied 

to the matrix of the appointment times. 

And then, also, I’m just curious, when we look at this—and I had 

heard just, I think, in some of the news report that this has only 

been in effect for a couple of years. But when we look at, like, a 

place like Phoenix, where over the last 3 years there has been 

something like $10 million in bonuses, I am trying to get my arms 

around why that didn’t send signals or red flags somewhere in this 

system of the performance bonuses. It’s such an inordinate amount 

of money even for just one place where this whole thing started 

with the investigation. It’s unbelievable, the amount of money that 

has gone into this system. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
26 

Ms. FARRISEE. I’ve not confirmed that amount that’s been spent 

in Phoenix, so I have to go back and confirm that. 

Ms. WALORSKI. Okay. 

And then, also, when you send the information on the Presidential bonuses, what I want to know is what budget it comes 

from, is there a cap on how much money comes from a Presidential 

bonus, how many people have received it, for how many years do 

they get it, just the details of that. I’d appreciate it. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Yes, Congresswoman. 

Ms. WALORSKI. Thank you. 

I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Farrisee, I appreciate your legal answer, if it’s releasable, 

you will get it to Mrs. Walorski. Let’s make a deal. If you don’t, 

we will subpoena it. 

Ms. FARRISEE. I understand, Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Titus for 5 minutes. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to echo some of the comments that have already been 

made by my colleagues and the concern about performance awards 

going to people who may or may not have earned them. 

I think it was the chairman who pointed out earlier that the Director of VISN 21, which oversees part of Nevada, turns out had 

put false information on a resume, where she’d gone to school or 

that she had gone to school, but she rose all the way through the 

ranks to be the Director of that VISN. And that’s an enormous 

task, overseeing tens of thousands of veterans that stretches all the 

way from Guam to Reno. 

I’d wonder if you could tell us how you verify people’s resumes 

or, when they file applications, how do you look to be sure that this 

wouldn’t happen again. 

And this woman also received these bonuses as she moved up the 

ladder. I think she’s having to give some of them back now. But 

could you address that issue for us? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Congresswoman, when we receive resumes, we 

call references, we do background checks. I have just heard of this 

recently this week, so I’ve not had the opportunity to look into that 

matter. 

Ms. TITUS. Well, when you look into it, would you get that back 

to us? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Yes, Congresswoman. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. 

Ms. TITUS. And then just kind of along those same lines, the Regional Office in Reno serves all the veterans of Las Vegas, which 

is where most of the veterans are in the State, but the office is in 

Reno. 

I’m just wondering if, given the fact that that was one of the 

fifth—I think it was the fifth worst but one of the worst in the 

country for the backlog—backlogs there took over 500 days. The 

way you reduced the backlog there was brokering out over half of 

the cases to other places around the country. You’ve hired 25 new 

people, finally, after we’ve been harping about this for a year and 

a half. Those are now in southern Nevada, but they’re overseen 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
27 

over the telephone by somebody who’s still in Reno. This person’s 

had a number of problems. Surely, this is not a record of success. 

Can you tell me if there’s anybody in that Reno office who has 

gotten any of these performance bonuses over the last couple of 

years? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I’ll have to get back to you on that, Congresswoman. 

Ms. TITUS. Okay. And, also, recruitment incentives, I’d like to 

find out if they’ve gotten any of those incentives in addition to just 

a bonus. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Yes, Congresswoman. 

Ms. TITUS. And would you get back to me on that pretty soon? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Yes, I will. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Titus. 

Mr. Coffman for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, I certainly thank you for being here before this committee 

here today. 

And if I understand it correctly, you kind of oversee the personnel system within the Department of Veterans Affairs, and as 

part of that is this performance pay system or this bonus system. 

Am I correct in that? 

Ms. FARRISEE. You are correct, Congressman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Good. 

Can you tell me how this bonus performance pay system works 

for veterans when they’re serving on Active Duty? Can you tell me 

how that process works for them? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Some Active Duty soldiers receive bonuses based 

on their specialty, but the majority of Active Duty soldiers don’t receive bonuses. 

Mr. COFFMAN. But on performance, can you tell me how the 

bonus structure works for performance for Active Duty military? 

Ms. FARRISEE. There is no performance—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. That’s correct. 

Now, can you tell me about your own military service? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I spent 34 years in the Army. 

