U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

58–055 2010

EVALUATING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 30, 2010 

Serial No. 111–88 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

BOB FILNER, California, Chairman 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois 

THOMAS S.P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JOHN H. ADLER, New Jersey 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

GLENN C. NYE, Virginia 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

MALCOM A. SHORTER, Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona, Chairman 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JOHN H. ADLER, New Jersey 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee, Ranking 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

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

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

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

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

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

is further refined. 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

June 30, 2010 

Page 

Evaluating the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of General 

Counsel .................................................................................................................. 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Chairman Harry E. Mitchell ................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of Chairman Mitchell ..................................................... 17 

Hon. David P. Roe, Ranking Republican Member ................................................ 2 

Prepared statement of Congressman Roe ....................................................... 17 

WITNESSES 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Hon. Will A. Gunn, General Counsel ..... 10 

Prepared statement of Mr. Gunn .................................................................... 25 

Tully, Matthew B., Esq., Founding Partner, Tully Rinckey PLLC, Albany, 

NY ......................................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of Mr. Tully ..................................................................... 18 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Followup Information and Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the 

Record: 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 2009 and 2010 Employee Survey 

and Response Averages for the Office of General Counsel ........................ 30 

Hon. Harry E. Mitchell, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, to Hon. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, U.S. Department 

of Veterans, letter dated July 30, 2010, and VA responses ....................... 42 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING

ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

EVALUATING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE OF 

GENERAL COUNSEL 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 2010 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in 

Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Harry E. Mitchell 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Mitchell, Adler, Roe, and Bilbray. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MITCHELL 

Mr. MITCHELL. Good morning, and welcome to the Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations’ hearing on 

Evaluating the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of General Counsel. 

And this meeting will come to order. This is June 30th, 2010. 

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative 

days to revise and extend their remarks and that statements may 

be entered into the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Each day, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) executes 

laws, regulations, and policies that have a profound effect on how 

the Department conducts its business and assists our Nation’s veterans. 

The General Counsel serves as the VA’s Chief Legal Officer as 

the Office provides legal advice to the Secretary and all organizational components of the Department. It is no secret that the VA’s 

General Counsel or OGC plays a critical role in the decision-making and oversight of the VA. 

The OGC is a unique and complex office within the VA and its 

full range of responsibilities including legal, litigation, legislative, 

and regulatory activities is distributed among seven professional 

group staffs, each headed by an Assistant General Counsel. 

Each of these groups has the expertise in specific subject areas 

and is responsible for providing legal advice to program officials, 

reviewing proposed regulations and directives, and handling litigation involving VA programs. 

Additionally, the OGC operates 22 field offices which comprise almost two-thirds of OGC’s workforce. With the General Counsel’s 

widespread workforce, the OGC must promote consistency and uniVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:27 Dec 21, 2010 Jkt 058055 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\VA\58055.XXX GPO1 PsN: 58055

ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
2 

formity of its recommendations that lead to executive decisions that 

directly impact millions of veterans. 

We have heard many times that the OGC has repeatedly used 

time extensions from the court in order to keep pace with their 

workload. However, their workload is so great that it continues to 

remain an ongoing issue. 

Additionally, we have too often heard from various Department 

entities that documents crucial to this Subcommittee’s work are 

tied up with the General Counsel’s Office or that they are restricted by the OGC for release. 

Though OGC insists that the oversight responsibilities of Congress deserve respect, there is often at times a tension between the 

oversight responsibility and the Agency’s needs to protect certain 

predecisional information from disclosure out of concern that it 

could have a chilling impact on the free and open internal discussion and debate leading to the provision of advice needed by Agency decision-makers. 

As the VA OGC deals with these challenges, they must still continue to give timely and balanced legal recommendations that will 

benefit the needs of our veterans and the Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

Determining an objective standard to evaluate a subjective trait 

is a challenge. Nonetheless, the General Counsel needs to bring reform to the VA’s Office of General Counsel. 

I look forward to hearing from the General Counsel the challenges the office is facing as well as solutions that are being implemented to correct long-standing issues within the office. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Mitchell appears on p. 17.] 

Mr. MITCHELL. And before I recognize the Ranking Republican 

Member for his remarks, I would like to swear in our witnesses. 

I ask that all witnesses stand and please raise their right hand 

from both panels. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. 

Now I would like to recognize Dr. Roe for opening remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID P. ROE, RANKING 

REPUBLICAN MEMBER 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

According to the VA Web site, the mission of the VA Office of 

General Counsel is to identify and meet the legal needs of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Its primary objective is to ensure the 

just and faithful execution of the laws, regulations, and policies 

that the Secretary has responsibility for administering and by 

doing so, enable a Department to accomplish its mission of service 

to our Nation’s veterans. 

In recent years, Congress has increased the budget allocation to 

the Office of General Counsel to assist them in meeting this mission. With the current 9.2 percent budget increase for fiscal year 

2010 and the requested 9.6 percent increase for fiscal year 2011, 

it is appropriate to call this hearing to review the work of the Office of General Counsel and to make certain that the product produced by that office is providing the best benefit to our Nation’s 

veterans and the American taxpayer. 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
3 

Over the past several years, this Committee has reviewed a number of contracting issues where it was apparent that the guidance 

provided by the VA General Counsel was insufficient, inaccurate, 

or lacking. 

Recent VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports on contracting have shown deficiencies within the Office of General Counsel with respect to supporting contract management. 

I am interested in hearing from the General Counsel on how its 

resources have been allocated to improve contract management at 

the Department. 

I also want to know if the General Counsel plans to improve the 

relations between the Contracting Officers and the Regional General Counsel so that they actively seek their advice on major contract awards prior to an award being granted. 

Does the General Counsel perform pre- and post-award contract 

reviews on all contracts? 

I am also interested and concerned about delays we frequently 

hear about during meetings on the concurrence process for directives issued by the Veterans Health Administration. 

Often we are told that a directive is being held up by the General 

Counsel’s Office. These delays in providing legal opinions can lead 

to delays in updated treatment information being sent to the 

VISNs (Veterans Integrated Service Networks) and medical facilities and may cause problems with patient care. 

The bottom line here is that we make certain that the resources 

Congress provides to VA are being allocated properly in order to 

provide the most benefit for the veterans and the American public 

at the best possible value. 

Given the current track record of the General Counsel in contracting matters, I am uncertain if this is the case. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this and I yield back my 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Roe appears on p. 17.] 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. 

Mr. Bilbray. 

Mr. BILBRAY. I have no opening statement, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. 

At this time, I would like to welcome panel one to the witness 

table. Joining us on our first panel is Matthew Tully, Founding 

Partner of Tully Rinckey, PLLC. 

I ask that all witnesses from both panels stay within 5 minutes 

for their opening remarks. Your complete statements will be made 

part of the hearing record. 

And I also would like to let everybody know that votes may be 

called at any time, so we may have to go vote, and come back. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Tully. 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW B. TULLY, ESQ., FOUNDING 

PARTNER, TULLY RINCKEY PLLC, ALBANY, NY 

Mr. TULLY. Thank you. 

Chairman Mitchell, Ranking Member Roe, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, on behalf of the Tully Rinckey Law Firm and our 

Department of Veterans Affairs’ employee clients, I would like to 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
4 

thank you for the opportunity to present my evaluation of the VA 

Office of General Counsel. 

As the Founding Partner of a law firm that deals extensively 

with the VA OGC and its Regional Offices on employment law 

issues, the matter of today’s hearing is of particular importance to 

me. 

Seventy-five years ago, the Supreme Court issued an opinion implying that government attorneys must practice to a higher standard of ethics than private attorneys. Unfortunately, my fellow employment law attorneys and I have witnessed violations of the ethical standards for government lawyers laid out by the Supreme 

Court and various Bar associations, including the tendency of VA 

lawyers to treat managers like private clients, zealously representing them without any concern for the person aggrieved in an 

employment action. 

For example, a fellow attorney had witnesses privately badgered 

about their testimony by a VA lawyer prior to a hearing. A VA lawyer threatened disciplinary action against VA employee witnesses 

if their testimony did not conform to the Agency’s desires. 

In my firm’s dealings with the VA Office of General Counsel, VA 

lawyers have utilized numerous litigation tactics that would have 

made the lawyers for BP, AIG, or Enron proud. 

In one case earlier this year, our client was demoted based on 

charges of misconduct and our firm appealed the VA decision to the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). 

The VA lawyer in this case failed to respond to our discovery requests and even our motion to compel discovery. This unprofessional conduct translated into greater financial cost for our client. 

Due to the VA’s tactics on employment law matters, VA employees are often denied quality legal representation because law firms 

like mine that handle Federal-sector employment law issues avoid 

accepting VA cases because of the legal and financial burdens of 

working with the VA lawyers or alternatively charge VA clients 

higher initial retainers. 

My firm has represented many VA employees who enforce their 

legal rights pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment or 

Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, also known as USERRA. 

In 2003, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that 

Federal agencies improperly charged members of the National 

Guard and Reserve military leave for non-workdays. In order to 

remedy these wrongs, hundreds of VA employees who had been improperly charged military leave were able to file claims with the 

Merit Systems Protection Board in order to recover lost benefits. 

These claims often require the assistance of employment law attorneys like myself due to the difficulty in obtaining evidence needed to win the case. It has been my experience in these cases that 

VA lawyers often maliciously extend the legal process, causing VA 

employees to incur further financial loss and legal stress. 

By exhausting the litigation process until the day before or even 

hours before the actual hearing on the merits, VA lawyers force 

legal bills to increase. 

More striking, after some initial stonewalling, the VA ultimately 

provided the veteran with the relief originally requested minus atVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:27 Dec 21, 2010 Jkt 058055 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\VA\58055.XXX GPO1 PsN: 58055

ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
5 

torneys’ fees and litigation costs. This strategy known as mooting 

means the VA avoids paying attorneys’ fees despite the clear use 

of stalling tactics. This is both costly and taxing to the VA employee, the law firms that represent these employees, as well as the 

VA whose resources are diverted from complying with the laws 

that protect veterans to irrelevant legal strategizing. 

This tactic serves no legitimate purpose but to discourage attorneys like myself from taking these cases on behalf of VA employees. 

For example, in one case, the VA restored to our client shortly 

before a hearing 34 days of annual leave. However, the VA lawyer 

specifically stated in writing that if our client elected to proceed 

with the claim through the MSPB as allowed by law and requested 

attorneys’ fees, the VA would ‘‘resist any petition for the same for 

the reason that the appeal is unnecessary, needlessly 

confrontational, and a wasteful method of resolving this dispute.’’ 

This clear retaliation against our client for exercising his lawful 

right had a chilling impact on law firms who represented VA employees, as well as other VA employees who became afraid to file 

legal proceedings to recover damages from the VA’s unlawful employment practices because of the costs involved in such actions. 

In many of the claims that did get filed with the MSPB, legal 

costs substantially outweighed the payment returned to the employee for the wrongs they suffered due to the outrageous legal tactics of the VA’s lawyers. 

In order to alter the current course of the VA Office of General 

Counsel, I believe they should be held to the same or similar standard and scrutiny currently followed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ). The Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility reports directly to the Attorney General and investigates allegations of misconduct concerning DoJ attorneys. 

This would both deter VA lawyers from acting unethically and 

give the Department as a whole a newfound legitimacy. By doing 

so, the VA Office of General Counsel would become a model for ethical legal practices across all Federal agencies. 

As a service-disabled veteran of the Iraq War who was active in 

providing pro bono legal services in the compensation and pen 

arena, I can also tell you that having an independent Office of Professional Responsibility would be helpful given the VA OGC’s role 

of approving opposing counsel’s lawful right to appear on behalf of 

veterans during the comp and pen process. 

This accreditation of opposing counsel is ripe for abuse or at the 

very least the appearance of abuse and an Office of Professional 

Responsibility would help increase the oversight in this important 

process. 

I hope that I have provided valuable insight to this Committee 

and I hope it brings about positive change. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tully appears on p. 18.] 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. 

In your testimony, you discuss the OGC’s lack of concern for the 

person aggrieved and employment action is in contravention of ethical duties required of attorneys. 

Can you speak more about the ethical duties required of attorneys in the VA and how VA fails to meet the standard? 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
6 

Mr. TULLY. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. 

The VA attorneys have an obligation not to the manager that is 

involved in the employment dispute but to the taxpayers and to the 

government as a whole. 

I am a legal mercenary. I go to the highest bidder and I do my 

best to protect the people that retain me. 

