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

73–677 PDF 2012

S. Hrg. 112–526 

A REVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 

AND MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 20, 2012 

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

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Minority Staff Director 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

JOYCE WARD, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

LISA M. POWELL, Majority Staff Director 

BRYAN G. POLISUK, Counsel 

RACHEL R. WEAVER, Minority Staff Director 

JENA MCNEILL, Professional Staff Member 

AARON H. WOOLF, Chief Clerk 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 1 

Prepared statement: 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 21 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012 

Hon. Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman, Merit Systems Protection Board ...... 3 

Hon. Carolyn Lerner, Special Counsel, U.S. Office of Special Counsel ............... 5 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Grundmann, Hon. Susan Tsui: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Lerner, Hon. Carolyn: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

APPENDIX 

Background .............................................................................................................. 41 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(1) 

A REVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF 

SPECIAL COUNSEL AND MERIT 

SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT

MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in Room 

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN AKAKA 

Chairman AKAKA. I call this hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and 

the District of Columbia to order. 

Aloha and good afternoon. I would like to thank you all for joining us today at this hearing to review the Office of Special Counsel 

(OSC) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). 

I would like to welcome our two very distinguished witnesses— 

Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner and Chairman Susan Grundmann. 

The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 created the Office 

of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board to safeguard the merit system principles to help ensure that Federal employees are free from discriminatory and retaliatory actions, especially against those who come forward to disclose government 

waste, fraud and abuse. 

I believe these two agencies to be among the most important to 

Federal employees. At a time when resources are limited, both 

agencies provide essential protections to employees so they can perform their duties in the best interests of the American public. 

The Board is responsible for monitoring the Federal Government’s merit-based system of employment by hearing and ruling on 

Federal employees’ appeals of job removals and other major personnel actions. The Board also reviews the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) rules and regulations, and conducts studies 

that evaluate Federal merit systems policies, operations and practices. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

2 

OSC is charged with protecting Federal employees and job applicants from prohibited personnel practices (PPPs) like reprisal for 

whistleblowing. OSC serves as a safe and secure channel for Federal workers who wish to disclose violations of law, gross mismanagement or waste of funds. In addition, OSC enforces and provides advisory opinions regarding the Hatch Act and protects the 

rights of military veterans and reservists under the Uniformed 

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). 

The laws that the Board and OSC enforce are key protections for 

the Federal workforce and for government accountability, more 

broadly. For more than a decade, I have worked to reform protections for Federal whistleblowers. Whistleblowers play a key role in 

making the government more effective and save the Federal Government money. Enacting the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) is one of my top priorities. 

Additionally, earlier this month, I introduced legislation to modernize the Hatch Act. Congress has not amended this law since 

1993. My bill would remove the prohibition on State and local employees running for partisan elected office, a prohibition that currently drains OSC of resources and often results in qualified, dedicated public servants not being permitted to run for office. The bill 

also would provide the Board with more flexibility in issuing penalties for violations and would treat District of Columbia employees 

like other State and local employees. This common sense legislation 

would provide a much needed update to the law and would allow 

OSC to use its limited resources more efficiently. 

As a senior member of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee and a 

veteran myself, I believe one of the Federal Government’s most sacred responsibilities is to care for our Nation’s warriors after they 

return home. Our dedicated service members should not be worried 

about finding employment or returning to work after the completion of their service. I expect protecting veterans’ rights to be 

among the highest priorities of these agencies. 

Finally, as our Nation faces pressing fiscal challenges and tough 

budget choices, we must remember that safeguarding the merit 

system and protecting whistleblowers are critical to an effective, 

accountable and efficient government. We must provide the Board 

and the OSC the resources they need to do their important work. 

With that, I would like once again to thank everyone for being 

here today, and I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Our first panel is—and it is really my pleasure to welcome— 

Susan Grundmann, Chairman of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board, and Carolyn Lerner, Special Counsel of the United States 

Office of Special Counsel. 

It is a custom of this Subcommittee to swear in the witnesses, 

and I will ask both of you to stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 

this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but 

the truth; so help you, God? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. I do. 

Ms. LERNER. I do. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

3 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Grundmann appears in the appendix on page 23. 

Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

I want you both to know that although your remarks are limited, 

you can give your statement and your full statements will be included in the record. 

So Ms. Grundmann, will you please proceed with your statement? 

TESTIMONY OF HON. SUSAN TSUI GRUNDMANN,1 CHAIRMAN, 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to 

come before this panel to discuss the steps that the Merit Systems 

Protection Board has taken during my tenure as Chairman to ensure that the agency fulfills its statutory responsibility to protect 

the Federal merit systems. 

Joining me today is my colleague and friend, the Vice Chair, 

Anne Wagner, and members of our senior staff, whom we welcome. 

Mr. Chairman, my chairmanship of the MSPB began in November 2009 and, fortuitously, coincided with President Obama’s 

issuance of the Open Government Executive Order, an order that 

heralds an unprecedented level of transparency in the Federal Government. Transparency is now a core value at MSPB. It guides our 

efforts to promote and safeguard the Federal merit systems and 

principles through our adjudication and our studies function. 

Transparency has played a major role in our adjudication function. We have resurrected the practice of oral arguments on legal 

issues of significant agency or governmentwide impact. These 

issues are briefed, argued and presented before the Board and interested members of our community and the public. 

In addition, the Board now routinely calls for amicus briefs on 

significant issues of wide-ranging impact, allowing the parties and 

stakeholders to weigh in on a particular rule interpretation and influence. These briefs serve to educate and inform the Board as the 

members deliberate on the cases that come before us. 

Transparency has also resulted in the changing of the format of 

the Board’s decisions. Since June 2010, the Board has issued more 

detailed and reasoned decisions in a nonprecedential form. This 

new format takes the place of the summary denial, or short form, 

that the Board has traditionally used and provides the parties with 

additional information about the rationale for the outcome. 

