DOD Financial Management: Improvements Are Needed in Antideficiency Act Controls and Investigations
Published: 2008-09-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Senate Report No. 110-77 directed GAO to review the Department of Defense's (DOD) procedures for Antideficiency Act (ADA) violations. GAO focused on whether (1) existing DOD funds control systems, processes, and internal controls provide reasonable assurance that ADA violations will be prevented or detected and whether key funds control personnel are trained; (2) investigations of ADA violations are processed in accordance with applicable DOD regulations; and (3) DOD tracks and reports metrics pertaining to its ADA investigations and what disciplinary actions are taken when ADA violations have occurred. GAO's review included all 54 ADA military service case files closed in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. GAO did not assess the appropriateness of the conclusions reached or of the disciplinary actions taken for the ADA cases.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: DOD's complex and inefficient payment processes, nonintegrated business systems, and weak internal controls impair its ability to maintain proper funds control, leaving the department at risk of overobligating or overspending its appropriations in violation of the ADA. DOD Comptroller and military service financial management and comptroller officials responsible for the department's ADA programs have stated that because of weaknesses in DOD's business operations, knowledgeable personnel are critical to improving the department's funds control, and these officials have or are developing training courses. However, only the Army has attempted to identify and determine whether key funds control personnel have received appropriate training to provide them with the knowledge and skills to fulfill their responsibilities, including the ADA, required by DOD regulations. GAO's analysis of the 54 ADA cases and other documentation provided by the military services disclosed that the military services did not fully comply with DOD regulations intended to ensure that ADA reviews and investigations were conducted by qualified and independent personnel and were completed in a timely manner. More specifically, GAO found the following: (1) Only 6 of the 66 investigating officers assigned to the 54 ADA cases reviewed had received all of the required training. (2) Nineteen of the 54 ADA cases lacked documentation needed to determine whether the investigating officer was organizationally independent. Further, because the military services focused on organizational independence, they could not be assured that investigating officers were free of personal or external impairments to independence. ? ADA investigations were generally not completed within the 15 months and 25 days set forth by DOD. Of the 54 ADA cases reviewed, 22 cases took over 30 months to complete and only 16 were completed on time. GAO also noted that DOD, as required, reported the 34 cases in which it had concluded that an ADA violation had occurred to the President and the Congress, with a copy to GAO. For the remaining 20 cases, DOD concluded that an ADA violation had not occurred and therefore external reporting was not required. Further, DOD has taken steps to improve transparency over the ADA investigation process by requiring DOD components to report status information when an ADA investigation is initiated. Additionally, for the 34 ADA cases in which DOD concluded that an ADA violation had occurred, the nature of the disciplinary actions taken and reported to the President and the Congress was consistent with the criteria set forth in the DOD regulations. The ADA requires that employees who are responsible for ADA violations be subject to appropriate administrative discipline. The DOD regulations specify that administrative discipline can range from no action to the termination of the individual's employment.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense (DOD), are  responsible for ensuring that appropriated funds are used only for  purposes, and within the amount and time frames, prescribed by the  Congress. In fiscal year 2008, DOD had appropriations totaling more than  $669 billion. To comply with legal and regulatory requirements, DOD must  implement and maintain administrative controls that ensure the proper  use of its appropriated funds, including the use of accounting and funds  control systems that are able to accurately record obligations, collections,  and disbursements against appropriations and the accounts established to  track the status of appropriations. DOD financial management has been on  our high-risk list since 1995 because of the department’s continuing  inability to provide accurate, timely, and complete financial and  performance information for management use and reporting.
The Antideficiency Act (ADA) prohibits any DOD officer or employee  from incurring obligations or making expenditures in excess or in advance  of appropriations or apportionments. Under the ADA, the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB) apportions appropriated funds and other  budgetary resources to DOD. The act further requires DOD to establish by  regulation a system of administrative controls to restrict obligations and  disbursements to the amounts of appropriations, apportionments, and  DOD’s subdivisions of those apportionments. Further, when DOD  determines that a violation of one of the ADA’s proscriptions has  occurred, the ADA requires DOD to “report immediately to the President  and Congress all relevant facts and a statement of actions taken” and to  submit a copy to the Comptroller General at the same time.
On January 17, 2007, the DOD Acting Inspector General testified before  the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, Senate  Committee on Armed Services, on potential violations of the ADA at DOD.  Based on the DOD Acting Inspector General’s testimony, the committee  expressed concerns about the volume of potential ADA violations, the  pace and transparency of ADA investigations, and DOD’s process for  preventing, identifying, investigating, and reporting potential ADA  violations. Senate Report No. 110-77, which accompanied the National  Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, directed GAO to review  the department’s ADA procedures for preventing, identifying,  investigating, and reporting ADA violations and the disciplinary actions  taken when violations occur. More specifically, the Senate report  identified seven areas of congressional interest, which we have grouped  into three objectives, as outlined in table 1.
This report presents more details regarding the preliminary observations  we provided on July 28, 2008, in response to the Senate report. To address  the first objective, we reviewed prior GAO and DOD Inspector General  audit reports and OMB and GAO guidance to obtain an understanding of  the deficiencies in DOD’s funds control systems, processes, and internal  controls that impede its ability to prevent or identify ADA violations. DOD  has acknowledged the financial management weaknesses reported by  GAO and DOD auditors and the impact these weaknesses have on the  reliability of the department’s financial information. As a result, we did not  perform additional work to substantiate the adequacy of DOD’s financial  management environment and internal controls. We interviewed DOD and  military service personnel and reviewed documentation, such as the DOD  Financial Management Regulation (FMR) and military service training  curricula, to ascertain whether the military services had processes in place  to identify and ensure that key funds control personnel are trained.