The VA attorneys do very similar things, but that is not their 

job. Their job is to protect the taxpayers. Their job is to make sure 

justice is done. And routinely in these Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) cases in particular, they spend a great 

deal of time trying to protect the manager that allegedly and has 

been often proven to have engaged in unlawful conduct versus 

doing what is right for the person that was subjected to injustice. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Again, in your statement, you discuss instances 

of OGC’s engaging in unnecessary legal discovery requests with 

private counsel and refusing to submit discovery despite legal requests and failing to adhere to key legal deadlines. 

Are there any penalties that the VA attorneys face for not complying with these legal requirements and, secondly, what penalties 

would attorneys in the private practice face if they did the same 

thing? 

Mr. TULLY. Yes. There are motions to compel, but there are no 

financial penalties that could be imposed on the Agency. There 

could be sanctions in the case. 

So, for example, if I was a VA attorney and I did not meet the 

discovery deadline, some of that information that would have been 

relevant in discovery could be excluded. But the EEOC and the 

MSPB do not have the authority to impose financial sanctions. 

If this was in Federal District Court and I did that, I would be 

subjected to disciplinary action ranging from disbarment, suspension, as well as financial liability. 

Mr. MITCHELL. But not if you were working with the government 

or OGC? 

Mr. TULLY. Not before an administrative agency, no. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Why do you think unprofessional conduct by the 

VA attorneys goes unchecked and what could the General Counsel 

for the VA do about this? 

Mr. TULLY. Having spoken with my colleagues at the National 

Employment Lawyers Association at a recent convention about 

this, the problems seem to have occurred in the late 1990s, early 

2000 before 9/11 when the VA Office of General Counsel had presidential appointees that were trying to instill a private law firm 

mentality into the Administration. 

And many of the things that they did were very favorable, but 

this aspect of zealously representing a client to the point of exceeding the ethical bounds is unfortunately one of the things that they 

did bring in that I as a private attorney can do. As long as I stay 

within ethical bounds, I can zealously represent my client whether 

or not they are right or wrong. The VA has to protect the person 

who is aggrieved. 

What I think the Office of General Counsel can do and specifically Colonel Gunn, and I believe he is trying to do that, is instill 

integrity amongst the career employees within the VA OGC. And 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
7 

he has an upward battle because this is years, decades of this type 

of mentality going out there. 

And it has worked to some degree. Many VA employees cannot 

find quality legal representation, which keeps the employment law 

complaints down or the ones that are filed are filed pro se and 

there is a much higher loss rate when there is a pro se person 

versus somebody represented by myself or one of my colleagues in 

my law firm. 

Mr. MITCHELL. And one last question. Your testimony describes 

mooting. 

Mr. TULLY. Mooting. 

Mr. MITCHELL. And how the VA employs these filing techniques 

throughout the case. Can you explain what mooting is and how it 

adversely affects veterans and how the General Counsel is in the 

best position to remedy this? 

Mr. TULLY. Absolutely. The General Counsel, previous General 

Counsel, I believe in 2007, issued a directive that in these 

USERRA claims involving Butterbaugh that the cases are to be immediately mooted upon presenting of evidence. 

Under the way the current USERRA law is, you do not get attorneys’ fees unless there is an adjudication on the merits. So until 

that MSPB Judge smacks the hammer down and says, VA employee A, you are awarded, you know, $1,000 or $2,000, the client 

could be stuck with attorneys’ fees. 

So we actively obtained the records needed to establish the case. 

Part of the discovery, because we are honest and forthcoming, we 

turn that discovery over to the VA and the VA takes that information and immediately begins processing the payment to the client, 

that a client receives the payment hours if not days before the 

hearing. The case gets mooted and there is no award of attorneys’ 

fees. 

So our firm put in several thousand dollars into the case and ultimately we do not recover. And because it is veterans, we try not 

to recover against those veterans, especially if they only receive 

$2,000 or $3,000 because of the damages that they suffered at the 

hands of the VA and they ran up $3,000 or $4,000 in legal bills. 

I, as a service-disabled veteran, am not going to charge that to that 

employee. 

So ultimately I am holding the bag for hundreds of thousands of 

dollars in bad debt because the VA moots cases. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. 

Dr. Roe. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will start with the mooting. It reminds me of basketball. When 

Dean Smith played the four corners offense, you just keep throwing 

the ball around until the time runs out. 

And what happens, I think, is that, and I have seen this, and if 

you want to make someone like me sweat is have an Obstetrician/ 

Gynecologist doctor have a lawyer come in the office. That really 

sweats us and we do not like that. And most people do not. They 

are intimidated by the process. 

And the longer they can make it harder for that person, the less 

likely they are to get you to represent them because you really are 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
8 

pushing yourself away from the table if you know you are not going 

to recover your time. I understand that and I get that. 

Is there an entity, and maybe you are the wrong person to ask 

this of, is there an entity that oversees the ethical conduct of VA 

attorneys? Is there some structure? 

Mr. TULLY. There is confusion about that. I spoke with Colonel 

Gunn before this and specifically laid out an example in 2007 

where my law firm was subjected to egregious ethical conduct, that 

an impartial Administrative Judge confirmed was unethical conduct. 

We found out the jurisdiction in which that attorney was admitted. We notified the Bar of that State. That State said because it 

is a Federal practice and because it was before a Federal administrative agency, they do not have jurisdiction. 

We then contacted the VA Supervisor who said they do not have 

any Office of Professional Responsibility and told us to contact the 

Office of Inspector General. Filed a complaint with the Office of Inspector General, never to be heard from again. 

Mr. ROE. So really there is not any—— 

Mr. TULLY. Exactly. And that is why a Professional Standards 

Office would be perfect, especially in the Compensation and Pension practice arena where they accredit their opposing counsels. 

Mr. ROE. I guess the other thing that is difficult in here, because 

it is shades of gray, where you would expect the VA attorney to 

vigorously, if they felt they were right, support their side of the 

case. I certainly understand that. 

And I guess the question is, when does it step over the line? That 

is tough. And it is a gray area, I would assume. 

Mr. TULLY. Some of it is not, Dr. Roe. The written testimony I 

submitted talks about fraudulently dating documents and I provided specific case references in that case. That is egregious. That 

person should be fired. That person should not be practicing as an 

attorney. Where do you go with that? 

And that is just one example. The information I provided in the 

written testimony with names and docket numbers is the tip of the 

iceberg because I only limited it to a handful of employment law 

cases. 

Mr. ROE. No question you are right. If somebody fraudulently 

changes a date, I agree they should be fired. You cannot believe 

anything they say. 

Mr. TULLY. Exactly. 

Mr. ROE. I totally agree with that. 

Mr. TULLY. But right now there is nobody to go to. 

Mr. ROE. Nobody to go to. As an attorney, how do you think the 

VA Office of General Counsel is doing? I mean, are they representing the government appropriately or overdoing it or 

underdoing it? How do you see it? 

Mr. TULLY. My personal impression is that they are understaffed 

in their employment law section. They are overwhelmed. They are 

doing—as an overall system, they are not bad people. They are 

good, hard-working Americans. There are a handful of bad apples. 

But generally they are doing as good as they can do with the short 

staff that they have and the volume of cases that they have. 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
9 

And their intimate involvement with the managers is something 

that I have not seen at any other Agency. They are actively involved in the day-to-day management of employment law with the 

deciding officials. And that kind of zaps a lot of time and energy 

so versus at other agencies, DoJ, Department of Labor, they, the 

managers, make the decisions and get the attorneys to rubber 

stamp it. 

Mr. ROE. So generally you are thinking that in plain language 

you do not think that they are acting as an institution unethically? 

You think they are just overwhelmed and there may be a few bad 

apples, is that—— 

Mr. TULLY. Absolutely. And those few bad apple have been 

around for a while and they need to go. And, unfortunately, there 

is nobody around that is able to collect all of the information on 

those bad apples to build a case to get rid of them. 

Mr. ROE. I would think, I know that if you want to lose a medical 

malpractice case, all you have to do is alter a document and you 

have lost it right then. You do not need to go any further. 

And I would think if you altered a document, I mean, to me, that 

is as dishonest as you can get. When you are lying on a court of 

law, I would think it would be perjury or something. I do not know 

the legal part. But if you have done that to alter an outcome, I 

mean, that is just over the top, I think. 

Mr. TULLY. I tend to agree. The downside, what quickly happens 

is when those attorneys are caught in that type of situation, the 

cases are almost automatically settled because the Department of 

Labor attorney knows that they are caught, goes back to the deciding official, and says give me $50,000 and make this go away and 

I want a confidentiality clause. 

And our clients are trying to keep their job and they want a little 

bit of money. They are going to sign that. So it is a self-fulfilling 

prophecy with the way the current system is set up because there 

is no independent person that we can call and say, hey, the only 

reason why they are doing a settlement right now is, you know, we 

got them. 

Mr. ROE. Well, I want to thank you for your service to our country. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. 

Mr. Adler. 

Mr. ADLER. Thank you, Chairman. 

Let me followup on Dr. Roe’s comments. First, I also thank you 

for your service to our country and I thank you for this ongoing 

service you are providing, telling Congress about some anomalies, 

some outliers in the otherwise ethical conduct of the Office. 

You spoke briefly in your written testimony about Tang v. U.S. 

Department of Veterans Affairs. Do you have actually documentary 

evidence that can back up the claim that there was a fraudulent 

postmarking? 

Mr. TULLY. Absolutely. I would be more than happy to have my 

office send it to you this afternoon. 

[Mr. Tully subsequently responded to Mr. Adler and VA General 

Counsel Gunn, in a letter dated July 7, 2010. The VA General 

Counsel, Mr. Gunn, responded to Chairman Mitchell in a letter, 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
10 

dated August 19, 2010. The letters are being retained in the Committee files due to the inclusion of sensitive personal information.] 

Mr. ADLER. I think it would be really helpful, I think, because 

I really liked your balanced testimony where you were saying that 

most folks, most of the attorneys representing the Veterans Affairs 

Department were behaving ethically. 

But if there are outliers, if there are folks who are not following 

that higher standard to which government attorneys have to adhere, we should catch them. And I think it is Congress’ job. If the 

Office of General Counsel cannot do that, we could help them do 

that. 

So maybe if you could have your office send over to the Committee Chair and through the Chair to the rest of it, I think it 

would be very helpful to have us follow up more directly with the 

VA, not naming names publicly if that is not necessary, but maybe 

helping the VA identify those folks who are not performing up to 

that ethical level that you correctly note the Berger standard requires. 

So I wonder if you could do that for us. 

Mr. TULLY. Too easy, sir. 

Mr. ADLER. Thank you. 

I have no further questions. Thank you. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. 

Again, we appreciate your service and what you are doing to help 

veterans. Thank you, Mr. Tully. 

Mr. TULLY. Thank you. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I would like to welcome panel two to the witness 

table. And for our second panel, we will hear from the Honorable 

Will Gunn, General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

Mr. Gunn is accompanied by Phillipa Anderson, Assistant General Counsel, and Michael Hogan, Assistant General Counsel. 

Mr. Gunn, you will have 5 minutes to make your presentation 

and your complete record will be made part of the record. Thank 

you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILL A. GUNN, GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY 

PHILLIPA ANDERSON, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND MICHAEL HOGAN, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Mr. GUNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Roe, other Members 

of the Subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to come before 

you today to testify in my position as General Counsel for the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

First of all, Members, I just want to emphasize that I am a veteran. I am a 25-year Air Force retiree. I spent most of my time as 

a judge advocate. I have spent time both defending military members and prosecuting military members and a wide variety of other 

roles. 

Immediately before coming into this position, I served as the sole 

practitioner in my own law firm where I defended veterans and 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
11 

represented military members. So the opportunity that I have in 

this role is one that I take very, very seriously and it is near and 

dear to my heart, to my passion. 

First of all, I want to welcome with me Mr. Hogan, who essentially heads our management and operations group, and Ms. 

Phillipa Anderson, who heads our contract law and real property 

group. 

Mr. Chairman, when I came into this office 13 months ago, I had 

talked to a variety of people about what was going on in the Office 

of General Counsel and I received advice from various individuals. 

Most of those people had a common theme and that was that the 

Office was one that was responsive and that provided good results. 

After being in Washington for about a month, I went on the road, 

traveled around the country to our Regional Offices to test that initial hypothesis that this was a high-performing organization. And 

I am pleased to say that that initial hypothesis was validated. 

