U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 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

86–720 2014

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S BONNEVILLE POWER 

ADMINISTRATION: DISCRIMINATING AGAINST 

VETERANS AND RETALIATING AGAINST WHISTLEBLOWERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

AUGUST 1, 2013 

Serial No. 113–75 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

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

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

Vacancy 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

STEPHEN CASTOR, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on August 1, 2013 ............................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. Gregory H. Friedman, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Energy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

The Hon. Daniel B. Poneman, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Ms. Anita J. Decker, Bonneville Power Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25 

APPENDIX 

Letter from Mr. Daniel P. Boneman to Chairman Issa and Rep. Cummings .... 60 

(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S BONNEVILLE 

POWER ADMINISTRATION: DISCRIMINATING 

AGAINST VETERANS AND RETALIATING 

AGAINST WHISTLEBLOWERS 

Thursday, August 1, 2013, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m., in Room 2154, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Issa, Mica, Jordan, Chaffetz, Walberg, 

Lankford, Gowdy, Hastings, Meadows, Bentivolio, Cummings, 

Maloney, Norton, Tierney, Lynch, Connolly and Pocan. 

Staff Present: Ali Ahmad, Majority Communications Advisor; Jen 

Barblan, Majority Counsel; Molly Boyl, Majority Senior Counsel 

and Parliamentarian; Lawrence J. Brady, Majority Staff Director; 

Caitlin Carroll, Majority Deputy Press Secretary; Sharon Casey, 

Majority Senior Assistant Clerk; Steve Castor, Majority General 

Counsel; John Cuaderes, Majority Deputy Staff Director; Carlton 

Davis, Majority Senior Counsel; Adam P. Fromm, Majority Director 

of Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Majority Chief Clerk; Tyler Grimm, Majority Professional Staff Member; 

Christopher Hixon, Majority Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight; 

Mark D. Marin, Majority Director of Oversight; Tamara Alexander, 

Minority Counsel; Krista Boyd, Minority Deputy Director of Legislation/Counsel; Beverly Britton Fraser, Minority Counsel; Jennifer 

Hoffman, Minority Communications Director; Elisa LaNier, Minority Director of Operations; Dave Rapallo, Minority Staff Director; 

and Cecelia Thomas, Minority Counsel. 

Chairman ISSA. Good morning. The committee will come to order. 

We on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee exist to 

secure two fundamental principles: first, Americans have a right to 

know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent 

and, second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective Government 

that works for them. Our duty on the Oversight and Government 

Reform Committee is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold Government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their Government. 

It is our job to work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the American people and bring genuine 

reform to the Federal bureaucracy. 

2 

Today’s hearing represents what we would consider the front line 

in the whistleblower protection issue. This committee’s efforts, both 

in bipartisan legislation, the first time in more than a decade, to 

pass new whistleblower protection and our recognition that we 

need to hold Government accountable to the American people by 

protecting whistleblowers when they allege or uncover wrongdoing. 

This committee, on a completely nonpartisan basis, has always 

sought to protect whistleblowers. Whether they come forward in a 

Republican administration or Democratic administration; whether 

it points to the Oval Office or just to the office next door for some 

harassment, whistleblowers deserve to be heard and protected. 

Two weeks ago, the Department of Energy inspector general 

issued a management alert warning about Bonneville Power. We 

do not seize on every management alert. We consider the seven day 

notification and these kinds of alerts as an opportunity to ask 

should we look into this, can we make a difference, is it appropriate for us to act, because what we see could go beyond the four 

corners of the particular agency or because there is more beneath 

the surface. In this case, the most important question for us is 

when Bonneville Power apparently and deliberately began 

disadvantaging veterans and other applicants. They did something 

that goes at the very heart of the Federal employment and hiring 

systems. 

There are more or less one million Americans who put on a uniform every year and two million who do not. All of them are Federal employees. But a large number have done both. We have been 

well served by men and women who serve our Country at the risk 

of life and limb, and then go on to have short, medium, or very long 

careers of public service in our civilian workforce. Certainly, at the 

Department of Defense, the nexus between what they learned on 

active duty and what they do helping those who are still on active 

duty is critical. 

At the Post Office, the largest single employer of veterans, men 

and women every day trust that their mail will be delivered by people whose integrity is shown by their willingness to put their life 

on the life. 

Let me be perfectly clear. The primary concern we have today is 

the apparent retaliation against whistleblowers. It is illegal and we 

won’t stand for it. We want to make sure the truth gets to the 

American people. We clearly believe in this case there are two 

issues: protect the whistleblowers and send a strong message from 

this committee that the special and earned status of hiring for our 

veterans is in fact codified in law and universally believed by people on this side of the dais. 

Consequently, this hearing will be the beginning of what will be 

a dual investigation, one working hand in hand with the IG, one 

in which, as my ranking member and I coined in an earlier investigation, we will look over his shoulder. 

However, we reserve the right to go independent if necessary. We 

do so because there are two issues. When it comes to investigating, 

IGs have certain privileges and authorities, but not as many as we 

have here. For that reason, at the beginning of this hearing I want 

to make it clear if the IG does not get full cooperation in the invesVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Feb 20, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86720.TXT APRIL
3 

tigation, or if for any reason someone falls outside the ability for 

the IG to get testimony, we will back that authority up. 

The Department of Energy’s recent reversal of the retaliation 

against personnel is a positive step. I don’t want to let that go unnoticed, but make no mistake: we expect people not just to be reinstated, but to be treated in a genuine, appropriate way as people 

who have done the right thing, not people who have broken some 

sort of silence within any agency. 

With that, I thank our panelists and ask the ranking member for 

his opening statement. 

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

Today we are here discussing a preliminary management alert 

issued by the inspector general of the Department of Energy on 

July 16th related to the Bonneville Power Administration, also 

known as BPA. For those not familiar with BPA, it is a unit of the 

Department of Energy based in Portland, Oregon that is self-funded and receives no appropriation. It has approximately 3,100 employees, with no political appointees, and it supplies electricity 

from hydro and other types of power plants to western States, including California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, and parts of Montana. 

The IG’s alert covers two major allegations. First, it finds that 

BPA engaged in prohibited personnel practices from November 

20th, 2010, to June 2012. Specifically, the alert states that BPA’s 

actions resulted ‘‘in the inappropriate exclusion of veterans and 

other applicants from consideration for selection.’’ The second 

major allegation is that ‘‘BPA initiated questionable adverse personnel actions’’ against employees who raised concerns about hiring 

problems with the IG and others. 

The IG alert says this: While we are not in a position at this 

point to conclude that the actions taken thus far are retaliatory in 

nature, we are deeply concerned. 

I am also very concerned. We are fighting a war that has lasted 

more than a dozen years. American soldiers are arriving home 

every day and they face common worries in my district and districts all over the Country. They ask themselves: How will I support myself when I take off these fatigues? How will I support my 

family when I hang up the boots? 

For their service and sacrifice, words of thanks from a grateful 

Nation are not nearly enough. We need to continue moving service 

members from our armed forces to our workforces as seamlessly as 

possible. 

In addition, our committee, in particular, takes very seriously its 

role with regard to protecting whistleblowers. I do not want to get 

ahead of the evidence or the IG’s investigation, and I understand 

that there have not been any findings of retaliation, but we have 

to treat these allegations carefully, responsibly, and thoroughly. If 

allegations of discrimination against veterans or retaliation against 

whistleblowers prove true, those responsible must be held accountable for their actions. 

Despite these troubling allegations, I am encouraged with the 

proactive nature of the IG’s investigation and the very swift response of the Department of Energy. The IG made two preliminary 

recommendations in the alert while they continue the investigaVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Feb 20, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86720.TXT APRIL
4 

tion. First, they recommended that all ongoing disciplinary actions 

against BPA staff be suspended until the IG completes its work 

and issues its final results. Second, they recommended that any 

employees facing removal or suspension be temporarily restored to 

their positions. 

In response, the Department not only implemented these recommendations, but took a number of additional steps to aggressively address these issues. The deputy secretary named a new acting administrator of BPA, instructed the new administrator to immediately direct all employees to fully cooperate with the IG, initiated an immediate review of BPA management, and suspended all 

adverse personnel actions pending further review. 

Let me read the IG’s very positive assessment of the Department’s actions to date: ‘‘The Department expresses concurrence 

with the facts presented, the conclusion reached, and the recommendations provided in its management alert. Notably, the Department initiated immediate corrective actions which were fully 

responsive to our findings and recommendations.’’ 

Finally, I understand the limitations of today’s hearing. The IG’s 

conclusions are preliminary. The IG has made it clear that the investigation is ongoing and we will look forward to a final report 

when the investigation concludes. Also, because we do not have 

final conclusions, we understand that today’s witnesses may not be 

able to discuss some issues due to the Privacy Act and other constraints. 

With that, I thank the witnesses for their participation in today’s 

hearing and I look forward to the testimony. 

With that, I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

All members will have seven days within which to submit their 

opening statements. 

We now welcome our first panel of witnesses. 

The Honorable Daniel Poneman is Deputy Secretary of the 

United States Department of Energy. Welcome. 

The Honorable Gregory Friedman is the Inspector General of the 

United States Department of Energy and the primary reason we 

are here today. Welcome. 

Anita Decker is the Chief Operating Officer for the Bonneville 

Power Administration, or was, and we will discuss that further. 

Pursuant to the committee rules, I would ask all three of you 

please rise to take a sworn oath, and raise your right hands. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to 

give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 

[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.] 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. Please be seated. 

Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Pursuant to ensuring that all witnesses are ready and able to 

give testimony, I have just a few questions that are going to be required for Anita Decker. 

We have been informed that DOE believes you are appearing in 

your personal capacity. Were you told that? 

Ms. DECKER. Yes, I was. 

5 

Chairman ISSA. Ms. Decker, you are currently employed by the 

Bonneville Power Administration, is that correct? 

Ms. DECKER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Ms. Decker, you are currently being paid by Bonneville Power Administration, is that correct? 

Ms. DECKER. This is correct. 

Chairman ISSA. When were you first hired by Bonneville Power 

Administration? 

Ms. DECKER. In October of 2007. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. Have you been an employee of Bonneville Power Administration since then continuously? 

Ms. DECKER. Mr. Chairman, there was a period of time when I 

was on a detail assignment for the Western Area Power Administration, from August of 2012 until April of 2013. 

Chairman ISSA. And that falls within what many of us think of 

as Bonneville Power, this group of related organizations, is that 

correct? 

Ms. DECKER. The Western Area Power Administration is not. 

Chairman ISSA. It is not Bonneville, but it is one of the four. 

Ms. DECKER. Correct. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. And this was an assignment that Department of Energy chose, to have you move from one to the other and 

had to be approved? 

Ms. DECKER. That is correct. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. And I will ask this because it is required. 

Bonneville Power is part of the Department of Energy, is that correct? 

Ms. DECKER. That is correct. 

Chairman ISSA. The Western Area Power Administration is part 

of the Department of Energy, is that correct? 

Ms. DECKER. That is correct. 

Chairman ISSA. And the Department of Energy is part of the Executive Branch. I will answer yes for that one. 

Did the Department of Energy pay for your transportation here 

today, as far as you know, either directly or through Bonneville 

Power? 

Ms. DECKER. Mr. Chairman, yes. 

Chairman ISSA. Are you receiving per diem for your travel here 

today, as far as you know? 

Ms. DECKER. Mr. Chairman, yes. 

Chairman ISSA. When were you placed on administrative leave? 

Ms. DECKER. Mr. Chairman, I was placed on administrative 

leave on July 15th, 2013. 

Chairman ISSA. And roughly when do you believe you were restored from that position? 

Ms. DECKER. So, Mr. Chairman, I was restored on Sunday afternoon in order to just prepare for testimony and to appear today. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. Did you have access to official emails in 

preparation for today’s hearing? 

Ms. DECKER. Yes, I did. 

Chairman ISSA. Were you instructed by the Department of Energy that you are here today only in your personal capacity? I 

asked this before. 

Ms. DECKER. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. 

6 

Chairman ISSA. Who gave you that instruction? 

Ms. DECKER. The instruction was provided by one of the Department of Energy’s general counsel to my counsel. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. 

Deputy Secretary Poneman, were you aware of that instruction? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Mr. Chairman, when I read Ms. Decker’s testimony last evening was when I saw the comment about the personal 

capacity. That was the first time I had heard about that. 

Chairman ISSA. So you weren’t consulted in this process? 

Mr. PONEMAN. No. And there is a difference as I asked the question, because I hadn’t seen it before. As I understood it when I 

asked our own staff, Ms. Decker is speaking in her capacity of her 

personal actions in this matter, but not as an individual citizen. In 

other words, she is restored to her Bonneville employee status to 

precisely cooperate with this committee. 

Chairman ISSA. And I will shortcut as quick as I can through 

these questions. 

Do you, Secretary Poneman, understand that there would be any 

restrictions on her full ability to answer about what she did in her 

official capacity during her entire tenure with the Department of 

Energy? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Neither she nor anyone else would have any such 

restriction, sir. 

Chairman ISSA. Do you agree that when someone is asked questions about what they saw, heard, and observed or did during the 

time in which they were a Federal employee, that is not a personal 

statement but, rather, an answer as to their professional activities? 

Mr. PONEMAN. If the question is about professional activities, by 

definition that is what they are talking about. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. And the reason I have gone through this 

is it the chairman’s decision that Ms. Decker, from what I can determine, is here as a Federal employee, in no way in a personal capacity. To the best of my knowledge, no one on the dais has any 

questions as to your activities outside of your official capacity as a 

Government employee. So although general counsel often makes 

statements, I want to make it clear, and if there is any question 

or dissent, I want to hear it, that, as Federal employees, you are 

here to represent the positions you have and the observations you 

have, and in no way is that personal. 

Now, Secretary, you will speak on behalf of the Department of 

Energy from the standpoint of your opening statement and cleared 

activity. Is that your understanding? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. 

So I will recognize the ranking member if he has any questions. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I have a number of questions. 

Chairman ISSA. I wanted to make sure this was clear, because 

we often do bring people in personal capacity. Whistleblowers, for 

example, are not here in their personal capacity, they are here on 

behalf of their activities related to the official activity. I wanted to 

make sure there was no misunderstanding that Ms. Decker is here 

as a Federal employee, here to discuss her activities as one of the 

many people we are very proud of as Federal employees with a 

long career, and not in some sort of non-Government way. And perVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Feb 20, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86720.TXT APRIL
7 

haps lawyer have a technical understanding that I don’t, but our 

counsels could find no basis for the word personal to be used. 

Understanding, Ms. Decker, you do not speak on behalf of the 

Department of Energy, but you do speak on behalf of an organization you ran, and that is in both of your capacities. 

Mr. Friedman, do you have any questions on this line of clarification? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I do not, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Ms. Decker, first of all, thank you for being here. 

I think we can be even clearer, no matter what the terms are. You 

said that you were put on administrative leave, I think you said, 

on July 15th? 

Ms. DECKER. That is correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And then you said that you were restored last 

Sunday, is that right? 

Ms. DECKER. That is correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. About what time was that? Somebody called you? 

Ms. DECKER. Yes. I want to say that it was about 11:30 or so on 

Sunday morning, Sunday afternoon. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. But then you said that you were restored so that you could come back to do this hearing, is that right? 

What did you say? 

Ms. DECKER. So, representative, what I understand is I was 

taken off of administrative leave for the sole purpose of preparing 

testimony for this hearing, and that when I returned to Portland 

I will be placed back on administrative leave. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. So now, with regard to your testimony, 

you mentioned in your personal capacity. Did you mention that? I 

think the chairman talked about it, personal capacity. Were you 

told that that is the range of your testimony would be, you would 

be testifying in your personal capacity? 

Ms. DECKER. Yes, that is correct. What I was told was I would 

be testifying in my personal capacity of my personal knowledge and 

that I would not be speaking on behalf of Bonneville, and that DOE 

would be the spokesperson for Bonneville. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Based upon what you just said, do you feel limited in what you can say today? Do you believe that you are being 

limited in what you can say? 