Mr. COFFMAN. I mean, that’s amazing, that you would serve this 

country in uniform and yet you would be so tolerant to how this 

department treats our veterans. I think it’s just absolutely extraordinary that—how can somebody go from the United States Army 

to this environment and yet not take the values from the United 

States Army into serving our Nation’s veterans? I think it’s just absolutely extraordinary. 

And so, as you know, bonuses, if we do call them that for enlistment and reenlistment purposes, are based strictly on occupational 

specialties. When people perform in the military, they’re rewarded 

through promotion, they’re rewarded through various awards, but 

they are not financially driven, as they are in this department, 

which you seem to defend, this extraordinary system. 

It just seems to be the only thing that the Department of Veterans Affairs is effective at doing is writing bonus checks to each 

other, those that are in leadership. I just think that that is stunVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:00 Mar 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\89374.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
28 

ning. Certainly not serving our veterans, not providing a claims 

process that is at all expedient, not providing the health care that 

they have earned, you know, certainly fudging wait times to get 

these bonuses, which you don’t seem to want to come down on 

these people for doing. 

You ought to be outraged. You ought to be outraged at the manner that these veterans are treated. Based on your own background, you ought to be outraged. But you’re not. It’s all status quo 

to you. It’s all, all things are good, maybe they could be a little bit 

better, but things are good. 

Things aren’t good. This is the most mismanaged agency in the 

Federal Government. Yet it is entrusted with honoring our commitment to those men and women who have made extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of this country. And I’ve got to tell you, I think 

we’ll be better served as a Nation when you are working outside 

of the Veterans Administration and not inside the Veterans Administration. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jolly, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As Assistant Secretary for Human Resources, I’m sure much of 

the conversation today is not a case of first impression. The conversation is about metrics and what are appropriate metrics and 

how they are reviewed. 

I presume there have been many conversations within the Department already, in the wake of the crisis, about how performance 

awards are distributed and based upon which metrics. Is that an 

accurate assumption? 

Ms. FARRISEE. So much so that the Acting Secretary has already 

said there will be no awards—— 

Mr. JOLLY. Right. 

Ms. FARRISEE [continuing]. For VHA. 

Mr. JOLLY. So, within those discussions or based on your knowledge, and even if it’s not factual, even if it’s hearsay, are you aware 

of any metric that’s been included in any executive’s bonus or performance award system reducing the incidence of non-VA care at 

a facility? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I am not aware, to my knowledge, that they’ve rewritten metrics at this point, other than taking out the 14-day—— 

Mr. JOLLY. No, I don’t mean rewritten. I mean from existing 

bonus plans and identifiable metrics from 2010 to 2013, whatever’s 

been reviewed, or generally, are you aware of any metric that’s 

been used to award a bonus based on reduce in the incidence of referral to non-VA care? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I’m not. I’ll have to get back to you on that. 

Mr. JOLLY. Okay. Is it something that could be looked at to see 

if that’s—— 

Ms. FARRISEE. It certainly can be looked at, yes, Congressman. 

Mr. JOLLY. Okay. To document it for the record, if I were to send 

a letter, would it be appropriate to send that to you? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Yes, Congressman, that’s fine. 

Mr. JOLLY. Okay. 

And I think Mr. O’Rourke asked the question about reducing 

costs. That’s not a metric that you’re aware of either? 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
29 

Ms. FARRISEE. It’s just that I’m not aware of it. 

Mr. JOLLY. Sure, sure. 

Ms. FARRISEE. It doesn’t mean it’s not there. 

Mr. JOLLY. I understand. 

The last question is this, and maybe you can clarify it a little bit, 

but you referred to almost an expansion of the review process, an 

additional layer of review that’s been built in. And you’ve been 

there since September, and so maybe it’s just a question about your 

impression. And this really isn’t a VA question, but we often are 

asked—I ask the question all the time, I know a number of constituents do—how does government get so big? 

It seems like there is an awful lot of money being spent on a very 

dense, bureaucratic process to ultimately come out at the back end 

and provide these performance awards. Can we do better? Is there 

a better way to streamline this? Can we reduce employees actually 

assigned to the bonus process? 

I mean, just based on what you said, and maybe you can clarify 

it, it seems like there is a lot of bureaucratic infrastructure behind 

the process of determining what metrics need to be met and evaluating those metrics, which at the end of the day, as we’ve heard 

a thousand times, everybody’s on the right side of the curb and 

everybody’s determined to be above average. 