This format has assisted in the review of our decisions by our 

controlling court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

As a result, we believe our affirmance rate by the Federal Circuit 

is now 98 percent; it is at an all-time high. 

And yet, there is more to come. The MSPB is currently in the 

process of a comprehensive review of our adjudication regulations, 

the first thorough examination and potential revision since our inception in 1978. We are undertaking this endeavor transparently, 

with the support and interactive engagement of stakeholders, sister 

agencies and customers in the MSPB community. 

And while our adjudication function allows us to resolve existing 

disputes, our statutory studies function permits us to suggest best 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

4 

practices and recommend improvement and to examine whether 

the workforce is managed under the merit systems principles without prohibited personnel practices. We approach this function with 

transparency. 

Beginning early 2010, the Board embarked on a series of outreach activities with stakeholders including agency representatives, 

the private bar, union officials, good government affinity groups 

and our sister agencies. These meetings culminated in late 2010. 

We held our first entirely open government in the Sunshine Act 

Meeting in over 10 years. This meeting was specifically dedicated 

to our national research agenda. And for the first time, instead of 

presenting our stakeholders with a list of topics, we asked them to 

suggest topics of their own. Their suggestions will guide our studies 

program for the next 3 to 5 years. 

We also plan to study the merit principles system as it affects 

performance motivation in the Federal Government, preserving the 

integrity of the merit system by addressing perceptions of favoritism and managing public employees in the public interest. We believe these studies will help strengthen merit, improve adherence 

to the merit principles systems and prevent prohibited personnel 

practices which will, in turn, improve service to the public and provide value to the taxpayer. 

We hope that these reports, like our recent reports on prohibited 

personnel practices and barriers to whistleblowing, will be useful 

to Federal agencies, such as the Office of Special Counsel in advancing their missions and purposes. 

When Congress passed the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, it 

separated the creator of personnel rules for Federal employees from 

the adjudicator of those rules. Congress also gave the Board an 

independent statutory mission which is essentially a marriage between our adjudication and our studies function; that is, to study 

the significant actions of the Office of Personnel Management. 

We have, in this context, reviewed OPM regulations directed at 

the Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP), the Outstanding Scholar Program and suitability determinations and limitations in addition to regulatory topics touched on through oral argument. 

Outside of our adjudication function, we plan to review in our 

2011 Annual Report an update to OPM’s hiring reform, incorporating telework into government dismissal and closure procedures, among other rules. 

Unfortunately, we do face many of the same challenges that the 

other Federal agencies—confront, which is tightening budgets and 

retirements. Our greatest concern is indeed the vast wave of retirements we face internally at MSPB. In the next 2 years, over 30 

percent of MSPB’s workforce will be retirement-eligible, and 47 

percent of that number is the administrative judges (AJs) who are 

responsible for issuing initial decisions in thousands and thousands 

of individual cases every year. 

Because it takes approximately 2 years of training before an AJ 

can work independently, retirement, recruitment and training are 

extremely pressing concerns, particularly if appeals increase in the 

areas of retirement, veterans’ work, veterans’ claims and as a result of agency restructuring due to tightening budgets. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

5 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Lerner appears in the appendix on page 36. 

Mr. Chairman, you and your distinguished Subcommittee have 

been our strong supporters of our work and mission. Thank you for 

your leadership during your successful tenure as either Chairman 

or Ranking Member of this Subcommittee and its predecessor subcommittees. You have been a champion for effectiveness and efficiency in the Federal Government, an early advocate for greater 

workforce flexibilities, such as telework, and a consistent voice for 

fair treatment of Federal employees. Your efforts to protect the 

rights of whistleblowers are renowned, and your ability to bring 

legislation to the Senate floor, important legislation, is notable indeed. 

Thank you for this opportunity to talk about the important work 

we do. I look forward to answering your questions. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Chairwoman 

Grundmann. 

Ms. Lerner, will you please proceed with your statement? 

TESTIMONY OF HON. CAROLYN LERNER,1 SPECIAL COUNSEL, 

U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 

Ms. LERNER. Thank you. I am delighted to be here today to testify about the United States Office of Special Counsel. It is also an 

honor to be on this panel with MSPB Chair Grundmann. 

I am joined today by senior members of my agency, and I would 

like to recognize them and thank them for their support as well. 

Chairman Akaka, before I go into the good work being done by 

the Office of Special Counsel, I would like to take just a moment 

to commend you for the phenomenal work that you have done in 

Congress. Throughout your long career, you have been a leader in 

advancing stronger whistleblower protections for Federal employees, most recently, with the reintroduction of the Whistleblower 

Protection Enhancement Act. 

When we spoke last week, you told me that after serving for so 

many years in the Congress you wanted to be able to spend more 

time with your many children, grandchildren and great grandchildren in Hawaii. And you and they certainly deserve that opportunity, but please know that your other family, the family of the 

Federal workforce, deeply appreciates all that you have done for 

them and your service on their behalf. 

It has been an honor to get to know you, and I look forward to 

working closely with you over the next few months to see the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act enacted and to reform the 

Hatch Act. 

It was just a little over a year ago that I was here for my nomination hearing. Since then, much has changed at the Office of Special Counsel, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to share 

these changes with you today. 

The Office of Special Counsel safeguards the merit system for 

over 2.1 million Federal employees. We have four distinct missions: 

We protect employees from prohibited personnel practices, particularly retaliation. We provide a safe and secure channel for employees to disclose waste, fraud and abuse, and health and safety violations. We enforce the Hatch Act, which keeps the Federal workH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

6 

place free from political coercion and improper partisan politics. 

And we protect the employment rights of veterans and service 

members. 

We fulfill these roles with a career staff of about 110 employees 

and the smallest budget of any Federal watchdog agency. 

In the past, I have talked about how the OSC is the best kept 

secret in government. I am pleased to report that seems to be 

changing. Caseloads are increasing in all of our programs. In just 

one important area, whistleblower disclosures, our numbers are up 

32 percent over last year’s levels. But while our workload increases 

at record rates, OSC’s budget has remained relatively flat. 