To address the second objective, we reviewed the DOD FMR and  interviewed appropriate officials within the DOD Comptroller and military  services’ financial management and comptroller offices responsible for the  ADA programs at DOD or the military services to identify DOD criteria  pertaining to the qualifications, training, and independence requirements  of investigating officers and the reporting of ADA cases. Additionally, we  reviewed the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency/Executive  Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE/ECIE) Quality Standards for  Investigations to obtain an understanding of qualification, independence,  and due professional care standards applicable to investigations. To  assess investigating officers’ qualifications, we focused our review on  whether the investigating officers had received training and if there was an  internal control in place to ensure that the investigating officers did not  have any personal, organizational, or external impairments to their ability  to conduct impartial and independent investigations.
To address the third objective, we interviewed DOD Comptroller and  military service financial management and comptroller officials  responsible for ADA programs at DOD or the military services and  reviewed DOD’s metrics for tracking and reporting on preliminary reviews  and formal investigations of potential ADA violations and the results of all  54 Army, Navy, and Air Force formal ADA investigations closed by DOD  in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. We did not assess whether the conclusions  reached by DOD for the 54 closed ADA cases or the disciplinary actions  taken on the 34 cases for which DOD concluded that an ADA violation had  occurred were appropriate. Further details on our scope and methodology  are presented in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 through September  2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We received written  comments from the Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer, which are  reprinted in appendix II.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The ADA is one of the major laws in the statutory scheme by which the  Congress exercises its constitutional control of the public purse. Despite  the name, it is not a single act, but rather a series of related provisions that  evolved over a period of time in response to various abuses. As late as the  post-Civil War period, it was not uncommon for agencies to incur  obligations in excess, or in advance, of appropriations. Perhaps most  egregious of all, some agencies would spend their entire appropriations  during the first few months of the fiscal year, continue to incur  obligations, and then return to the Congress for appropriations to fund  these “coercive deficiencies.” These were obligations to others who had  fulfilled their part of the bargain with the United States and who now had  at least a moral—and in some cases also a legal—right to be paid. The  Congress felt it had no choice but to fulfill these commitments, but the  frequency of deficiency appropriations played havoc with the United  States’ budget. The Congress expanded the ADA several times throughout  the 20th century to require and enforce apportionments and agency  subdivisions of apportionments to achieve more effective control and  conservation of funds.
The ADA contains both affirmative requirements and specific prohibitions,  as highlighted below. The ADA:    Prohibits the incurring of obligations or the making of expenditures in  advance or in excess of an appropriation. For example, an agency officer  may not award a contract that obligates the agency to pay for goods and  services before the Congress makes an appropriation for the cost of such a  contract or that exceeds the appropriations available.
Requires the apportionment of appropriated funds and other budgetary  resources for all executive branch agencies. An apportionment may divide  amounts available for obligation by specific time periods (usually  quarters), activities, projects, objects, or a combination thereof. OMB, on  delegation from the President, apportions funds for executive agencies.
Requires a system of administrative controls within each agency,  established by regulation, that is designed to (1) prevent obligations and  expenditures in excess of apportionments or reapportionments; (2) fix  responsibility for any such obligations or expenditures; and (3) establish  the levels at which the agency may administratively subdivide  apportionments, if it chooses to do so.
Prohibits the incurring of obligations or the making of expenditures in  excess of amounts apportioned by OMB or amounts of an agency’s  subdivision of apportionments.
Prohibits the acceptance of voluntary services, except where authorized  by law.
Specifies potential penalties for violations of its prohibitions, such as  suspension from duty without pay or removal from office. In addition, an  officer or employee convicted of willfully and knowingly violating the  prohibitions may be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more  than 2 years, or both.
Requires that for violations of the act’s prohibitions, the relevant agency  report immediately to the President and to the Congress all relevant facts  and a statement of actions taken with a copy to the Comptroller General of  the United States.
The requirements of the ADA and the enforcement of its proscriptions are  reinforced by, among other laws, the Recording Statute, 31 U.S.C. §  1501(a), which requires agencies to record obligations in their accounting  systems, and the 1982 law commonly known as the Federal Managers’  Financial Integrity Act of 1982, 31 U.S.C. § 3512(c), (d), which requires  executive agencies to implement and maintain effective internal controls.  Federal agencies use “obligational accounting” to ensure compliance with  the ADA and other fiscal laws. Obligational accounting involves the  accounting systems, processes, and people involved in collecting financial  information necessary to control, monitor, and report on all funds made  available to federal agencies by legislation—including both permanent,  indefinite appropriations and appropriations enacted in annual and  supplemental appropriations laws that may be available for 1 or multiple  fiscal years. Executive branch agencies use obligational accounting,  sometimes referred to as budgetary accounting, to report on the execution  of the budget.
subsections: section_title: Overview of DOD’s Process for Identifying, Investigating, and Reporting ADA Violations
paragraphs: The DOD FMR, Volume 14, Administrative Control of Funds and  Antideficiency Act Violations, establishes procedures for DOD  components in identifying, investigating, and reporting potential ADA  violations. The ADA does not prescribe the process for conducting an ADA  investigation.
Upon learning of or identifying a possible violation of the ADA, an  individual should report the potential violation to his/her immediate  supervisor within 10 working days. Next, the DOD component appoints  an investigating officer to perform a preliminary review of the applicable  business transactions and accounting records. The purpose of a  preliminary review is to gather basic facts and determine whether a  violation may have occurred. The DOD FMR states that the preliminary  review should be completed in a timely manner, usually within 90 days. If  the investigating officer determines, based upon the results of the  preliminary review, that there is a potential ADA violation, the DOD  component is required to initiate a formal investigation within 15 days.