Ms. DECKER. I don’t believe I am being limited in what I can say, 

but I would reiterate the instructions I have been told is that I am 

not speaking for DOE in regard to Bonneville. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So going back to what the chairman said, so we 

won’t get caught up in legalese, and correct me if I am wrong, you 

feel that you are free today to speak under oath about what you 

have observed, what you have experienced, what you have seen in 

your capacity as an employee of Bonneville? Is that a fair statement? 

Ms. DECKER. Representative, what I would say is that my personal knowledge does include what I have experienced, what I have 

felt, and what I have done while I have been at Bonneville, so I 

would say yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Very well. 

8 

And, Mr. Poneman, you said that you had no knowledge of this 

personal capacity situation? You did not? 

Mr. PONEMAN. When I saw Ms. Decker’s testimony last night, 

that was the first time I either saw or heard the phrase, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So you just heard what she said, did you not? 

Did you hear what she said? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And does that sound reasonable? 

Mr. PONEMAN. To me, sir, it is pretty simple. And without getting caught up in the legalese, precisely because our policy is, and 

will always be, any Bonneville or any DOE employee has full freedom to cooperate with any proper investigation such as this one, 

it is to that purpose that Ms. Decker was restored. She was not restored in the other capacities of chief operating officer and so on. 

So I think the confusion might be the word personal refers to her 

personal knowledge of what happened, anything that is of interest 

to this committee. But in terms of the broader operations of Bonneville today over supply, Columbia River Treaty, all of that stuff is 

not within the scope of the restored—— 

Chairman ISSA. The good news is we are not going to ask about 

what the current load is with certain units offline or the capacity 

of transmission lines. 

Mr. PONEMAN. I know you know about these things, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. I do serve on the other committee, and some day 

we may—— 

Mr. PONEMAN. I recall. I recall, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. This is my last question. I note that there is a 

management alert and this management alert, on page 5, there is 

an attachment, and I am pointing this to you, Mr. Poneman. It 

says the deputy secretary also directed the administrator to immediately convey to all BPA employees that they can cooperate freely 

with the OIG and other investigations without fear of retaliation. 

You are familiar with that? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Is that accurate? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Very well. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

We now recognize our first witness, Mr. Friedman. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GREGORY H. FRIEDMAN 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and 

members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify 

at your request on the Office of Inspector General’s July 2013 Management Alert concerning alleged whistleblower retaliation and 

prohibited personnel practices at the Bonneville Power Administration. Bonneville and its nearly 3100 Federal employees are responsible for marketing electric power to all or parts of seven or eight 

States in the Pacific Northwest. 

My office is currently reviewing allegations that Bonneville engaged in inappropriate hiring practices that violated the rights of 

applicants for Federal positions, most notably applicants entitled to 

veterans’ preference. During this review, we learned that BonneVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Feb 20, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86720.TXT APRIL
9 

ville employees who had raised questions regarding violations of 

personnel practices may have been subjected to retaliation and that 

several of these individuals had already filed retaliation complaints 

with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. 

As troubling as we found these allegations to be, our concern intensified when, in July of this year, Bonneville employees indicated 

that additional retaliatory actions were imminent. We deemed the 

sources of the allegations to be credible. Thus, we brought this 

matter to the attention of the Department’s senior leaders in the 

July 16, 2013 Management Alert. We used management alerts in 

time-sensitive situations that require immediate management consideration. We concluded that expedited action to protect the involved Bonneville employees was of paramount importance. The 

Management Alert included recommendations to ensure that all 

Bonneville employees feel that they can report potential wrongdoing in an atmosphere free from retaliation. 

Commenting on the Alert, the Department concurred with the 

facts, conclusions, and recommendations, and the Department outlined a list of corrective actions that had been taken or were to be 

taken, and informed us that the deputy secretary directed the administrator to convey to all Bonneville employees that they can cooperate freely with the OIG and other investigations without fear 

of retaliation. 

I would like to address the status of our ongoing work regarding 

the core allegation that Bonneville had engaged in inappropriate 

hiring practices. 

As background, on May 11, 2010, the president issued a memorandum requiring the use of category rating for personnel recruitment and hiring. One objective was to increase the candidate selection pool while still complying with merit system principles, including veterans’ preference. Thus, as of November 1st, 2010, Bonneville was required to use category rating to rank candidates for 

competitive positions. One critical component of this process is that 

the quality category definitions, the basis for formulating the best 

qualified lists at Bonneville, must be developed before the vacancy 

announcement goes public and cannot be changed once the vacancy 

is opened. This is to assure fairness, equity, and consistency. 

As noted, it was alleged that Bonneville’s practices had effectively disadvantaged job applicants, most notably those entitled to 

veterans’ preference. We found the Department had received the 

same allegations and initiated a review of relevant hiring actions 

in Bonneville’s policies and practices. This resulted in the February 

2013 memorandum to my office in which the Department itself 

identified prohibited personnel practices at Bonneville which it described as systemic. 

We promptly initiated a review to determine the underlying 

causes of these problems. Our preliminary findings validated the 

concern that Bonneville had adjusted quality category definitions 

after vacancy announcements were closed and applications were received. These matters have also been the subject of internal reviews by Bonneville itself and by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

These examinations have been extremely revealing. Our summarization of the data developed by Bonneville shows that it had enVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Feb 20, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86720.TXT APRIL
10 

gaged in inappropriate personnel practices in 65 percent of its competitive recruitments, that is, 95 of 146 cases, conducted from November 2010 to June 2012, confirming, in essence, the allegation 

that the best qualified list had been modified after applications 

were received. Clearly, as a consequence, veterans and other applicants were inappropriately excluded from consideration for job selection. 

As has been noted, our review is still in process and, therefore, 

the statistical analysis that I just gave you may change as new information becomes available and as we analyze the new information. 

We were told that Bonneville changed its work processes and 

issued new guidance in May 2012 to stop these practices; however, 

most importantly, Bonneville failed to take required action to notify 

the negatively impacted applicants and address the impact associated with the prohibited practices. As of June 2013, Bonneville’s 

hiring authorities have been suspended. These actions were taken 

because both OPM and the Department concluded there were 

major errors in Bonneville’s personnel files. 

Our emphasis was and remains establishing the cause of the improper practices, and I would like to stress again that our Management Alert was preliminary. Our work with regard to the substances of these allegations is not complete and it continues. Additional interviews and document searches are underway. We intend 

to complete the effort as promptly as possible. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this concludes my 

statement. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may 

have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Friedman follows:] 

11 


Insert offset folio 1 here 86720.001

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify at your request 

on the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) July 2013 Management Alert concerning alleged 

whistleblower retaliation and prohibited personnel practices at the Bonneville Power 

Administration. 

Bonneville, a component of the Department of Energy, was established in 1937 as a self-funding 

agency that covers its approximately $4.4 billion in annual costs by marketing electric power to all 

or parts of eight states in the Pacific Northwest. This electric power is generated by 31 Federal 

hYQroelectric projects operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of 

Reclamation, one non-Federal nuclear plant and several small non-Federal power plants. 

Bonneville is responsible for the sale and transmission of nearly one-third of the electric power used 

in the region it serves. These responsibilities are carried out by nearly 3,100 Federal employees. 

Allegations of Retaliation 

The OIG is currently conducting a review of allegations that Bonneville engaged in inappropriate 

hiring practices. Specifically, it has been alleged that the rights of applicants for Federal positions 

were violated, most notably applicants entitled to veterans' preference. During the course of this 

review, as a result of several interviews, we learned that Bonneville employees who had raised 

questions to their management regarding violations of personnel practices may have been subjected 

to retaliation. We were told that several of these individuals had already filed retaliation complaints 

with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. 

We found these allegations to be troubling. Our concern intensified when, in late June and early 

July of this year, Bonneville employees indicated that additional retaliatory actions were imminent. 

We deemed the sources of the allegations to be credible. Thus, we chose to bring the matter to the 

attention of the Department's senior leaders in a July 16, 2013, Management Alert. 1 The 

1 Management Alert on Allegations Regarding Prohibited Personnel Practices at the Bonneville Power Administration 

(DOE/IG-0891, July 2013), available at: http://energy.govisitesiprod/files/2013/07/f2/IG·0891.pdf. 
12 


Insert offset folio 2 here 86720.002

Management Alert is a reporting mechanism that we use in time-sensitive situations which, in our 

judgment, require immediate management consideration, Given the circumstances, we concluded 

that the threshold had been met in this case and that protecting the involved Bonneville employees 

was of paramount importance, In the Management Alert, we recommended that: 

1, All ongoing disciplinary actions of the Bonneville Human Capital Management staff should 

be suspended until our inquiry has been completed and the final results have been provided 

to the Department for full consideration; and 

2, In the case of individuals removed or on administrative leave pending removal, those 

employees should be temporarily restored to their positions, 

We provided a draft of the Alert to the Department on July 11, 2013, On July 15, 2013, we 

received comments in which the Department expressed its concurrence with the facts, conclusions 

and recommendations provided in the Alert. The Department outlined a list of corrective actions 

that either had been taken or were to be taken, These included: (1) a request to Bonneville for all 

documentation related to proposed adverse actions against two Bonneville employees; (2) 

suspension of Bonneville's authority to take any adverse actions against another employee; and, (3) 

direction to Bonneville to stop any proposed removals and to provide the Department with all 

information on any adverse actions in process or under consideration, The Department informed us 

that the Deputy Secretary directed the Administrator of Bonneville to take no adverse personnel 

actions against employees and to immediately convey to all Bonneville employees that they could 

cooperate freely with the OIG and other investigations without fear of retaliation, 

Hiring Reform and Authorities 

As background, on May 11,2010, the President issued a memorandum, Improving the Federal 

Recruitment and Hiring Process. requiring all executive Federal agencies to use "category rating" 

for personnel recruitment and hiring, This approach had several objectives, one of which was to 

increase the candidate selection pool while still complying with merit system principles and other 

requirements of Title 5, United States Code, including veterans' preference, The Office of 

2 
13 


Insert offset folio 3 here 86720.003

Personnel Management (OPM) delegated the competitive hiring authority to the Department of 

Energy and the Department, in turn, delegated this same authority to Bonneville. Effective 

November 1,2010, Bonneville was required to use category rating to rate and rank candidates for 

competitive positions. Although category rating has many nuances and subtleties, one critical 

component is that the quality category definitions, the basis for formulating the applicant "best 

qualified list" at Bonneville, must be developed before the vacancy announcement goes public and 

cannot be changed once the vacancy is opened. This is to ensure that all candidates are treated 

fairly and equitably. 

Allegations Concerning Personnel Practices 

I would like to address the status of our work with regard to the core allegations that Bonneville had 

engaged in prohibited or inappropriate hiring practices, specifically by changing the quality 

category definitions. The complainants raised the concern that these practices had effectively 

disadvantaged job applicants, most notably those entitled to veterans' preference under both OPM 

and Department of Energy policies and regulations. We found that the Department had received the 

same allegations and initiated a review designed to examine relevant hiring actions and related 

vacancy announcements, and to evaluate Bonneville's policies and procedures. In February 2013, 

the Department furnished its findings to the OIG. The Department concluded that the allegations 

had merit and identified systemic, prohibited personnel practices. 

The OIG promptly initiated a review to determine the underlying causes of the alleged prohibited 

personnel violations. Our preliminary findings validated the Department's conclusion that 

Bonneville had engaged in potential prohibited personnel practices by adjusting quality category 

definitions after vacancy announcements were closed and applications were reviewed. We noted 

that Bonneville employees responsible for rating and ranking applicants relied on informal, 

undocumented procedures in this regard. Bonneville claimed that its goal was to present selection 

officials with "manageable" applicant pools. 

3 
14 


Insert offset folio 4 here 86720.004

Our emphasis was, and remains, establishing the proximate cause of the improper practices. Let me 

stress, as noted in our Management Alert, that our work with regard to the substance of these 

allegations is not complete. Any information that was provided in the Alert or any information that 

is included in my testimony today is based on preliminary work products that have yet to be 

finalized. Additional interviews and document searches are underway. We intend to complete this 

effort as promptly as possible. 

In addition to our own work and the review by the Department cited previously, this situation has 

been the subject of internal reviews by Bonneville itself and an examination by OPM. Final results 

of the OPM review have yet to be released in a formal report. Taken collectively, these 

examinations have been very revealing. For example, Bonneville's own data shows that it had 

engaged in inappropriate personnel practices in 65 percent (95 of 146 cases) of its competitive 

recruitments conducted from November 2010 to June 2012. The data, in essence, confirmed the 

allegation that the best qualified lists had been modified after applications were received, which was 

in direct contravention of OPM and Department policy. As a result, veterans and other applicants 

were inappropriately excluded from consideration for job selection. We were told that Bonneville 

changed its work processes and issued new guidance in May 2012 to stop these practices. 

However, it appeared that Bonneville failed to take required action to notify the negatively affected 

applicants and address the impact associated with the prohibited practices. 

As oflate June 2013, Bonneville's hiring authorities have been suspended. These actions were 

taken because both OPM and the Department concluded that there were major errors in the vast 

majority of the Bonneville files reviewed. 

These are serious matters. As indicated, our work in this area continues and we will complete a 

report of OUf findings as quickly as possible. 

4 
15 


Insert offset folio 5 here 86720.005

Mr. Chainnan and Members of the Committee, that concludes my statement and I will be happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

5 
16 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Secretary Poneman. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL B. PONEMAN 

Mr. PONEMAN. Thank you, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member 

Cummings, and distinguished members of the committee. 

Before beginning my prepared remarks, I would like to pause to 

acknowledge the untimely passing of Mr. Benjamin Cool, a Wilson 

Construction employee who died earlier this week while working at 

a Bonneville Power substation in Oregon. Our thoughts and prayers go out to him and to his family. This tragedy starkly reminds 

us of the dangers, as well as the awesome responsibility, for those 

who work on our electric grid. It also reminds us of how important 

it is to make that extra effort to do our job safely and always to 

look for ways to improve our performance, and, indeed, our management principles tell us that we must do our work safely and 

continuously improve in our efforts. 

I have been invited here today to discuss the Bonneville Power 

Administration and the allegations of questionable personnel practices at BPA. The Department of Energy takes these allegations 

very seriously. We share the committee’s deep concern regarding 

the inspector general’s preliminary findings. We have responded 

forcefully to those findings and continue to provide assistance to 

aid in the completion of the IG’s investigation of BPA. We also continue to provide guidance and support to BPA management as they 

carry on the work of BPA in all of its dimensions, including human 

capital management, but extending to the full suite of BPA missions and all of their diversity. 

In the matter being reviewed by this committee, as the IG recognized, the Department initiated immediate corrective actions which 

were fully responsive to its findings and recommendations so far. 

As the IG continues its investigation, we look forward to a full accounting of the facts so we can carefully consider and implement 

any actions that may be appropriate. 

The history of BPA dates to 1937, when President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Bonneville Project Act to deliver the massive benefits of Columbia River hydro power, clean, inexpensive electricity 

to citizens of the Pacific Northwest. Four years later, BPA hired 

Woody Guthrie to write 26 songs in 30 days about the Columbia 

River hydro system for the princely sum of $266.66. This is an organization, in short, Mr. Chairman, with a great history and a 

great tradition, and it has played a major role in the development 

of the Pacific Northwest. 

For all its storied past, Bonneville remains vitally important 

today in serving the energy needs of the citizens of the Pacific 

Northwest. Specifically, it markets wholesale electric power from 

31 Federal hydro power projects in the Columbia River basin. 

While part of DOE, BPA, as Mr. Cummings has noted, is self-funding and covers its costs by selling its products and services to ratepayers and through borrowing from the U.S. Treasury. 

In 2012, DOE received a complaint alleging prohibited personnel 

practices at BPA and provided this information to the inspector 

general. The inspector general informed the Department that it 

had also received a similar complaint. The IG subsequently reVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Feb 20, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86720.TXT APRIL
17 

quested that DOE review these matters. DOE conducted a review 

of the hiring cases identified in the initial complaint and briefed 

the IG on the findings. Included in the Department’s findings was 

concern that BPA had not followed the personnel requirements related to veterans’ hiring practices. 