Even with our modest budget, the OSC gets a lot of bang for the 

buck. We know that whistleblower disclosures save tax dollars and 

make the government more efficient. 

For example, in one recent case, a whistleblower disclosed that the Army had failed to properly review an $8 million contract, resulting in a substantial overpayment to the contractor. OSC’s efforts will result in a significant recovery of tax dollars and reforms 

that will help prevent something like this from happening again. 

In another case, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

whistleblower told OSC that more than 145 border patrol officers 

were improperly being paid overtime. By stopping these payments, 

the government saved approximately $2 million annually at just 

one DHS facility. And because of OSC’s intervention, the Border 

Patrol instituted an agencywide policy to improve the use of overtime and prevent something like this from happening again. 

These types of results are not unique. OSC’s efforts to support 

whistleblowers often stop both the immediate problem and spark 

wider reforms. 

Indeed, this was the result when whistleblowers at the U.S. Military’s mortuary in Dover disclosed the improper handling of human 

remains. After OSC intervened, the Air Force took wide-scale corrective action. Our report also prompted other whistleblowers to 

come forward and report the dumping of remains in a landfill. The 

Air Force is now better able to uphold its sacred mission on behalf 

of fallen service members and their families. 

Beyond specific casework, since I took office, we have launched 

several important new initiatives, and I want to talk about just a 

few of them. I will start with one that I know is on your list as 

well—Hatch Act reform—and I thank you, Senator Akaka, for introducing the Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012. 

This bipartisan, good government legislation will prevent unnecessary Federal interference with State and local elections, and it 

will allow well qualified candidates to serve their communities. It 

will also fix the overly restrictive penalty structure that currently 

exists for Federal employees. 

A second initiative that I launched is the Retaliation Pilot 

Project. This project allows employees from any of our units to 

spend 6 months in the Investigation and Prosecution Unit, working 

on whistleblower retaliation cases. It is already beginning to reduce 

our backlog, and it also provides a great professional development 

opportunity for our employees. 

Third, I have strengthened OSC’s Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Program (ADR). We have brought in an expert mediator and 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

7 

partnered with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 

with an interagency agreement. A strong ADR program helps resolve many cases without resource-intensive investigations and litigation. It also provides for quicker and better results for both employees and agencies alike. 

Finally, we initiated a demonstration project for the Uniformed 

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act program. This 

project significantly increases OSC’s role in protecting the employment rights of veterans and service members. 

So in conclusion, over the last 8 months, we have been very busy 

and we have been very productive. 

I thank you, and I thank this Subcommittee for its continued 

support of our important work, and I look forward to answering 

your questions. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much to both of our witnesses. 

I would like to thank you both for you leadership in these important areas. 

My first question to both of you is your agencies’ statutory missions are intertwined with each other’s, along with the statutory 

missions of the Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Labor 

Relations Authority (FLRA) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 

What are your agencies doing to work together? What are you 

doing to work together along with other sister agencies in the Federal Government to protect Federal employees? 

Any one of you may begin. 

Ms. LERNER. I am happy to start or I will defer to you, Susan. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Go ahead. 

Ms. LERNER. OK, I will start on this one. 

We do have several sister agencies, and we have been working 

hard to establish ties with all of them, really. 

And the MSPB is certainly our closest sister agency, both figuratively and literally. We are about a block away from each other, 

and our work is so closely linked. In fact, the OSC used to be part 

of the MSPB. 

Some of the things that we have done to establish a better relationship, from the very simple, like visiting the MSPB—our senior 

staff went over and met with the entire agency, and they will reciprocate for us. We have consulted with the MSPB when we were setting up our mediation program. We filed an amicus brief when the 

Board called for them on the security clearance issue. We have 

been more actively seeking formal stays from the MSPB, and that 

helps us to get voluntary stays as well from agencies. And, we have 

been using their reports. In particular, I have used their report on 

employee perceptions of prohibited personnel practices and barriers 

to making disclosures in doing outreach. 

You mentioned the EEOC as well, and we have been reaching 

out to them. We are working right now on a work-sharing agreement, or a memorandum of understanding (MOU), to more efficiently process mixed cases. 

I have met with the head of the Office of Federal Operations 

about ways to do outreach to Federal agencies. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

8 

I have met with Commissioner Feldblum regarding sexual orientation cases, and their representatives have attended one of our 

stakeholder meetings on LGBT issues. 

You mentioned the (FLRA), and I have also met with the head 

of that agency, Carol Pope, regarding best practices in agency management. 

And, OPM continues to refer cases to us, and we continue to 

have a strong working relationship with them. 

So we are trying very hard to coordinate with our sister agencies 

and find ways to work together. 

And I will just mention one more agency—the Federal Mediation 

and Conciliation Service. I mentioned in my opening statement we 

entered into an interagency agreement with them to help us be 

more efficient in the way we provide mediation services. And they 

have offices all across the country, and so it is very good for us to 

be able to have cases mediated out in the field. It saves us money, 

it is more efficient, and it is a better use of resources. 

So there are lots of ways to work together, and we are exploring 

them all. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much for your response, Special Counsel Lerner. Chairman Grundmann. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Like the Special Counsel, we have interacted in many ways with 

all our sister agencies, and we do so with a certain amount of respect for the various jurisdictions as we are the adjudicator of 

many of the things that come before us. 

But that aside, going back at least over a year, each of these 

agencies that you have mentioned. 

And a problem that has paid a visit to the MSPB, their leadership. They have brought their processes, their vision, their goals 

and their challenges before us to share in front of all our agency 

employees. 

With respect to particularly if we look at the adjudication regulations and our review of our adjudication regulations, our proposed 

regulations have gone out to OPM, to the Special Counsel, to 

EEOC, asking for their input before we go into the public rulemaking process. 

As Ms. Lerner mentioned, we do issue routine calls for amicus 

briefs. We have done, so far, eight in the last 2 years, and all these 

agencies participate when they believe it is appropriate. 