The purpose of a formal investigation is to determine the relevant facts  and circumstances concerning the potential violation, to discern whether a  violation actually occurred, and, if so, to determine the cause, the  appropriate corrective actions, any lessons learned, and to ascertain who  was responsible for the violation. According to the DOD FMR, the DOD  component should complete the formal investigation of an ADA violation,  including submission of final summary reports to the office of the Under  Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), within 9 months of initiating the  formal investigation. The OSD, including the DOD Comptroller’s office,  then has 3 months to review the DOD component’s final summary report  and prepare and submit transmittal letters to the President and the leaders  of both Houses of the Congress, with a copy to the Comptroller General.  The DOD FMR has established that a preliminary review, formal  investigation, and OSD review should be completed within approximately  15 months and 25 days—or about 475 days.
section_title: Long-standing Financial Management Weaknesses Undermine DOD’s Ability to Prevent and Identify Potential Antideficiency Act Violations
paragraphs: DOD’s complex and inefficient payment processes, lack of integrated  business systems, and weak internal control environment hinder its ability  to control and properly record transactions and to ensure prompt and  proper matching of disbursements with obligations, which is essential for  the proper recording of transactions. DOD Comptroller and military  service financial management and comptroller officials responsible for the  department’s ADA programs have stated that because of weaknesses in  the department’s business processes and systems, knowledgeable  personnel are critical to improving the department’s funds control  processes. DOD components responsible for executing the department’s  budget, such as the military services, are responsible for ensuring that key  personnel within their funds control processes are properly trained to  fulfill their responsibilities. The military services have efforts under way to  provide classroom or Web-based training to key funds control personnel.  However, neither the Navy nor the Air Force has identified specific key  funds control personnel who should be trained. Moreover, the Navy and  the Air Force financial management and comptroller officials responsible  for their military services’ ADA programs could not provide  documentation of the processes and procedures each military service has  or will utilize to ensure that key funds control personnel are trained. Army  Financial Management and Comptroller Office officials responsible for the  Army’s ADA program stated that the Army has begun to identify key  personnel within the its funds control processes and determine if they  have received training. However, the Army officials acknowledged that  many of the Army’s key funds control personnel have not received  training. As discussed later in this report, we also noted that of the 54 ADA  cases reviewed, 20 case files (or over 37 percent) indicated that improved  training of key funds control personnel was needed. Without adequate  processes, procedures, and controls to (1) identify individuals who are  performing key funds control roles, such as funds certifying officials,  resource managers, fund holders, certifying officers, contracting officers,  program managers, and others, and (2) ensure that they have received the  training necessary to fulfill their responsibilities in compliance with the  FMR and the ADA, DOD and the military services lack reasonable  assurance that these key personnel can reliably prevent, identify, and  report ADA violations.
subsections: section_title: Weaknesses in Controls, Processes, and Systems Hinder DOD’s Ability to Maintain Effective Funds Control
paragraphs: Given the numerous documented control risks over funds control, DOD  does not have reasonable assurance that it has prevented, identified,  investigated, and reported all potential ADA violations. These weaknesses  have adversely affected the ability of DOD to ensure basic accountability,  maintain funds control, and prevent fraud. For example, we reported in  2005 that after decades of continuing financial management and  accounting weaknesses, information related to long-standing unreconciled  disbursement and collection activity was so inadequate that DOD was  unable to determine the true value of certain disbursement and collection  suspense differences that it removed from its records by writing them off.  As a result, DOD could not determine whether any of the write-off  amounts, had they been charged to the proper appropriation, would have  caused an ADA violation.
Pervasive business system, process, and control weaknesses  acknowledged by the department have hindered DOD’s ability to prevent,  identify, investigate, and report ADA violations. Recent reports by the  DOD Inspector General indicate that the weak control environment  continues to exist today. For instance:  In November 2006 and 2007, the DOD Inspector General reported, and the  department acknowledged, that it continues to have significant internal  control deficiencies that impede its ability to produce accurate and  reliable information on the results of its operations. These deficiencies  adversely affect the ability of the department’s financial management  systems to reliably and accurately record accounting entries and report  financial information, such as its fund balance with Treasury, accounts  payable, and accounts receivable. For example, DOD made over   $22 billion in unsupported adjustments for fiscal year 2007 to force its cost  accounts to match obligation information. These weaknesses affect the  safeguarding of assets and proper use of funds and impair the prevention  and identification of fraud, waste, and abuse.
The DOD Inspector General reported in March 2008 that the Air Force and  the Defense Finance and Accounting Service did not establish and  maintain adequate and effective internal control over Air Force vendor  disbursements. The DOD Inspector General noted numerous internal  control weaknesses in contract formation and funding, funds control,  vendor payment, and financial accounting. According to the report, these  weaknesses represent a high risk that violations of laws and regulations  not only occurred, but will likely continue to occur if corrective action is  not taken.
As part of its long-term initiative to address such weaknesses, the  department has embarked upon a massive effort to transform its business  operations, including financial management. Over the next several years,  the department will be spending billions of dollars to implement these  systems. However, it will be a number of years before the department’s  business system modernization efforts are complete, and as we have  previously reported, DOD has encountered challenges in developing  systems that meet time frame, cost, and functionality goals. Until DOD  can successfully transform its business operations, including  implementation of effective business processes, controls, and systems, the  department’s ability to ensure proper funds control and compliance with  the ADA will continue to be impaired. Until then, mitigating controls,  including knowledgeable personnel, will be key to effective funds control.  Over the past several years, GAO has made numerous recommendations  aimed at improving the department’s business transformation efforts.  Generally, the department has agreed with our recommendations and has  identified or is planning specific actions to implement our  recommendations.
section_title: Key Funds Control Personnel May Not Have Received Training to Fulfill Their Responsibilities in Preventing, Identifying, and Reporting Potential ADA Violations
paragraphs: As DOD auditors have previously reported, improper disbursements or  payments have occurred, in part, because personnel failed to comply with  DOD policy and provide accurate and timely information to support the  payment of and properly record the transactions. For example, the DOD  Inspector General reported in April 2008 that the Mid-Atlantic, Southeast,  and South Central Regional Maintenance Centers inappropriately  obligated funds on ship maintenance and repair contracts because of  ineffective internal controls. As a result, at least $103 million of U.S. Fleet  Force Command Operations and Maintenance appropriations were not  available for other ship maintenance and repair needs. The knowledge  and understanding of DOD regulations and applicable federal laws, such  as the ADA, by DOD personnel involved in the obligation, payment  authorization, and recording processes are critical to the prevention and  detection of ADA violations within the department. Both DOD and military  service officials responsible for ADA programs at DOD or the military  services have stated the importance of trained and knowledgeable  personnel in establishing and maintaining effective funds control.  Additionally, the DOD FMR requires DOD components to ensure that  appropriate training programs are in place to provide personnel with the  knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to perform their funds control  duties. However, there is no DOD-wide requirement for DOD components  to establish and document that key employees within their funds control  processes, such as fund certifying officials, certifying officials, and  departmental accountable officers, are identified and have received the  appropriate training.