Based on these initial findings, DOE took a series of actions to 

address the situation at BPA. First, DOE required BPA to submit 

all cases involving hiring from the general public to DOE for review and concurrence before proceeding; second, DOE subsequently 

formally suspended the BPA administrator’s authority to conduct 

hires from the general public; and, third, based on the preliminary 

findings from the June 2013 audit, DOE formally suspended BPA’s 

authority to conduct hiring from within the existing Federal workforce. 

Based on its June 2013 audit, DOE also outlined steps BPA 

needed to take to correct its hiring procedures. DOE continues to 

provide support to BPA to assist Bonneville in taking corrective actions as needed and to develop and implement sound human resource processes and procedures. 

As the committee is aware, the IG and others have also indicated 

there were allegations of retaliation against BPA employees who 

were cooperating with the IG’s investigation. Let me be clear. DOE 

is strongly committed to a workplace where all workers are free to 

speak out, voice concerns, or lodge complaints without fear of retaliation. For this reason we were seriously concerned when we 

learned, after the fact, that BPA had issued a notification of proposed removal against a potential whistleblower. DOE then took 

swift and decisive action. 

First, DOE requested that BPA provide all documentation associated with proposed adverse actions; second, DOE temporarily suspended BPA’s authority to take any adverse personnel actions and 

instructed BPA to provide DOE headquarters with all information 

on any adverse actions in process or under consideration; third, as 

has been noted already, I directed the administrator of BPA to take 

no adverse personnel actions against BPA employees, to immediately suspend any such actions that had already been taken, and 

to instruct any such employee then on administrative or any other 

type of leave to return to work immediately. I also directed the 

BPA administrator to provide a full, prompt report of any actions 

that conceivably could fall into these categories. Furthermore, I directed the administrator to immediately convey to all BPA employees that they can cooperate freely with IG and other investigations 

without fear of retaliation. Finally, I sent a team to BPA to conduct 

a management review and named Elliott Mainzer as acting administrator of BPA on an interim basis. 

In conclusion, we recognize the committee’s interest in this matter and share your objective of remedying any deficiencies in personnel practices at BPA. We look forward to a full accounting of 

the facts once the IG’s investigation is complete so that we can 

evaluate the situation and, as necessary, build on the steps already 

taken to assure that BPA staff understand Federal hiring rules and 

have the capability and systems in place to implement them appropriately. BPA remains committed to performing its mission and to 

serving the Nation, the region, and its customers while ensuring 

18 

continuity and stability in its operations. The Department will be 

working actively to support Bonneville as it continues to fulfill 

these vital responsibilities and to make progress on critical issues 

facing the organization and the region. We are all grateful for the 

dedicated service of the thousands of BPA employees who strive 

every day to fulfill their mission. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this completes my 

prepared statement. I would be happy to answer your questions at 

this time. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Poneman follows:] 

19 


Insert offset folio 6 here 86720.006

Statement of Daniel Poneman 

Deputy Secretary 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Before the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

U.S. House of Representatives 

August 1,2013 

Thank you, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and members of the Committee. J am here 

today to discuss the Department of Energy's (DOE) Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and 

the allegations of prohibited personnel practices at BPA detailed in the recent Management Alert 

issued by DOE's Office of the Inspector General (IG).1 

DOE takes these allegations very seriously, and we share the Committee's deep concern regarding 

the IG's preliminary findings of questionable personnel practices. We have responded forcefully 

and continue to work cooperatively to aid and assist in the completion of the IG's investigation of 

BPA. As the IG recognized, the Department "initiated immediate corrective actions which were 

fully responsive to [its] findings and recommendations" so far. As the IG continues its 

investigation, the Department looks forward to a full accounting of the facts so we can carefully 

consider any actions that may be appropriate. 

Bonneville Power Administration 

Based in the Pacific Northwest, BPA markets wholesale electric power from 31 federal 

hydropower projects in the Columbia River Basin, one nonfederal nuclear plant and several small 

nonfederal power plants. The federal dams are operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 

the Department of the Interior's Bureau of RecJamation. 

BPA sells power to electric cooperatives, municipalities, public utility districts, federal agencies, 

investor-owned utilities, direct service industries, port districts and tribal utilities. In addition, BPA 

operates and maintains 15,272 miles of transmission lines including 75 percent of the regions highvoltage transmission lines. BPA provides service to 483 transmission customers. Its service 

territory encompasses some 300,000 square miles and includes Idaho, Oregon, Washington, 

western Montana and parts of eastern Montana, California, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming. While a 

part of the DOE, BPA is self-funding and covers its costs by selling its products and services to 

ratepayers and through borrowing from the U.S. Treasury. 

Allegations of Prohibited Personnel Practices at BPA 

BP A's Federal workforce is administered under the civil service laws in Title 5 of the United States 

Code. Under Title 5, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has the ability to delegate to 

federal agencies most hiring and employment authorities-including the authority to hire Federal 

I DOE/IG.089I. Management Alert. "Allegations Regarding Prohibited Practices at the Bonneville Power 

Administration. " July 2013. 

2 
20 


Insert offset folio 7 here 86720.007

employees, process personnel actions, establish and set pay, and administer labor and employee 

relations activities. OPM delegated all human resources authorities for the Department of Energy to 

the Secretary of Energy, and the Secretary then delegated these authorities to the Department's 

Chief Human Capital Officer. The Chief Human Capital Officer has further delegated these human 

resources authorities to other organizational elements within DOE, including BPA. 

In 2012, DOE received a complaint alleging prohibited personnel practices at BPA and provided 

this information to the IG. The IG informed DOE that it had also received a similar complaint and 

subsequently requested that DOE review these matters. DOE conducted a review ofthe hiring 

cases identified in the initial complaint and communicated with the IG regarding its findings. 

Included in the Department's findings was concern that BPA had not followed the personnel 

practice requirements of Title 5, OPM regulations, and DOE policies and procedures in exercising 

its delegated authority to hire from the general public. 

Based on initial findings, DOE took a series of actions to address the situation at BPA: 

• On April 2, 2013, DOE required BPA to submit all cases involving hiring from the 

general public to DOE for review and concurrence before proceeding, as set forth in a 

memorandum to the Administrator ofBPA and copied to OPM and IG. 

• From April 22 through April 26, 2013, DOE participated in an OPM-Ied independent 

audit ofBPA's hiring practices. The final OPM audit report has not been issued. 

• On May 23, 2013, based on its preliminary findings from the April audit, OPM decertified all BPA human resources employees that had been certified to process hiring 

from the general pUblic. 

• On May 24, 2013, DOE formally suspended the BPA Administrator's authority to 

conduct hires from the general public, as set forth in a memorandum (0 the 

Administrator ofBPA and copied to OPM and IG. 

• On May 29, 2013, DOE notified BPA that the Department's regularly scheduled Human 

Capital audit would be conducted from June 17 through June 21, 2013, two months 

earlier than planned. 

• On June 21,2013, based on the preliminary findings from the Department's June audit, 

DOE formally suspended BPA's authority to conduct hiring from within the existing 

federal workforce, and to classifY all positions, as set forth in a memorandum to the 

Administrator ofBPA and copied to OPM and IG. 

Based on DOE's Human Capital Management Accountability Program audit, DOE outlined steps 

BPA needed to take to correct improper hiring procedures and identified factors that would be 

reviewed to assess compliance with federal hiring laws, rules, and regulations. DOE is continuing 

to provide support to BPA's human capital staff to assist them in taking corrective actions, as 

needed, and developing and implementing sound human resource processes and procedures. 

3 
21 


Insert offset folio 8 here 86720.008

Allegations of Retaliation at BPA 

DOE is strongly committed to a workplace where all workers are free to speak out, voice concerns, 

or lodge complaints-with the Department, Congress, or other entities-without fear of retaliation. 

Consistent with that commitment, the Department directed the Administrator ofBPA that there be 

no retaliation against any employees who may have raised concerns regarding questionable 

personnel practices at BPA. For this reason, we were seriously concerned when we learned, after 

the fact, that BPA had issued a notification of proposed removal against a potential whistleblower. 

DOE then took swift and decisive action: 

• On July 8, 2013, DOE requested that BPA provide all documentation associated with 

proposed adverse actions against two employees on BPA's Human Capital 

Management staff that had recently come to the attention of DOE . 

• On July 9,2013, DOE temporarily suspended BPA's authority to take any adverse 

personnel actions against BPA employees upon learning that BPA was on the verge of 

proposing the removal of another BPA Human Capital Management employee. DOE 

directed BPA to stop that proposed removal and provide DOE with all information on 

any adverse actions in process or under consideration at BPA for further review. 

• On July 10,2013, I directed the Administrator ofBPA to take no adverse personnel 

actions against BPA's Human Capital Management employees, to immediately 

suspend any such actions that had already been taken, and to instruct any such 

employee then on administrative or any other type of leave due to a proposed removal 

or suspension to return to work immediately. I also directed the BPA Administrator to 

provide a full, prompt report of any actions that conceivably could fall into these 

categories to the Department's Office of Human Capital Management. Furthermore, I 

directed the Administrator to immediately convey to all BPA employees that they can 

cooperate freely with IG and other investigations without fear of retaliation. 

• I also sent a team to BPA right away to conduct a management review. 

• On July 15, 2013, Elliot Mainzer was named Acting Administrator ofBPA on an 

interim basis. 

• On July 19,2013, BPA Acting Administrator Elliot Mainzer sent an email to all BPA 

employees "[reiterating] BPA's absolute commitment to a workplace free of retaliation, 

particularly against those who raise concerns. We protect the right of employees to 

speak out, voice any concerns, or lodge complaints with any authoritative body as they 

see fit, without fear of retaliation." 

Conclusion 

BPA remains committed to ensuring continuity and stability in its operations and will be working 

actively to make sure it continues to make progress on critical issues facing the organization and 

the region. DOE is also committed to and has taken steps to ensure human resources offices within 

the Department adhere to all laws and regulations, including veterans' preference laws. We look 

forward to a full accounting of the facts once the IG's investigation is complete so that we can 

4 
22 


Insert offset folio 9 here 86720.009

evaluate the situation and, as necessary, build on the steps already taken to assure that BPA staff 

understand federal hiring rules and have the capability and systems in place to implement them 

appropriately. 

DOE will work with the Acting Administrator ofBPA to act quickly and constructively to resolve 

all the issues identified by the IG investigation, DOE's and the Office of Personnel Management's 

Human Capital Management Accountability audits, as well as to take all appropriate steps pursuant 

to the ongoing management review ofBPA .We recognize the Committee's interest in this matter as 

well, and share your objective of remedying the any deficiencies at BPA. Mr. Chairman, and 

members of the Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer 

your questions at this time. 

5 
23 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Ms. Decker. 

STATEMENT OF ANITA J. DECKER 

Ms. DECKER. Chairman Issa, Member Cummings, and distinguished members of the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, I am here as a result of acceptance of the chairman’s invitation, which I initially declined. Given my limited ability to prepare, the lack of final findings or resolution on personnel matters 

at issue and my tenuous position of being on administrative leave 

have given me pause. 

On July 15th, as you have already established, I was placed on 

administrative leave by DOE. The memorandum I received recites 

allegations that BPA engaged in improper hiring practices, violations of veterans’ preference and merit system principles, and allegations of whistleblower reprisal. There are no particular allegations against me specifically. 

I have not been allowed to access the BPA buildings, documents, 

personnel, or computer systems up until this Sunday, so I have 

only had limited time to prepare, so I hope you will give me a little 

bit of grace for that. 

I would like to state that I would never knowingly allow BPA to 

implement policies or practices that violate Federal veterans’ hiring. I am proud of BPA’s record of veteran hiring, both personally 

and professionally. My father served in the U.S. Navy; my stepbrother retired from active duty as a U.S. Marine; my stepsister 

left the Air Force after 14 years of service and then spent 19 years 

in the U.S. Air Force Reserves, including being deployed to Iraq. 

I have a stepson who served in the U.S. Navy who is now working 

for the Post Office as a contractor. So the importance of veterans’ 

preference does not escape me; it has personal meaning for me. I 

have actively supported veteran personnel and I was extremely 

proud for Bonneville to be recognized for supporting veterans and 

for me personally to be recognized by Bonneville’s veterans. 

The main issue regarding BPA hiring practices had to do with 

BPA’s interpretation and implementation in late 2010 of the category rating process envisioned in the Improving the Federal Recruitment and Hiring Process. BPA’s implementation of how to 

apply the category rating was incorrect. That said, the issue that 

was identified by BPA staff, identified by BPA staff in May of 2012. 

At that time, more than a year ago, BPA stopped the practice that 

was in question. 

In July of 2012, I learned that either there had been or there 

was going to be a complaint issued to the IG. I responded as described in my written testimony. When I left Bonneville in August 

of 2012 to serve as acting administrator of the Western Area Power 

Administration at the request of DOE, I thought the hiring issues 

would be timely resolved. Most importantly for me before I left was 

the fact that the hiring practice that had disadvantaged both veterans and non-veterans had been stopped. 

I returned to Bonneville eight months later, in April of 2013. 

Upon return I found that the reconstruction process, the required 

process when a veteran has not been granted the proper preference, had not yet been completed. A variety of factors combined 

24 

to delay that resolution, but both BPA and DOE have first attempted to ensure that we have all of the issues that need to be 

remediated for before we begin remediation. 

With respect to the allegations of retaliations against whistleblowers, I can assure this committee that I take that very seriously 

and I understand the sensitivities associated with protecting whistleblowers. While the actions in question in the IG Management 

Alert are in my line of responsibility, I am not the decision maker 

of the proposed actions. While I might be aware of some of the actions, my primary interest was are those actions following the appropriate personnel actions and processes that are designed to protect both the individual and the agency and taxpayers, and in this 

case Bonneville’s ratepayers. 

I also take performance management very seriously and believe 

the Federal personnel system contains checks and balances intended to protect the agency’s ability to fairly manage performance 

and protect employees from retaliation. My personal belief, my 

training, my legal advice from BPA counsel have made it very clear 

there is zero tolerance for retaliation. It also counsels that making 

a complaint or other protected activity does not insulate an individual from performance accountability solely because that person 

engaged in a protected activity such as complaints or cooperating 

in an IG investigation. 

In summary, in regard to retaliation, until the investigation, audits, and legal determinations are final, jumping to conclusions is 

inappropriate and may do unintended damage to effective and efficient government and to public servants. 

In regard to veterans, we made a regrettable mistake. We 

stopped making that mistake over a year ago. I want to be part of 

making this right. 

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to answer any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Decker follows:] 

25 


Insert offset folio 10 here 86720.010

Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings and distinguished members of the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 

I submit my statement concerning the subject of this Committee hearing. I am here this 

morning as a result of my reluctant acceptance of the Committee's invitation, which I 

initially dcclined given the limited ability to prepare, having to testity only from personal 

knowledge and the tenuous position of being on administrative leave and with no final 

findings available. On the advice of counsel, I am appearing rather than challenge the 

authority of this Committee to require me to appear by subpoena under the circumstances 

in which I find myself. I am part of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) 

management team; but I am here only in my personal capacity as DOE is the 

spokesperson for BP A at this hearing and has informed me that I am only to speak from 

my personal knowledge. 

On July 15,2013, I was placed on administrative leave by the Department of Energy. 

While on administrative leave, I am not allowed access to documents, personnel or the 

BPA computer system. This past Sunday afternoon, I was restored to duty only for the 

purpose of preparing my testimony and attending this hearing. I have now had access to 

my email and some documents. On Tuesday afternoon I was granted access to speak to 

some staff for the purpose of refreshing my recollection. I have realized the benefit of 

review as some of my initial recall may have been inaccurate or incomplete. I will make 

every effort to be accurate and complete in my responses to your questions today, but 

please recognize that I would have been better prepared if the circumstances had allowed 

the opportunity for more complete preparation. 

To elaborate, I was placed on administrative leave, according to a memorandum provided 

me by DOE stating allegations that BPA engaged in improper hiring practices, violations 

of veterans' preference and merit system principles, and allegations of whistle blower 

reprisal. When I return to Portland, I expect I will be placed again on administrative 

leave. 