Now that I have been here more than a year, I am still at that 

same position that this is a high-performing organization and it 

has been validated by evidence. 

For instance, OGC, the Office of General Counsel, scores very 

high on our client satisfaction surveys. We have been sending out 

surveys since 2003. In 2010, our clients gave us an overall satisfaction score of 4.57 on a scale of 5.0. 

The section led by Ms. Anderson received a recognition from our 

Major Construction and Real Property Programs Unit, received 

their Partner in Service Delivery Award. We also received recognition from the Department of Justice last year where we received 

their John Marshall Award for Outstanding Legal Achievement for 

Agency Cooperation in Support of Litigation. We are the only Federal agency to be recognized in this manner. 

In addition, the Office of Government Ethics awarded us with 

outstanding achievement in managing an Agency Ethics Program 

and this past year, we received recognition from the Office of Government Ethics in terms of excellence in developing communications products that other Federal agencies have adopted. 

I am also gratified that our employees within the Office of General Counsel also rate us extremely highly with respect to our internal employee scales, employee ratings. 

Mr. Chairman, when I came aboard, I found a strategic planning 

process in place. And that strategic planning process identified a 

central goal for the organization. That was that the Office of General Counsel become a truly unified national law firm. 

I embrace that theme because I believe that in order to meet the 

needs of the Department and in order to serve veterans, we are 

going to have to be more effective and we are going to have to be 

more unified. 

As you mentioned in your earlier remarks, we have to focus on 

being more consistent and providing the very best service that we 

can. 

With that in mind, I have established some strategic objectives 

and some strategic priorities. Those emphasize education and 

training for our staff, knowledge management so that we can retrieve information and share information across the country, and 

also cross-office and cross-regional collaboration. We are emphaVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:27 Dec 21, 2010 Jkt 058055 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\VA\58055.XXX GPO1 PsN: 58055

ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
12 

sizing these so that we can be even better and so that we can provide the very best service that we can. 

I just want to close by stating this. I am committed to providing 

extraordinary customer service and I am also committed to providing service that is based in excellence and in integrity. That is 

my hallmark. 

As an Air Force Officer, I lived by certain core values. Those core 

values were integrity first, service to others before self, and excellence in all that I do. I still live by those principles and I am committed to instilling those principles throughout the Office of General Counsel. 

I stand ready to respond to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gunn appears on p. 25.] 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Gunn. And all of us 

appreciate very much the service you have given to this country 

and we appreciate that very much. 

You mentioned at the very beginning all the great satisfaction reports you have received from your clients. 

Who are your clients? They are not veterans, are they? 

Mr. GUNN. Sir, we do not directly serve veterans. You are correct. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Who are your clients? 

Mr. GUNN. Ultimately my client is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. And so as the Department’s top lawyer, my job is to make 

sure that the Secretary is well-armed. 

As I describe it and as we cascade down throughout the Department, we provide services to senior managers at local facilities and 

also within the Central Office of Veterans Affairs. 

I look at it as we are providing legal guidance and support so 

that those that do provide direct services to veterans are able to 

do their jobs most effectively. 

Mr. MITCHELL. There have been times in the past where the VA 

frequently declines to produce a witness requested to either testify 

at hearings or brief the Subcommittee. And the OGC’s guidance 

often gets cited as the reason for not producing witnesses at either 

hearings or briefings. 

Two questions. What role does OGC play in the VA deciding who 

either testifies or briefs the Subcommittee and does the OGC provide an opinion when the VA refuses to produce certain information as requested by Congress or through the public? 

Mr. GUNN. Sir, with respect to the first issue in terms of whether 

or not OGC plays a role in who will testify, I will say, no, we do 

not see ourselves as having a role with respect to that. 

In terms of the second issue, we do play a role in terms of responding to requests for documents. And our advice is focused on 

two things, what can we provide, what is permissible, and, secondly, what are we required to provide? 

As you yourself, I believe, mentioned in your opening statement, 

there is a tension that exists from time to time, particularly when 

we are talking about predecisional documents in terms of whether 

or not we can release a given document. We do our best to provide 

advice and counsel in those situations. 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
13 

Mr. MITCHELL. You heard the first panel discuss the OGC’s lack 

of concern as being in contravention of the ethical duty required of 

Agency attorneys. 

Can you speak more about the ethical duties required of attorneys in the VA and address allegations that the VA fails to meet 

the standard? 

At the same time, there seems to be a difference in holding people to ethical standards in the private sector versus the OGC. 

There is a Bar Association, for example, that can hear complaints. 

What is there on the part of the OGC to respond to unethical 

practices? 

Mr. GUNN. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I found out about the 

first panel less than an hour ago on my way over here and so that 

was the first, and when I got here, getting a chance to scan 

through his statement and also listening to him, and I did get an 

opportunity to speak to Mr. Tully briefly before this hearing began, 

and so I am very interested in his comments. 

One of the things that we introduced is just a newsletter for the 

Office of General Counsel. We circulate it on a weekly basis. And 

in each one of these newsletters, I get an opportunity to prepare 

a column. I emphasize in those columns, I have taken most of the 

last 3 months to emphasize our values. Our values, at the top of 

those values are the value of integrity and the value of being ethical. 

And so that is something that I take very, very seriously. I will 

say that before today, I had not heard comments along those lines. 

So I have invited Mr. Tully to follow up with me and to provide 

me with specific examples because I do want to follow up. 

But I will also say, I just want to make sure that the Committee 

understands, that even though we are a Federal agency, all of our 

attorneys must be licensed by a State Bar Association. And they 

are subject to disciplinary action from those State Bars if they violate the Rules of Professional Responsibility for that given State. 

So that is always an option that someone has if they are dissatisfied or if they believe that our attorney has acted in an unethical 

manner. 

I have also instructed my team to develop an internal process for 

reviewing complaints of unprofessional conduct by our attorneys. 

So that is something that I take very, very seriously and I look 

forward to finding out more information. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. 

I yield to Dr. Roe. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just to continue the Chairman’s line of questioning briefly, and 

you just mentioned that you are working on an internal process 

and, of course, the State Bar, but what will you do if you found out 

that a document had been deliberately altered to alter the outcome 

of an event? What would you do with that? 

Mr. GUNN. Dr. Roe, I agree with what you said in responding to 

the first panelist and that is that that is egregious conduct. That 

is unacceptable. And while I only rate personally two individuals, 

I would strongly suspect that that would be basis for dismissal. 

Mr. ROE. That is a good answer. I think I know what I would 

do. 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
14 

And I guess when you have a situation where let us say there 

are obviously two issues, Mr. Tully is defending someone and you 

are on the other side, when you discover that maybe your position 

is wrong, what do you do in that situation? 

And what he was saying was that in the private practice of law, 

whether you are guilty or innocent, you can be vigorously defended. 

He is saying that is not the case. 

Do you agree with that, what he said? 

Mr. GUNN. I do. You know, last week, I had an opportunity to 

spend some time with new attorneys in the Office of General Counsel. We had a new attorney orientation course here. And I spent 

time with them on the first day of the course and I spent time with 

them on the last day of the course. 

Included in my comments was just an overall theme and that 

theme was that as attorneys, as Federal Government attorneys, 

particularly attorneys in the Department of Veterans Affairs, we 

need to be focused on one thing and that is doing the right thing. 

And so that has to be at the forefront of what we do. As you 

probably know, let us say our counterparts in the Department of 

Justice, the Federal prosecutors, they have a responsibility of representing the taxpayers, the American public in criminal litigation. 

And so they are trying to win those cases. 

But ultimately they have a higher calling and that calling is to 

do justice. So I absolutely agree that that is also our responsibility. 

Mr. ROE. So at the end of the day, you would negotiate an end 

to this if you found out that your side was—you would not vigorously defend the wrong position if you evaluated it as that? 

Mr. GUNN. Absolutely. One of the tools that we have at our disposal is the settlement tool. And when we find that we are going 

up the wrong road in litigation, we are in a position where we can 

do our best to settle the case. 

Mr. ROE. I think meeting with Mr. Tully, I think he had a different opinion sometimes about how that was happening. And I 

would like to see that worked out. 

One other quick question. And this is an interpretation basically 

on the HITECH Act (Health Information Technology for Economic 

and Clinical Health Act) where an interpretation was that it had 

to be, when there is a breach, that there had to be 500 people in 

each State. And obviously a breach is embarrassing to VA and to 

the government. So you would like to not have breaches. 

But in using that less than 500 interpretation, that means that 

you could have thousands of people whose data was breached, if 

you used the per State, instead of just saying that this is a 500 or 

499, and you multiply that times 50, you get thousands of people. 

Now, that would be a hard, difficult scenario, I think. 

But how did your office come, not necessarily you, but how did 

your office come to that conclusion? 

Mr. GUNN. Dr. Roe, two points that I would like to make. Of 

course, I deal with situations when there has been an unauthorized 

disclosure of personal identifying information. 

And with respect to that, first of all, in terms of our role of looking after the veteran, doing our best to take care of veterans, when 

we find that a veteran’s information has been disclosed, we do our 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
15 

utmost to notify the veterans. So regardless of the requirements of 

HITECH, we notify veterans. That is first and foremost. 

In terms of the HITECH itself, I understand and I have had discussions with some of your staffers with respect to concerns about 

our interpretation of that, but our interpretation when it is necessary to make a media disclosure is based upon information that 

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) provided 

when they promulgated their interim regulations on this topic. 

For instance, they specifically gave an example that if there was 

an unauthorized breach involving 600 individuals, 200 who lived in 

Virginia, 200 that lived in DC, and 200 in Maryland, then there 

would not be a breach that required notification of media under 

HITECH. So that was their interpretation. 

So in providing advice to our clients, we went back and responded in that manner. 

Mr. ROE. Okay. I think we have votes, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back. 

Mr. MITCHELL. We do have some votes. 

Let me ask two quick questions. In my opening statement, I 

mentioned about the OGC repeatedly using time extensions in 

court in order to keep pace with their workload. 

And I want to know, is the workload so great that it continues 

to be an ongoing issue? 

And, secondly, we have often heard from various Department entities that the documents crucial to the Subcommittee’s work had 

been tied up in the General Counsel’s Office or restricted for release. 

Now, one quick question with that. Are your attorneys overworked? How many hours a week do they work? Do they work 40 

hours? Do they get overtime pay? How are they compensated compared to the private sector? What kind of incentives do they have 

to do work? 

Mr. GUNN. Mr. Chairman, I believe first of all from an overall 

perspective we are blessed to have highly motivated employees. 

And the results from our employee surveys will bear that out. And 

we would be more than happy to share that information with the 

Committee so that you can see that. 

[The VA subsequently provided VA Employee Survey Information 

for 2009 and 2010, which appears on p. 30.] 

But in addition to that, beyond that, you are right. In terms of 

our representation of the Department before the Court of Appeals 

of Veterans Claims, we have fallen into a position that we were requesting delays at a higher rate than were the appellants who 

were bringing, the veterans who were bringing their cases before 

that court. 

But thanks to you, thanks to other Members of this Committee 

and the Congress, we have had budget increases that have allowed 

us to bring more resources to bear in our Group 7, which provides 

that representation. As a result of that, we are doing much better 

on that front. 

We are also working hard to do two things. We want to make 

sure that we are able to provide effective representation in a timely 

manner and we also have to be sensitive to the fact that we do not 

want our attorneys overworked. 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
16 

We found in that particular section that if an attorney has more 

than 50 cases at a time, that leads to more delays. That also leads 

to burnout. So we have been able to increase the number of attorneys that we have and as a result of that, we have been able to 

respond in a much more timely manner and request fewer delays. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. 

We are going to have to conclude this hearing. We have votes. 

I just want you to know that, first of all, how much we appreciate what you are doing and your service to the taxpayers and also 

to this country. 

But as we have requested with all of our hearings, we will follow 

up and there are a number of questions we have to follow up to 

make sure that we are doing our job because it does no good to 

have a hearing and just let it go. 

Mr. GUNN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MITCHELL. So we will do that. 

Did you want to say anything? 

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. And this hearing is adjourned. 

Mr. GUNN. Thank you, sir. 

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
(17) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Harry E. Mitchell, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Thank you to everyone for attending today’s Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing entitled, Evaluating the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of General Counsel. 