Efforts are under way to provide key funds control personnel classroom  and Web-based training. Additionally, the Army began an effort in 2006 to  identify its fund certifying officials and track their training. While the  training of these individuals is critical to improving the Army’s overall  funds control process, this training does not include other key individuals,  such as certifying officers and departmental accountable officials. Also,  neither the Navy nor the Air Force could provide documentation of the  processes, procedures, and controls they have or will utilize to ensure that  key funds control personnel are trained. Navy and Air Force financial  management and comptroller officials acknowledged that their military  services currently do not identify and track training of individual key funds  control personnel to ensure that they have received the training needed to  fulfill their responsibilities in preventing, identifying, and reporting  potential ADA violations. Moreover, follow-up with two Navy and two Air  Force major commands with reported ADA violations in fiscal years 2006  and 2007 revealed that they could not identify specific key funds control  personnel or provide information on the training, if any, they had received.
To its credit, in 2006, the Army began an effort to identify key personnel  within its funds control process and to begin tracking the training  provided. According to a June 2, 2006, memorandum signed by the  Assistant Secretary of the Army, Financial Management and Comptroller,  “the Army’s ADA portfolio has reached an unacceptable level …   reflects negatively on the Army’s financial stewardship.” The Assistant  Secretary directed all Army major commands to identify their funds  certifying officials and report back as to the number of these personnel  who had received training. Based upon the training information it obtained  as of June 5, 2008, Army officials acknowledged that their effort to identify  key personnel within the Army’s control processes and the training they  received had revealed that many of its key funds control personnel had not  been trained. According to Army officials, the Army is now working to  ensure that this situation is corrected.
section_title: DOD Lacks Assurance That Potential ADA Investigations Are Processed in Accordance with DOD Regulations
paragraphs: DOD and the military services have not established processes and  procedures to oversee and monitor compliance with DOD FMR provisions  requiring the assignment of qualified, trained, and independent ADA  investigating officers and the completion of investigations within the  prescribed time frames. The DOD FMR establishes procedures for DOD  components to assign investigating officers. Specifically, the DOD FMR  states that the investigating officer should be chosen from a roster of  qualified personnel to ensure that he/she meets all the following  qualifications:    adequately trained to conduct an investigation of this type,    adequate experience in the functional area that is involved with the  apparent violation,    knowledgeable of financial management policies and procedures, and    skilled in investigating potential ADA violations.
Each DOD component is responsible for ensuring that its ADA  investigating officers are qualified to conduct investigations and have  received the required training, as prescribed by the DOD FMR. Training  requirements include completion of a fiscal law, or equivalent, course and  any additional training on an as-needed basis to ensure that the  investigating officer is qualified. To remain qualified to conduct ADA  investigations, the DOD FMR also requires that investigating officers  receive refresher training every 5 years. Once an individual completes the  appropriate training and meets the above-mentioned qualifications, the  DOD FMR requires that his/her name be included on a roster of available  ADA investigating officers maintained by each DOD component. Further,  the DOD FMR states that investigating officers must be independent and  capable of conducting a complete, impartial, and unbiased investigation.  Finally, the DOD FMR establishes a time frame of approximately 15  months and 25 days for completing an ADA investigation. The following  sections highlight specific examples of where the military services did not  comply with DOD FMR criteria.
subsections: section_title: Rosters Were Not Consistently Used to Select Qualified Investigating Officers
paragraphs: Army and Air Force officials informed us that selection of an investigating  officer was left to the major command where the violation had occurred  and that each major command is responsible for maintaining its own  roster. The data required by the DOD FMR to be maintained on the roster  of available investigating officers include name, rank/grade, date initial  training was received, organization to which assigned, functional  specialties, and the number of investigations previously conducted.  Collectively, these attributes help substantiate the qualifications, including  training and organizational independence, of the person selected to be an  ADA investigating officer. For the Army, we requested rosters from the 10  commands that were responsible for selecting the 39 investigating officers  who reviewed the 31 Army ADA cases. The Army commands could not  provide the rosters, nor could the Army provide documentation of how it  ensures that its investigating officers are qualified. Interviews with 3 Army  investigating officers and Army financial management and comptroller  officials and our analysis of the Army cases disclosed that the Army  appoints investigating officers based on functional specialty or work  experience. The Air Force uses a roster in selecting 5 of its 12 investigating  officers to review the 10 Air Force ADA cases, but could not provide  rosters or other documentation regarding how the remaining 7  investigating officers were selected and how their qualifications were  determined. The Navy uses a centralized roster to select its investigating  officers; however, only 7 of the 15 investigating officers assigned to the 13  closed Navy ADA cases reviewed were selected from the roster. The Navy  financial management and comptroller official responsible for the Navy’s  ADA program could not provide documentation regarding how the other 8  investigating officers were selected or why they were not selected from  the centralized roster.
The requirement to use rosters in selecting investigating officers is  intended to ensure that investigating officers are selected from a  population of predetermined qualified individuals. During our review,  Army and Navy financial management and comptroller officials  responsible for their military services’ ADA programs stated that the DOD  FMR requirement regarding the maintenance and utilization of a roster of  qualified individuals to select investigating officers was no longer required.  However, follow-up with DOD Comptroller officials responsible for the  department’s ADA program refuted the military services’ assertion. The  DOD Comptroller officials stated on several occasions that the  requirement to use a roster was still valid and not under consideration for  revision. The inconsistent manner in which the military services have  complied with this requirement raises concerns as to whether DOD or the  military services have reasonable assurance that individuals assigned to  conduct ADA reviews and investigations are qualified.
section_title: Military Services Were Unable to Provide Documentation That All Investigating Officers Are Properly Trained
paragraphs: The military services do not maintain adequate documentation that  investigating officers selected to perform ADA preliminary reviews and  formal investigations have been properly trained. Based on our review of  the closed ADA case files, the rosters, and other documentation provided  by the military services, we were only able to determine that 6 of the 66  investigating officers assigned to the 54 ADA cases reviewed had received  the required training. Our analysis of available documentation disclosed  that only 13 of the 66 investigating officers had received initial training in  fiscal law and 10 of the 13 had received required refresher fiscal law  training within 5 years of the initial training. Further, our analysis  disclosed that only 6 of the 13 investigating officers received all of the  required training, including training on how to conduct an investigation.