I would like to say at the outset that I would never knowingly allow BP A to implement 

policies or practices violating the federal policy supporting veterans hiring. I am very 

proud of BPA's record of veteran hiring, both professionally and personally. My father 

served in the US Navy, I have a step-brother who is a retired US Marine, a step-sister 

who left active US Air Force service after 14 years only to spend an additional 19 years 

as part of the Air Force Reserves, including being deployed to Iraq, and a step-son who 

served in the US Navy, so the importance of veterans preference has a personal meaning 

to me. It's my understanding that BPA's hiring of veterans has been roughly comparable 

to other non-defense executive agencies. I have actively supported veteran personnel 

and was extremely proud to have received recognition for BPA and me personally for 

support of veterans at BPA. 

The main issue regarding hiring practices had to do with BPA's interpretation and 

implementation in late 2010 of the category rating process envisioned in the May Il, 

2010 memorandum for Improving the Federal Recruitment and Hiring Process. BPA's 

2 
26 


Insert offset folio 11 here 86720.011

interpretation of how to apply category rating was incorrect. The issue was identified by 

BPA staff in May of2012. And, at that timc--more than a year ago--BPA Human Capital 

Management stopped the practices in question. 

In July 2012 when I learned an employee had made or intended to make a complaint to 

the DOE Inspector General, I requested a meeting of key BP A staff and counsel to review 

what had occurred. BPA HCM had already begun reviewing past hiring actions to 

identifY impacts on veterans, but we needed to ensure we understood the scope ofthe 

impacts and evaluate the hiring cases for the period in question and determine where 

corrective actions needed to be made. This review was underway when I was asked to 

temporarily take another assignment but most importantly, the hiring practice that had 

disadvantaged both veterans and non-veterans had stopped. 

In August 2012 I was temporarily reassigned as Acting Administrator of the Western 

Area Power Administration and relocatcd to Lakewood, Colorado. Another BPA 

executive took over as Acting COO at BPA. During my absence I understand DOE HCM 

were also reviewing specific BPA's hiring case files and policies as well. I returned to my 

position as COO at BPA nearly 8 months later, in early April, 2013. 

Upon returning to BPA, I understood that the "reconstruction process" required when a 

veteran has not been granted the proper preference had not yet been completed as we 

were seeking further instruction from DOE to initiate the reconstruction process with 

respect to veterans. After my return, OPM led an audit with DOE ofBPA hiring 

practices. The IG Inquiry, OPM audit and DOE review of the hiring cases have all been a 

factor in the delay in an attempt to ensure all issues are known that must be remediated. 

With respeet to allegations of retaliation against whistleblowers, I can assure the 

Committee that I take this very seriously and understand the sensitivities that can be 

associated with protecting whistleblowers. While these actions are in my line of 

responsibility, I am not the decision maker on the proposed actions. I was aware of some 

of the actions and my interest was that actions appropriately follow the processes that are 

designed to protect an individual and the interests of taxpayers, or in BPA's case, 

ratepayers. 

I also take performance management very seriously and believe that the federal personnel 

system contains checks and balances intended to protect the agency's ability to fairly 

manage performance and protect employees from retaliation. My training and legal 

advice from BPA counsel makes clear the federal policy of "zero tolerance" for 

retaliation. It also counsels management that making a complaint or other protected 

activity does not insulate an individual from accountability just because the person may 

engage in protected activity such as complaints to or cooperation with an Inspector 

General investigation. 

In the case or cases that are the subject of the IG Management Alert and a subject ofthis 

committee hearing the actions were not determined by a single person or department. In 

each case, the manager has worked with an Employee Relations Specialist and legal 

3 
27 


Insert offset folio 12 here 86720.012

counsel, both whom have special training and a duty to immediately report retaliation if it 

is their judgment it has or will occur when working through any proposals for personnel 

action. 

My understanding is that the system exists so that an employee who believes he or she 

has been subjected to illegal reprisal may raise that issue and obtain relief if legal 

standards for proving reprisal are met. To my knowledge, the principles of balance 

between guarding against retaliation and managing performance were being followed. 

In summary, in regard to retaliation, until the investigation, audits and any legal 

determinations are final, jumping to conclusions is inappropriate and may do unintended 

damage to effective and efficient government and public servants. 

In regard to veterans, we made a regrettable mistake, we stopped making the mistake 

over a year ago and I want be part of making this right. 

I will now answer any questions you have. 

4 
28 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

I recognize myself. 

Ms. Decker, you are Senior Executive Service. 

Ms. DECKER. Correct. 

Chairman ISSA. I just want you to be aware that there is a bill 

on the floor today. If that becomes law, it would require, before you 

be terminated, that you be told at the time that you would be removed, and with 30 days to remedy it, what you are being accused 

of. Not everyone on the dais is going to vote for that, but I will be 

one who will support that. I am not a fan of long administrative 

leaves and I am completely opposed to people being on the payroll, 

off the job, and neither accused nor in a position to even prepare 

to explain what happened as time goes by. I don’t think that is 

good management practice. 

But I want to ask you a specific question, and perhaps, in a 

sense, this will be more of a personal question. Could you briefly 

tell us when you learned that you were being put on administrative 

leave and the events that occurred in those first few minutes when 

that happened? 

Ms. DECKER. Mr. Chairman, I had an email that said I needed 

to be available for a phone call at 9:00. A woman from DOE’s 

Human Capital Office called me and said that an individual was 

going to bring me an envelope and there would be a knock at my 

door, and there was and I was handed an envelope, and inside that 

envelope was a memo from the woman I was talking to on the 

phone that said, as I said in my oral statement, Bonneville was 

under investigation and she had been delegated the authority to 

put me on administrative leave and, therefore, she was. And the 

letter gave instructions of what I needed to return in terms of Government property and that I would need to check in every day until 

further notice. And the gentleman who handed me the envelope 

came and I gave him my Government possessions and he walked 

me out of the building. 

Chairman ISSA. Let me paragraph that. They sort of took your 

gun and badge, and walked you out virtually at gunpoint; you were 

not allowed to do anything except walk out of the building and it 

was a fairly public display, wasn’t it? 

Ms. DECKER. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. Have you seen that done before at Bonneville? 

Is that a standard practice? 

Ms. DECKER. I would not call it a standard practice. There are 

times when someone has been notified, like in a proposal, or if they 

are going to be on administrative leave for cause, that that is the 

process that Bonneville follows as well. 

Chairman ISSA. But you were not told you were on administrative leave for cause. 

Ms. DECKER. No. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. 

Secretary, you talked in terms of a fairly aggressive action once 

you became aware of this, but let’s go through, based on what Ms. 

Decker said. One, DOE knew about this more than a year ago, correct? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Mr. Chairman, when you say this, what are you 

referring to? 

29 

Chairman ISSA. Well, you knew about the wrong use of the hiring practices, the discriminatory hiring practices in May of last 

year. 

Mr. PONEMAN. Mr. Chairman, there was an anonymous complaint that was filed in May of last year, that is correct. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, Mr. Friedman, maybe I will go through it 

with you quickly. Between May of last year and the time Ms. Decker was walked out of the building, was there a time in which whatever—and we don’t want to get into details of why she is on administrative leave, but was there a time that people knew that there 

was a there-there that was well before that day? And, more importantly, as I understand it, Ms. Decker was gone for eight months. 

Basically, during the 90 days or less in which she returned, was 

there some action that triggered her being placed on administrative 

leave? And you don’t have to tell me what it was, but administrative leave and the need to remove her from the building in that 

way. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, let me treat that in two parts, Mr. Chairman. First of all, there were a number of people within the Department of Energy who were aware of the fact, from June 2012 to the 

date that these events took place that you are referring to, that 

there was a problem or there was an alleged problem with regard 

to personnel practices at Bonneville. So to set the stage, I think 

you are right about that. 

With regard to any individual being placed on administrative 

leave, I did not recommend that, I didn’t suggest it, I wasn’t consulted, given a thumbs up or thumbs down, so I can’t fill in the details as to what transpired and the thought process behind that. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay, but at this point you have reached a conclusion, which was they certainly broke the rules when it came to 

hiring and it worked to the detriment of veterans. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I reached the conclusion, the Department’s 

Human Capital Office reached the conclusion, and the Office of 

Personnel Management have reached that conclusion. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. Two more quick questions. One, we have 

the name of five, but there are, if I understand, at least six people 

who qualify, in your opinion, as whistleblowers in this case who 

went to the Office of Special Counsel, etcetera. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Yes, that is roughly correct. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. If the number is not right, in another setting, we would appreciate it. We would also appreciate the names. 

Mr. Poneman, I am going to be very brief. One, you mentioned 

privacy in your opening statement. You do understand that we are 

not covered by privacy laws. Congress specifically exempted itself 

from that, so we are entitled to things which would otherwise not 

be available under the Privacy Act. 

Mr. PONEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am referring to restrictions I am 

told I am subject to under the Privacy Act, sir. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. Because we have a number of things we 

want to make you aware of. First of all, we have sent you two letters; one received no response whatsoever, and that was July 16th, 

and the second one we are not happy with the response and we will 

talk to you offline. Before I yield to the ranking member, the point 

that I want to make is this: we expect if something cannot be said 

30 

in an opening hearing, if it is sensitive, prior to that hearing we 

get a full and complete either in camera or otherwise arranged review. We are not as well prepared as we would like to be today 

particularly because immediately after the notification we sent a 

letter and got no response, and the letter was addressed to you. 

Mr. PONEMAN. Congressman, we always seek to being cooperative with this committee. It was my understanding that the letter 

that had been sent was responsive to both of your incomings, which 

came in the space of a couple of days. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, Mr. Secretary, just so you know, and I am 

going to yield to the ranking member, you didn’t even call us and, 

no, there was no written response. So you represent the Administration. Understand this is an Administration who has systematically not responded. So we have known each other a long time, but 

you get a little tarred and feathered if you act like many other Administration officials and we get that kind of non-response. This is 

not something, as I told you when we talked privately, this is something where we think it is fairly local, fairly contained, but it really 

encompasses an important message, both on whistleblowers and 

veterans, that I think the committee wants to make sure that we 

shed light on and spread the word throughout the Administration. 

So I am not going to belabor this. I expect that we get full cooperation. You and I have a past where I think we have great respect 

for being able to work these things out. 

Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Speaking of what the chairman left off, I have 

a letter here dated July 24th, 2013 that I received a copy of that 

was addressed to the chairman from Eric Fygi? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Fygi, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Were you aware of this letter? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. It seems to be not your response, but he refers 

to the letter of July 16th and July 17th in this letter. Were you 

aware of this? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But you did not personally provide a response to 

the chairman, is that right? 

Mr. PONEMAN. It is my understanding that this letter, I think, 

is fairly standard procedure, was the response from the Department on my behalf, and I am here today, sir, as I always do appear 

because we do completely accept the oversight authorities that you 

all have and we are committed to being cooperative. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Friedman, let me ask you this. In response 

to one of the chairman’s questions just a moment ago, you said that 

you had nothing to do, you rendered no opinion with regard to Ms. 

Decker being placed on administrative leave. Is that what you 

said? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Yes. I think, in fairness, Mr. Cummings, that I 

was told a day or two in advance that that was the plan, but it 

was not my recommendation. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Is this something you would opine on? I mean, 

is that something that you would normally provide an opinion on? 

I am just curious. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Under these circumstances, probably not. 

31 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I see. You sounded as if you were disappointed 

that you didn’t have something to say about that and I just wanted 

to clear it up. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I appreciate the question. The answer is I conveyed a disappointment, that was not accurate. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. Mr. Friedman, your Management Alert 

says this, ‘‘Bonneville engaged in prohibited personnel practices in 

65 percent of its competitive recruitments conducted from November 20th to June 2012. I have to tell you, as I listen to all of this, 

having been, in my early practice, in the late 1970s, to be in civil 

rights practice and to have seen so many people discriminated 

against, I take this whole episode very seriously because I know 

the damage that it does. As far as I am concerned, it is criminal 

when people deprive people of their rightful opportunities. But can 

you explain to me, very briefly, how veterans applying for these positions were disadvantaged by these actions? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Yes. It is nuanced and subtle, but let me try to 

make it as simple as I possibly can. Under the system that was in 

place after the president’s memorandum, and was in place in Bonneville in November of 2010, essentially a best qualified list was 

derived and a formula was created to set the parameters for the 

best qualified list. Veterans, by definition, if they met the best 

qualified list, went to the top; they had to be selected. They could 

have rejected the job offer, but they had to be selected. What Bonneville did is they adjusted the criteria after the fact. So instead 

of a rating of 90 to 100 falls in the best category list, it was modified from up to 95 being the lower threshold and, in effect, everyone who scored from 90 to 95 or 94, depending upon how the 

threshold was changed, was essentially excluded from consideration, and vets were in that. Vets and non-vets, people who were 

entitled to veterans’ preference and those that were not were essentially excluded from further consideration as a result of changing 

the bottom cut line. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You said vets and non-vets. So how did we get 

zeroed in on vets? In other words, if there are other people, women, 

African-Americans? I am just trying to figure out why we zeroed 

in on vets. And don’t get me wrong. I think it is very important 

that we address vets, but I am trying to figure out. Take me there. 

Help me with that. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I understand your point, Mr. Cummings, I believe. First of all, the allegations that we received specifically indicated that vets had been disadvantaged. But you are absolutely 

correct, there was a population that was disadvantaged that included, most likely, and we don’t know specifically because the reconstruction that has been talked about has not taken place, but 

it no doubt included women, minorities, a broad cross-section of applicants. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. This is an ongoing investigation, is it not? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Yes. Can I qualify? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Sure. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. It is not, at this point, an investigation. Important distinction. It is an inspection and it is an allegation-based inspection. 

32 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Would you supply us with the information as to 

the other folks that may have been discriminated against here, 

that may have fallen in that category? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. The answer is I can’t do it immediately. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I know that. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. No, at some point the Department is going to 

have to go, either internally or using consultants, on a case-by-case 

basis and reconstruct each one of those vacancy announcements to 

provide the information that you are looking for, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. How many veterans are we talking about here? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. If I knew the answer to that question, I could answer your earlier question. We don’t know. But in the 20 cases that 

the Department looked at, there were 35 vets that were disadvantaged, in just 20 cases. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. At this point, do you know why employees were 

doing this? Were they intentionally trying to exclude veterans or 

were they just trying to reduce the number of total applicants they 

had to consider? You have heard Ms. Decker’s testimony that there 

may have been some confusion with regard to how to do this scoring. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, let me try to break it down. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Break it down. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. First of all, Bonneville personnel indicated that 

there was confusion in terms of the policy and the procedure. I 

have no basis for disputing that except that, Mr. Cummings, a fair 

person who would read the direction in the policy, it was crystal 

clear. So I don’t suggest that these people were misleading us or 

lying to us; I would suggest that the credibility in terms of that 

line of thinking was really in doubt. 

Secondly, I am sorry, could you go back to the first part of your 

question? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you know—— 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. The Bonneville personnel involved indicated that 

the reason they did it, and you hit upon it in your question, was 

that they were trying to reduce the size of the pool that was going 

to the selecting official, to make it manageable. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Finally, Ms. Decker, as the chief operating officer 

of BPA, let me give you an opportunity to respond to the IG’s finding. Do you agree with the IG that BPA engaged in prohibited personnel practices during this time frame to the detriment of veterans? And my last question is what is your sense of why this happened? Was it intentional? Was it poor training? 

Mr. DECKER. Representative, the bottom line is I agree with the 

IG’s findings. We did apply and implement the category rating incorrectly. I think there is not a dispute with Bonneville. Mr. Friedman stated that OPM found that, that DOE found that, that the 

IG found that. Bonneville also found that and is why we stopped 

the practice. We found that we had implemented it incorrectly. I 

do not believe that it was intentional, because the rationale, if you 

consider that we moved the line, which that is what the intentional 

act, of moving the line. We intentionally did move the line. Why 

we did it was because we were misinformed or didn’t understand 

how to apply it correctly. But when we moved the line, that line 

didn’t then exclude all veterans, but it excluded that pocket of vetVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Feb 20, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86720.TXT APRIL
33 

erans. So say it was from 90 to 100 percent and we moved the line 

to 95. Anyone that was in that 90 to 94 percent suddenly got excluded. But anyone that was above the 95 percent line, which did 

include veterans, in fact still, was referred to the hiring manager. 