And finally, we have designed a strategic plan. It is unveiled on 

our Web site. Copies of the draft strategic plan went to all the 

agencies for their input and their assessment. We understand that 

we received some very positive statements from our stakeholders, 

from our sister agencies, and even in the early days of Special 

Counsel Lerner’s arrival we worked with her team to design their 

strategic plan. 

So it is a good working relationship with all these agencies, bearing in mind the role that we take. 

Chairman AKAKA. Well, thank you very much. I am glad to hear 

your responses. 

I have often said that a problem that our government organizations have, and our government really, is that, because of its size, 

it can be unwieldy. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

9 

When I was Chairman of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee and 

also senior member of the Armed Services, I worked to improve 

communication between Federal officials, and now the secretaries 

and deputy secretaries speak to each other. And I smile because it 

has been something that has saved time. By lifting the phone, we 

can talk to each other and things get done. And there are no letters 

that need to be written, and so things really move quickly. 

Of course, this is important. Communication needs to exist 

throughout the Federal Government. So I am glad to hear that you 

are both able to do as much of that as possible, because it will certainly save time and make the government more effective. 

Ms. Grundmann and Ms. Lerner, the 1978 Civil Service reforms 

separated your agencies from the previous Civil Service Commission. The OSC originally was part of the Board, but the 1989 whistleblower reforms separated your agencies from each other. 

Will you please discuss your agencies’ respective roles and why 

it is important for them to function independently of other Federal 

workforce agencies? Ms. Grundmann. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Let me take a shot at it. 

The separation is important. It is significant in that the Civil 

Service Reform Act separated a number of agencies in our view, to 

maintain our neutrality and our impartiality in adjudicating 

whether the merit systems are being protected and whether the 

public interest is served in a civil service free of prohibited personnel practices. 

That separation from OPM, the creator of the rules for Federal 

employees, and from the OSC, the prosecutor, if you will, of claims 

of violations of prohibited personnel practices, has allowed a balance. They review the cases; they bring their cases; they adjudicate 

the cases, with us at arm’s length. And as such, we are able to deal 

with it with impartiality. 

I think the relationship is good in that sense. It does not preclude any of the agencies from being collegial in nature, but it certainly preserves the original purpose for which we were intended 

to be formed. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you for your response. Ms. Lerner. 

Ms. LERNER. I will just add a couple things, and that is for the 

Office of Special Counsel in particular—let me put my microphone 

on. 

For the Office of Special Counsel, our role really is in many ways 

to be an independent reviewer of agencies’ actions, at least in the 

disclosure area. 

So for example, when we receive a disclosure from an agency and 

we make a determination there is a substantial likelihood that the 

disclosure is valid, we have to then send it back to the agency and 

ask them to do an independent investigation. We review their investigation and send it back if we need more information or sort 

of act as a second pair of eyes, to make sure that what the agency 

has done really is legitimate and is going to solve the problem. 

So we have to have some independence from the agencies, and 

it is an independence that often Inspectors General do not have 

within an agency. 

That being said, there are so many areas where we can work collaboratively with agencies as well. One of them is in outreach and 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

10 

education. We do that a lot with our Hatch Act Unit, in particular, 

as well as USERRA. Virtually every one of our units is actively involved in outreach and education and trying to prevent problems 

from happening in the first place. 

We are hoping to be able to revive our 2302 certification program 

as well. That will give agencies goals to meet and better protect the 

Federal workforce from violations of the Civil Service rules and 

USERRA and the Hatch Act. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much for your response. 

Ms. Lerner, as I mentioned in my opening statement, my bill to 

modernize the Hatch Act would eliminate the current prohibition 

on State and local employees running for partisan elected office. 

How does this prohibition affect your office, both in terms of resources and its ability to fulfill other statutory obligations? 

Ms. LERNER. Well, the Hatch Act obviously has a very important 

function which is keeping political coercion out of the Federal Government, and stopping misuse of official office. But there are two 

really serious problems that need fixing, and your legislation would 

fix them both. 

The first is the impact on State and local cases. You asked about 

the impact on our agency of those cases. Forty-five percent of the 

cases in the Hatch Act Unit right now involve investigating State 

and local political campaign cases. So over 500 investigations in the 

last 2 years have involved just these State and local campaign 

cases. The caseload would be significantly higher if you counted 

within that number the informal and formal advisory opinions beyond just the investigations that take place. 

Right now, the law impacts thousands of State and local employees across the country every year, and these are not people who 

have done anything wrong. They just want to run for local office 

and serve their communities. So it has a very big impact both on 

our agency and on State and local employees all across the country. 

If I can just give you a couple of examples of the types of cases 

that we have had to be involved in: Routinely, we have to tell deputy sheriffs that they cannot run for sheriff because of the influx 

of Federal funding into those departments. And who better to run 

for sheriff than a deputy? 

We have had to tell an ambulance driver he could not run for 

county coroner because he transports Medicaid patients. 

We had to tell a local transit officer in a canine unit that he 

could not run for school board, an unpaid position, because his dog 

was paid for with Federal funds. 

These are the types of cases that we have to get involved in all 

the time. 

And the legislation would really help us use our resources better 

because these State and local cases require very fact intensive investigations to try and show whether there is in fact a connection 

to the Federal funds. So it takes a lot of time to investigate these 

cases. 

If we could reallocate our resources, we could focus on cases 

where there is coercion or actual misconduct. We could do more 

education and outreach, which I think is vital to preventing Hatch 

Act violations in the first place. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

11 

In this Federal election year, we are going to have a tremendous 

influx of cases, and we will need to put more resources into those 

cases. So we would like to be able to prioritize these areas and use 

our resources in that way. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. 

Ms. Lerner, your office also recommended that penalty provisions 

of the Hatch Act be amended so that the Board will have more 

flexibility in issuing penalties when violations of the law occur. 