Training requirements for investigating officers outlined in the DOD FMR  specify the following:    a fiscal law, or equivalent, course;    a refresher fiscal law, or equivalent, course within 5 years of initial  training in interviewing, gathering evidence, developing facts,  documenting findings and recommendations, preparing reports of  violation, recommending appropriate disciplinary action, meeting time  frames established for the completion of an investigation, and  recommending corrective actions.
Once an individual completes the required training, the component is to  issue a certificate indicating that all of the required courses have been  taken, and the individual’s name is added to the roster of individuals  deemed qualified to be ADA investigating officers. To remain eligible to  conduct investigations, an individual is required to renew his/her  certificate every 5 years by attending a refresher training course.
While the training requirements for investigating officers are explicit, the  military services were not able to provide documentation that clearly  indicated that all investigating officers selected to perform the  investigations in the 54 ADA cases that were closed in fiscal years 2006  and 2007 had received the required training. Specifically, the Army does  not currently track when an investigating officer received initial or  subsequent training. As a result, we could not determine if any of the 39  investigating officers used by the Army to complete the 31 ADA cases were  properly trained. An Army Financial Management and Comptroller Office  official responsible for the Army’s ADA program stated that Army  investigating officers are required to read the Army Investigating Officer  Handbook. However, the Army official acknowledged that the Army does  not have a process or procedure for ensuring that each of its investigating  officers actually reads or receives a copy of the manual, which we  confirmed through interviews with Army investigating officers. The Army  official further stated that the Army is developing an online investigating  officer training course that will require participants to pass a test before  they can receive course credit. The Army plans to have the course online  later this calendar year.
Regarding the 12 investigating officers assigned to the 10 closed Air Force  ADA cases we reviewed, we could not determine from the rosters or ADA  case files if the investigating officers had taken a fiscal law course within  the past 5 years. An official within the Air Force’s Financial Management  and Comptroller Office responsible for the Air Force’s ADA program  stated that fiscal law is incorporated into the Air Force’s Web-based  investigating officer training. As a result, the Air Force does not require  investigating officers to take an individual fiscal law course. Air Force  investigating officers are required to include a copy of the verification of  class completion documentation as an attachment to their draft ADA  preliminary review or investigation reports. Our analysis of the 10 closed  Air Force ADA case files found that only 6 of the 12 investigating officers  provided verification that the required training had been completed. The  Air Force could not provide documentation that the remaining 6  investigating officers were trained.
With respect to the Navy, 15 investigating officers were used in the 13  closed Navy ADA cases we reviewed. Of the 15 investigating officers, the  supporting documentation provided by the Navy indicated that only 7 had  received initial training in fiscal law and 4 of the 7 had received required  refresher fiscal law training within 5 years of the initial training. In June  2008, an official within the Navy’s Financial Management and Comptroller  Office responsible for the Navy’s ADA program stated that the Navy was in  the process of developing and testing an investigating officer training  curriculum of online courses designed to provide investigative officers  with the required skills and techniques, such as interviewing witnesses and  developing facts and conclusions, as prescribed by the DOD FMR. The  Navy plans to have these courses online by the end of this calendar year.
Moreover, based on documentation provided, only 10 of the 66  investigating officers assigned to the 54 ADA cases received the required  refresher fiscal law training. The FMR does not include a requirement for  the roster to document when refresher training was needed or received.  Without up-to-date rosters or some comparable method to track the status  of training received by potential investigating officers, the military services  do not have a process to provide reasonable assurance that the  investigating officers appointed to conduct preliminary reviews and  investigations of potential ADA violations are properly trained.
section_title: Independence of Investigating Officer Is Not Ensured
paragraphs: The military services do not have an established process or procedure for  ensuring and documenting that investigating officers do not have any  personal or external impairment that would affect their independence and  objectivity in conducting ADA reviews and investigations. The DOD FMR  states that individuals with no vested interest in the outcome, and who are  capable of conducting a complete, impartial, unbiased investigation, shall  conduct investigations of potential violations. Additionally, the regulation  states that an investigating officer must be chosen from an organization  external to the organization being investigated, which the use of a roster,  as discussed earlier, is intended to facilitate.
The PCIE/ECIE publication, entitled Quality Standards for  Investigations, states that “in all matters relative to investigating work, the  investigating organization must be free, both in fact and appearance, from  impairments to independence; must be organizationally independent; and  must maintain an independent attitude.” Further, the standard for  independence places the responsibility for maintaining independence  upon agencies, investigative organizations, and investigating officers  themselves, so that judgments used in obtaining evidence, conducting  interviews, and making recommendations will be impartial and will be  viewed as impartial by knowledgeable third parties. To maintain a high  degree of integrity, objectivity, and independence, organizations should  take into account the three general classes of independence—personal,  external, and organizational. Table 2 illustrates the types of independence  impairments.
If one or more of these impairments affects or can be perceived to affect  independence, the individual selected to perform the investigation should  not be assigned to perform the work. In addition, organizations should  maintain documentation of the steps taken to identify potential personal  independence impairments.