Each day the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) executes laws, regulations 

and policies that have a profound effect on how the Department conducts its business and assists our Nation’s veterans. The General Counsel serves as the VA’s 

chief legal officer, as the office provides legal advice to the Secretary and all organizational components of the Department. It is no secret that the VA’s General Counsel, or OGC, plays a critical role in the decision-making and oversight of the VA. 

The OGC is a unique and complex office within the VA, and its full range of responsibilities, including legal, litigation, legislative and regulatory activities is distributed among seven Professional Staff Groups, each headed by an Assistant General Counsel. Each of these groups has the expertise in specific subject matter areas, 

and is responsible for providing legal advice to program officials, reviewing proposed 

regulations and directives, and handling litigation involving VA programs. Additionally, the OGC operates 22 field offices, which comprises almost two thirds of OGC’s 

workforce. With general counsel’s widespread workforce, the OGC must promote 

consistency and uniformity of its recommendations that lead to executive decisions 

that directly impact millions of veterans. 

We have heard many times that the OGC has repeatedly used time extensions 

from the court in order to keep pace with their workload; however, the workload 

is so great that it continues to remain an ongoing issue. Additionally, we have too 

often heard from various Department entities, that documents crucial to this Subcommittee’s work, are tied up with the General Counsel’s office or that they are restricted by the OGC for release. 

Though OGC insists that the oversight responsibility of Congress deserves respect, there is often, at times, a tension between this oversight responsibility and 

agencies’ needs to protect certain pre-decisional information from disclosure out of 

concern that it could have a chilling impact on the free and open internal discussion 

and debate leading to the provision of advice needed by agency decision makers. 

As the VA OGC deals with these challenges, they must still continue to give timely and balanced legal recommendations that will benefit the needs of our veterans 

and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Determining an objective standard to 

evaluate a subjective trade is a challenge; nonetheless, the general counsel needs 

to bring reform to the VA’s Office of General Counsel. 

I look forward to hearing from the general counsel the challenges the office is facing, as well as solutions that are being implemented to correct long standing issues 

within the Office. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. David P. Roe, Ranking Republican Member, 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

According to the VA Web site, the mission of the VA Office of the General Counsel 

(OGC) is to identify and meet the legal needs of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA). Its primary objective is to ensure the just and faithful execution of the laws, 

regulations and policies that the Secretary has responsibility for administering, and 

by so doing enable the Department to accomplish its mission of service to our Nation’s veterans. 

In recent years, Congress has increased the budget allocation to the Office of General Counsel to assist them in meeting this mission. With the current 9.2 percent 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
18 

1 Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) (finding, ‘‘The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to 

govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.’’) 2 C. Mark Bain, The Ethics of Government Attorneys: A Victory in the Pursuit for Justice, 20 

J. Legal Prof. 183 (1995). 

budget increase for FY 2010, and the requested 9.6 percent increase for FY 2011, 

it is appropriate to call this hearing to review the work of the Office of the General 

Counsel and make certain that the product produced by that office is providing the 

best benefit to our Nation’s veterans and the American taxpayer. 

Over the past several years, this Committee has reviewed a number of contracting 

issues, where it was apparent that the guidance provided by the VA General Counsel was insufficient, inaccurate, or lacking. Recent VA OIG reports on contracting 

have shown deficiencies within the Office of General Counsel with respect to supporting contract management. I am interested in hearing from the General Counsel 

on how his resources are being allocated to improve contract management at the 

department. 

I also want to know if the General Counsel plans to improve the relationships between the Contracting Officers and the Regional General Counsels, so that they actively seek their advice on major contract awards prior to the award being granted. 

Does the General Counsel plan to more actively perform pre- and post-award contract reviews on all contracts? 

I am also concerned about delays we frequently hear about during meetings on 

the concurrence process for Directives issued by the Veterans Health Administration. Often we are told that a directive is being held up by the General Counsel’s 

office. These delays in providing legal opinions can lead to delays in updated treatment information being sent to the VISNs and medical facilities and may cause 

problems with patient care. 

The bottom line here is that we make certain the resources Congress provides to 

VA are being allocated properly in order to provide the most benefit for the veterans 

and the American public, at the best value possible? Given the current track record 

of the General Counsel in contracting matters, I am uncertain that this is the case. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Matthew B. Tully, Esq., Founding Partner, 

Tully Rinckey PLLC, Albany, NY 

Chairman Mitchell, Ranking Member Roe, and Members of the Subcommittee, on 

behalf of the Tully Rinckey law firm and our Department of Veterans Affairs’ employee clients, thank you for the opportunity to present my evaluation of the U.S. 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of General Counsel (OGC). As the founding partner of a law firm that deals extensively with the VA OGC and its Regional 

Offices, the matters of today’s hearing are of particular importance to me. 

In order for you to better understand my insight into the Department of Veterans 

Affairs, I would like to provide you with some brief information about myself. I am 

a Major in the New York Army National Guard and a service-connected disabled 

veteran, having served at Ground Zero after the attacks on the World Trade Center 

on September 11, 2001 and in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I established my law firm 

in Albany, NY in 2004, serving the legal needs of Federal Government employees 

in labor and employment law matters, including allegations of discrimination, whistleblower reprisal, disciplinary action, and USERRA claims. Today, my Washington, 

DC law office represents numerous Veterans’ Affairs employees fighting for their 

Federal careers. 

Through my professional legal dealings with the Office of General Counsel, as 

well as the dealings of my fellow attorneys, I come before you today with both general and specific examples of issues plaguing the VA legal department in the hopes 

that by shining a light on the ineffectual and often inhibitive actions taken by this 

Department’s lawyers, concrete corrective actions may be taken. 

Ethics for Government Agency Counsel 

Seventy-five years ago, the Supreme Court in Berger v. United States, issued an 

opinion implying that government attorneys must practice a higher standard of ethics than private attorneys.1 Following this decision, the judiciary and the American 

Bar Association embraced this implication by expressly requiring government attorneys to adhere to higher ethical standards.2 The judiciary in confronting cases dealVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:55 Dec 28, 2010 Jkt 058055 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\VA\58055.XXX GPO1 PsN: 58055

ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
19 

3See, e.g., Gray Panthers v. Schweiker, 716 F.2d 23, 33 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (including a higher 

duty because the client is not only the agency but also the public at large); Douglas v. Donovan, 

704 F.2d 1276, 1279–80 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (‘‘[G]overnment attorneys . . . have special responsibilities to both this court and the public at large.’’); United States v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Ins. 

Co., 617 F.2d 1365, 1370 (9th Cir. 1980) (‘‘The effectiveness of and need for harsh measures is 

particularly evident when the disobedient party is the government.’’); EEOC v. Waterfront 

Comm’n of New York Harbor, 665 F. Supp. 197, 201 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (‘‘[T]his case should serve 

to put government attorneys on notice that they are not exempt from the Federal rules [of civil 

procedure] and that they will be held to the highest standards of the Bar.’’); Jones v. Heckler, 

583 F. Supp. 1250, 1257–58 n.7 (N.D. Ill. 1984) (‘‘[C]ounsel for the United States has a special 

responsibility to the justice system.’’); Braun v. Harris, Unempl. Ins. Rep. (CCH) P17,070, at 

2499–2500 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 30, 1980) (‘‘Government attorneys, however, by virtue of their unique 

position, owe a greater responsibility to the justice system. The courts have come to expect and 

have righly [sic] demanded a higher degree of candor from government attorneys.’’); EEOC v. Datapoint Corp., 457 F. Supp. 62, 65 n.10 (W.D. Tex. 1978) (‘‘Because of the peculiar power of 

the government litigator, he is subject to ethical consideration beyond the ordinary litigator.’’). 4Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. FERC, 962 F.2d 45, 47 (D.C. Cir. 1992). 5 Id. at 47. 

6 Id. 

7 Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1125 (10th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1086 

(1986) (McKay, J., dissenting) (concealment of information by the government during discovery 

was ‘‘made even more egregious’’ by the government lawyer’s responsibility to seek justice and 

to develop a full and fair record). 8See Also, ABA Comm. On Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Op. 342 (1975) 

(Canon 7 recognizes that ‘‘the duty of all government lawyers [is] to seek just results rather 

than the result desired by a client.’’). 9FEC 7–2; See Also FEC 8–1 (‘‘paramount consideration is due to the public interest.’’). 10 Catherine J. Lanctot, The Duty of Zealous Advocacy and the Ethics of the Federal Government Lawyer: The Three Hardest Questions, 64 S. Cal. L. Rev. 951 (1991). 

ing with these issues, has been concerned with (1) the continuation of needless litigation, (2) harassment, and (3) the pursuit of a result contrary to justice and the 

public interest.3 Most notably, in Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co v. FERC, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in citing Berger, 

found that a government lawyer ‘‘is the representative not of an ordinary party to 

a controversy,’’ ‘‘but of a sovereignty whose obligation . . . is not that it shall win a 

case, but that justice shall be done.’’ 4 The court also found that government agency 

attorneys may be held to higher standards than attorneys for private litigants.’’ 5 As 

attorneys for the government, they have a ‘‘responsibility to seek justice,’’ and 

‘‘should refrain from instituting or continuing litigation that is obviously unfair.’’ 6

Also significant was the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in 

Bulloch v. United States, in which concealment of information by the government 

during discovery was ‘‘made even more egregious’’ by the government lawyer’s 

heightened responsibility to seek justice and to develop a full and fair record.7 This 

type of responsibility was properly exercised in connection with the post-trial litigation in United States v. Theodore F. Stevens, in which the Department of Justice 

asked a Federal judge to drop all charges against former Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. A review of the case indicated that certain information should have been disclosed to the defense for use at trial and that it was in the interests of justice to 

dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial. 

The American Bar Association, under Ethical Consideration 7–14 has also provided appropriate guidance with regard to this issue, which states: 

A government lawyer who has discretionary power relative to litigation should 

refrain from instituting or continuing litigation that is obviously unfair. A government lawyer not having such discretionary power who believes there is lack 

of merit in a controversy submitted to him should so advise his superiors and 

recommend the avoidance of unfair litigation. A government lawyer in a civil 

action or administrative proceeding has the responsibility to seek justice and to 

develop a full and fair record, and he should not use his position or the economic power of the government to harass parties or to bring about unjust settlements or results.8

The Federal Ethical Considerations espoused by the Federal Bar Association contain similar commentary, which define the Federal lawyer’s professional obligation 

as ‘‘the promotion under law and applicable regulations of the public interest entrusted to the department, agency or other governmental agency of his employment.’’ 9 The prevailing attitude is perhaps best represented by one of the mottos 

on the walls of the Department of Justice, which reads, ‘‘The United States wins 

its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts.’’ 10


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
20 

Failures to Uphold Ethical Considerations 

Based on the Supreme Court’s holding in Berger as well as the case law espoused 

in a multitude of other jurisdictions and the appropriate ethical rules set forth by 

the American Bar Association and Federal Bar Association, attorneys representing 

government agencies have a heightened ethical duty to seek justice and develop a 

full and fair record in handling legal matters. The tendency of agency attorneys at 

the Department of Veterans Affairs to treat managers as private clients and to zealously represent them as clients without any concern for the person aggrieved in an 

employment action is completely in contravention of the ethical duties required of 

government attorneys. The practice of agency attorneys in protecting managers at 

all costs and contributing to the continuation of needless litigation reflects a complete disregard for the principles reflected in the appropriate ethical rules concerning the public interest and in seeking justice. 

The current practice of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in using attorneys in 

management decisions as a form of legal strategy, is an additional example of agency attorneys acting in contravention of their ethical duties as attorneys for the government. Frequently, agency attorneys act as decision makers in adverse actions or 

discipline actions in an attempt to create an attorney-client privilege with managers 

if the employee pursues litigation. 

Furthermore, it may isolate the government from liability or protect communications that may be discriminatory or retaliatory. These results do not show any concern for the public interest and are clearly not in accordance with Agency attorney’s 

heightened ethical duty to seek justice and develop a full and fair record in those 

cases that they handle for the government. 

In my firm’s dealings, OGC representatives have utilized numerous stonewalling 

techniques, often mimicking the corporate litigation counsel at BP, AIG or Enron. In fact, instances include OGC engaging in unnecessary legal discovery requests with private counsel, refusing to submit discovery despite private counsel 

legal requests and failing to adhere to key legal deadlines. This needless and borderline unethical action often lengthens the claim process, causing VA employees, many 

of whom are still employed by the VA during this time, to incur unnecessary legal 

costs and emotional stress. Additionally, the reputation of the VA OGC continues 

to deteriorate. 