Will you please discuss why your office made this recommendation? 

Ms. LERNER. Sure. Well right now, there is only one penalty for 

any level of infraction regardless of other factors, and that is if 

someone is found to be in violation the presumptive penalty is always termination. Now, it can be mitigated down to 30 days with 

a unanimous decision by the Board. But in fact, it really is not fair 

right now, that this is the only penalty, and it is unlike any other 

violation for a Federal employee, where there is a range of penalties. The Hatch Act only has the one, and it is a very severe penalty of termination. 

We think that agencies are hesitant sometimes to refer cases to 

us because they do not want to lose an otherwise good employee 

who they know can be terminated for what could be a very minor 

violation. 

So we believe that it would be in everyone’s interest to fix this 

part of the law, to provide for a range of penalties. And I think it 

reflects well on the Federal Government to be fair about this kind 

of thing. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. 

Ms. Grundmann, you mentioned a number of Board studies, and 

I am so glad that we have a group that can conduct those studies. 

It is my understanding that a number of studies are currently 

pending, addressing issues such as violence in the workplace, fair 

hiring practices and motivating strong employee performance. I 

would like to hear more about the Board’s current work and how 

you believe it will contribute to a more productive Federal workforce. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. I would be happy to talk about it. Let me first 

talk about the violence in the workplace report. And let me begin 

by noting that all these reports that we are going to talk about are 

subject to the review and the approval of the Board members, and 

the Board members have not seen these reports yet, but they are 

vetting internally within the agency. 

With respect to the violence in the workplace report, that is, interestingly enough, something that the stakeholders wanted us to 

study. So we are following through on that request or recommendation. 

And what we are finding is that violence in the workplace leads 

to, of course, lost work time, low morale, increased employee turnover. 

We are looking toward developing objective criteria in terms of 

the frequency and the nature of this type of violence and perhaps 

an enhanced data collection proceeding. Eventually, we hope to 

help agencies craft their own anti-violence programs using the findings of this report. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

12 

The second report that is significant is the performance motivation in Federal Government, linkages, potential linkages and performance, and that is a relevant report in this time because we are 

dealing with tightening budgets, pay freezes, lower bonuses and 

loss of training dollars for development and progress of employees. 

The question we present is how you keep Federal employees motivated in this environment where rewards may not necessarily be 

monetary in nature. So we will be designing a series, or offering 

a series, of nonmonetary incentives that agencies can provide employees. 

This report is also based on our 2010 Merit Principles Survey, 

and in it, we look for items that will identify factors that will elicit 

efforts and performance above and beyond the minimum. So again, 

motivation. 

The final report I would like to talk about is managing employees in the public interest, and this is also based on our 2020 Merit 

Principles Survey. 

And the interesting thing about our surveys is one survey is conducted, but it produces multiple results for multiple reports. So no 

data is ever wasted, and the reports actually build on each other. 

This time we will be looking at Federal agencies’ adherence to 

the nine merit principles from the employees’ perspective. And it 

will be hopefully insightful to our stakeholder community in addition to the agencies, as to how effectively and efficiently Federal 

employees are managing their workforces in terms of hiring, in 

terms of employment, in terms of retention, and identifying areas 

of improvement. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Lerner, your testimony mentions that OSC is effectively 

handcuffed by court decisions narrowing the Whistleblower Protection Act. Would you please elaborate on that problem as well as the 

practical implications it has for those who come forward to disclose 

waste, fraud and abuse or illegal activity? 

Ms. LERNER. Sure. Right now, we are really handcuffed by court 

decisions that have narrowed the scope of protections and the definitions of who is actually protected by the Whistleblower Protection 

Act. 

We can always weed out frivolous claims. In fact, a fairly small 

percentage of complaints actually gets investigated and prosecuted, 

but right now we cannot protect employees who blow the whistle 

during the course of their job duties, during the ordinary course of 

their job duties. For example, an auditor who finds waste in a government contract and blows the whistle about that is not protected 

under the Whistleblower Protection Act. Safety inspectors are not 

protected. 

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which you have 

introduced, would restore Congress’s intent to protect whistleblowers for any lawful disclosure of waste, fraud, abuse, health or 

safety violation regardless of their position. 

The other way that we are really handcuffed by the current law 

is in the area of disciplinary action. If we can take disciplinary action against wrongdoers, that can have the effect of deterring retaliation from happening in the first place. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

13 

We cannot do it effectively now though. The burden is just too 

high, and we are required to pay attorneys’ fees if we lose before 

the Merit Systems Protection Board regardless of whether we were 

justified in bringing the disciplinary action in the first place. With 

our very small budget, it would be really the rare case that would 

justify the high risk of prosecution. 

The other way that we are a little bit hamstrung now with the 

current law is that we cannot file amicus briefs. With the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, we could help shape whistleblower law by filing briefs in important cases. Right now, we cannot participate at the Federal appeals court level. The bill would 

give us limited authority to do so. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. 

Ms. Grundmann, in your testimony, you stated that almost half 

of the Board’s administrative judges will be eligible to retire in less 

than 3 years. Will you please discuss the effect these potential retirements could have on your agency and what steps the Board is 

taking to address this issue? 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. I would be happy to. Our workforce, like the 

rest of the Federal workforce, is aging. That does not mean they 

are any slower or they are any duller. In fact, they are operating 

at peak capacity. But knowing that they have been operating at 

this incredible level for their entire careers, many are ready to retire. 

Early on, we identified the critical vacancies of this agency that 

we needed to plan for in the future, and those are the administrative judges and the writing attorneys in our office. Our goal, if we 

could possibly do it, is to hire a few administrative judges every 

year and allow, for that 2-year period of time, the transference of 

institutional knowledge from an experienced AJ to a fledgling AJ. 

In addition to that, we hope for mentoring of the two sides. That 

is traditionally the kind of training environment that we have 

used. It has been very profitable; very productive. It has been good 

for our agency. 