Our analysis of the 54 ADA cases closed for the military services in fiscal  years 2006 and 2007 disclosed that the military services focused on  organizational independence as a criterion for ensuring investigating  officer independence. In 35 of the 54 ADA cases reviewed, the  investigating officers were chosen from an organization external to the  one under investigation and therefore were determined by DOD to be  organizationally independent. The remaining 19 case files lacked  documentation as to whether the investigating officers assigned to the  case were organizationally independent. Additionally, the military services  did not maintain documentation in the case files or through other means  to support that they took steps to ensure that the investigating officers  assigned to each of the 54 cases were free from personal or external  impairments that may have adversely affected their ability to conduct  independent and objective investigations.
Currently, the DOD FMR does not require documentation of an  investigating officer’s independence. Further, the military services do not  require documentation of the steps taken to ensure investigating officers’  independence or obtain written assertions regarding independence from  the investigating officers. Instead, based on our analysis of the ADA case  files and statements made by officials responsible for the military services’  ADA programs, it appeared that the military services assume that an  investigating officer is independent if he/she was selected from an  organization external to the one that incurred the potential violation. Due  to the constant rotational nature of the military, the act of selecting an  “external” individual does not by itself provide assurance that the  independence standards will be met. As a result, until the military services  document the steps taken to confirm independence, they cannot be  assured that the investigating officers who conduct ADA investigations are  independent.
section_title: DOD Lacks Assurance That ADA Cases Are Completed within Required Time Frames
paragraphs: Our analysis of the 54 ADA cases closed for the military services in fiscal  years 2006 and 2007 disclosed that the time frame for completing both the  preliminary review and formal investigation of a potential ADA violation  was generally longer than the time frame specified in the DOD FMR. While  the DOD Comptroller tracks the number and identity of overdue formal  ADA investigations and issues memorandums to DOD components to  follow up on overdue ADA reports, we found that 22 (or over 41 percent)  of the 54 closed ADA cases reviewed took longer than 30 months to  complete and only 16 of the 54 cases (or about 30 percent) were  completed within the 475 days generally required by the DOD FMR.  Including the 3 months allotted to OSD to review the final report, the Army  took an average of 33 months and the Air Force took an average of 31  months to complete preliminary reviews and formal investigations. We  were unable to ascertain the length of time the Navy took to complete its  preliminary reviews because the Navy ADA case files did not contain  complete information on the preliminary review phase of the investigation.  However, we were able to determine that the Navy took on average 17  months to complete the formal ADA investigation phase, including OSD’s  review period, for the 13 Navy ADA cases closed in fiscal years 2006 and  2007. The DOD FMR generally requires that this stage of the investigation  be completed within 12 months.
Military service officials were unable to provide specific reasons why the  established time frames were sometimes not achieved other than  indicating that each case has its own set of specific circumstances and  complexities. To attempt to identify more specific reasons why the time  frames were not met, we contacted several investigating officers who  indicated that inexperience in performing investigations and other job  demands had adversely affected their ability to meet the prescribed time  frames. They acknowledged, and DOD Comptroller and military service  financial management and comptroller officials concurred, that they were  not dedicated to the ADA investigation full-time, but were often required  to complete the investigation in addition to their regularly assigned jobs.  Without effective oversight and monitoring, neither DOD nor the military  services can be certain why a preliminary review or formal investigation is  not completed within the allotted time frame and what actions, if any,  need to be taken to ensure timely completion of the ADA preliminary  review or investigation.
section_title: DOD Has Taken Steps to Improve Transparency of Reporting, and the Nature of Disciplinary Actions Taken Is Consistent with the ADA and the DOD FMR
paragraphs: The military services provided OSD the required monthly investigation  summary information for the 54 ADA cases reviewed. Additionally, for the  34 cases for which DOD concluded that ADA violations had occurred, the  violations were reported to the President and the Congress and copies of  the reports were provided to the Comptroller General, as required by the  ADA. The remaining 20 closed ADA cases were deemed not to have been  ADA violations and therefore did not require reporting external to DOD.  Additionally, the DOD Comptroller has taken steps in recent years to  improve visibility within the department over the ADA investigation  process, including preliminary reviews and formal investigations. Further,  our analysis of the 34 ADA cases with confirmed ADA violations found  that the disciplinary actions taken by the military services were in  accordance with the criteria set forth in the DOD FMR. The ADA requires  that employees who are responsible for an ADA violation be subject to  appropriate administrative action. Within DOD, the FMR specifies that  such administrative discipline can range in severity from no action to the  termination of the individual’s federal employment. Responsibility for  determining what disciplinary action is warranted once it has been  determined that an ADA violation has occurred resides with the military  service, within established procedures for disciplining civilian and military  personnel.
subsections: section_title: DOD Is Taking Steps to Improve Transparency over the ADA Investigative Process
paragraphs: DOD reported the results of the 34 ADA cases that it concluded had an  ADA violation to the President and the Congress, with a copy of the report  to Comptroller General, as required by the ADA and OMB guidance. The  act states that reports of violations should include all relevant facts and a  statement of actions taken. OMB guidance notes that the report should  include  the title and Department of the Treasury (Treasury) symbol (including the  fiscal year) of the appropriation or fund account, the amount involved, and  the date on which the violation occurred; the name(s) and position(s) of the individual(s) responsible for the  violation;   all facts pertaining to the violation, including the type of violation, the  primary reason or cause, and any statement from the responsible  individual; the disciplinary action taken;   a statement confirming that all information has been submitted to the  Department of Justice if it is deemed that the violation was knowing and  willful;   a statement regarding the adequacy of the system of administrative control  prescribed by the head of the agency and approved by OMB and a  proposal for a regulation change, if the head of the agency determines a  change is needed;   statement of any additional action taken by, or at the discretion of, the    a statement concerning the steps taken to coordinate the report with the  other agency, if another agency is involved.
As noted above, each ADA violation case file should contain a statement  regarding additional action(s) taken as result of the violation. Of the 34  ADA violations, DOD reported taking corrective action in 33 cases. In 11 of  the 33 cases, DOD indicated that improved training of key funds control  personnel was needed. In the one case in which no corrective action was  identified, the responsible individual was relieved of command. For the 20  ADA cases in which DOD concluded that no ADA violation occurred, we  found that 13 of those cases identified corrective actions to be taken by  the DOD component. Nine of the 13 cases recommended training of key  funds control personnel as a corrective action. Although the ADA reviews  and investigations of potential ADA violations recognized the need for the  military services to provide key funds control personnel with proper  training, as we stated earlier, other than actions initiated by the Army, the  military services have not established processes and procedures for  ensuring that these important personnel are identified and properly  trained.