I believe it was not an intentional act. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you think it was poor training? 

Ms. DECKER. I do believe that it was poor training. As I understand it, folks had some training. I think the training was deficient. And I think that the retraining that is going on now will rectify that. But we did implement a faulty implementation. That is 

not in dispute. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. I just want to have Mr. Friedman 

follow up on the effect. And I will run you through real quick numbers and you tell me if this is correct. You have 50 slots to be hired. 

You have 50 people in the top 5 percent and you have 100 people 

in the top 10 percent. By going to a 10 percent mark to a 5 percent 

mark, let’s assume for a moment that there are 25 veterans in the 

top 5 and 25 veterans in the second 5. If you take 10 percent, 50 

veterans get 50 slots. If you take 5 percent, 25 veterans get the 

slots and 25 non-veterans get it. Is that roughly the arithmetic, the 

way it works, because veterans flow to the top? The smaller the 

group, the more chance you have of essentially, with a given 

amount of slots, running out of veterans and taking other people. 

Is that what you found in your inquiry? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I completely follow 

your numbers, but, in principle, you have it right. But just let me 

clarify one thing. It is not going to the top, it is more severe than 

that; it is they must be offered a position. So they get a primacy 

that is extremely—— 

Chairman ISSA. Right. And I said to the top in the sense that if 

there is only 50 slots and there are 60 veterans, only 50 get offered. 

So it is very much like the gentleman said, and I think it is a good 

point, it is like civil rights discrimination. If you create an environment in which you exclude a group of people, for whatever characteristic, that would get something, they don’t get it, and that is 

effectively what you found in your investigation. So misunderstanding 5 to 10, somebody probably understood the effect of how 

many of this particular group that uniquely would be offered a position if they were on that list, you knew you were excluding them 

by definition, because you knew the size of the hiring, so you knew 

the size that were not going to be included. And I think Ms. Decker 

said it, it wasn’t always the same, it was 94 or 95 percent. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, but I 

would like to draw a distinction between recognizing that people 

who are entitled to veterans’ preference were, by definition, now 

below the line, therefore would not be considered in contrast to saying that it was done intentionally to disadvantage the vets. I am 

not there yet. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. Well, we look forward to that continued 

process. 

34 

I am going to go out of order to recognize the chairman of the 

full Resource Committee because he also has a hearing. Mr. 

Hastings. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your accommodations and to allow me to come in here after my colleagues. I have 

been chairing a hearing on the transparency and the scientific integrity of the Endangered Species Act, not an insignificant issue. 

The subject of this hearing is of considerable interest to me for 

multiple reasons, both as a member of this committee with oversight responsibilities and also chairman of the Natural Resources 

Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Bonneville Power Administration and other power marketing authorities. That is why 

that interest is there. 

It is also of interest to me because of the importance of upholding 

promises made to our Nation’s veterans and policies governing 

their hiring by Federal agencies. 

Lastly is a parochial interest to me, because the district that I 

was elected to represent, BPA is a very important part of that because it provides the wholesale power, the transmission to the 

greater northwest. And I might add, Mr. Chairman, that agency is 

fully founded by ratepayers. 

As a result, the Northwest Congressional Delegation has long 

worked in a bipartisan way on overseeing BPA. So when it comes 

to these allegations, there clearly is bipartisan support in seeking 

the truth and ensuring that the appropriate responses to make certain BPA is operating properly so it can move forward in the future. 

There should be no doubt on the part of any person or agency 

that the Congress takes fair treatments of its veterans very seriously. Allegations of improper actions must be properly and carefully investigated. So I encourage the Office of Inspector General 

to be both thorough and timely in completing its reports. The full 

facts obviously need to be known. 

This is important. The full facts, which we do not have here 

today, are needed to be able to fairly and accurately assess the actions of BPA and DOE to determine how to move forward on this 

point. And let it be clear, the actions of DOE officials are certainly 

under scrutiny, at least from my perspective as the chairman of the 

Natural Resources Committee. 

Before these allegations ever came to light, there have been serious bipartisan questions about this Administration’s intentions as 

it relates to power marketing authorities, or PMAs. For months, 

dating back to last year, I have sought documents and information 

from DOE concerning what is commonly known as the Chew 

memo, a directive from then Secretary Chew to the PMAs that 

threatened to arbitrarily increase electricity rates of 40 million 

Americans in order to pursue questionable energy dictates. To be 

very blunt, Mr. Chairman, DOE has not been transparent in that 

regard. In fact, for months DOE has been uncooperative in this regard. DOE owes the Committee on Natural Resources the request 

that they had for documents surrounding this. 

BPA and PMAs have an established mission under the law. This 

is important. And this mission should not be subject to political interference to pursue particular policy penchants of any presidential 

35 

administration, whether that administration is Republican or Democrat. Oversight of both of these matters will continue from the 

perspective of the Natural Resources Committee and I certainly intend to fully participate in any future actions by this committee. 

Once again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your courtesy in allowing me to come here after leaving my hearing. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield briefly? 

Mr. HASTINGS. I would be happy to yield. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Secretary Poneman, I want to run very, very quick questions, because the short response we received from Eric Fygi, we had asked 

a question about potential for retaliation and directives, and we got 

an answer saying that you didn’t order or tell people not to respond. But I want to go through something quickly. Did you give 

a directive, verbal or otherwise, to anybody at Bonneville Power not 

to discuss the situation with anybody outside the BPA? In other 

words, did you have a conversation with somebody who then could 

have acted on your statements? 

Mr. PONEMAN. I certainly have frequently, Mr. Chairman, said 

we are one organization and we need to coordinate our communications when we are dealing with the outside world, yes. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay, so somebody could have taken your statement that we have to coordinate to mean that somehow people 

should only answer questions coordinated or talk to Congress on a 

coordinated basis. 

Mr. PONEMAN. I have no idea what they read into my statements, but, as I said, Mr. Chairman, it is our policy that we speak 

with one voice and we always seek to coordinate our messaging to 

the public, to the Congress, to the press, and so forth. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, Mr. Secretary, it concerns me that you say 

that. You don’t have to coordinate the truth; you don’t have to prepare to tell the truth. The fact is that we expect people to be told 

something closer to your original opening statement, which is that 

you are free to talk to congress; it is not only your right, but it is 

your responsibility, and that although notification may in some 

cases, if we classify notification, may be appropriate, that coordinating is a term or code, in my opinion, for come to us, let us tell 

you what to say, let’s talk about what you would say. That kind 

of coaching is outside what we would consider to be a free exchange 

that encourages people to tell us, right or wrong, what they think 

happened. 

Mr. PONEMAN. Let me be very, very clear about this, Mr. Chairman, because I think this is a very important question that you 

raise. It is absolutely fundamental, as a matter of fairness, as a 

matter of everything that we stand in our management principles 

and everything else, that any individual, be they a Federal employee or a contract employee, must be free at any and all times 

to cooperate fully, to step forward, to express any concerns, tutored 

or untutored, whatever is on their mind, they have to be free to 

step forward and say exactly what they think to anyone. I have 

been very clear about that consistently. 

That is a very different thing than assuring that one’s policy responses in a very complex organization, with a lot of different 

36 

issues, river treaties, rate cases, and so forth, it is confusing and 

inaccurate if we then convey 115,000 views out of 115,000 people. 

Chairman ISSA. I am going to Mr. Lynch, but we have been told 

by staff at Bonneville Power they are under the impression they 

are not to speak to anyone outside of Bonneville Power Administration or DOE about this situation. That is their impression when 

they have said I can’t speak to you because that is my understanding. And, of course, that thwarts our investigation, which isn’t 

that much of an investigation in the sense that we are very, very 

much just trying to look over the shoulder of the IG, get comfortable so that we can make an assessment on a Government-wide 

basis. So we have been a little surprised that they have the impression that you say you are not trying to give them. 

Mr. PONEMAN. I am surprised too, Mr. Chairman, because everything I have said verbally and everything I have put out in emails 

and so forth has said everybody is free to step forward without fear 

of reprisal or retaliation. I have been absolutely consistent in that. 

Chairman ISSA. Or coordination, hopefully, in the future. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent to have one 

minute just to clear this up. 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman is recognized for one minute. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

I want you to listen to what I am saying very carefully, because 

I don’t want misimpressions. But I also want to know your answer. 

You haven’t done anything to stop anybody from telling the truth, 

have you? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Absolutely not, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to make sure that is clear because we 

want the truth, as I have said many times, the truth, the whole 

truth, and nothing but the truth. So I just want to make that clear. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Lynch. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the witnesses for coming before the committee 

to help us with this. I am the former chairman, now the ranking 

member of the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, so I am a 

big champion of veterans’ preference. Matter of fact, the distinguished veterans of the United States Armed Forces have enjoyed 

veterans’ preference for hiring in Federal positions since the Civil 

War, the American Civil War, and well deserved, I think. The longstanding Federal policy of veterans’ preference in hiring was borne 

out of our collective recognition of the immeasurable sacrifices that 

our brave sons and daughters in uniform have made on behalf of 

this grateful Nation. The veterans’ preference has been codified in 

law, including the landmark Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944 and 

the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act of 1998, and other Federal statutes. So it is a matter of law. It is not a suggestion; it is 

a priority that we have recognized and it needs to be followed. 

These veterans have earned this. 

And it is important to remember that for this workforce that we 

are considering of veterans, the Gulf War veterans, Iraq veterans, 

Afghanistan war veterans, this is a volunteer force and many, 

many, many of them have served multiple tours of duty where they 

have not only put their civilian careers on hold, but also their perVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Feb 20, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86720.TXT APRIL
37 

sonal lives on hold so that they can serve this Country. So these 

laws for veterans’ preference also reflect our national commitment 

to ensuring that our men and women in uniform are not penalized 

because they have served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan 

and in the Gulf. So with that interruption in their civilian careers, 

if they don’t get veterans’ preference, they are penalized. So this 

is an affirmative step that we are taking to make sure that they 

are not penalized for their duty to this Country. 

Now, I am greatly concerned by the inspector general’s preliminary findings set forth in the July 16th Management Alert, and I 

am going to quote from them. He says BPA engaged in hiring practices that ‘‘effectively disadvantaged veterans and other applicants 

and were inconsistent with the concerted efforts by the Federal 

Government to ensure that veterans receive appropriate preferential treatment in the hiring process.’’ 

Ms. Decker, I appreciate you haven’t had much time to prepare, 

but I have to ask you, in the report, the Alert says ‘‘We have received a number of complaints from the ACM staff members alleging that they were disciplined because they had communicated hiring problems to Bonneville management, to the Office of the Inspector General, and/or to Human Capital officials.’’ You are aware 

of these allegations, correct? 

Ms. DECKER. I am, representative. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. Let’s talk a minute about these disciplinary 

actions, which trouble me greatly. Ms. Decker, in your testimony 

you stated that while these actions are in my line of responsibility, 

I am not the decision-maker on the proposed actions. That is your 

statement. Ms. Decker, which management officials at BPA were 

the decision-makers who proposed and implemented these adverse 

personnel actions? 

Ms. DECKER. Thank you, representative. So just maybe talk a little bit about structure for a second. 

Mr. LYNCH. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, we are not 

going to talk about structure and things like that. I want the 

names of the people. If you are saying it was in your line of responsibility. 

Ms. DECKER. Yes. 

Mr. LYNCH. And you didn’t make it, and other people did, and 

you do go on to say, about the process that was used, who are the 

individuals that we should be talking to that made these decisions 

not to hire veterans, or to limit the number of veterans that we are 

hiring? 

Ms. DECKER. So, Mr. Representative, our human resources director, in conjunction with the human resources manager for staffing 

actually made—let me back up because I am under oath. The decision on how the practice was implemented, I can’t speak to who 

specifically determined this was the interpretation Bonneville 

would take. What I can tell you—— 

Mr. LYNCH. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. In your testimony 

here that you gave to the committee, you say it was made with the 

consultation of a number of individuals. You said they were qualified; they made the decision right down the line. You are not going 

to tell me names? 

38 

Ms. DECKER. Mr. Representative, what I said was that this was 

in my line of authority. I was not the decision-maker. You are asking two different questions. One is who was making decisions on 

the performance management versus who was making decisions on 

the policy. So I am not sure which answer—— 

Mr. LYNCH. Well, give me them both. Give me one, then the next. 

Ms. DECKER. Okay. The decision on the policy of the implementation of the category rating would have been made by the manager 

in the staffing. 

Mr. LYNCH. Who is that? 

Ms. DECKER. At the time—you know, I would have to go back 

and see who the manager was. 

Mr. LYNCH. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. You 

forget? 

Ms. DECKER. I am not sure who the manager was of the staffing—— 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay, let’s go to the next group, the other group that 

decided policy. Do you remember those names? You are under oath, 

now. 

Ms. DECKER. Yes, decided—but what I am not sure of is in terms 

of the policy—— 

Mr. LYNCH. You have to be kidding. 

Ms. DECKER.—it may have been Susan—— 

Mr. LYNCH. You have to be kidding. 

Ms. DECKER. I will give you names. It may have been Susan 

Burns. At the time I believe she was the manager of the policy—— 

Mr. LYNCH. Is that B–Y-R–N-S or—— 

Ms. DECKER. B–U-R–N-S. 

Mr. LYNCH. All right, who else? 

Chairman ISSA. Briefly answer. The gentleman’s time has expired. And I do think that, secretary, that you and the IG probably 

could answer this for the record very accurately. 

Mr. LYNCH. We are on the record. 

Chairman ISSA. No, I meant with qualified instructions within 

the line. I am happy to have her, to the best of her knowledge, answer your questions, but I ran an organization that was only a few 

hundred people, and not being sure which person—and I built the 

company. 

Mr. LYNCH. Sir, with all due respect. 

Chairman ISSA. The gentlelady may answer. 

Mr. LYNCH. With all due respect, though, we spent 20 minutes 

up here on a dance of what was personal and what was not personal. Now we are getting down to the brass tacks of who actually 

did this and we want to defer the question? 

Chairman ISSA. No, I am not deferring. Mr. Lynch, your time has 

expired. What I said was the lady—— 

Mr. LYNCH. Well, I am chatting with you. 

Chairman ISSA. I know. The gentlelady may answer to the best 

of her knowledge or conjecture that it is one of a couple of people, 

but she is under oath. She does not have the documentation in 

front of her. 

Mr. LYNCH. She has her memory, though. That is all I am asking 

her. 

39 

Chairman ISSA. And that is all we have said. But she has said 

she is not sure on a couple of cases. 

So, Ms. Decker, you may answer those questions to the best of 

your knowledge today, and the committee will ask the secretary 

and the IG to provide such documentation so that we may verify 

the accuracy. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay, so can we have your answer to the question? 

Ms. DECKER. I will answer the question. So I have—I will answer 

the question. I have 2700 people that report to me. Knowing specifically which manager, four levels down, that made a decision on 

implementing a policy, I am not as clear about who that specific 

person was, although I believe the name I gave you is accurate. 

In regard to the performance management, the performance 

management decisions were made by first-line supervisors, not all 

the same supervisor, and someone who was an employee relations 

specialist, who is trained to work through performance management issues with their manager and different representatives of 

Bonneville legal counsel. They are each handled individually given 

the circumstances of the performance. 

Mr. LYNCH. So they all, on their own, decided to go with this 95 

percent level? 

Ms. DECKER. No, excuse me, representative. I was referring to 

the individuals that have come under scrutiny or performance scrutiny are not necessarily all in the staffing organization. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We now go to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, and thank you all for being here. 

Mr. Friedman, when did you first learn about the problems that 

we are talking about today? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. The first allegations were received in June and 

August of 2012. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And are you aware of any BPA whistleblowers 

who contacted your office who now face adverse personnel actions? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. The answer to that is yes. Well, face or faced. 