What we are concerned about is the Board has a culture of timeliness. We are very timely in the issuance of initial decisions in the 

regional and field offices. I believe we average about 90 days per 

case in the regional and field offices. That number will go up as 

the number of judges declines. 

In addition to that, with the influx of cases that we anticipate 

from retirement claims, from veterans claims, from RIF, or restructuring, claims, consequentially, the caseload will go up. So, it is 

longer. 

We would like to plan for the future. We are planning for it now. 

We will make do with what we have now. But if we could bring 

in a couple judges every year, that would get us through this next 

couple of years and plan for the future so that we can adjust to any 

caseload changes that occur. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. 

Ms. Lerner, the Veterans’ Benefits Act of 2010 established a second demonstration project which requires OSC to investigate and 

enforce cases brought under USERRA. Will you please discuss 

OSC’s progress and the challenges associated with this important 

statutory requirement? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

14 

Ms. LERNER. Sure. The second demonstration project started in 

August. So for the next 3 years, we will be the primary agency in 

the Federal Government responsible for USERRA enforcement. We 

had very good results the first time that we had the demonstration 

project, and we are expecting excellent results this time as well. 

We have always been responsible for the prosecution of USERRA 

claims after referrals from the Department of Labor (DOL). The 

way it was structured before is that the Department of Labor 

would investigate the USERRA complaints and send to us the ones 

that they believed were worthy of prosecution. Now we are taking 

on half of those cases for investigation as well as prosecution, along 

with other mixed cases. 

So what we will be doing over the next 3 years is investigating 

these cases. We will offer mediation to try and resolve them informally. Where we cannot achieve settlement, we will litigate them 

before the Board. And we also hope to do a lot of education and 

outreach to agencies to prevent problems from happening in the 

first place. 

This is a lot to do on our very small and very fixed budget. So 

far this year, we have received 90 complaints. We expect to get 

about 180 complaints altogether this year. 

We only just received some funding for the demonstration project 

from the Department of Labor, so we have had to be pretty creative 

in our staffing solutions. We have recruited, for the first time, Presidential Management Fellows to help us. We are looking into termlimited hires so that we can bring people on through the end of this 

fiscal year (FY). We are trying to use legal interns more. As I mentioned, we are trying to use mediation more, to resolve cases without investigations and litigation. And, we are also seeking detailees 

from other agencies to help us with USERRA claims. 

With the drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan, we expect even 

more cases as vets return home. We are, as an agency, deeply committed to helping the Federal Government be a model employer for 

the protection of veterans’ employment rights, and we look forward 

to doing a thorough job over the next 3 years with this demonstration project. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. 

I will ask both of you this, but Ms. Grundmann, as your Agency’s 

workload has grown, your budget have not kept pace, and your 

funding per case has fallen significantly. I would like to give you 

an opportunity to discuss your current funding challenges, and how 

you are making every dollar count, and why it is important that 

Congress give you the resources you need to do your important 

work. 

Ms. LERNER. Thank you. 

I would like to begin by saying that we want to not just do more 

with less but to work smarter and we are doing so in a number 

of areas. 

Many of our employees wear multiple hats. Some work in the 

studies department as well as they work in case processing. We 

cross-train when we can. In addition to that, we are doing it now 

even in these times. 

We are making use of video conferencing. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

15 

Our electronic filing is up. It was 29 percent in 2007. It is over 

50 percent now. We are piloting a mandatory e-filing project for attorneys and agencies in our Washington Regional Office and our 

Denver Field Office. 

And we are looking at more effective ways of delivering our studies. Originally, it was the hard copy. Then it became the Web site. 

And now, we are introducing the mobile app, which started last 

year on the iPhone and the Android and is now headed toward the 

iPad very shortly. 

And of course, we are looking at streamlining our processes. 

At the same time, we are doing cuts the old-fashioned way, 

which is decreases in travel, 40 percent across the board, decreases 

in equipment and general operations as well. But what we have 

committed to our employees is that given the current level of funding we have committed that nobody goes home and the lights stay 

on. 

But in order to maintain with the increased case filings—and let 

me give you some numbers here—last year, it was over 8,100 cases 

we processed. The year before, it was 7,800. So you can see the 

growth year by year. 

In order to maintain that efficiency, that effectiveness, to be able 

to produce a case result at the initial level and at the appeals level 

in a timely, efficient context, we need more people. And, we need 

time to train those people so they can experience the institutional 

knowledge that this core group of employees at MSPB has to offer. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. Ms. Lerner. 

Ms. LERNER. Sure. So our caseloads are up significantly. As I 

mentioned before, our caseload is up across the board about 20 percent over the last 3 years. In fiscal year 2011, we had about 4,000- 

plus cases, and about 2,500 of those were prohibited personnel 

practices complaints. In fiscal year 2012, we expect about 2,800 

prohibited personnel practices complaints, and we expect an increase as well in every single one of our units—disclosure, Hatch 

Act and USERRA. 

All of this is happening as our funding levels remain relatively 

flat and in fact for fiscal year 2013 our budget is projected to go 

down by $280,000. This will result in potentially a decrease in the 

number of staff that we have. Right now, we have about 110 fulltime equivalents. If our funding went down as expected, we will 

have to reduce our staffing to about 107 full-time equivalents. 

It is a big problem. A lot of our budget—89 percent of it—is devoted to salaries, benefits and rent. So there is not really any extra 

room in there to cut back. 

Some of the things that we are doing—as I mentioned, we are 

recruiting Presidential Management Fellows to help us fortify our 

staff without having to increase our salaries. We are trying to recruit more interns, trying to use temporary employees and form alliances with other agencies, like the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. 

We are trying to make sure that every dollar that comes to our 

agency is well spent and that not a single dollar is wasted. Some 

of the small steps I have taken are things like changing computerized legal service providers. That saved us $50,000 this year alone. 