Required internal reporting for formal investigations is more detailed than  the reporting requirements outlined by OMB guidance for reporting ADA  violations. The DOD FMR requires DOD components to provide, on a  monthly basis, specific status information to the DOD Comptroller  regarding their ongoing formal ADA investigations. This status information  includes (1) case number, (2) status, (3) amount, (4) appropriation and  Treasury account symbol, (5) U.S. Code reference, (6) organization where  potential violation occurred, (7) location where potential violation  occurred, (8) nature of potential violation, (9) date potential violation  occurred, (10) date potential violation was discovered, (11) date  investigation began, (12) source of potential violation, (13) brief  description of potential violation(s), and (14) progress of the  investigation/other comments. Our review of the 54 military service ADA  cases closed by DOD in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 found that the military  services had complied with DOD’s internal reporting requirements.
To enhance DOD’s ability to oversee the investigation process, the DOD  Comptroller implemented an electronic “dashboard” in 2006 that contains  key metrics derived from the monthly status information reported by the  DOD components for use in monitoring the status of ongoing formal  investigations within the department. According to DOD Comptroller and  military service personnel, memos are issued to DOD components to  follow up on overdue investigations identified through the “dashboard”  metrics. The February 2008 update to the FMR also calls for status  tracking of preliminary reviews. DOD components are now required to  report information regarding the status of preliminary reviews of potential  ADA violations to the DOD Comptroller on the fifth day of each month.  While the military services have begun reporting information regarding  their preliminary reviews of potential ADA violations to the DOD  Comptroller in response to the updated FMR, as of June 17, 2008, none of  the military services had reported the full scope of information required by  the FMR. Examples of information missing from military services’ reports  regarding their preliminary reviews include (1) the means by which the  violation was discovered, (2) anticipated dates of completion, and (3) the  names and contact information for members of the preliminary review  team. The lack of complete reporting information on preliminary reviews  hinders DOD’s ability to monitor and oversee the progress of a specific  review.
section_title: Disciplinary Actions Taken Were in Accordance with the Act and DOD Guidance
paragraphs: Our analysis of the 34 ADA violations reported by DOD as being closed in  fiscal years 2006 and 2007 found that disciplinary actions taken were in  accordance with the criteria set forth in the DOD FMR and were reported  to the President and the Congress, with a copy to the Comptroller General,  as required by the ADA. The ADA requires that employees who are  responsible for an ADA violation be subject to appropriate administrative  discipline. Within DOD, the FMR specifies that such administrative  discipline can range in severity from no action to the termination of the  individual’s federal employment. Additionally, as established by laws and  regulations addressing employee discipline within DOD generally, the  specific action that is taken in each case is determined by the employee’s  commander or supervisor with the assistance of legal counsel. Table 3  illustrates the disciplinary actions taken by the military services.
An explanation of each type of discipline is provided below.
No discipline: The individual responsible received no discipline in any  form. Based on case file analysis, an individual who was identified as  responsible for the ADA violation typically did not receive any discipline if  (1) the individual had retired from federal service or (2) the investigation  concluded that while the individual was responsible for the violation,  he/she had acted in good faith and followed what he/she believed to have  been the correct policies and procedures when the violation had occurred.
Verbal discipline: The individual named responsible received verbal  discipline from supervisor. An example of this form of discipline could  include a one-on-one conversation with the individual named as  responsible and his/her immediate supervisor, including a discussion of  how to prevent future occurrences.
Nonpunitive discipline: The individual named responsible received either a  memorandum of concern or letter of counseling. An example of this form  of discipline could include a written letter of counseling by the named  individual’s immediate supervisor in conjunction with completion of  required additional training.
Formal discipline: The individual named responsible received written  reprimands, reassignment or removal, suspension, or an unfavorable  evaluation. Examples of formal discipline, based on our review of case  files, could include dismissal from federal service and removal from  current position.
We did not assess the appropriateness of disciplinary actions imposed in  any of the cases reviewed.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Given the numerous documented control risks over funds control, DOD  does not have reasonable assurance that it has prevented, identified, and  investigated all potential ADA violations. DOD’s successful completion of  modernizing its business operations, including systems, processes,  policies, and controls, is critical to helping reduce the department’s risk of  ADA violations. DOD and the military services’ stated intention to rely on  better training of key funds control personnel as an interim action for  preventing and detecting ADA violations was not supported by actions  taken at either the department or military service levels. Specifically, other  than an effort by the Army to identify funds certifying officials, the military  services had not identified key individuals within their funds control  processes and ensured that they had received training needed to fulfill  their responsibilities in preventing, identifying, and reporting potential  ADA violations. The lack of adherence at the departmental and military  service levels to the department’s established qualifications, training, and  independence requirements for investigating officers undermines the  reliability of the investigation process. Although DOD has taken steps to  improve visibility over the investigation process, additional actions are  needed to improve its ability to prevent, detect, investigate, and report on  ADA violations.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve management and oversight of preliminary reviews and formal  investigations of potential ADA violations, we recommend that the  Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)  to take the following two actions to update the department’s FMR to  require that (1) ADA case files document that the investigating officer(s)  selected to conduct a preliminary review or formal investigation is(are)  free of personal, external, and organizational impairments and (2) DOD  components maintain documentation of the date by which an investigating  officer must receive refresher training in order to remain qualified to  perform ADA reviews and investigations.