One such example includes the pending case of Frank Gonzalez v. Shinseki, Sec’y, 

Dep’t of Veterans Affairs; EEOC No. 570–2010–00541X (2010), in which the VA attorney overly objected to interrogatories sent to the agency and failed to provide any 

substantive responses thereto. This legal maneuver will force our attorneys to 

produce and file a motion to compel to get even our most basic questions answered. 

Due to this, the client will be forced to incur greater legal costs in order to pursue 

his claims of workplace discrimination and will further tax the already overburdened Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

In one particular case earlier this year, Charlene Ng Tang v. U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No.: AT–0752–10–0514–I–1, a VA hospital employee 

was demoted based on charges of misconduct and our firm appealed to the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The VA representative wholly failed to respond 

to our discovery requests and our motion to compel. Further, VA Attorneys untimely 

served the VA’s request for discovery, which was fraudulently dated about a week 

before the postmark, a date after the deadline. 

Finally, our firm has had numerous issues with the VA OGC not complying with 

the terms of settlement agreements or not processing settlements altogether. In an 

EEO complaint in which the victim was sexually harassed by her direct supervisor, 

the VA settled the claim. However, the Agency failed to follow the terms of the settlement agreement. Further, the OGC refused to take any responsibility for the situation and specifically blamed its EEO office for the breach in agreement. Additionally, after admitting there was a breach, the OGC approved the EEO office moving 

this complainant back to the building where the harassment had occurred less than 

1 year earlier, and the alleged harasser was still located, despite being told that the 

complainant did not feel comfortable being placed in close vicinity to this former supervisor. 

In the case of Patrice Robinson v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC 

Case No.: 570–2009–00634X, our firm hounded VA attorneys to complete terms of 

settlement including expunging required personnel files, timely processing the client’s resignation, and completing her performance appraisal. Our firm had to file 

an appeal alleging breach of the settlement agreement before terms were finally 

complied with appropriately. This not only caused greater stress on the client, but 

greater legal costs and time. 

In all of these instances, the unprofessional conduct displayed by the VA lawyers 

translated into greater financial costs for the client, a prolonged legal process, and 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
21 

11Pub. L. 103–353, codified as amended at 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301–4335 (2010). 12 Butterbaugh v. Department of Justice, 336 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

greater stress not only on the client, but to all VA staff members involved. Furthermore, due to OGC tactics, VA employees are often denied quality legal representation because plaintiff legal counsel actively avoid accepting VA cases to avoid the 

legal and financial burdens of working with the VA OGC. 

Failing to Uphold USERRA Statutes 

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 11

(USERRA) was enacted to protect the employment of this country’s civilian soldiers 

while they are fulfilling their military responsibilities and requirements. In 2003, 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’) found 

that, prior to the change in the military leave law, which was effective on December 

21, 2000, Federal agencies improperly charged members of the U.S. National Guard 

and Reserves military leave for non-workdays that occurred within a period of assigned military duty.12

Thus, thousands of Federal civilian employees, including Veterans Affairs employees, were charged military leave on days Federal agencies did not require them to 

work, i.e., weekends and/or holidays. In order to remedy these wrongs, Federal employees who have improperly charged in this manner are able to file claims with 

the MSPB against the violating agency in order to recover lost leave or salary. See 

38 U.S.C. § 4324. These claims often require the assistance of attorneys for the VA 

employees, due to the difficulty in obtaining old military and civilian pay records, 

including leave and earning statements, military orders, or time and attendance 

records to prove leave loss. 

In these cases, our attorneys have found that the VA OGC often maliciously extends the legal process, causing VA employees to incur further financial loss and 

legal stress. By exhausting the litigation process until the day before, or even hours 

before the actual hearing, OGC continually forces private attorney legal bills to increase. More striking, after initial and prolonged stonewalling, the VA often ultimately provides the veteran with the relief originally requested minus the attorney 

costs and litigation expenses authorized by law. See 38 U.S.C. § 4324(c)(4). 

This strategy, known as ‘‘mooting,’’ means that the VA is under no obligation to 

pay attorney fees despite the clear stalling techniques that it had employed throughout the case. Thus, while the client receives back pay or leave, all legal costs associated with filing and proving the claim, including attorneys’ fees generated by the 

VA’s ‘‘mooting’’ strategy, are not reimbursed. This is both costly and taxing to the 

client, private law firms, as well as to the Department of Veterans Affairs, resources 

of which are diverted from settlement to irrelevant and unnecessary legal 

strategizing. The end result is that Federal employee law firms like mine refuse to 

accept VA employees as clients or alternatively charge a higher initial retainer because of the outrageous legal strategies of the VA OGC thus denying VA employees 

access to the legal system and equal justice under the law. 

For example, in the case of Richard Plezia v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 

MSPB Docket Number: CH–3443–05–0404–I–2, the agency restored our client [Richard Plezia] thirty-four (34) days of annual leave. The Agency’s unwillingness to provide any attorney fees was evidenced in its Response to the Acknowledgement 

Order. (See attached, Exhibit A). The Department of Veterans Affairs specifically 

stated that if our client elected to proceed with the claim through the MSPB and 

requested attorney fees, ‘‘the Agency provides notice that it will resist any petition 

for the same for the reason that the Appeal is an unnecessary, needlessly 

confrontational and wasteful method of resolving the dispute.’’ This clear retaliation 

against our client for exercising his legal rights has a chilling impact on law firms 

who represent VA employees, as well as the VA employee’s coworkers who become 

afraid to file legal proceedings because of the costs involved. 

This same legal strategy, in which the VA declines to settle the leave claim at 

the outset and then later ‘‘moots’’ the case by giving the client their demands to 

avoid paying the client’s attorney fees, is often repeated. In Gonzalo Solis v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket Number NY–4324–10–0063–I–1, the claim 

was dismissed as moot after the Agency restored the client [Gonzalo Solis] five (5) 

days of annual leave. Consequently, $2,010.00 associated in legal costs was incurred. Further, in Barry Phillips v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket 

Number: PH–3443–05–0103–I–1, two (2) days of annual leave was restored and the 

claim was dismissed as moot after $1,440.00 in legal costs were garnered. 

In many of these instances, legal costs substantially outweighed the leave or leave 

payment returned to the Veterans Affairs employee because of the outrageous legal 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
22 

tactics employed against these VA employees who continued to service in their National Guard and Reserve. 

The cases cited in this testimony are just the tip of the iceberg of improper conduct by VA lawyers and are used to provide some specificity to the abstract allegations made herein. Similar situations can be cited in every other employment law 

related field of practice. 

Conclusion 

In order to alter the current course of the Department of Veterans Affairs Office 

of General Counsel, my firm believes that VA OGC and their regional offices should 

be held to the similar standards and scrutiny currently followed by the Department 

of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) reports directly to the Attorney General and investigates allegations of misconduct concerning 

DOJ attorneys (this office is separate from the Inspector General’s office further 

stressing the importance of high ethical standards for DOJ lawyers). OPR’s objective 

is to ensure that DOJ attorneys act in accordance with the high professional standards not only expected of government attorneys, but of the Nation’s principal law 

enforcement agency. 

At this time, it would greatly benefit the Department of Veterans Affairs if both 

employees and private plaintiff counsel were able to file complaints of alleged misconduct to a separate and impartial office answerable directly to the Secretary. This 

would both deter VA OGC from acting unethically and give the Department as a 

whole a new found legitimacy. By doing so, the VA OGC could become a model of 

standard ethical practice across all Federal agencies. 

Thank you once again for the opportunity to communicate my insight on the U.S. 

Department of Veterans Affairs Office of General Counsel, the Subcommittee’s time 

and consideration is greatly appreciated. I look forward to working with the Committee in future endeavors to correct the issues facing VA employees in their attempts to settle their labor and employment disputes with the Office of General 

Counsel. 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
23 

Exhibit A: Richard Plezia v. Department of Veterans Affairs 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING58055A.000
24 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING58055A.001
25 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Will A. Gunn, General Counsel, 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Mr. Chairman, Dr. Roe, and Members of the Subcommittee, good morning. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today. As General Counsel and the chief legal officer of the Department of Veterans Affairs, I am pleased to discuss the operation of 

the Office of General Counsel (OGC) as it supports the Secretary, senior leaders, 

and VA’s dedicated employees in their daily service to our Nation’s Veterans. 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING58055A.002
26 

The Office of General Counsel and Its Mission 

The Office of General Counsel, as mandated by 38 U.S.C. § 311 and 38 CFR 

§ 14.500, provides legal assistance to the Secretary concerning the programs and 

policies of the Department and is specifically responsible for litigation, interpretive 

legal advice, and other legal services required for program implementation. 

OGC interprets all laws, regulations, and judicial precedents pertaining to the Department. We are responsible for the conduct of litigation—both independently and 

in coordination with the Justice Department—in State and Federal courts. OGC also 

plays a large role in preparing VA’s testimony for legislative hearings, analyzing 

pending legislation in Congress, and drafting legislative proposals initiated by VA. 

OGC supports the strategic goals of the Department by providing accurate, timely, 

and effective legal advice and representation. OGC also assists in formulating policy 

and in providing legal advice and services to the Secretary and all VA components. 

OGC also trains VA employees to ensure compliance with applicable laws. Finally, 

the General Counsel serves as VA’s regulatory policy officer and manager of its centralized regulatory management office. 

Organizational Structure 

The OGC is the Department’s national law firm, operating not only from VA Central Office and but also from 22 Offices of Regional Counsel located throughout the 

United States. My focus as General Counsel has been to foster a unified nationallaw office culture. By emphasizing knowledge management, education & training, 

and intra-office collaboration, we can leverage the collective expertise of nearly 500 

attorneys and 230 paralegals and support staff to ensure timely, accurate, consistent 

legal service to the Secretary and all elements of the Department. 

OGC headquarters is organized into seven Professional Staff Groups (PSGs) and 

the Office of Regulations Policy and Management. Approximately 40 percent of 

OGC’s 730 personnel comprise these offices, which specialize in providing legal advice and services related to the subject areas identified below: 

Professional Staff Group I has responsibility for administrative claims and litigation under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and legal services regarding education programs for Veterans and dependents, VA’s debt-collection activities 

under a number of statutes, vocational rehabilitation programs, and VA’s loan 

guaranty program. This group is also responsible for administrative claims 

under the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees’ Claims Act and for requests for representation made by VA employees to the Department of Justice. 

Professional Staff Group II has overall responsibility for providing advice concerning VA’s multi-billion-dollar programs of disability and death compensation 

and pension for Veterans and their survivors, and Federal life-insurance programs for Servicemembers and Veterans. In addition, the group is responsible 

for all legal advice concerning the national cemetery system (except land acquisition, which is handled by PSG V) and various burial benefits administered by 

the Veterans Benefits Administration. The group is also responsible for reviewing proposed and final rules for all VA programs to ensure compliance with the 

Administrative Procedure Act, and other statutes and orders governing rulemaking. 

Professional Staff Group III provides legal advice in the areas of health-care eligibility and benefits, medical administration, medical research, labor-management relations, human resources, crimes and police matters, VA-affiliated nonprofit corporations, technology transfer and ethics. The Assistant General Counsel for PSG III is VA’s designated agency ethics official, responsible for operating the Department’s ethics program. 

Professional Staff Group IV is primarily responsible for four legal practice 

areas—equal employment opportunity (EEO) law, information law, appropriations/fiscal law, and intellectual property law. 

Professional Staff Group V is responsible for three major legal practice areas— 

government contracts, including procurement, bid protests, and contract litigation; real- and personal-property law; and environmental law. 

Professional Staff Group VI is responsible for providing management and administrative support and services to OGC at VA central office and the 22 Offices 

of Regional Counsel nationwide. The Assistant General Counsel for PSG VI also 

serves as the principal advisor to the Deputy General Counsel and the General 

Counsel on matters relating to the delivery of legal services to client VA facilities in the field. The Assistant General Counsel, PSG VI, supervises the 22 Regional Counsels. 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
27 

Professional Staff Group VII is responsible for representing the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). 

The decisions issued by the CAVC are often precedential in nature and carry 

the weight of law, which, in turn, potentially affects the administration of VA 

benefit programs and claim procedures. 

Regulation Policy and Management: OGC also has a separate directorate, the 

Office of Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), which is responsible for 

centrally managing development and amendment of all VA regulations. This office supervises major regulation rewrite projects for the Department, including 

an ongoing project to reorganize and rewrite all of the compensation and pension regulations in part 3 of Title 38, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). It also 

is responsible for implementing the Federal Government’s e-rulemaking initiative and operating the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) for the Department. 