We have stopped getting hardbound copies of 5 Code of Federal 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

16 

Regulations (CFR), and that saves about $40,000. We are dividing 

large offices into two offices, putting up walls to save on office 

space. We have converted our library, which was largely underutilized, so that it can now hold carrels for extra work space so that 

we do not have to spend more money on rent. We have significantly 

curtailed travel and extra expenses. 

But it certainly hurts. I mean, day to day our hands are tied on 

things like ordering transcripts in our investigations. We had a 

huge investigation of the Port Mortuary and could not afford to 

have transcripts done, and so our attorneys had to listen to hundreds of hours of tapes in putting together a report, and that really 

does affect how we do our job. 

Not having adequate staffing for the demonstration project has 

affected how we have done our job in that area. So it is a serious 

problem. 

We understand that every agency is similarly under the same 

types of pressures, but we think that the mission of the Office of 

Special Counsel is so important. And the budget is relatively small. 

We are talking about $18.5 million, and the benefits to the government in the work that we do far outweigh the small budget we 

have. 

So I sincerely hope that we will be able to keep the number of 

staff that we have and increase it as we certainly need to do, with 

a more realistic budget come fiscal year 2013. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much for your response. 

Ms. Lerner, during your confirmation hearing, I noted that employee morale at the Office of Special Counsel was low at that time 

and there had been complaints of possible illegal retaliation at OSC 

prior to your tenure. You told me that you would work to improve 

the workplace environment at OSC with a focus on increasing employee morale. Will you please discuss what steps you have taken 

to address this issue since your confirmation? 

Ms. LERNER. Sure. The first thing I did was to start by listening. 

I was able to meet with virtually every employee at the agency, either individually or in small groups. Because of the size of our 

agency—we have about 110 full-time employees—I really was able 

to get to know many of them personally and certainly talk with all 

of them in some way. 

I have made trips to the field offices. I have been to Dallas and 

Detroit. I will go to Oakland next week. 

We have started to have informal brown-bag lunches that are 

open to everyone in the agency to attend, and the folks out in the 

field offices can attend by video conference. 

We have attended meetings with all of the units so that we are 

getting to know their work, and it provides them with an opportunity to ask us questions as well. We have frequent meetings, as 

well, with the senior staff. 

So that is the first step—listening and doing outreach within the 

agency. 

A second step I have taken to try to improve morale is to provide 

professional development opportunities. The Retaliation Pilot 

Project that I spoke about briefly in my opening statement has provided many agency employees with an opportunity to work on 

whistleblower complaints during 6-month rotations. Out of 80 eligiH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

17 

ble employees, 22 applied to participate in the program, and so 

that has been a nice source of professional development and training. 

We have begun to offer continuing legal education courses and 

more training possibilities for employees at the agency. 

And we also have a new pro bono policy that allows people to do 

work in their communities, using administrative leave to do it, up 

to 20 hours a year. 

There are some external influences too that have had an impact 

on morale. I have had nothing to do with it, but it has had a very 

positive impact, I believe, and that is we have received a lot of positive press about what the agency has been doing. I think that really helps employees feel proud about the work that they are doing. 

I think our work speaks for itself. We do excellent work. We have 

received excellent results. And it helps for other agencies and 

stakeholders to know about it and to recognize it. So I think that 

helps. 

But the biggest challenge that I think remains for morale really 

is workload because, as I mentioned, we have had a tremendous increase in the number of cases that are filed without any corresponding increase in resources. So it is a real challenge to feel 

like people are able to do everything they want to be able to do on 

cases when we are so overwhelmed. 

The last thing I will mention about morale is that we are about 

to conduct our first Viewpoint Survey through OPM. The agency 

had never participated in the survey before, and I think by participating we will be able to get a better sense of how employees really 

are feeling about the workplace. 

But overall, I think signs are good that morale has improved, 

and we are certainly looking for new and other ways of making 

people feel good and valued about their work at the OSC. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. 

Ms. Grundmann, for the first time since its inception in 1978 the 

Board is conducting a comprehensive review of its adjudication regulations. Will you please discuss how you have included stakeholders and other Federal agencies in this process as well as the 

Board’s long-term goals for this review. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. This was a rather heavy lift, if one could call 

it that. We started last year, and like everything we do at MSPB, 

it is agencywide. We took representatives from all parts of our 

agencies—judges, writing attorneys, general counsel’s office, the 

clerk’s office and even some of our studies folks—and we pulled together—we went through the regulations. I mean, let’s go back a 

little bit. 

In the past, the Board has tinkered with particular parts of its 

regulations. This is the first time we have gone through to make 

sure that the regulations are uniform, clear, consistent throughout, 

and streamlining certain processes that may appear time-consuming or redundant. 

So internally, a team got together, a reg review team, and they 

met one hour every week. And then, they doubled up. And they 

produced an internal document which is a matrix of every single 

rule that we have—the current regulation, the proposed change 

and the reason for the change. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

18 

That document went to stakeholders, approximately 40 stakeholders, and they were private bar, agency representatives, folks 

that use the regulation—and sister agencies—that use the regulations on an ongoing basis. We took their comments in written format. 

And then, as recently as March 6, I believe, we brought them in 

to discuss their viewpoints with our team. 

We are currently in the process of refining our proposed regulations with these comments from the stakeholders and from our 

community, and we will be going to notice of proposed rulemaking, 

we are hoping, sometime early summer. During that period, there 

has been discussion of having another open meeting with the Board 

members and our community, and hopefully, we will be finishing 

up the regulations by late fall. 

So it is a massive undertaking. It could not have been done without the dedication of very committed staff in headquarters and certainly the dedication and commitment from all the stakeholders 

and the community who took time out of their lives to review our 

regulations in detail and to comment upon them as well. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

This is my final question to both of you. We have discussed a 

number of important issues today. And as I mentioned, it is clear 

that your agencies are making progress. 

What are your top priorities, moving forward, and how do you intend to meet these priorities? 