Can we save money? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Congressman, I concur it is worth looking at 

streamlining this process. 

Mr. JOLLY. Do you know if the Acting Secretary is looking at 

streamlining the process? 

Ms. FARRISEE. At this time, I don’t think that’s where his attention is, but we will definitely discuss it. 

Mr. JOLLY. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Huelskamp for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate you being here today, Madam Secretary. 

Don’t you think retaining one’s salary is enough incentive for an 

SES employee to do their job? 

Ms. FARRISEE. That would be my personal opinion, but I cannot 

tell you how everybody feels. I’ve just joined the ranks of the civilian employment. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Yeah, and you’re here to answer those questions about that. 

Now, the announcement, can you describe again—I’m unclear on 

this announcement about these SES bonuses in the future, how 

will they be handled. And they’re suspended, deferred? 

Ms. FARRISEE. The Acting Secretary has suspended any awards 

for 2014 for our SESs in our Veterans Health Administration. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. You also state that they’re critical to retention 

and performance. So does that mean you’re going to lose employees 

and performance will go down with this announcement? 

Ms. FARRISEE. There is always that probability. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Do you think that will happen? 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
30 

Ms. FARRISEE. We did that last year with our Veterans Benefit 

Administration. I do not think we lost a lot of people because of 

that. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. 

You also made reference earlier to a deferred list on bonuses. 

Can you describe that again? I didn’t understand that concept 

there. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Yes, Congressman. 

At the end of every year, once the appraisals are complete, we 

ensure that we do a check with the IG, with EEO, to ensure that 

we don’t have any of our SESs who are on what we consider a bad 

list, they’re under investigation, there’s anything possibly derogatory. 

The IG provided us a list of 13 names. We then defer the rating. 

So they have received an appraisal, performance, and so they have 

a rating, but that rating is held until such time as the investigation 

is complete. And then that will go to the Secretary to receive the 

results of the investigation, to see the original rating that the employee received, and make a determination if that rating should be 

changed based on the results of the investigation. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And I think I speak for most of my constituents, as well, that until the veterans waiting list is shorter than 

the deferred bonus list, probably no reason to move forward on the 

bonuses. 

May 7th, 2013, a Mr. Glenn Haggstrom was before the committee. And he was the gentleman in charge of overseeing construction projects, which I think we determined at the committee hearing had massive failures, massive cost overruns. The bonus issue 

came up with him, I believe, as an SES executive, and I asked Mr. 

Haggstrom a lot of questions. And I asked him exactly why did he 

get the bonuses. It was some pretty massive bonuses for three 

years. And, Madam Secretary, he said he had no idea. He had no 

idea. 

How is there a connection between performance when, shazam, 

the bonus just shows up in a paycheck? Are there personal visits 

every time between the immediate supervisor and folks like Glenn 

Haggstrom, or is it simply paperwork? 

Ms. FARRISEE. There should be a personal visit. I cannot confirm 

that there is. They should have seen the rating and understand 

that the rating that they received is what is tied to the award 

amount. Depending on your rating depends on what percentage of 

an award you receive. And that rating is based on their performance. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Well, according to Mr. Haggstrom’s testimony 

on May 7th, 2013, there was no such visit, no such communication, 

and no connection, obviously, between performance and retention 

and his pretty significant bonuses. 

Is that required in the rules and regulations, that there’s an actual meeting? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I do not believe a meeting is required. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. No required meeting. So exactly how does this 

improve performance if there—and no understanding of that? 

I mean, well, I presume—and you’ve only been there nine 

months. And most of these—I guess there was end-of-the-year DeVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:00 Mar 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\89374.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
31 

cember evaluations for most of these folks, correct? And so you’ve 

been through that with your folks immediately below you, right? 

Ms. FARRISEE. No. They were just receiving their final evaluation 

when I arrived. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Midyear evaluations, you didn’t go into this? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Oh, midyear. We’re going through that right now. 

Yes, Congressman. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. So the December evaluations, I understood from—you didn’t go through the midyear—the December 

evaluations? Or who did those? 

Ms. FARRISEE. We didn’t—we do midyear about now, just in the 

last 30 days. It’s not in December. It’s—— 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. Well, end of the year is December. What 

did you do during those evaluation? Did you meet with your folks 

that worked for you? 