Offices of Regional Counsel personnel comprise the remaining 60 percent of 

OGC’s FTE and provide legal services to the Department’s field facilities in a 

broad spectrum of legal practice areas. Regional Counsel attorneys, and the 

paralegals and legal assistants supporting them, adjudicate tort claims, including claims of medical malpractice, represent the Department in administrative 

proceedings involving discrimination complaints and appeals from employee discipline, provide the full array of contract law services, advise and assist regarding the Department’s research corporations and related issues, provide ethics 

training and review of confidential financial disclosure reports, provide preventive law training, prepare opinions and generally advise Department managers 

regarding a multitude of legal issues. 

Management Reforms and Innovations 

The Office of the General Counsel has undergone a number of significant organizational changes in the last 15 years. In 1995, OGC reduced the number of its field 

offices from 56 districts to 23 regions to combine areas of geographic responsibility 

to better serve our VA clients. 

In 2003, OGC launched its own case and time management system, General 

Counsel Legal Automated Workload System (GCLAWS). Using GCLAWS, our practitioners create electronic case files, complete with file attachments for key documents and time entry information to document case management. GCLAWS also 

contains a robust report generation capability to assist OGC users, supervisors and 

OGC senior management in tracking cases, spotting trends, etc. 

In 2008, OGC built the capability to provide contract legal support to VA’s field 

activities to improve the quality of solicitations and contract awards. Each office of 

regional counsel now has at least two contract law attorneys. When used to their 

maximum advantage, the legal support begins before the solicitation and continues 

through the award, including any protest actions. OGC is also available to advise 

on contract-administration issues. 

OGC implemented a robust client-survey program in 2003 and has used the feedback to deliver our clients the training, preventive-law guidance, and key information about what services we provide and who among us provides them. 

We focused similar attention on our greatest resource, our employees. We conducted employee surveys in 2009 and again in 2010. We have provided training to 

our leaders to maximize use of the feedback to improve where needed and understand better why we are succeeding in other areas so we can sustain the success. 

Strategic Outlook 

Also in 2008, OGC published its first strategic plan. We built the plan to align 

our operations with those of our clients. We understand strategic planning is not 

a static event. Instead, it requires continual review and updating to ensure the plan 

aligns with changes in Departmental priorities. 

As stated in the plan, OGC’s mission is to provide expert, timely and effective 

legal advice and representation to the Department of Veterans Affairs. While we 

move to implement our defined mission, the following vision lights our path: to be 

the premier Federal legal organization—unified, national and world class—composed of talented, dedicated professionals, working together to support the Department’s mission of service to our Nation’s Veterans. 

The OGC strategic plan lists our core values, the principles that guide our organization. 

• Honest—we will preserve our integrity and that of the Office of General Counsel in all of our dealings. 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
28 

• Ethical—our practice reflects the highest ethical standards in the legal profession. We demand the highest level of awareness of and compliance with all ethical standards applicable to the Department. 

• Mission First—Veterans have earned our gratitude and respect. We provide 

legal services that foster just and fair treatment of Veterans and their families 

through the faithful execution of the laws, regulations, and policies of the Department. 

• Professional—we are a highly-skilled, diverse and responsive national law office 

dedicated to providing timely legal service to the Department. We are responsible and answerable for our professional decisions and actions. We treat everyone with respect and dignity. 

• Proactive—we are committed to open communications with our associates, 

stakeholders and clients. To best serve our clients, we are committed to and encourage constructive and early engagement on a wide range of programmatic 

and legal issues. This can help resolve potential issues before they become legal 

problems, and result in a more comprehensive policy-formulation process within 

the Department. 

• Excellence—we strive to perform at the highest level of competence and to exceed the expectations of our clients and stakeholders. We seek to continuously 

improve our services and skills. 

• Transparent—we strive to improve service by making our organization, legal 

and business processes accessible to and understandable by our clients and 

stakeholders. 

• Stewardship—we exercise responsible stewardship of human, financial, and 

other resources, as well as data and information entrusted to us. We embrace 

innovative technology to maximize our effectiveness and resource management. 

Earlier this year, we began the process of reviewing our strategic plan to ensure 

it remains relevant and aligned with the Department’s operations, particularly 

given the focus on transformation articulated by both the President and Secretary 

Shinseki, and the creation of a new VA Strategic Plan. 

The OGC Strategic Plan and our commitment to its many elements promote the 

concept of a unified national law firm. One key aspect of the Strategic Plan involves 

greater collaboration and sharing of information within OGC to improve the consistency of our legal guidance and the speed with which we deliver it. This fundamental 

concept drives many of our current initiatives including Geographic Cooperatives, 

Specialty Panels and regional training events for OGC personnel. 

A stable workforce and timely and effective information technology support are 

critical to achieving our goal of a truly unified national law firm. Staffing is a paramount concern because over 90 percent of our budget involves payroll and related 

expenses. Similarly, access to information, current and historical, logically organized 

and easily retrievable, is critical to our national law firm goal. 

Current Challenges 

Meeting Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) Filing Deadlines 

OGC attorneys represent the Secretary in all appeals taken to the CAVC. As the 

Subcommittee is aware, the number of cases filed in that court has been steadily 

growing over the past several years. OGC’s ability to increase staffing has not always kept pace. Fortunately, the FY 2010 budget increase for our office has permitted us to catch up to this workload. The FY 2011 VA budget request for OGC 

would allow us to stand up another litigation team to deal with the expected further 

growth in new CAVC cases. 

The CAVC is coming off a record-setting year in which it received 4,725 new cases 

and we are now filing approximately 2,000 pleadings per month. With the additional 

attorney and support staff we have been able to add in FY 2009 and 2010, our average caseloads per attorney are now down to 47 active cases. Experience has shown 

that when our average caseloads exceed 50, we have difficulty staying current. 

This is a high priority for us and while we realize there will always be some circumstances beyond our control requiring extensions to file, our goal is to reduce 

these requests to the minimum necessary. 

Supporting VA Acquisition Activities 

A second major challenge is to address the evolving need for legal support in the 

acquisition process. The Department’s history shows it was slow to realize the value 

that attorneys could bring to the procurement arena. Fortunately, OGC’s role, as 

well as the contracting function itself, is being buttressed, and this is a focus of the 

Secretary’s initiatives to modernize VA. 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
29 

In the early 1990’s, as now, VA was one of the largest procurement agencies in 

the Federal Government. There were several hundred contracting locations and 

nearly 2000 contracting officials who annually awarded tens of thousands of contracts totaling several billion dollars in value. These contracts included construction, 

supply, service, information technology, resource sharing, and interagency agreements. Yet all of the legal support for contracting was provided by Professional Staff 

Group V, located in Washington D.C., along with three attorneys out-stationed at 

the National Acquisition Center, in Hines Ill. The VACO staff consisted then of 

fewer than 12 staff attorneys, and three supervisors. 

The role of the attorneys in individual procurements was limited to reviewing certain high-dollar solicitations and other documents per the dictates of the Federal 

and VA Acquisition Regulations, litigating protests at the Government Accountability Office and claims at the Board of Contract Appeals, and providing advice 

when requested by the various contracting and program officials. There was no formal role for attorneys in the contract-formation process, including the selection of 

awardees, or in the contract-administration process. Moreover, existing VA attorney 

staff were unable to focus exclusively on contracting assistance as they also maintained responsibility for real-estate and environmental matters, regulation and policy reviews and various additional activities. In the mid-1990s and early 2000s, 

three more attorneys were assigned to support the Austin Automation Center and 

three attorneys were located at field locations to support construction and supply 

activities. 

The Department reexamined its acquisition process in 2007 and decided to 

strengthen attorney support to VA procurement activity. In that year, OGC trained 

an attorney in each Office of Regional Counsel in contract law. In 2008, twenty five 

additional attorneys were assigned to each of those offices, allowing OGC to transfer 

responsibility for legal support for contracts awarded by field activities from PSG 

V to our 22 field offices. Four additional PSG V attorneys have been added to support the national contracting function performed in the Office of Acquisition, Logistics and Construction (OALC) headquarters office. 

The Regional Counsel contract-law attorneys are each assigned expert PSG V 

mentor attorneys with whom to work. The expansion of the Regional Counsel attorney staff was particularly timely in view of VHA’s subsequent consolidation of its 

local contracting actions first at the VISN level, and later at regional levels—consolidations OGC was well situated to support. In addition, in 2009, concurrent with 

the establishment of the Technology Acquisition Center in Eatontown, NJ, OGC’s 

PSG V established a new section to provide dedicated legal support to VA’s information technology acquisition function. This staff consists of 14 attorneys, ten in 

Eatontown, NJ and four in Austin, Texas, and an on-site supervisory attorney at 

Eatontown. 

The growth of our procurement-attorney corps has permitted an expanded role for 

them in the acquisition process. OALC requires Contract Review Boards (CRB) in 

all high-dollar procurements and utilizes Integrated Product Teams (IPT) to prepare 

and conduct many of those acquisitions. Those innovations greatly increase the demand for legal support. For example, CRBs provide a legal review of the entire procurement process for an acquisition prior to the award decision being made, an excellent means for identifying potential flaws. Even at the earlier stages of an acquisition, there is an increased demand to use IPTs to develop VA’s requirements, with 

legal counsel participating in the development of acquisition strategy and the creation of the solicitation, evaluation criteria, and statement of work. We are glad to 

have become full and active partners in VA acquisition activities. 

OGC continually explores ways to improve its operations, and is implementing 

key measures every day. These include increasing focus on attorney development 

and coordination, and leveraging technology so attorneys can more effectively communicate through a number of means, as and when needed. We also have implemented a new SharePoint Web site, which enables each OGC attorney to stay 

‘‘patched in’’ on the latest developments within each OGC Professional Staff Group 

and Regional Counsel Office. The SharePoint Site also contains a search vehicle that 

enables attorneys to seek and retrieve past legal opinions and memos. We also have 

enhanced OGC’s regional and national training programs, and instituted a new 

OGC leadership development program to ensure OGC is poised to retain its best 

and brightest. 

OGC is pointed in the right direction and working hard. As the Department 

moves forward to centralize aspects of its procurement activities, our office will position itself to provide the best possible legal services. 

That concludes my opening statement and I ask that it be entered into the record. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to whatever questions you and other Members may 

have. 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
30 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

FOLLOWUP INFORMATION REGARDING VA EMPLOYEE SURVEYS 

The information below contains the questions from the VA’s employee survey. The 

table at the end contains a summary report regarding the survey responses for the 

2 years VA has conducted the survey, 2009 and 2010. 

VA converted the answers to a 5-point scale, assigning the highest positive score 

the value of 5 and 1 for the lowest score, excluding ‘‘Do not know’’ as an answer 

when it is available. 

For the 2009 survey results, the average scores are missing for three questions 

because VA did not ask those questions until the FY 2010 survey. The questions 

involve the Organizational Assessment topics of ‘‘Engagement’’ and ‘‘Psychological 

Safety’’ and the Culture question regarding ‘‘Enabling’’. 

VA ALL EMPLOYEE SURVEY 

OVERVIEW: 

The purpose of this survey is to collect information on your perceptions of the 

workplace and your satisfaction with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Please 

answer all of the following questions thinking about your experiences over 

the past six (6) months. 

Completing the survey is completely voluntary, but your help in responding to the 

survey is very important. By voicing your opinion you can influence your work destiny and assist all of us in making changes where needed. The survey is completely 

confidential and anonymity is protected throughout the process. Thank you for taking the time to answer this survey. Your opinion is very important to us. The usefulness of the survey depends on the frankness with which you answer each question. 

DEFINITIONS: 

Several questions refer to our law firm, senior managers, managers, supervisors, 

offices or clients. Use the following definitions when answering questions referring 

to these terms: 

Law Firm: The component organizations of the Office of General Counsel, i.e., 

Professional Staff Groups, 02 Reg., 22 Offices of Regional Counsel and detailed OIT 

professionals. 

Senior Managers: Those in executive positions who supervise managers, i.e., 

General Counsel, Deputy General Counsel. 

Managers: Those in management or executive positions who supervise first-line 

supervisors and team leaders, i.e., Assistant General Counsel, Principal Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Regional Counsel. 

Supervisors: First-line supervisors; those who are responsible for employees’ performance appraisals and leave approval, i.e., Associate General Counsel, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Assistant Regional Counsel. 