You have done well since you have been in your leadership roles 

and I am confident you both will continue to do well. I am looking 

forward to hearing what your plans are for the future, as you move 

forward from this point in time, and how you intend to meet challenges. Ms. Grundmann. 

Ms. GRUNDMANN. Our vision is really a Federal service that is 

free of prohibited personnel practices. And looking at the Federal 

Government as a whole, the Federal Government does aspire to be 

that model employer. And what makes the Federal Government a 

model employer are basic tenets and principles that guide and 

shape its behavior, and those principles are, of course, the nine 

merit principles. 

Our goal is to get the word out, to get people thinking, not just 

agencies and stakeholders, that these nine principles are the foundation of Federal employment. They are what makes Civil Service 

civil. These principles are with employees before they become employees, when they are applicants to Federal positions. They go on 

the journey with employees, through their promotion, through their 

training, throughout their careers and even follow them into retirement. 

In order to achieve this goal, we have to do it two-fold: First, 

through adjudication, which is essentially retroactive in nature and 

that is maintaining the current level of excellence and productivity 

that our judges and our decisions demonstrate, and it is again, 

through our studies program, doing more, because a good studies 

program, if adhered to, will actually prevent prohibited personnel 

practices from occurring. And let me just give you an example. 

In 2005, we did a study on the then-new hiring program which 

is the Federal Career Intern Program. In the program, we noted 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

19 

a number of concerns that we had with the program and that we 

encouraged agencies and OPM to implement this new hiring authority consistent with the merit principles, with EEO dictates and, 

of course, with veterans’ preference benefits, veterans’ preference 

rights, which ultimately became the Evans and Dean case. As a result, that program terminated, and we understand that OPM is developing a new program in conjunction with it. So that is one example of how the studies can be used prospectively. 

Can we expand the program? Part of the expansion of the program—we have talked about that third statutory function, which 

is the OPM oversight. It is partially envisioned, as we say in our 

testimony, in terms of the architects of the Civil Service Reform 

Act. They viewed this as a part of our function. 

And in order to fully have use of this function we need to be able 

to staff for this particular function. Right now, we borrow from our 

studies staff, and we do a review of OPM significant actions. We 

will do a more extensive review of it in our 2011 Annual Report, 

but again, more resources at a time of tightening budgets and 

fewer bodies. 

And finally, we would like to get through the end of this adjudication regulation review. It is a fairly large undertaking for a 

very small staff, and again, our projected time is sometime later 

this fall. We hope to be able to achieve it, like some of the other 

good things that we have done. Thank you. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. Ms. Lerner. 

Ms. LERNER. I have a lot of goals for my term. Luckily, I have 

a few years left to meet them because I think it is going to take 

a little while, but one that I hope we can meet this year is passage 

of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act and passage of 

the Hatch Act. Both of those laws would help us do our job much 

better. 

Passage of the WPEA, as I mentioned, would I think make us 

viewed as an agency that can really help people when they need 

it. Right now, we are in the position of having to tell folks a lot 

of the time that we cannot help them because of the court decisions 

that have restricted our review of certain types of cases. So that 

would be, a No. 1 priority, I think. 

Another important priority for our agency, and for me personally, 

is restoring OSC’s reputation within the Federal community, and 

I think there are a couple of benefits to doing that. One of them 

is that people will feel like they can come to our agency for help. 

They will feel like if they come forward and report a problem— 

waste, fraud or abuse, or a health or a safety problem—there will 

be a real agency there to back them up. 

I think that will also have an impact on the Federal community 

in terms of respecting whistleblowers because the more we do our 

job right, I think, whistleblowers will be viewed better in the Federal community. I want to change the image of whistleblowing and 

make it valued within the Federal community. 

A third goal, and this is related to the fact that we have to do 

more with less and that we have serious budget constraints, is to 

buildup our Alternative Dispute Resolution Program. I think that 

the benefits are overwhelming, to using ADR. As I have mentioned, 

it can provide quicker and better results for employees and agenH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

20 

cies alike and at the same time help us reserve our resources so 

that we are not having to do intensive investigations and pursue 

cases through litigation that can be resolved earlier on. 

Most cases do end up getting resolved. If we can do it at the front 

end without having to spend 6 months or a year investigating, it 

serves everybody’s interest. So I hope to be able to buildup that 

program. 

Those are a few of my goals. 

And in conclusion, I guess I just want to thank you again for 

your support of both the OSC and for the Federal Government and 

Federal employees in general. It is very important to have support 

in Congress for the work that we do, and I have certainly felt it 

from the beginning of my term, and I just want to thank you. 

Chairman AKAKA. Well, thank you very much, both of you. 

I want to thank our distinguished guests and witnesses for attending this hearing and providing thoughtful testimony and answers to these questions. 

I am pleased to hear that the Board and OSC are making 

progress in areas critical to improving government performance 

and efficiency. As I noted earlier, I consider these two agencies to 

be among the most important to Federal employees, and I look forward to monitoring their continued progress in fulfilling their statutory obligations and protecting rights in the workforce. I look forward to keeping in touch and working together to improve government efficiency and protect the Federal workers. 

Again, thank you so much for being here. 

And the hearing record will be open for 2 weeks for additional 

statements or questions other Members may have pertaining to 

this hearing. 

Again, I thank you immensely for your participation in this hearing. I have been at this for a number of years, and I want to tell 

you it is good to hear what I have heard today, and I look forward 

to continuing to help the Federal employees of our country. 

So, thank you very much. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(21) 

A P P E N D I X 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.001
22 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.002
23 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.003
24 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.004
25 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.005
26 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.006
27 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.007
28 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.008
29 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.009
30 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.010
31 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.011
32 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.012
33 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.013
34 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.014
35 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.015
36 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.016
37 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.017
38 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.018
39 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.019
40 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.020
41 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.021
42 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.022
43 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.023
44 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.024
45 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.025
46 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.026
47 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.027
48 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.028
49 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.029
50 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.030
51 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.031
52 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.032
53 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.033
54 

Æ 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


73677.034