There have been intervening actions that have taken place. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Well, explain what has happened to these people. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, in one case a person was escorted off the 

property and placed on suspension in anticipation of being relieved 

of his or her responsibilities. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And you believe the reason for that was because 

they had contacted your office? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I am relying upon what they told us. They felt 

they were being retaliated against for raising this issue either to 

our office or to Bonneville’s management itself. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Was there more than one person that went 

through this? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Variations on the theme, yes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How many are we talking about? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, as the chairman alluded to, it is at least 

five or six, and we have received additional allegations since our 

report was issued and we are sorting through those right now. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What effect has this had on your investigation? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, it has a chilling effect on—we don’t know. 

We can’t gage that. But, obviously, people who are concerned about 

40 

their jobs may—that is the whole point of protecting these people— 

they may feel that if they are going to be retaliated against for 

coming forward, that they will be reluctant to do so. So it is an unknown. I can’t prove the unknown. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But there is obviously a current, and that is one 

of the concerns, is there starts to be a current here that is a very 

either direct or indirect. 

Mr. Poneman’s comments are baffling to me, quite frankly, sir. 

On the one hand you talk about the great openness and transparency, the great ability for anybody to come forward. At the same 

time you have people who say, well, we were told not to, we were 

going to coordinate. In fact, in this letter of July 24th of 2013, deputy general counsel wrote to Chairman Issa: ‘‘Rather, Bonneville 

was informed that this is a very serious matter and that any external questions were to be coordinated with the appropriate headquarters office,’’ as if the United States Congress was an external 

organization. 

Mr. Friedman, doesn’t that strike you as a contradiction? Doesn’t 

that strike you that if you are going to coordinate, isn’t that sort 

of code for you better not say anything unless headquarters approves it? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. You are asking me for an interpretation, Congressman Chaffetz, and I could interpret it one of two ways. I could 

interpret it either way, frankly. One is that it is a code, but I prefer 

the more benign interpretation, which is that in an organization 

you do coordinate things; that is the way things get done, things 

are accomplished. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But that is contradictory to the idea that if management, if Washington, D.C. is going to take the point on answering these questions, you better let them answer these questions, 

rather than you as an individual feeling free to express your personal point of view and your personal experience. Is that a leap too 

far in your mind? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. No, I don’t think that is a leap too far, no. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. These allegations—— 

Mr. PONEMAN. May I comment on that? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Not yet. Not yet. 

Allegations of retaliation, again, any sense of how far and wide 

this might be? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, as I indicated earlier, I think we have five 

or six cases that are ripe or getting ripe, but we have had other 

allegations since the issuance of our report and we don’t know 

where those stand at this point. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Poneman, we had a very senior official there 

say that you did give a verbal order to acting BPA Administrator 

Elliott Mainzer that nobody at BPA was allowed to talk to anybody 

about the situation. Do you take issue with that? 

Mr. PONEMAN. I have no idea what others have said. I can tell 

you what I said. And I have talked to Mr. Mainzer and I have been 

clear beyond peradventure that anybody may step forward. I said 

this to him verbally; he repeated it in an email to the staff. I don’t 

think there is any ambiguity whatsoever. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I beg to differ. 

41 

Mr. Chairman, I think as we talk to these whistleblowers, and 

God bless them for stepping forward and offering a perspective, it 

needs to be in context and with an objectivity. 

I appreciate, Mr. Friedman, for your diving into this issue and 

we look forward to your continued experience in sorting this out. 

Yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

We now go to the gentleman who represents a great many Federal workers, Mr. Connolly of Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome to the panel. 

Mr. Friedman, I am puzzled by what my colleague, Mr. Chaffetz 

just said. I have worked in the private sector and I have worked 

in the public sector. I headed up a very large government locally 

here. It would be unthinkable in either of those enterprises that 

people could just Lone Ranger responses to the Hill. Whether it 

was written inquiries or whether it was a request to testify, you 

absolutely had to notify your supervisor and you absolutely had to 

coordinate it; otherwise, there is chaos. In the private sector company I am talking about, we had 46,000 employees, and in the public sector company I am talking about we had 36,000 employees, including school employees. One can go wrong with allowing everybody to do whatever they wanted whenever there was an inquiry 

here on the Hill. 

That is a recipe for chaos, is it not, Mr. Friedman, as a management principle? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I certainly see that possibility. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. So the idea that somebody might coordinate in no way, shape, or form, on its face, suggests anything 

other than that very word, coordination. That is a fair interpretation too, right, Mr. Friedman? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I think it is a fair interpretation. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So the idea that putting a sinister interpretation 

on that word is certainly one interpretation, and Mr. Chaffetz 

would have us believe apparently that is the only interpretation. 

But I beg to differ, as somebody who has managed large enterprises and been involved in the management of large enterprises, 

both in the public and private sector, dealing with this very subject. Frankly, given what could go wrong with Federal employees 

coming before this committee, especially, I would think lack of coordination would actually be a reckless management act. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No, I will not. 

Mr. Deputy Secretary Poneman, it seems, based on what we are 

looking at, that the Department reacted very aggressively to these 

allegations and took some strong message, so I was surprised to 

learn that Chairman Issa publicly accused you of muzzling employees and obstructing the committee’s investigations. I mean, those 

are serious words. So I would like to give you an opportunity to respond publicly. On July 17th Chairman Issa sent you a letter that 

said: ‘‘Today I learned on Monday’’—that would have been July 

15th—‘‘you verbally instructed Elliott Mainzer, the individual you 

chose to act as acting administrator of BPA, that no BPA employVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Feb 20, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86720.TXT APRIL
42 

ees were to talk with anyone regarding these allegations, including 

congressional investigators.’’ 

Did you in fact, Mr. Poneman, instruct Mr. Mainzer that no BPA 

employees were to speak with congressional investigators? 

Mr. PONEMAN. No, sir, I did not. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Have you any idea why the chairman would 

make such a charge when your testimony under oath here today 

is, flat out, you did not do such a thing? 

Mr. PONEMAN. No, sir, I don’t know what information he was 

basing that comment on. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Can you tell us what you did tell Mr. Mainzer? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Absolutely, sir. I told him that it was imperative, 

as I have maintained consistently in all communications, that everybody understand clearly that there can be no retaliation, no reprisal, no adverse action taken to anybody for stepping forward and 

expressing their concerns in any case. And, in fact, he followed up 

that conversation with a communication to all BPA employees to 

that precise effect, so I think he understood me rather clearly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Did you ever instruct anyone to muzzle BPA or 

DOE employees? 

Mr. PONEMAN. No, sir, I did not. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Chairman Issa next warned: ‘‘Obstructing a congressional investigation is a crime.’’ Now, that sounds a little bit— 

well, it echoes a tactic used in a previous era that is most unpleasant. And if the chairman really believes it is a crime, then presumably this committee will pursue it to the fullest. And then he, in 

fact, reminded you that that crime statutes have a five year prison 

penalty, which seems deliberately designed to intimidate you, but 

maybe he felt you just needed to be reminded. 

The very same day, however, that Chairman Issa claims you ordered the muzzling, the Department sent its official response to the 

IG, explaining that you had personally directed Mr. Mainzer to instruct employees to cooperate. 

Can you explain this seeming contradiction between the chairman’s conviction that a crime almost had been committed and apparently your official response directing Mr. Mainzer to in fact cooperate? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Congressman, I can only speak to my own actions 

and there, as I said, I have been consistent that anybody in any 

setting, be they Federal employee or contractor employee, has to 

feel free to step forward and express any concerns that they may 

have to any properly constituted authority. So I have been quite 

consistent on that. It never would even occur to me to seek to be 

obstructing any such inquiry, frankly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And, Mr. Chairman, just one last question to the 

IG. 

Mr. Friedman, is there anything in your findings or your investigation that would contradict anything Mr. Poneman just said to 

this committee under oath? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. We have no allegation, if that is what you mean, 

Mr. Connolly, that Mr. Poneman has muzzled anyone. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Do you have any information, did anyone come 

forward from DOE or BPA to suggest to you that they had been 

43 

intimidated or coerced or discouraged from cooperating with this 

committee in any way? Do you have any evidence of that as the IG? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Not from Mr. Poneman, with regard to Mr. 

Poneman. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JORDAN. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

Mr. Poneman, you are deputy secretary, you are the number two 

guy at the Department of Energy, is that correct? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JORDAN. And you have been there since 2009? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. And you head up the Credit Review Board, is that 

accurate? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. So you were on the Credit Review Board when decisions were made regarding giving taxpayer money to Solyndra, is 

that correct? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Actually, the original Solyndra decision, sir, occurred before I arrived. 

Mr. JORDAN. Were you part of any discussions about the taxpayer money that was given to Solyndra? Were you on the Credit 

Review Board when some of that was discussed, yes or no? 

Mr. PONEMAN. The subsequent issue that came up later, when 

the loan was in trouble, was when I was at the Credit Review 

Board. 

Mr. JORDAN. And what is the status of Solyndra today? Isn’t it 

true that Solyndra is bankrupt? 

Mr. PONEMAN. I believe it is bankrupt, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. So were you on the Credit Review Board 

when Abound Solar was given taxpayer dollars as well, and a loan 

guaranty? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Abound was during our tenure, yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. And isn’t it true that Abound Solar is bankrupt 

today, as well? 

Mr. PONEMAN. I believe that to be the case. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. And were you on the Credit Review Board 

when Beacon Power was given a loan guaranty? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes, sir. I would note that there are—— 

Mr. JORDAN. And isn’t it true that Beacon Power is bankrupt 

today? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes, sir. And I would also note we have the largest wind farm in the world; we have the largest photovoltaic farm 

in the world. 

Mr. JORDAN. I am asking the questions here. And you were on 

the Credit Review Board when the decision was made to give 

Fisker a loan guaranty, isn’t that true? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. All right. 

Mr. PONEMAN. And I was also there when Tesla repaid their loan 

early, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. I got that. Maybe we will get to that. I have a series 

of questions. 

44 

And isn’t it true that Fisker is in serious financial difficulty, 

failed to meet the milestones established by the company? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Sir, I am not prepared to address the Fisker matter today. 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, we had a hearing and they are in big trouble. 

And isn’t it true that you were on the Credit Review Board when 

Nevada Geothermal was given taxpayer money? 

Mr. PONEMAN. I would have to look at the record, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Yes, we think it was. And isn’t it true, Mr. 

Poneman, that you were on the Credit Review Board when Solar 

Power was given taxpayer money, as well? 

Mr. PONEMAN. I would have to look, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. And isn’t it true, Mr. Poneman, that almost $15 billion of taxpayer money in the loan guaranty program was given to 

26 different projects? Is that accurate, $14.5 billion, 26 projects? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Sir, we have deployed billions and we have leveraged more, and we have to show for that large wind farms, large 

solar farms, and a very, very small default rate, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. And isn’t it true, Mr. Poneman, that 22 of those 26 

projects had a credit rating of BB-, commonly referred to as junk 

status? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Sir, I would have to look at—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, we have looked at the emails from Department of Energy and we have looked at the facts, and that is in fact 

the case. And now we find out, and now we find out, as I look at 

this flowchart, where it says you are number two, or this chain of 

command, that you were also the one directly responsible for Bonneville Power Administration. The line goes directly up to you. And 

we find out that this agency or this Bonneville Power was discriminating against veterans. We find out from Chairman Hastings that 

the Department has been uncooperative was the term he used in 

inquiry he has made. The chairman has said you have not been responsive. And then we also find out from Mr. Friedman that there 

is retaliation going on at Bonneville Power. All this is causing me 

concern about what is going on in the Department of Energy. 

Mr. PONEMAN. Sir, we always seek to be responsive. We provide 

thousands and thousands of documents. We have consumed less 

than 10 percent of the loan loss reserve set aside, which I think 

is not a bad record, even the private sector. We are always responsive—— 

Mr. JORDAN. How many more billions of dollars do you plan of 

loaning out of taxpayer money to other projects over the course of 

this next year, Mr. Poneman, do you have any idea? 

Mr. PONEMAN. We will have to see how many—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you think your track record is going to get better? Are some of these loans you are going to give to these projects 

going to be better than BB-rated companies? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Sir, the portfolio is healthy; it has been looked at, 

it is being managed actively—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Three companies bankrupt, four on the verge of 

bankruptcy, and you call that healthy? That is seven out of 26. 

Mr. PONEMAN. Sir, we have consumed less than 10 percent of the 

loan loss reserve. The default rate is very minor. 

Mr. JORDAN. Seven out of 26, 22 out of 26 BB-rating. 

45 

Let me just put up one other thing. I want to ask you this question. This is an email that we received and we will make it available to everyone. This talks about you were recused from decisions 

regarding Fisker. Tell me why you had to be recused. Because you 

told me that you were on the Credit Review Board when decisions 

were made about Fisker, but this says you were recused from that. 

Why were you recused? Tell me the circumstances around that. 

Mr. PONEMAN. Sir, in 2008 there was a presidential election coming up. I had begun to make some inquiries as to whether I might 

need post-Government employment engagement. So when you have 

engagement with entities, you file recusals, and that is what I did. 

Mr. JORDAN. What was the entity that caused you to—were you 

talking with Fisker directly? 

Mr. PONEMAN. No, no, no, of course not, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay, so I am still not clear. Deputy secretary is 

recused from Citibank. Citibank is involved in several loan guaranty deals and they list Fisker there. So you were recused because 

of your involvement with Citibank? 

Mr. PONEMAN. I beg your pardon, sir? 

Mr. JORDAN. You had to recuse yourself from discussions about 

Fisker because of your involvement with Citibank? 

Mr. PONEMAN. I had a conversation with Citibank, which led me 

to recuse myself from anything that—— 

Mr. JORDAN. When did the conversation with Citibank take 

place? 

Mr. PONEMAN. I can’t recall the exact date; I would have to come 

back to you. This is a hearing on a different topic and I had not 

prepared for this. 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, let me put up another slide, because I just 

want to ask you, then, because I am curious, because we have the 

minutes from the April 11, 2012 meeting, and as we go through the 

minutes there are several questions. The next project for review 

was Fisker Automotive. The deputy secretary asked if any of these 

problems related to issues of A123 battery. The deputy secretary 

asked the company was it—the deputy secretary asked this; the 

deputy secretary—so you were critically involved in discussions 

about whether taxpayer money was going to go to Fisker, which we 

know was on the verge of bankruptcy, and yet we also have the 

email saying you were supposed to be recused from any discussions 

about Fisker. So what I want to know is—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. JORDAN.—I want to know the timing of—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman? Would the chairman yield? 

Mr. JORDAN. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just very briefly. You know, I have tried to sit 

here and listen to this line of questioning that has nothing to do 

with this hearing, and Chairman Issa and I have—— 

Mr. JORDAN. I think it goes to the—if I could, to the ranking 

member, I think it goes to the performance of the Department of 

Energy as a whole and, obviously, when you are discriminating 

against veterans and you have to recuse yourself from taxpayer 

money given to organizations, I think it all is applicable. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I think that the other thing that I am concerned 

about is you are asking Mr. Poneman some questions and I want 

46 

him to be frank and honest, but at the same time he didn’t come 

prepared, I don’t think, to answer these questions, as you can see, 

over and over again. But I just think that we ought to try to stay 

within the limits of the hearing. That is what this subject is. I tell 

my members on this side to maintain some type of order. We can 

go over a whole landscape of things and not really get to the bottom line here, but again I reluctantly even mention this, because 

I do believe in a certain amount of latitude, but at some point it 

just gets out of line. 

Mr. JORDAN. I appreciate the ranking member’s comments. I 

would just say that Mr. Poneman is the deputy secretary, basically 

runs the Department of Energy, is the number two guy there. I 

asked him a question early on in my five minutes about his involvement with the Credit Review Board and Fisker; he said he 

was involved with that decision. Then further asked him why he 

had to be recused subsequently from decisions regarding Fisker 

and highlighted what we have in the emails. We would be happy 

to let Mr. Poneman get back to us with an answer, but you would 

think the number two guy at the Department of Energy would 

know what he did relative—he was just bragging about what a 

great program this is. You would think he would know, with respect to Fisker, when he had to be recused and why he is in the 

minutes from the meeting where they were deciding to give taxpayer money to Fisker, a now bankrupt company. You would think 

he could give some of those answers to us. 

Mr. PONEMAN. Sir? Sir? 

Mr. JORDAN. Yes. The gentleman can respond. 