Ms. FARRISEE. That’s happening now. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. Well, midyear is usually—you went 

through this in December, though, correct? You came in September? 

Ms. FARRISEE. I came in September, but—— 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. No end-year, no one else? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Not in December. In fact, in December, we were 

just completing our performance review committees and performance review boards for the end of 2013 fiscal year. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. So you do those in June midyear, and then 

there’s—is it just once a year? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Just one midyear. But you can counsel and discuss with your employees—— 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. But the end of the year? 

Ms. FARRISEE. October—September 30th. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Oh, okay. So your predecessor went through 

that. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Correct. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And then you came in there. 

So your predecessor was how long in the position? 

Ms. FARRISEE. It was an acting, and I think he was there about 

a little over a year. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Huelskamp. 

Thank you, everybody, for being here today. 

I have two quick questions, if you would. 

Yesterday, after requests being made at three separate hearings 

by members of this committee, multiple staff requests, the VA did 

finally provide us limited information on the six members of the 

SES who were supposedly fired last year. 

Subsequent to this information, the staff has requested a briefing 

on that. Can I have your commitment that that briefing can take 

place within the week? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Next week we will have this 

briefing. 

The CHAIRMAN. And as the senior HR official at VA, can you tell 

this committee if you think that Susan Bowers should have given— 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
32 

what we know now—should have given Ms. Helman a ‘‘fully successful’’ or higher review for last year? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Not if she knew what we know now. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Given that the review Ms. Bowers gave of Ms. Helman was not 

a true indication of Ms. Helman’s performance, would it have been 

your recommendation that the review given of Ms. Bowers should 

also be reevaluated and any bonus she has received rescinded? 

Ms. FARRISEE. Ms. Bowers retired. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. There’s no way to go back after they retire. 

Ms. FARRISEE. No—— 

The CHAIRMAN. This is another one of the disciplinary actions 

that VA takes that allows people to seal their benefits and not have 

anything taken back. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Mr. Chairman, it was her right to retire. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yeah. Okay. 

Any other questions? 

Mr. Michaud. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d ask unanimous consent that Ms. Kirkpatrick’s statement be 

entered in the record, as well as the Senior Executives Association 

letter that we received on April 19th—or June 19th. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, everybody, for being here today. 

Thank you, Ms. Farrisee, for being with us. 

Ms. FARRISEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
33 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFF MILLER, CHAIRMAN

Committee will come to order. 

Thank you all for being here today. 

We had planned to have a business meeting this morning to subpoena two sets 

of documents from VA that were long outstanding requests made by this Committee. 

Yesterday, VA delivered information regarding the removal of six SES employees 

for the past two fiscal years. This request had been made by multiple Members of 

this Committee including myself in multiple hearings since February. This morning, 

VA delivered the second set of documents, which I requested via letter in October 

of 2013. The documents covered the performance reviews for each SES individual 

for Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012. 

Although VA’s response to my requests has delayed, their production of the requested material is sufficient and therefore, after consultation with Ranking Member Michaud, we will no longer be having a business meeting this morning. 

During this morning’s full committee hearing entitled, ‘‘Review of Awarding Bonuses to Senior Executives at the Department of Veterans Affairs’’ we will examine 

the outlandish bonus culture at VA and the larger organizational crisis that seems 

to have developed from awarding performance awards to Senior Executives despite 

the fact that their performance fails to deliver on our promise to our veterans. 

As the Committee’s investigation into the Department continues, and new allegations and cover-ups are exposed, it is important that we examine how the Department has arrived at the point where it is today. Sadly, it’s come to a point which 

has eroded veterans’ trust and America’s confidence in VA’s execution of its mission. 

Part of the mistrust centers on a belief that VA employees are motivated by financial incentives alone, and I can see why. 

It appears as if VA’s performance review system is failing veterans. Instead of 

using bonuses as an award for outstanding work on behalf of our veterans, cash 

awards are seen as an entitlement and have become irrelevant to quality of work 

product. 

I know we all agree that preventable patient deaths, delays in care, the continual 

backlog of disability claims, cost over-runs and construction delays for VA facilities, 

and deliberate behavior to falsify data are not behaviors that should be rewarded. 