Office: Professional Staff Group, 02 Reg., Office of Regional Counsel or detailed 

OIT professionals. Please think of this office when answering questions about offices 

in the survey. 

Clients: Anyone who uses or receives the services that your office provides. 

Note: Please do not use your browser back or forward buttons as this will 

cause you to lose previously entered data. 

In what component of the Office of the General Counsel do you work? 

»VACO 

»Regional Counsel Office 

Please select the appropriate office. 

»Front Office 

»PSG1 

»PSG2 

»PSG3 

»PSG4 

»PSG5 

»PSG6 

»PSG7 

»02REG 

»VACO OIT Professionals 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
31 

Please select the appropriate office. 

»Region 1 (Bedford) 

»Region 2 (Brooklyn) 

»Region 3 (Baltimore) 

»Region 4 (Philadelphia) 

»Region 5 (Atlanta) 

»Region 6 (Bay Pines) 

»Region 7 (Cleveland) 

»Region 8 (Nashville) 

»Region 9 (Jackson) 

»Region 10 (Hines/Chicago) 

»Region 11 (Detroit) 

»Region 12 (St. Louis) 

»Region 13 (Temple/Waco) 

»Region 14 (Houston) 

»Region 15 (Minneapolis) 

»Region 16 (Denver) 

»Region 18 (San Francisco) 

»Region 19 (Phoenix) 

»Region 20 (Portland) 

»Region 21 (Buffalo) 

»Region 22 (Indianapolis) 

»Region 23 (Winston) 

»Regional OIT Professionals 

JOB SATISFACTION INDEX 

Please select the answer which corresponds to your current level of satisfaction. 

Compared to what you think it should be, how satisfied are you with the type of 

work that you currently do? 

»Not at all Satisfied 

»Not Very Satisfied 

»Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 

»Somewhat Satisfied 

»Very Satisfied 

Compared to what you think it should be, how satisfied are you with the amount 

of work that you are able to accomplish? 

»Not at all Satisfied 

»Not Very Satisfied 

»Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 

»Somewhat Satisfied 

»Very Satisfied 

Compared to what you think it should be, how satisfied are you with the amount 

of pay that you receive? 

»Not at all Satisfied 

»Not Very Satisfied 

»Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 

»Somewhat Satisfied 

»Very Satisfied 

Compared to what you think it should be, how satisfied are you with relationships 

you have with your coworkers? 

»Not at all Satisfied 

»Not Very Satisfied 

»Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 

»Somewhat Satisfied 

»Very Satisfied 

Compared to what you think it should be, how satisfied are you with the quality 

of direct supervision you receive? 

»Not at all Satisfied 

»Not Very Satisfied 

»Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 

»Somewhat Satisfied 

»Very Satisfied 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
32 

Compared to what you think it should be, how satisfied are you with the quality 

of managers? 

»Not at all Satisfied 

»Not Very Satisfied 

»Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 

»Somewhat Satisfied 

»Very Satisfied 

Compared to what you think it should be, how satisfied are you with the number 

of opportunities for promotion? 

»Not at all Satisfied 

»Not Very Satisfied 

»Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 

»Somewhat Satisfied 

»Very Satisfied 

Compared to what you think it should be, how satisfied are you with working conditions in your job? 

»Not at all Satisfied 

»Not Very Satisfied 

»Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 

»Somewhat Satisfied 

»Very Satisfied 

Compared to what you think it should be, how satisfied do you think the clients 

of your organization are with the products and services it provides? 

»Not at all Satisfied 

»Not Very Satisfied 

»Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 

»Somewhat Satisfied 

»Very Satisfied 

Compared to what you think it should be, how satisfied are you with the amount 

of praise that you receive? 

»Not at all Satisfied 

»Not Very Satisfied 

»Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 

»Somewhat Satisfied 

»Very Satisfied 

Compared to what you think it should be, how satisfied are you with the quality 

of work you provide to the organization? 

»Not at all Satisfied 

»Not Very Satisfied 

»Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 

»Somewhat Satisfied 

»Very Satisfied 

Compared to what you think it should be, what is your current level of satisfaction with your job? 

»Not at all Satisfied 

»Not Very Satisfied 

»Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 

»Somewhat Satisfied 

»Very Satisfied 

If you have worked in the same office for the previous 24 consecutive months, 

please select the response which corresponds to your overall level of satisfaction 

compared to what it was 2 years ago. If you have not worked in the same office 

for the previous 24 consecutive months, please select ‘‘does not apply’’. 

Compared to what it was 2 years ago, how is your overall level of satisfaction with 

your job? 

»Much Less 

»Somewhat Less 

»About The Same 

»Somewhat More 

»Much More 

»Does Not Apply 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
33 

ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT INVENTORY 

Please answer all of the following questions thinking about your experiences over 

the past 6 months. 

Your office consists of the individuals who report to your supervisor. 

Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following 

statements by selecting the appropriate response. Please use the ‘‘do not know’’ answer only if you feel you do not have enough information to answer the question 

accurately. 

My manager/supervisor is fair in recognizing individual accomplishments. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

My manager/supervisor is fair in recognizing team accomplishments. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

In my office employees are rewarded for providing high quality products and services to clients. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

I am given a real opportunity to develop my skills in my office. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

New practices and ways of doing business are encouraged in my office. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

Products, services and work processes are designed to meet client needs and expectations. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

Clients of my office are informed about the process for seeking assistance, commenting, and/or complaining about products and services. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
34 

Managers/supervisors set challenging and yet attainable performance goals for my 

office. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

People treat each other with respect in my office. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

Disputes or conflicts are resolved fairly in my office. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

Employees in my office are involved in improving the quality of products, services, 

and work processes. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

Employees in my office have the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to 

accomplish organizational goals. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

Employees in my office have the appropriate supplies, materials, and equipment 

to perform their jobs well. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

Employees in my office are protected from health and safety hazards on the job. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

Managers/supervisors understand and support employee family/personal life responsibilities in my office. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
35 

A spirit of cooperation and teamwork exists in my office. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

My manager/supervisor reviews and evaluates the progress toward meeting the 

goals and objectives of the organization. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

This organization does not tolerate discrimination. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

Differences among individuals are respected and valued in my office. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

Managers/supervisors work well with employees of different backgrounds in my 

office. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

My manager/supervisor provides fair and accurate ratings of employee perform- ance. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

If I were able, I would leave my current job because I am dissatisfied. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

The safety of workers is a big priority with management where I work. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

My job requires that I work very fast. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
36 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

I have a lot of say about what happens on my job. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

The people I work with take a personal interest in me. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

The people I work with can be relied on when I need help. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

I feel a strong personal connection with the mission of VA. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

VA cares about my general satisfaction at work. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

Members in our law firm are able to bring up problems and tough issues. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

It is safe to take a risk in our law firm. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

CULTURE SURVEY 

This set of questions relates to your office’s culture. Please read each statement. 

Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree by selecting the appropriate 

response.

My office is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are willing to 

stick their necks out and take risks. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
37 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

My office is a very formalized and structured place. Bureaucratic procedures 

generally govern what people do. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

Managers/supervisors in my office are warm and caring. They seek to develop 

employees’ full potential and act as their mentors or guide. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

Managers/supervisors in my office are risk-takers. They encourage employees to 

take risks and be innovative. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

Managers/supervisors in my office are rule-enforcers. They expect employees to 

follow established rules, policies, and procedures. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

Managers/supervisors in my office are coordinators and coaches. They help employees meet the office’s goals and objectives. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

The glue that holds my office together is loyalty and tradition. Commitment to 

this office runs high. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

The glue that holds my office together is commitment to innovation and development. There is an emphasis on being first. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

The glue that holds my office together is formal rules and policies. People feel 

that following the rules is important. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

The glue that holds my office together is the emphasis on tasks and goal accomplishment. A production orientation is commonly shared. 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
38 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

My office emphasizes human resources. High cohesion and morale in the organization are important. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

My office emphasizes growth and acquiring new resources. Readiness to meet 

new challenges is important. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

My office emphasizes permanence and stability. Keeping things the same is important. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

My office emphasizes competitive actions and achievement. Measurable goals 

are important. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

Policies and procedures in my office are helpful because they clarify roles and responsibilities. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

Policies and procedures in my office help staff save time and effort. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

Policies and procedures in my office represent the best way of doing things. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

Rules, policies and procedures in my office are revised when they no longer work 

effectively. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
39 

TRAINING 

Please read each statement. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree 

by selecting the appropriate response. 

Employees in my office receive the training they need to do their jobs. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

Employees in my office receive the training they need to use new tools and technologies. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

Training opportunities are fairly allocated across my office. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

My managers/supervisors support employee efforts to learn. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

This organization gives a high priority to providing appropriate training. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

Additional training would assist me in my job. 

»Strongly Disagree 

»Disagree 

»Neither Agree Nor Disagree 

»Agree 

»Strongly Agree 

»Do Not Know 

I would benefit from additional training in the following topic(s): (Choose all that 

apply). 

»Benefits law. 

»Business law (collections, enhanced use, sharing agreements/joint ventures, 

procurement, real property) 

»Employment law (EEO, MSPB, FLRA, Title 38, government ethics). 

»Health law (torts or intellectual property) 

»Other specialized legal services (appropriations, ADR, information law, miscellaneous). 

»Technology (GCLaws, Westlaw) 

I find the following types of training to be the most effective: (Choose all that 

apply). 

»Online training. 

»Monthly OGC conference training (telephone). 

»OGC Regional Training Conferences (Personnel law, Information law, torts). 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
40 

»Commercial CLE courses. 

Compared to what you think it should be, how satisfied are you with the training 

that you have received from the law firm? 

»Not at all Satisfied 

»Not Very Satisfied 

»Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied 

»Somewhat Satisfied 

»Very Satisfied 

Demographics 

What is your gender? 

»Male 

»Female 

What is your age? 

»Less than 20 years 

»20–29 

»30–39 

»40–49 

»50–59 

»60 years or older 

Are you Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino? 

»Yes 

»No 

What is your race? (mark one or more) 

»White 

»Black or African American 

»American Indian or Alaskan Native 

»Asian 

»Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 

How long have you been with VA? 

»Less than 6 months 

»Between 6 months and 1 year 

»Between 1 and 2 years 

»Between 2 and 5 years 

»Between 5 and 10 years 

»Between 10 and 15 years 

»Between 15 and 20 years 

»More than 20 years 

What is your level of supervisory responsibility? 

»None 

»Supervisor 

»Manager 

»Senior Manager 

Prior to your full-time VA employment were you ever a trainee in the VA? 

»Yes 

»No 

Thank you for participating in the VA All Employee Survey. Your input is very 

important to us. 

Employee Survey Results for 2009 and 2010 

All-Employee Survey (AES) Response 

Averages for OGC 

Fiscal Year 2009 2010 

Total Respondents 457 615 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
41 

All-Employee Survey (AES) Response—Continued 

Averages for OGC 

Fiscal Year 2009 2010 

Factor Avg. Avg. 

Job Satisfaction 

Work Type 4.38 4.37 

Work Amount 3.98 4.07 

Pay Satisfaction 3.71 3.71 

Coworker 4.37 4.36 

Supervision 4.20 4.21 

Senior Management 4.08 4.17 

Promotion Opportunity 3.03 3.03 

Work Condition 4.00 3.95 

Customer Satisfaction 4.32 4.38 

Praise 3.95 3.98 

Work Quality 4.53 4.59 

Satisfaction 4.13 4.07 

Satisfaction-2yrs 3.40 3.29 

Organizational Assessment 

Cooperation 4.07 4.04 

Conflict Resolution 3.79 3.81 

Diversity Acceptance 4.23 4.24 

Coworker Support 4.01 4.00 

Supervisory Support 3.96 4.07 

Customer Service 4.00 4.04 

Innovation 3.77 3.85 

Resources 4.00 4.08 

Safety Climate 3.79 3.92 

Leadership 3.90 3.87 

Rewards 3.93 3.99 

Employee Development 3.92 3.92 

Work/Family Balance 4.41 4.45 

Planning/Evaluation 4.21 4.22 

Job Control 3.47 3.46 

Demands 3.63 3.68 

Retention 3.91 3.85 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
42 

All-Employee Survey (AES) Response—Continued 

Averages for OGC 

Fiscal Year 2009 2010 

Engagement 3.91 

Psychological Safety 3.62 

Civility 4.09 4.08 

Culture 

Group 3.47 3.53 

Entrepreneurial 3.07 3.15 

Bureaucratic 3.25 3.31 

Rational 3.63 3.70 

Enabling 3.40 

Training 

Training 3.78 3.78 

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Washington, DC. 