Mr. PONEMAN. With due respect, sir, I did not act on Fisker at 

any time after which I was recused, period. Thank you. 

Mr. JORDAN. I am asking when were you recused. That is what 

I want to know. When was the date? 

Mr. PONEMAN. We will provide you the date, sir. I did not come 

prepared for this line of questioning. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. 

The gentleman from Michigan is recognized. 

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. 

Just to make sure I have an understanding, Mr. Friedman, are 

you aware of any BPA whistleblowers who contacted your office 

who now face adverse personnel actions? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I am not trying to put too fine a point on my answer, Congressman, but they faced, past tense, potential action, 

yes. 

Mr. WALBERG. What adverse actions did they face? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Possible suspension. 

Mr. WALBERG. What effect does whistleblower retaliation have on 

IG investigations? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. It has a potential chilling effect on our ability to 

get people to be forthcoming, candid, and cough up information 

that is essential to our work. 

Mr. WALBERG. So do you feel that the threat of retaliation by 

BPA prevented other whistleblowers from coming forward, as well 

as having a chilling effect on these whistleblowers? 

47 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I can’t—to paraphrase a former secretary of defense, I don’t know what I don’t know, and I can’t be sure there 

were people who—— 

Mr. WALBERG. Your best professional opinion. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. My best professional opinion is it put a chilling 

effect on the work that we do. But the original whistleblowers, if 

I may, were people who brought the problem with regard to veterans’ preference to the attention of Bonneville’s management, and 

then there were others who brought it to our attention as well. 

Mr. WALBERG. Okay. Well, thank you. 

Let me go from there to Ms. Decker. At what time did you become aware of retaliatory adverse personnel actions? 

Ms. DECKER. So, Mr. Representative, I am not aware of retaliatory adverse actions. 

Mr. WALBERG. None? 

Ms. DECKER. No. 

Mr. WALBERG. Then what role did you play in the disciplinary 

process? 

Ms. DECKER. In the adverse actions that are in question? There 

are adverse actions at play. I would submit they are not retaliatory. I am not a decision-maker in those, but the role that I played 

when they came to my attention—— 

Mr. WALBERG. Yes, that is what I am asking, the role you played. 

Ms. DECKER. The role that I played when they came to my attention was to understand had there been consideration of the whistleblower impact and had there been consideration for the due process 

of managing performance. The answer I got, the response I got 

from our legal counsel was that, yes, those things had been 

weighed, and, yes, there are risks, but that it did not preclude proceeding with the adverse action in terms of performance accountability. 

Mr. WALBERG. What specific role did other BPA employees play 

in the disciplinary process that you have described here? 

Ms. DECKER. Representative, as I started to say earlier, the individuals in question have a supervisor. The supervisor is best 

equipped to determine the performance of an individual. So the supervisor was involved in terms of the individual’s performance. Beyond the supervisor at Bonneville, our practice is to have someone 

from legal counsel and to have an employee specialist work with 

the manager. In part, that is ensure that there is not retaliatory 

actions, that legal counsel and the employee relations specialist are 

watching for that as someone goes on to performance action. 

Mr. WALBERG. So you personally took no actions in relationship 

to allegations about retaliatory actions or discipline? 

Ms. DECKER. What I did—— 

Mr. WALBERG. Is that a correct understanding? 

Ms. DECKER. No. That would be depending on how you look at 

that. So what I did do—my responsibility was to ensure that we 

actually are following the processes that protect employees and protect the agency. I did that. Again, I want to underscore there was 

a first-line supervisor, a manager, a director, another executive vice 

president before it got to me. 

Mr. WALBERG. Do you think the actions were fair, ultimately? 

48 

Ms. DECKER. Ultimately, I believe in the process that we use 

and, yes, I believe that they are fair. 

Mr. WALBERG. Let me go further here. Randy Hardy, former BPA 

administrator, recently stated that the BPA employees claiming retaliation are ‘‘poor performers who claim to be whistleblowers.’’ He 

further stated that is a frequent problem with whistleblower laws. 

Do you agree with Mr. Hardy’s statement that the whistleblowers 

are poor performers trying to insulate themselves from disciplinary 

action? 

Ms. DECKER. Representative, let me say this in terms of Mr. Hardy’s comment. In this case, I don’t know the facts to know whether 

that is true in this case. I think there is appropriate whistleblowing. I think that is an important function that is played by 

anyone who brings something forward. The issue of someone’s performance is oft-times a separate issue, and I would not categorically say that someone who is whistle-blowing is doing it to protect 

themselves from performance. But I also know that management 

cannot turn a blind eye to performance because someone has a protected status. And there is a chilling effect upon managers, as well, 

if their view is they cannot take any action. 

Mr. WALBERG. But Mr. Hardy went on to say that he thought 

that was exactly what was at work here, in this instance, and that 

is a concern. And that is not general statement, that is specific to 

this issue. 

Ms. DECKER. And that is Mr. Hardy’s opinion. 

Mr. WALBERG. Is that your opinion? 

Ms. DECKER. No, that is not my opinion. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. 

Thank the chairman. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. [Presiding]. Now going to the gentleman from 

Indiana, Mr. Lankford. Excuse me, Oklahoma 

Mr. LANKFORD. I will take it. Indiana is a great State as well. 

But if I have the option, I will take Oklahoma, just personally, for 

me. 

Two questions here. Ms. Decker first. You had mentioned before, 

in your oral testimony, that a mistake was made a year ago and 

that mistake is being fixed. Can you clarify what you mean by the 

mistake? 

Ms. DECKER. So Bonneville did implement the category rating 

process incorrectly, as Mr. Friedman articulated. That was a mistake. In terms of fixed, I would not call that it is fixed; I would say 

that improper application of category ratings has stopped. What is 

not fixed is the reconstruction of those jobs during that time period 

that impacted veterans. We have not fixed that yet. So we stopped 

the erroneous practice, and we stopped it because we also saw that 

it was incorrect. If we didn’t think it was incorrect, we would still 

be doing it, and the fact of the matter is we stopped back in May 

2012. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. Poneman, let me ask a little bit about just direction for all 

the PMAs. While Bonneville is the one, obviously, we are addressing on this now, is there an emphasis right now between DOE to 

say, okay, we need greater oversight over all of these different entities at this point? Is there more of a regional focused decision-makVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Feb 20, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86720.TXT APRIL
49 

ing? Where do you think the trend is going right now as far as how 

decisions are made, whether it be personnel or function or direction? 

Mr. PONEMAN. I don’t think there is a trend, Congressman. As 

you note, all the power marketing administrations fall under the 

authority of the Department of Energy, they are part of the Department; they have various different legal authorities and various 

and different traditions. We seek to have good cooperative, coordinated relations with all of them, and I think to a large measure 

we do. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Secretary Chew had written a memo back in 

March of 2012 that talks about just increasing—to work on 

incentivizing energy-efficiency programs, integration of variable resources, preparation for electric vehicle deployment, and such. Are 

you familiar with that memo? 

Mr. PONEMAN. I do recall it, sir. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Just the preparation and the direction that it 

needs to go on it. A general question on this, and it is a difficult 

one because multiple administrations, both Republican and Democrat, for the last 30-plus years have considered the PMAs, and Bonneville specifically, as an entity that should be privatized, that 

should be sold, and allow the power to go back to the market as 

it does to other areas. What is the consideration? While the consideration is happening at DOE about functioning with how we need 

to direct the different PMAs, is there also conversation about is 

this something that should be on the market like other power distribution is? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Sir, the conversations I have had about the power 

market administrations, as far as I can recall, have not touched on 

privatization, per se. I would note that when there was so much 

concern generated by that memorandum, that we took account of 

that and we had a whole, as I think you know, because they included your region, a whole series of working groups, and I think 

it turned out to be a very healthy exercise to bring a lot of perspectives to bear and a so-called JOT program that I think ended up 

providing a lot of very useful information and a lot of good feedback 

with good policy direction rolling forward for the PMAs. 

Mr. LANKFORD. What happens if, in the days ahead, this Congress were to look at it and say, okay, let’s do an experiment, let’s 

pilot, let’s find one of these areas and be able to sell it, and to be 

able to have the power that is generated for that area on the private market, as it does in others? And I am very aware of all the 

parochial concerns that immediately folks from that area panic and 

say we won’t have electricity in our homes because it will be on the 

private market, and all that kind of stuff, as it in multiple other 

areas. There are terrific assets that are there, but it is also a liability to us, the line of credit, and it has a history over the past 30 

years of sometimes making money and sometimes being a stretch 

on the Federal budget. So the question becomes what would it take 

and are there considerations about selling any of these assets. 

Mr. PONEMAN. Sir, I am not aware of any conversations of that 

character. We are, right now, of course, most directed by the statutory bases of all four PMAs, which are different. The thing that we 

are very focused on is they generally require us to provide the least 

50 

power available to the preference customer, and so forth, and I am 

aware that there has been a lot of interest in the ability that that 

has had in generating economic growth in the region served by the 

PMAs. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Great. This is not just a Republican issue; Democrat administrations have brought this same issue up, as well, over 

the years, to say there should be a serious consideration to be able 

to look at not only for budget realities, but just for fairness for the 

community that is there and for the Federal taxpayer nationwide 

to look at it. So what I am interested in is are there conversations 

like that that have happened in DOE. 

Mr. PONEMAN. Not that I have been party to or aware of, sir. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman. 

We now go to the gentleman from Michigan, just north of Indiana. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize; I 

did know he was from Oklahoma. 

Getting back to veterans and hiring preferences, I think I have 

a unique clarity because I am a Vietnam veteran, as well as Iraq, 

and I remember coming home from Vietnam and applying for work, 

and my fellow veterans were telling me don’t put Vietnam veteran 

on your resume, you will never get hired. So I think I have a 

unique clarity. 

And what was really upsetting to me when I read this, it said 

that one of your middle managers, he or she would never again 

hire a Vietnam veteran. That was a comment made by the report 

from a whistleblower after they heard this from a middle manager. 

Have you ever served in the service, Mr. Poneman? How do you 

pronounce that? 

Mr. PONEMAN. It is Poneman, sir. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Poneman. Thank you. 

Mr. PONEMAN. My father was a World War II veteran, but I, sir, 

have not served, but I strongly honor all service and honor you for 

yours. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Thank you very much. But, you know, I hear 

that a lot too, thank you for your service, now get lost. 

Mr. PONEMAN. And, sir, this is precisely why we are as forceful 

as we are in ensuring that the veterans’ preferences, which are 

codified in law, are fully and faithfully executed. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Did you ever talk to your father about his experience in World War II? 

Mr. PONEMAN. I absolutely did, many times. We lost him many 

years ago, sir, but he served in Burma, he served in China, and he 

was in the Signal Corps, and it was a formative experience for him. 

And, by the way, he benefitted from the GI bill and got some college education efforts, so we had a strong tie on that. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. As did I. And thank you for his service. 

Mr. PONEMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. A lot of veterans tell me that when they come 

home it is kind of like watching a movie, it is a 3–D movie. Everything is live around them, but because they, I guess, experience 

something uniquely different than everybody else, it was like 

51 

watching a movie; they weren’t really actually part of what they 

were watching because there was this difference. 

But the whistleblowers, Mr. Friedman, any of those whistleblowers veterans? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I don’t know. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Did you ask? You had about five or six, right, 

and others? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. That is an interesting question. I don’t believe we 

have posed that question. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Okay. Very good. Just a few more questions. 

You had 146 cases of applications or people you were hiring. Was 

that the extent? And what was the period? Two questions. What 

was the period of hiring that we are discussing and how many 

openings for jobs were there? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, as I indicated, those are our preliminary 

numbers. It covers a period of 2010, November 2010 to 2012, April 

or May of 2012. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Okay. So out of 146 cases, you said how many 

hired were actual veterans? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I don’t know how many hired were actual veterans. What I have said is in two-thirds of the cases the veterans 

were—there were prohibited personnel practices in which veterans 

were disadvantaged. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Did anybody tell you why, other than this comment I hear that they bound with each other too quickly and undermine management? I don’t understand how that—— 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, in terms of the actions that were taken by 

Bonneville, what we were told by the hiring officials and the program officials is they wanted to reduce the size of the pool they had 

to deal with for selection purposes. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Why do you think that is? I have a real hard 

time with that because—well, go ahead, answer. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, I have a hard time with it, too. That is why 

we are doing what we are doing. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Yes, I understand. So, let’s see, I had one other 

question. I can’t remember what it is, so I will yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Friedman, I would ask that you give the 

committee the effective numbers, do the analysis based on the 

known pool of how many veterans would have been in the pool had 

it been at 90 percent and how many were in the pool each time at 

a different number. I think both the ranking member and I—I will 

let him have the rest of the time—would like to know the effect of 

this change, even if we don’t know the intent. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me totally candid with you. 

That question cannot be answered with any precision until all the 

files have been reconstructed, and that is going to take—that is not 

something that I can do; something that Bonneville is going to be 

doing and the Department is going to be doing. It is going to take 

months before that is done. 

Chairman ISSA. I appreciate it. We will be patient and we will 

take partial reports as they become available. 

Mr. Cummings? 

52 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one quick question. 

How do we correct this? In other words, we talk about correction. 

Discrimination is a buggerbear. It is criminal. Because basically 

what you have done is deprived these veterans of opportunities, 

and it just doesn’t affect them; it affects their families and generations probably yet unborn. I haven’t even gotten into the frustration piece. 

Mr. IG, Mr. Friedman, if you were to find these violations, will 

they go into any kind of corrective action? 

But thank you very much, I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, Mr. Cummings, if, at the end of the day, 

this pans out the way it is headed right now, and it is going to take 

some time, we are going to have, hopefully, recommendations that 

will get to the root causes of the problem, at least the proximate 

causes of the problems at Bonneville. We are hoping that there will 

be lessons learned. Frankly, this whole exercise will have been for 

naught if there aren’t lessons learned that can be applied certainly 

throughout the Department of Energy, and perhaps beyond, and 

that is our hope. 

Part of this, though, is a question of judgment and, Mr. 

Cummings, I don’t know that you can regulate judgment or legislate judgment. People here knew there was a problem and didn’t 

correct it at the source, and that is a judgment call, and I am not 

sure how you correct that, to be honest with you. It is frustrating. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. We look forward to finding out how 

we do that with the secretary. 

Mr. Poneman? 

Mr. PONEMAN. I would just like to add to that. We will certainly 

benefit from whatever the IG finds, but our responsibilities are not 

abated while he is doing his work. And I just want to assure the 

chairman and the ranking member that we have sent out, and we 

continue to send out, support. We have people actually on the 

ground now instructing on how to execute these laws and responsibilities appropriately so that the veterans’ preferences are fully 

respected. We are not awaiting the outcome of any investigation to 

make sure we try to get at the actual practices themselves and correct them so that these problems don’t recur and we fix them 

where they have occurred. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, we appreciate that. I think what the ranking member and I are both getting to is you have a pool of people 

who may have gone on to other jobs, may have done other things, 

and may not even be interested in these positions at this time. But 

until you essentially stop hiring anyone else, look and find these 

people and offer them a job, you won’t at least have corrected the 

portion that is still within correcting. 

Mr. PONEMAN. And we are on that, Mr. Chairman. We are working that issue. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I am so glad you said what you 

just said, because you are right. These are people who lost out on 

an opportunity and they probably can identify them. And I am so 

glad you said that because it is just one of the ways, at least, for 

people who, if we find out that they definitely were discriminated 

against, they might at least have an opportunity to be brought 

53 

back into a pool which they should have been in from the very beginning. So I do appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I would hope 

that we would follow up on that. 

Chairman ISSA. Ms. Decker? 

Ms. DECKER. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Representative, if I could 

comment on that. There is a process to reconstruct, and that is 

what we need to get after. I think that is Bonneville’s hope, to get 

that done, and it is DOE’s. I think that is one place I can say there 

is agreement that that reconstruction process needs to take place. 

And, yes, we can identify the pool of folks that have been impacted. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay, we are going to go to Mr. Gowdy, who has 

been patiently waiting, but affirmative action must be done quickly 

to have any real effect on the lives that have been disrupted as a 

result of wrongdoing. The ranking member said generations unborn. We don’t want to wait for the generation unborn to be offered 

a job at Bonneville. 