Yet, despite startling issues that continue to come to light, as well as numerous past 

IG and GAO reports highlighting these same issues, a majority of VA ‘s senior managers received a performance award for FY 2013. According to VA‘s own data, over 

$2.8 million was paid out in performance awards to Senior Executives for FY 2013. 

These performance awards went to at least 65% of the Senior Executive Workforce 

at the Department. In fact not a single senior manager at VA, out of 470 individuals, received a less than fully successful performance review for the last fiscal year. 

Based on this Committee’s investigations, outside independent reports, and what we 

have learned in the last few months, I wholeheartedly disagree with VA’s assessment of its senior staff. 

It should not be the practice of any federal agency to issue taxpayers dollars in 

addition to paying six-figure salaries to failing senior managers just because a current OPM statute for members of the SES allows it. Bonuses are not an entitlement. 

They are a reward for exceptional work. VA’s current practice only breeds a sense 

of entitlement and a lack of accountability, and this is why we are where we are 

today. 

This issue, unfortunately, is not a new one for VA. The Committee has focused 

its oversight on bonuses for years, and if Members were to go back and review a 

2007 Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on awarding of bonuses, you would find that the issues we raise today were also questioned seven 

years ago. There seems to be little to no improvement. 

In a May 2013 hearing VA construction chief, Glenn Haggstrom, admitted that 

he could not explain why he collected almost $55,000 in performance bonuses despite overseeing failed construction plans that cost our government nearly $1.5 billion in over-runs. 

In December 2012, an investigation by this committee revealed a legionella outbreak in the Pittsburgh Healthcare System that led to at least six patient deaths, 

nevertheless, the Director there, Terry Gerigk Wolf received a perfect performance 

review and the Regional Director, Michael Moreland, who oversaw VA’s Pittsburgh 

operation at the time, collected a $63,000 bonus. To the average American, $63,000 

is considered to be a competitive annual salary—not a bonus. 

The Medical Center Director in Dayton, OH received a nearly $12,000 bonus despite an open investigation into veterans’ exposure to Hepatitis B and C under his 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
34 

watch. The Director of the Atlanta VA Medical Center who oversaw multiple preventable deaths received $63,000 in performance bonuses over his four years there. 

The former director of the VA Regional Office in Waco, TX, received more than 

$53,000 in bonuses. While under his tenure, the Waco office’s average disability 

claims processing time multiplied to inexcusable levels. Unfortunately, I could go on 

and on, as these are not the only instances of those charged with managing VA programs and health care facilities falling far short of the quality that veterans and 

their families deserve. In short, there are far too many examples that prove that 

bonuses do not ensure good performance. 

As we have previously heard from several witnesses, including those from VA, the 

quest for monetary gain rather than public service has led to data manipulation and 

secrets lists designed to create a false impression of quality health care that is timely and responsive to veterans. This is scandalous, even criminal, I would argue, and 

it runs far deeper than Phoenix. 

Today we will explore the circumstances surrounding the award and eventual rescission of a performance award provided to the former director of the VA Medical 

Center Director in Phoenix, AZ, Ms. Sharon Helman. In February 2014, Ms. Helman 

was given an $8,500 bonus for her performance during fiscal year 2013. Only after 

allegations against Ms. Helman came to light, as a result of this Committee’s work, 

did a conscientious VA employee examine whether she received a bonus in fiscal 

year 2013. When we questioned the award, VA determined that she was given this 

bonus due to an ‘‘administrative error.’’ However past documentation from VA has 

stated that all performance reviews and awards are ultimately reviewed and signed 

by the Secretary. 

Furthermore, Ms. Helman’s direct supervisor, former VISN 18 Network Director, 

Susan Bowers, stated in May that Sharon Helman received her bonus ‘‘for a highly 

successful rating, and for improving access concerns and wait lists.’’ Perhaps we 

should also question Ms. Bower’s qualifications. These stories do not match up, and 

I believe it further brings into question VA’s transparency, as well as diligence when 

issuing thousands of dollars to individuals. 

Although Acting Secretary Gibson has rightly put a freeze on all bonuses for Senior Executives at VHA for the time being, it is still this Committee’s responsibility 

to understand the rationale for awarding five figure bonuses to individuals who 

have clearly fallen short of the Department’s mission and their commitment to those 

who have served. A performance award should not be received because you were 

able to check off a few boxes on a form. A performance award should not be an expectation. A bonus is not an entitlement. Those at the Department of Veterans Affairs are there to serve veterans and their families. Anything less than the highest 

possible quality should not be rewarded. Gaming the bonus system is not the business that VA should be in. 