July 30, 2010 

Honorable Eric K. Shinseki 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

810 Vermont Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20420 

Dear Secretary Shinseki: 

Thank you for the testimony of the Honorable Will A. Gunn, General Counsel, 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, accompanied by Phillipa Anderson, Assistant 

General Counsel; and Michael Hogan, Assistant General Counsel at the U.S. House 

of Representatives Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations hearing that took place on June 30, 2010, entitled ‘‘Evaluating the 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of General Counsel.’’ 

Please provide answers to the following questions by Friday, September 10, 2010, 

to Todd Chambers, Legislative Assistant to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. 

1. It seems that the OGC was going to be consulted about the action that the Office of Information and Technology (OI&T) needed to take with regards to the 

appropriate action recommendation from the VA Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) in the August 2 OI&T reports (#09–01123–195 and #09–01123–196). 

What advice did you give OI&T to implement the OIG recommendations from 

the two reports regarding: 

a. Collecting money back; 

b. Employees that received their positions through nepotism; and 

c. Taking appropriate action regarding hiring relatives, direct hire authority 

expiration, and collecting on educational payments. 

2. OI&T concurred with the OIG Recommendations but now they seem to be 

backsliding and disagreeing with the nepotism finding due to guidance from 

OGC. Has OGC given OI&T advice about the issues in the two OIG reports? 

a. We hear that though VA concurred with the recommendation at the time 

of the report, not 10 months later they are not concurring due to advice 

they are receiving from OGC. Please explain what type of advice your office 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
43 

is producing that is convincing officials to counter their OIG report concurrences. 

3. Are there any VA regulations that are giving Regional Offices and regional 

counsels troubles either because VA is having issues interpreting them or because the regulations are obtuse? 

a. Have you heard any complaints from VBA Regional Office or regional counsels about VA regulations? 

b. If so, what is your office doing about fixing this problem? 

4. Has VA consulted with, or plans to consult with the Department of Health and 

Human Services, which has jurisdiction over the HITECH Act regarding the 

notification requirements within the Act, and what advice has that Department 

provided VA with respect to instances of security breaches wherein over 500 

individuals were affected, but not all within one jurisdiction or State? 

5. Please respond in detail to the testimony provided by Mr. Tully during the 

hearing. 

6. What incentives does VA provide to obtain the best individuals from the private sector to work for the Office of General Counsel? 

7. It appears that VA is planning on hiring additional attorneys to limit the number of cases assigned to each attorney at 50 or fewer. Additionally, in the testimony provided, it appears that training for attorneys in contract law will be 

a top priority. Will this training include the Regional Counsels, as well as 

those at Headquarters, the National Acquisition Center (NAC), and the Technology Acquisition Center (TAC) in Eatontown, NJ? 

8. Is there an entity that oversees the ethical conduct of VA attorneys? Who does 

a party go to if they believe there is unethical conduct on the part of a VA attorney? What recourse does the VA have when they find out that an attorney 

may have altered documents? 

Thank you again for taking the time to answer these questions. The Committee 

looks forward to receiving your answers. If you have any questions concerning these 

questions, please contact Martin Herbert, Majority Staff Director for the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations at (202) 225–3569 or Arthur Wu, Minority Staff Director for the Subcommittee on Oversight and investigations at (202) 

225–3527. 

Sincerely, 

Harry E. Mitchell David P. Roe 

Chairman Ranking Republican Member 

MH:tc 

Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Harry E. Mitchell, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

The Honorable David P. Roe, Ranking Republican Member 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

‘‘Evaluating the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Office of General Counsel’’ 

June 30, 2010 

Question 1: It seems that the OGC was going to be consulted about the action 

that the Office of Information and Technology (OI&T) needed to take with regards 

to the appropriate action recommendation from the VA Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) in the August 2, OI&T reports (#09–01123–195 and #09–01123–196). What 

advice did you give OI&T to implement the OIG recommendations from the two reports regarding: 

Question 1(a): Collecting money back 

Response: The Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommended that VA issue 

bills of collection to six employees due to the failure of Office of Information and 

Technology (OIT) supervisors to follow VA policy regarding academic degree training. On August 13, 2010, we advised OIT we could find no legal support for the 

proposition that the employees are liable for money paid for their educational training. 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
44 

Question 1(b): Employees that received their positions through nepotism; and 

Response: Additionally, OIG recommended issuing bills of collection due to nepotism violations. Regarding these recommendations and question 1.b., as noted in response to question 2 there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the nepotism 

statute was violated. 

Question 1(c): Taking appropriate action regarding hiring relatives, direct hire 

authority expiration, and collecting on educational payments. 

Response: One employee was demoted and another admonished based upon 

OIG’s findings regarding the improper hiring of relatives. The Office of Human Resources and Administration is currently working with OIT to take appropriate action regarding employees appointed erroneously. The servicing Human Resources 

Offices are now in the process of taking the appropriate corrective actions for those 

individuals identified in the OIG report as well as other similarly situated OIT employees identified in a subsequent Agency-wide review. 

Question 2: OI&T concurred with the OIG Recommendations but now they seem 

to be backsliding and disagreeing with the nepotism finding due to guidance from 

OGC. Has OGC given OI&T advice about the issues in the two OIG reports? Please 

explain what type of advice your office is producing that is convincing officials to 

counter their OIG report concurrences. 

Response: At the time that OIT concurred with the OIG nepotism recommendations, OIT had not received any Office of General Counsel (OGC) legal advice regarding the recommendations. Further, OIT agreed, in its responses to the recommendations, to take ‘‘appropriate action’’ after consulting with OGC and the Office of Human Resources and Administration. In July 2010, we advised OIT that, 

based upon the elements of the nepotism statute (5 U.S.C. § 3110) and case law involving alleged violations of that statute, there was insufficient evidence to establish 

that the OIT supervisor violated the statute. 

Question 3: Are there any VA regulations that are giving Regional Offices and 

regional counsels trouble either because VA is having issues interpreting them or 

because the regulations are obtuse? 

Question 3(a): Have you heard any complaints from VBA regional Offices or regional counsels about VA regulations? 

Question 3(b): If so, what is your office doing about fixing this problem? 

Response: We have not received complaints from Regional Offices or Regional 

Counsel about the VA-benefit regulations applied by the Regional Offices. However, 

OGC’s Office of Regulations Management is overseeing VA’s major project to reorganize and rewrite all of the VA’s claims-adjudication regulations in Part 3 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations. This effort will make the compensation and pension regulations easier to read, understand, and apply. 

Question 4: Has VA consulted with, or [does it have] plans to consult with the 

Department of Health and Human Services, which has jurisdiction over the 

HITECH Act regarding the notification requirements within the Act, and what advice has that Department provided VA with respect to instances of security breaches 

wherein over 500 individuals were affected, but not all within one jurisdiction or 

State? 

Response: We have contacted the Privacy Division, Office of Civil Rights, which 

is the Health and Human Services (HHS) office responsible for promulgating the 

regulations governing notification of data breaches under the HITECH Act. That office declined to offer specific legal advice on notification in any particular situation, 

but instead referred us to what it considered to be clear guidance in the Supplementary Information in the Federal Register notice of the interim final rule, 

‘‘Breach Notification for Unsecured Protected Health Information; Interim Final 

Rule,’’ 74 Fed. Reg. 42740 (Aug. 24, 2009). That notice specifically addresses the instance of security breaches wherein over 500 individuals were affected but not all 

within one jurisdiction or State, and specifies that ‘‘if a covered entity discovers a 

breach of 600 individuals, 200 of which reside in Virginia, 200 of which reside in 

Maryland, and 200 of which reside in the District of Columbia, such a breach did 

not affect more than 500 residents of any one State or jurisdiction, and as such, notification is not required to be provided to the media pursuant to § 164.406.’’ 74 Fed. 

Reg. at 42752. 

An OGC attorney also contacted an individual identified after the June 30, 2010, 

Subcommittee hearing by a minority staff member as a Senior Advisor at HHS who 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
45 

may have felt our interpretation was incorrect. That individual informed us that she 

did not work in the area of HITECH, and did not recall voicing such an opinion. 

Question 5: Please respond in detail to the testimony provided by Mr. Tully during the hearing. 

Response: Please see the enclosed August 19, 2010, letter from General Counsel 

Will Gunn to Chairman Mitchell, which responds to Mr. Tully’s testimony. 

[The letter is being retained in the Committee files.] 

Question 6: What incentives does VA provide to obtain the best individuals from 

the private sector to work for the Office of General Counsel? 

Response: If necessary, OGC could offer recruitment incentives including bonuses and repayment of student-loan debt to recruit well-qualified talent. However, 

in recent years there has been no shortage of very well-qualified applicants, including applicants from the private sector, for OGC vacancies anywhere in the United 

States. 

Question 7: It appears that VA is planning on hiring additional attorneys to limit 

the number of cases assigned to each attorney at 50 or fewer. Additionally, in the 

testimony provided, it appears that training for attorneys in contract law will be a 

top priority. Will this training include the Regional Counsels, as well as those at 

headquarters, the National Acquisition Center (NAC), and the Technology Acquisition Center (TAC) in Eatontown, NJ? 

Response: OGC is committed to the professional development of the people who 

provide legal services to the Department. A clear need, in light of the increasing 

workload in the area of contracts and procurement, is for significant training of 

OGC’s contracting specialists, regardless of their geographic locations or particular 

areas of specialization. 

As the question suggests, OGC has lawyers who specialize in contract law located 

throughout the United States. This includes the various Offices of Regional Counsel, 

the National Acquisition Center, the Technology Acquisition Center, and VA Central 

Office. OGC has provided considerable specialized training for these lawyers in the 

recent past. A Masters Level Contract Law Symposium will be held in early November 2010 for OGC contract-law specialists throughout OGC. 

Creating our own training allows OGC to address and train to meet developing 

needs within our specialized department. There are also significant opportunities to 

be developed through other tried-and-true government professional-development 

programs, and mining these programs is another part of the overall OGC effort. We 

have developed a close relationship with both the United States Army Judge Advocate General’s School in Charlottesville, Virginia, and the Department of Justice National Advocacy Center in Columbia, South Carolina. This allows our VA OGC contract attorneys to regularly attend the specialized training offered at those excellent 

institutions. 

Finally, we have the flexibility to implement individualized legal-education opportunities in the field of government contracts for our contracts specialists—no matter 

their level of education or experience upon hiring. Our goal remains the development and retention of highly skilled contract-law specialists. 

Question 8: Is there an entity that oversees the ethical conduct of VA attorneys? 

Who does a party go to if they believe there is unethical conduct on the part of a 

VA attorney? What recourse does the VA have when they find out that an attorney 

may have altered documents? 

Response: There are three entities that oversee the ethical conduct of VA attorneys and complaints about unethical conduct can be made to any of these: 

OGC Management—Internally within OGC, the General Counsel, the Deputy 

General Counsel, and subordinate managers and supervisors under their direction— 

Assistant General Counsels, Deputy Assistant General Counsels, Regional Counsels, 

and Assistant Regional Counsels—oversee VA attorneys’ professional conduct on a 

daily basis. OGC supervisors are always available to receive feedback on the conduct 

of their employees and (as warranted) to take appropriate action which could involve remedies up to removal from employment. 

OIG—Internally within VA, the OIG can be said to exercise oversight over all VA 

employees’ conduct, including that of VA attorneys, by investigating matters that 

may suggest criminal activity, waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement of VA programs. Parties who believe they have knowledge of unethical conduct by a VA attorney that may rise to any of these levels may report it to the OIG for review and 

possible investigation. 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING
46 

Bar Associations—All attorneys who practice within OGC must be members in 

good standing of a State bar. The legal bars of every State and the District of Columbia oversee ethical conduct of all attorneys who are licensed within their jurisdictions. Bar officials enforce strict standards of professional conduct, breaches of 

which subject attorneys to sanctions that can include suspension and disbarment. 

The bars of the various States and the District of Columbia have publicly available 

information about how to report unprofessional conduct by attorneys they have licensed. 

Alteration of official documents in order to deceive a court or administrative tribunal would be grounds for an attorney’s dismissal from VA employment and for 

referral to his or her State bar for consideration of further disciplinary action. 

Æ 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with HEARING