Ms. DECKER. I hear you. 

Chairman ISSA. Or at some other equivalent place, which is within the Department of Energy’s ability. You have a very large pool. 

If you had that entire list, you could offer them an equal or greater. 

You could go a long way toward a corrective action. And we are 

talking affirmative action here. We are talking about a group that 

has been discriminated against. They deserve to be recognized 

quickly and corrective action separate from accountability, and I 

think that is what the ranking member and I are so dedicated to 

and why we are really having this hearing today. 

The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy. Thank you for 

your patience. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize to you 

and my fellow committee members, Mr. Chairman. I was in the 

back meeting with two constituents, so if I ask questions that have 

already been asked, forgive me. It probably won’t hurt the witnesses to answer them more than once, so I will proceed on. 

What evidence, Mr. Inspector General, do you have, if any, of an 

intent to discriminate? Not a discriminatory effect, but an intent. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Mr. Gowdy, I want to answer your question as directly and honestly as I can. 

Mr. GOWDY. I am sure you will. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. There are two pieces here. One is the piece we 

have talked about this morning, which is adjusting the cut line in 

this system. We have no indication at this point that it was an intentional, wilful attempt to discriminate against people who were 

entitled to veterans’ preferences. There are other issues that we are 

looking at associated with the review that we currently have ongoing which may cross into that boundary. I have no idea where we 

are headed. I think you have a prosecutorial background. We are 

following the facts where they take us; we just don’t know where 

it will be. 

Mr. GOWDY. And that is exactly what I want you to do. So you 

have concluded that there was a discriminatory effect, and now you 

are trying to adduce whether or not there was discriminatory intent. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. No. What I am saying is there are at least multiple pieces to this inspection that we have ongoing. One piece 

54 

deals with the inappropriate adjustment of the best qualified pool 

which resulted in applicants, including veterans, being discriminated against. 

Mr. GOWDY. That is the effect. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. We have no indication right now that it was done 

willfully and intentionally in terms of affecting veterans and those 

with veterans’ preference. 

Separate and apart from that, although part of the rubric under 

which this whole investigation, this whole inspection is undergoing, 

are certain additional instances which may cross the boundary that 

you have described. 

Mr. GOWDY. When was BPA first put on notice that the practices 

were unlawful or discriminatory, regardless of intent? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. In May or June of 2012. 

Mr. GOWDY. What remedial steps were taken and with what 

timeliness? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. We are told that the process at that point, they 

stopped the process of adjusting the lower boundary for the best 

qualified list. 

Mr. GOWDY. Contemporaneous with you bringing it to their attention? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. They received it from their own folks as well, individuals in the human management program at Bonneville. 

Mr. GOWDY. Ms. Decker? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. However, Mr. Gowdy, an important point. This is 

a two-part process. One is stopping the activity; the second part, 

which Ms. Decker referred to and we refer to in our report, which 

is, in a sense, as important, is that there are remedial actions that 

need to be taken to address those who have been negatively impacted. You must notify them—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Those are definitely two of the parts. I am primarily 

interested in how we got to those two parts. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Okay. 

Mr. GOWDY. And I can start with Ms. Decker. I am interested for 

the motive. What motive exists to have a discriminatory practice 

that adversely impacts veterans, whether it was intentional or not? 

What is the motive? 

Ms. DECKER. Representative Gowdy, as I understand it, there 

was no motive to discriminate. There was a motive that was inaccurately applying the category rating. 

Mr. GOWDY. So you are just telling me it was simply negligence 

that adversely impacted this discreet group, but there was no intent to single out that group? 

Ms. DECKER. Absolutely not. 

Mr. GOWDY. And what evidence do you have to support that? 

Ms. DECKER. The evidence I have to support that is that it impacted both veterans and non-veterans. There were jobs where 

there were no veteran candidates, and yet the category was altered. 

Mr. GOWDY. Who made the decision to adjust the parameters 

that led to this? 

Ms. DECKER. They were made in our staffing organization. 

Mr. GOWDY. Who was the boss? Who was the head of all of them? 

Who is the final decision-maker? 

55 

Ms. DECKER. So the director of the human resources organization 

at that point was a gentleman named Roy Fox, and he had a staffing manager. I do not know where the final decision on how the 

application occurred was made. 

Mr. GOWDY. I guess what I am trying to get at is somebody did 

some adjusting. They had to have a reason for doing it. They didn’t 

read a horoscope that morning and decide to do it; they had to have 

a reason to do it. What is the reason? 

Ms. DECKER. As I understand it, and this may not be a full answer, as I understand it, the way they interpreted the regulations, 

so their interpretation was faulty. They believed that there could 

be a modification of the category after it was initially set in the hiring process. That was inaccurate. You cannot move the category. I 

don’t know the specific motive of the staffing manager to make that 

a policy call. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I am out of time. I have one more 

question. I will pose it and the chairman can decide whether or not 

he would like it to be answered or not. 

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that in January of 2012 DOE gave 

BPA an award for hiring veterans. I am trying to figure out how 

in the hell you can have a discriminatory practice, intentional or 

otherwise, single out the people who bring it to the authority’s attention, the whistleblowers, and then qualify for a DOE best practices award. I am having a tough time reconciling all three of 

those. But I am also out of time. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, if someone can justify that or explain it, I 

would appreciate it. Ms. Decker? 

Ms. DECKER. So there is a fine point that I would like to underscore. 

Chairman ISSA. Sure. We want the record to be complete. 

Ms. DECKER. Okay. 

Representative Gowdy, you asked a question of Mr. Friedman 

whether the stopping of the practice at Bonneville was a result of 

the IG. The stopping of the practice at Bonneville was a result of 

staff talking to management and saying that they were concerned 

about it, and that stopped the process. It was not—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I am out of time, but if I weren’t out of time, 

I would ask you how long did that take. I mean, was it stopped the 

hour that you learned of the practice, the minute of it, the week, 

the month? 

Ms. DECKER. It was stopped within two days. 

Mr. GOWDY. Okay. Well, then that leads to whether or not you 

discovered it as timely as you should have. 

Ms. DECKER. We did not discover it as timely as we should have. 

Mr. GOWDY. Okay. Well, look, I am not adverse to giving credit 

where credit is due, but I can’t give you credit for that fact pattern. 

And I still haven’t heard an answer how you qualify for a best 

practices award. 

Mr. PONEMAN. I would—— 

Chairman ISSA. This will be the final, final answer. 

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes. I don’t mean to delay the committee. 

Chairman ISSA. No. Please go ahead, secretary. 

Mr. PONEMAN. This, as I said at the outset, congressman, perhaps when you were not here, this is a storied and very distinVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Feb 20, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86720.TXT APRIL
56 

guished organization with a great history, and they have done a lot 

of great things in a lot of great areas, and right across the board. 

That doesn’t obviate our responsibility to make sure that in all 

cases the law is applied fairly consistently and accurately. So it is 

certainly possible that things can be happening in one part of the 

organization that are fine and good, and there are things happening that are not fine and good. The fact that something is going 

well in one place does not, obviously, alleviate us of our obligation 

to respect veterans’ preferences and so forth. So that would be all 

I would have to offer. I don’t know the specific details of the award 

that you mentioned, but in the question being how that can happen, that is how it can happen, because we acknowledge all aspects 

of performance; the good, the bad, and everything in between. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Cummings, I am not going to do a second round, but do you 

want to say anything in closing, or any final questions? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank all of you for being here. One 

of the things that I am hoping is that we address this issue and 

it is addressed in a way that helps those who have been left out. 

The chairman said something that I just want to make sure that 

we are clear on. When I said that discrimination might affect generations yet unborn, I want to first of all say that I agree with him 

that I don’t want to wait for generations. That is not what I was 

trying to say. And he is absolutely right, justice delayed is justice 

denied, and if we can find remedies quickly and get people back 

and give them a chance that they should have had, we need to do 

that as fast as possible. 

But what I was saying was I have lived long enough now and 

seen enough to see when, say, that female is deprived of an opportunity she should have gotten, then she can’t do for her children 

and, to me, that is criminal. So that generation of children then 

don’t benefit. And I have seen it with African-Americans deprived 

over and over again, and then they die not getting the opportunities they deserve. To me, that is criminal because you basically 

have shut off opportunities for them in the future, and for their 

children. And that is the point that I was trying to make. 

But I have to ask this one question. When Ms. Decker was testifying just a moment ago in regard to Mr. Gowdy’s questions, Mr. 

Friedman, you kind of looked like you were in total disagreement. 

Could you comment, please? I can’t help but watch you. And then 

that is my last question. Thank you. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Mr. Cummings, I wish I could answer your question. I don’t know what my reaction may have been, what comment—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Was there something that she said that you disagreed with? Just now. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. I really don’t believe there was, Mr. Cummings. 

I am sorry. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

I am going to close with just a couple quick points. 

Mr. Secretary, I know that within the Federal Government, Ms. 

Decker is not the only person who is on administrative leave, findVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:04 Feb 20, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86720.TXT APRIL
57 

ing themselves being paid, but without a job. I can’t speak for the 

Government. I have only spent my military time and then my time 

here with the Government. But this practice under your watch, as 

essentially the chief operational office at Department of Energy, 

this practice of not finding a way to either begin direct disciplinary 

action or find some way to get some modicum of benefit from somebody who is in the Senior Executive Service who is highly paid. 

Now, I know that sometimes people say, well, if you take me off 

administrative leave and don’t give an equal level job, that in fact 

I am being punished, but I will tell you I would rather this committee have to look at whether people are finding the highest and 

best use for somebody that for some reason cannot return to their 

exact position, I would rather have that then have somebody who 

simply is being paid not to come to work. That is somebody, a private citizen, and I am now speaking as a taxpayer, that I think you 

can do better. Or Ms. Decker can be told why she is on administrative leave and action could be begun. And that is part of what we 

will be voting on the House floor today. So that is not an order, it 

is just something from a citizen who pays a not insignificant 

amount of taxes. 

I am going to close. Mr. Connolly, while I was consulting over 

there, went into one of his statements, and for some reason every 

time I say something it seems like I get referred to as tail-gunner 

Joe McCarthy. But I want to make sure I make the record straight, 

because we didn’t get into specifics, Mr. Secretary, because we just 

wanted to make the record clear that you will take the action to 

ensure that the committee gets cooperation throughout any of our 

investigations. But I want to make the record clear. A high ranking 

official said no one at BPA was to speak about this outside of BPA 

and DOE, and that that person alleged that it came from Mainzer, 

your appointee, acting, and that he got it from you. So specifically 

following up on that, we talked to the acting director there and he 

said: ‘‘I personally have no problem sharing information with you.’’ 

This was to my committee staff. ‘‘But I don’t feel like I have the 

elbow room outside my chain of command to talk to you right now.’’ 

Now, that is your personally appointed acting. 

We are not accusing you of deliberately obstructing our investigation, and I tried to be very clear. But your way of expressing coordination and so on may have very well been interpreted by your 

key lieutenant at Bonneville Power, similar to the statement he 

made directly to us, and that translates to people saying, well, you 

know, we kind of have to get permission to talk. That is all I was 

saying. I am not backing off. If anything, I didn’t plan on making 

the specifics of these people public. But if somebody down the dais 

wants to say that somehow I am making accusations, it isn’t. My 

staff and Mr. Cummings’ staff often call directly to people we think 

we should work with, sometimes because of something we are hearing from the IG. And this is not the first time this ever happened 

and this is not the first administration that it happened under. But 

I brought it to your attention because I would like to know that you 

can take the corrective action in how you speak to your lieutenants 

so that they would feel that they have the elbow room. Of course 

you want to be notified. That is fine. But we want them to be able 

to speak candidly. 

58 

Mr. PONEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for raising this. This 

is, in fact, a very important issue that you raise, and it is important to remember first principles. The first principles is that not 

only do we accept, but we welcome the oversight of this committee. 

It is part of the process that keeps our whole system of government 

healthy, point one. 

Point two, we always endeavor, sir, and I think we have a good 

record and we always, as I say, we require that we improve our 

performance by our own metrics, to be cooperative. One of the 

things I have found, sir, in all candor, is that in the jobs that we 

have, the first thing that happens, it is like a kid’s game of telephone, you say one thing and it becomes, frankly, wildly distorted. 

So all I can do, and I am doing it under oath and I have done it 

in private and I will do it in public, is to be very, very clear. There 

is no tolerance for reprisal for anybody communicating freely with 

all constituted authorities, including this committee. That has been 

the instruction. That will be the instruction. 

And at the same time it is also very important, with a large organization, that we communicate clearly and authoritatively what our 

policies are, and we can’t have, obviously, 110,000 policies; we have 

to have one policy. So I will be very mindful of making sure that 

people understand that coordinating a policy position has nothing 

to do whatsoever with the fact that every individual, be they contractor or Federal employee, be free to step forward. The first job 

I was given in 1989, Mr. Chairman, when I entered, on a fellowship, the Department of Energy was writing the regulation to protect contractor whistleblowers. So this is something that is personal 

to me, as well, and we will continue to endeavor to be cooperative 

and to be responsive. These are incredibly important issues in the 

merits of the case, and we are going to keep working at it and making sure we do it with the speed and intensity and faith in the 

process and in our laws that is required. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

In closing, I trust that in your role over at the Department of Energy, and for all the cabinet administrators, that what has been 

discovered here and is still under an inspection and ultimate decision, is being looked at by every chief executive of every agency to 

find out whether it has happened, somehow, on their watch. This 

is one of those things where, and you worked in the nuclear world, 

if something happens somewhere, anywhere to a nuclear facility or 

a product, the first thing everyone says is could it happen to mine. 

If you have a fleet of 737’s and a plane crashes anywhere in the 

world or has a problem, everybody inspects their aircraft. 

The question of whether or not people have deliberately or inadvertently been discriminated against is one that I would trust that 

this hearing helps establish should be looked at not later than 

today throughout all the Federal Government. 

I thank you for your testimony. I believe it has been helpful to 

that end. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(59) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

60 


Insert offset folio 13 here 86720.013

The Honorable Darrell Issa 

Chairman 

The Deputy Secretary of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

August 21, 2013 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Elijah Cummings 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member: 

AUG 2 2 2013 

At a recent hearing before your Committee, I shared the Department of Energy's (DOE) 

concems regarding allegations of improper hiring practices at the Bonneville Power 

Administration (BPA). Many Members of the Committee raised the importance of 

accounting for any individuals, including veterans, who may have been disadvantaged by 

BPA's past hiring practices. I want to inform you ofthe steps the DOE is taking to 

remedy the situation. 

The Department is fully committed to accounting for any and all individuals, including 

veterans, who may have been disadvantaged through improper actions. Our staff has 

been engaged deeply in the matter and is taking immediate steps to rectify the issue. 

DOE's Office of Human Capital Management has been reviewing and reconstructing 

BPA's hiring actions from the last several years to identify the individuals who have been 

affected. 

BP A, with guidance from the Office of Human Capital Management, has already begun 

to reach out to individuals to provide priority consideration for positions at BPA for 

which they qualify. Because of the complexity of the issues and the nature of the hiring 

actions, reconstruction of each case is complex and time intensive, but we will continue 

to strive to rectify each case and extend offers of employment as soon as possible. 

As I have publicly reaffirmed since the matters under review by the Inspector General 

came to light, BPA is an organization with a storied history, and remains vitally 

important today in serving the energy needs of the citizens of the Pacific Northwest and 

beyond. We are working actively to support BPA as it continues to fulfill its vital 

govemmental responsibilities and to make progress on critical issues facing the 

organization and the region. We look forward to evaluating the results of all of the 

current reviews so that we can consider any appropriate further actions. 

* Printed with soy ink on recycled paper 
61 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 14 here 86720.014

Even as the Department works to remedy this situation, BP A is ensuring continuity and 

stability in its operations, and we are all grateful for the dedicated service of the 

thousands of BP A employees who work hard every day to fulfill their mission. 

Sincerely yours, 

Daniel B. Poneman 

cc: The Honorable Doc Hastings 

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio 

Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources 

2