Today, we will hear what VA has to say about their performance review system, 

why senior managers who have overseen failure have received thousands of dollars 

in bonuses, and how these large performance awards could have led to the terrible 

situation the Department is now in. 

With that, I now recognize Ranking Member Michaud for his opening statement. 

Thank you. 

I ask that all members waive their opening remarks as per this committee’s custom. 

I now invite our one witness today to the table. 

This morning, we will hear from the Honorable Gina Farrisee, Assistant Secretary 

for Human Resources and Administration, at the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

I ask the witness to please stand, and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear, under penalty of perjury, that the testimony you are 

about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 

Please be seated. 

Your complete written statement will be made part of the hearing record. 

Secretary Farrisee you are recognized for five minutes. 

Thank you, Secretary Farrisee. 

I will now yield myself five minutes for questions. 

Thank you once again. 

If there are no further questions, you are now excused. 

I now ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise 

and extend their remarks and include extraneous material. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to once again thank our witness and audience members for joining 

us this morning. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
35 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MICHAUD, RANKING MEMBER

Michael LeBouef, in his book ‘‘The Greatest Management Principle Ever’’, said 

‘‘The things that get measured are the things that get done.’’ 

We have seen this statement born out recently within VA in a very negative way. 

As witnesses have stated in recent hearings, VA’s focus on unrealistic wait time 

measures resulted in employees manipulating the system to make it seem like they 

were meeting the measured standards. 

LeBouef went on to say, in a later book, ‘‘The things that get measured and rewarded are the things that get done well.’’ 

Today, we are going to look at this second piece—how VA Senior Executives are rewarded, and how that system does, or does not, incentivize things to be done well. Before we get into that discussion, let me recognize that there are a lot of VA 

employees who does things well. As we shine the light of oversight on those who 

do not, let me pause for a moment and shine a brighter, more positive light on the 

hard-working employees in VA who do things right, and who do things well. To 

them, I say ‘‘thank you for your service, and your example.’’ 

I have sat here, hearing after hearing, as we have learned, over and over again, 

that VA Senior Executives received significant bonuses after the people and organizations under their responsibility have failed to deliver on reasonable expectations 

of performance, and in some cases, have harmed the very people they are supposed 

to be serving. How does this happen? 

In its testimony, VA will lay out a very extensive and diligent process with all 

the seemingly right pieces, parts, checks and balances. So, what repeatedly goes 

wrong? Where does the system break down? 

I have asked numerous people—in and out of the Federal Senior Executive System—this question, and the most consistent answer is that the measures are wrong. 

That the goals and objectives defined for some VA Senior Executives are not adequate or appropriate to elicit the actions and behaviors desired or required. That 

the senior most leaders in VA are held accountable for managing the process that 

benefits VA, not delivering an outcome beneficial to veterans. 

This has got to change. Making the current form electronic and fillable isn’t the 

answer. Transferring performance management data from a spreadsheet to a database isn’t the answer. Defining goals and objectives based on what needs to be done 

for veterans is the answer. Rewarding Senior Executives only when they consistently do those things well is the answer. 

Ms. Farrisee, I look forward to your testimony. I hope we can set the example 

here today and talk less about the process of how VA Senior Executive performance 

management is done and more about how the outcomes for veterans can change if 

it is done well. 

f 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ANN KIRKPATRICK

Bonuses should not be automatic. They should be for VA employees that go above 

and beyond just doing a job. VA employees that do not work to serve veterans 

should not only be denied bonuses, they should lose their jobs. Since this system 

of awarding bonuses to employees is easily subject to manipulation, the VA needs 

to look at other ways to recruit and retain talent, and ensure that employees that 

really go above and beyond are rewarded for exceptional performance. 

For the vast number of VA employees who do come to work every day to serve 

veterans, we need to look at other ways to recruit and retain them. The VA has 

a shortage of doctors, nurses, and medical staff and we need to look at other incentives beyond bonuses that could be offered to ensure that our VA medical facilities 

remain fully staffed and able to provide high-quality and timely care service. 

f 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY WALZ

It is clear that the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) current performance review and performance pay systems are part of the problem. We owe it to the thousands of professionals at the VA who are doing things right, and, most importantly, 

we owe it to the veterans in their care to get this problem fixed. 

I echo the GAO recommendation that the performance pay program must have 

a stated overarching purpose. That purpose must be improving health outcomes for 

veterans. This is the only thing that matters, and this is the only reason the VHA 

should exist. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
36 

With the purpose of the program established, VA will need to standardize the performance pay and award policies across the country. Again, it must focus on improving health outcomes for veterans, and this should be true throughout the VA. It does 

not make sense to have over 150 individual performance pay policies as is currently 

the case. This system is ripe for the type of gaming and abuse that got us into this 

mess. It is also impossible for the Secretary to provide oversight when there is not 

a consistent policy. In fact, as we look to the future of VA reform, national standardization of the VA should be a pillar of any organizational reform we seek to undertake. 

Development of this program must be done in a clear and transparent manner, 

leveraging expertise and opinions from veterans, doctors, staff, and specialists. The 

starting point for all that we do has to be the veteran; if we are going to improve 

their health outcomes, we have to get them directly involved in the process. I encourage the VA to leverage the Veteran Service Organizations (VSO) to accomplish 

this. Performance management and awards have been a part of medicine for a long 

time, and there are best practices in both the private and public sector which we 

can leverage. In the end, I call on the VA to solicit input from everyone, and, as 

they rebuild their performance management program, the VA must do so in a transparent, open manner. I also expect the VA to keep this body informed of all developments and to work with us to ensure whatever program is developed is efficient, 

effective and provides the best outcomes for veterans’ health. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
37 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 89374.001
38 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 89374.002
39 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 89374.003
40 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 89374.004
41 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 89374.005
42 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 89374.006
43 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 89374.007
44 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 89374.008
45 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 89374.009
46 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 89374.010
47 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 89374.011
48 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

LETTER AND QUESTIONS FROM: COMMITTEE MINORITY MEMBERS

June 24, 2014 

The Honorable Sloan Gibson 

Acting Secretary 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

810 Vermont Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20420 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

In reference to our Full Committee hearing entitled, ‘‘Review of Awarding Bonuses to Senior Executives at the [VA]’’ that took place on June 20, 2014, I would 

appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on July 31, 2014. 

Please note that our Members understand some information may ultimately be 

provided by the current IG investigation. For questions which will be answered by 

the investigation, please include a statement to that effect and a brief explanation 

of your reasoning. Members are happy to receive complete answers to individual 

questions as they are available. For responses that may be delayed, please provide 

an interim response or propose an appropriate interim briefing or conference call. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all Full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your responses electronically 

to Saki Ververis at saki.ververis@mail.house.gov. If you have any questions, please 

call 202–225–9756. 

Sincerely 

Michael Michaud, 

Ranking Member 

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE MINORITY MEMBERS TO GINA S. FARRISEE

Rep. Mark Takano 

1. Please provide an organization chart which identifies the SES or Title 38 SES 

equivalent positions within the local VISN and medical center structure. I want a 

better understanding of the organizational structure and who would have an incentive to game the system. From initial input of a health care appointment, to the 

person who can change that appointment and who can give direction to change an 

appointment, I want a clear picture of how many people are involved with the appointment making process. 

2. What safeguards, if any, are within the scheduling software to ensure a data 

trail is available to see when scheduling data is changed? Is there any way to see 

whether people are manipulating an initial appointment to meet wait time expectations? 

3. Finally, I would like to see a cost comparison between VA provided health care 

and private health care for an average 60-year old male veteran patient with diabetes and heart disease. The comparison should include administrative, medical, and 

prescription costs. Please also provide a breakdown of the variables used to calculate 

these costs. 

Rep. Julia Brownley 

1. Please provide a detailed breakdown of VISN executive pay broken down by 

SES, title 38 SES equivalents, and non-managing title 38s. Ideally, the breakdown 

will include the range of pay available in the form of base pay, relocation and retention pay, market pay, bonuses, awards, or other pay incentives available for these 

individuals. Please also include a list of measures used to determine how eligible 

employees qualify for such payments. For measures that vary between networks, 

such as performance pay, please provide the measures used in VISN 22 (greater Los 

Angeles) and two other random networks for comparison. Any other bonus payments 

from outside the VA, such as the Presidential Rank Award, should also be provided. 

Rep. Raul Ruiz 

1. What year did performance pay begin being tied to wait times? Please describe 

the relevant performance measures tied to wait times. I am interested on knowing 

how wait times are factored into performance measures. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
49 

2. Do any performance measures use patient satisfaction feedback? Are there any 

plans to include a patient satisfaction measure in calculating performance pay 

across all VISNs? 

Rep. Beto O’Rourke 

1. What recruitment incentives are available at the local level and how can they 

be applied to needs in areas like El Paso? El Paso veterans have desperate mental 

health care needs and those needs are going unheeded despite repeated attempts 

to communicate with the VISN 18 director. 

2. Please provide the total budget available for employing providers for VISN 18 

and the total expected costs for FY2014. Please also provide the budget allotted for 

El Paso providers, the amount of that budget currently in use, and a description 

of how that determination was made. 

3. I am especially interested on performance measures which are based on adhering to budget expectations. Please provide a detailed description of any performance 

measures which use meeting budgetary expectations as a factor and what those 

budget expectations are. Please also provide the VISN operating budgetary policy 

and a brief description of what happens when a need to hire more providers is identified. 

Rep. Dina Titus 

1. How did the VA miss the false credentials used by the VISN 21 Director Sheila 

M. Cullen to attain her position? What performance awards did she receive during 

her tenure as director, and how long will she be able to stay in her position. Will 

she remain an employee with the VA? If so what is the reasoning? 

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick 

1. VA officials were on notice that ‘‘gaming strategies’’ were being used to 

misreport patient wait times at VA medical facilities based on the April 26, 2010 

‘‘Inappropriate Scheduling Practices’’ memo that went to all network directors. 

Which reviewing officials signed off on SES performance appraisals for those SESs 

responsible for VA medical facilities where manipulation of patient wait time data 

and unauthorized scheduling practices were found to have taken place? 

2. Did any reviewing officials sign off on performance appraisals recommending 

bonuses for SES employees whose facilities were under investigation by the IG? 

3. Who were the officials on the Performance Review Committees that signed off 

on performance appraisals and recommended bonuses for these SESs to the Performance Review Board for approval? Who were the officials on the Performance Review Board that recommended bonuses for these SESs to the VA Secretary? 

4. Will the VA hold network and medical center leaders that received bonuses accountable in VISNs and medical facilities where the audit found that appointment 

wait time data was being manipulated and appointment scheduling ‘‘gaming strategies’’ were being used? 

5. Why was performance pay awarded to providers that had action taken against 

them related to clinical performance? These were providers that failed to competently read mammograms and other complex medical images, providers that were 

practicing without a license and providers leaving residents unsupervised during 

surgery. Why did the VA believe these providers deserved performance pay for nonperformance? Is this because performance pay was automatically awarded to every 

employee? 

6. How can the VA hold employees accountable if bonuses and performance pay 

are awarded automatically? 

7. There is a shortage of doctors, nurses and medical staff in the VA. What other 

incentives could the VA use to recruit and retain health care providers beyond bonuses and performance pay? We know that the VA loses health care providers to 

the DoD. Why hasn’t the VA considered increasing the base salary of VA health care 

employees so that they receive comparable pay? Has the VA considered offering 

other incentives such as student loan repayment, or increased pay for VA providers 

willing to work in rural and underserved areas? What additional professional opportunities could the VA offer its health care providers to recruit and retain those who 

are dedicated to serving veterans? 

8. Why is the purpose of the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) performance 

pay policy (to improve health outcomes and quality) not articulated in the VHA’s 

performance pay policy? 

9. Since network and medical center leadership were granted the discretion to set 

goals that providers must achieve to receive performance pay, why did the VHA fail 

to review these goals to ensure that performance pay was linked to provider performance goals? 

10. How will the VA ensure that only employees who perform exceptional work 

are rewarded in the future? 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
50 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 89374.012
51 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 89374.013
52 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 89374.014
53 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 89374.015
54 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 89374.016
55 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 89374.017
56 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 89374.018
57 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 89374.019
58 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 89374.020
59 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 89374.021
60 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 89374.022
61 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 89374.023
62 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 89374.024
63 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 89374.025
64 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 89374.026
65 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 89374.027
66 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 89374.028
67 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 89374.029
68 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 89374.030
69 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 89374.031
70 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 89374.032
71 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 89374.033
72 

Æ 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 89374.034