Additionally, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the  Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the  Air Force to take the following four actions: (1) implement and document  processes, procedures, and controls to identify and help ensure that key  funds control personnel, including funds certifying officials, are properly  trained so that they can fulfill their responsibilities to prevent, identify,  and report potential ADA violations; (2) implement and document  processes, procedures, and controls to oversee and monitor compliance  with DOD FMR provisions requiring the maintenance and use of a roster  for selecting qualified ADA investigating officers; (3) develop, implement,  and document policies and procedures to help ensure compliance with the  DOD FMR requirements for investigating officer training; and (4) develop,  implement, and document policies and procedures to help ensure  compliance with the DOD FMR requirements for investigating officer  independence.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We received written comments from the Acting Deputy Chief Financial  Officer, which are reprinted in appendix II. DOD concurred with our  recommendations and identified specific actions it has taken to implement  these recommendations. On September 5, 2008, the department issued a  memorandum to the Assistant Secretaries (Financial Management and  Comptroller) of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, as well as other  activities within the department, which detailed new requirements in the  areas we recommended.  The memorandum noted that the policy changes  identified, which were effective immediately, would be included in the  next update to the department's Financial Management Regulation.
More specifically, the memorandum requires DOD components to  document processes, procedures, and controls used to identify key fund  control personnel, including fund certifying officials; train those  individuals in appropriations law; validate that the individuals have  received appropriations law training within the last 5 years; or a  combination of these. The memorandum also notes that DOD components  must require that these individuals attend a refresher appropriations law  course every 5 years.
In addition, the memorandum directs DOD components to retain  documentation in each ADA case file that supports that ADA investigators  are qualified; trained; and free of personal, external, and organizational  impairments. Furthermore, these documents must be provided to the  Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Deputy  Chief Financial Officer when a formal investigation is initiated. Each DOD  component must also implement and document processes, procedures,  and controls to oversee and monitor the maintenance and use of a roster  for selecting qualified ADA investigators and establish a date by which  each investigator must receive required refresher training.
We will send copies of this report to interested congressional committees,  the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the  Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Under Secretary of Defense  (Comptroller). We will make copies available to others upon request. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http:/www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-9095 or rasconap@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine whether existing Department of Defense (DOD) funds  control systems, processes, and internal controls provide reasonable  assurance that potential Antideficiency Act (ADA) violations will be  prevented and detected, we interviewed DOD Comptroller officials and  reviewed GAO and DOD Inspector General audit reports, including  financial-related reports; performance reports; and reports specifically  related to the ADA, compliance with laws and regulations, or both.  Specifically, we reviewed prior GAO reports related to DOD business  transformation; High-Risk Series reports; and business modernization,  financial management, and problem disbursements reports. These reports  document long-standing weaknesses related to funds control, a key  element in being able to prevent or detect an ADA violation. DOD has  acknowledged the financial management weaknesses reported by GAO  and DOD auditors and the impact these weaknesses have on the reliability  of the department’s financial information. As a result, we did not perform  additional work to substantiate the condition of DOD’s financial  management environment and internal controls.
We reviewed the DOD Financial Management Regulation (FMR), Volume  14, Administrative Control of Funds and Antideficiency Act Violations,  to determine what controls and procedures had been established to help  preclude ADA violations and prevent future occurrences of violations. In  addition, we reviewed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular  No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, section  145, “Requirements for Reporting Antideficiency Act Violations.” We  interviewed DOD Comptroller and military service officials responsible for  ADA programs at DOD or the military services to identify appropriate  training for key funds control personnel and to obtain an understanding of  the processes, procedures, and controls to ensure that key funds control  personnel receive training.
To determine whether preliminary reviews and formal investigations of  ADA violations are processed in accordance with applicable DOD  regulations and criteria related to qualifications, training, independence,  and timeliness of investigations, we reviewed applicable policies,  procedures, and guidance contained in the DOD FMR. Additionally, we  reviewed the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency/Executive  Council on Integrity and Efficiency, Quality Standards for Investigations,  to obtain an understanding of qualification, independence, and due  professional care standards and criteria applicable to investigations. We  also reviewed all 54 ADA cases for the military services that were closed  by DOD for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 and available military service  rosters from which the investigating officers assigned to these cases files  were or should have been chosen, and interviewed appropriate agency  officials from the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the DOD  Comptroller’s Office responsible for ADA programs at DOD or the military  services to determine how qualifications, training, and independence are  ensured and documented. To assess investigating officers’ qualifications,  we focused our review on whether the investigating officers had received  training and if there was an internal control in place to ensure that the  investigating officers did not have any personal, external, or organizational  independence impairments to their ability to conduct an investigation. We  did not verify their fields of specialty or areas of expertise.
To determine whether DOD tracks and reports metrics on preliminary  reviews and formal investigations of ADA violations, we reviewed  applicable policies, procedures, and program guidance contained in the  DOD FMR. We also obtained and analyzed military service metrics for  preliminary reviews and formal ADA investigations to ascertain whether  the 54 ADA cases were completed within the time frames established by  the DOD FMR. We also obtained and reviewed the DOD FMR, Volume 14,  Administrative Control of Funds and Antideficiency Act Violations,  chapter 6, “Status Reports on Investigations,” to determine reporting  criteria. With respect to disciplinary actions taken, we analyzed the 34  ADA case files in which DOD had concluded that an ADA violation had  occurred to identify the disciplinary action taken. We compared the  disciplinary action documented in each case file to the criteria set forth in  the DOD FMR. We did not assess the appropriateness of the conclusions  reached by DOD for the 54 closed ADA cases or the disciplinary actions  taken in the 34 cases for which DOD concluded that an ADA violation had  occurred.
The listing of 54 closed ADA cases for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 was  obtained from the DOD Comptroller. We compared the listing of 54 closed  ADA cases to information maintained by our Office of General Counsel on  ADA cases reported to the President and the Congress, as filed with the  Comptroller General, to ascertain the completeness and accuracy of the  DOD listing. Our comparison and subsequent follow-up with the DOD  Comptroller’s Office, found that 34 of the 54 ADA cases investigated by  DOD concluded that an ADA violation had occurred and were reported as  required by law. For the remaining 20 ADA cases, DOD concluded that no  ADA violation had occurred, and therefore these cases were not reported  externally. We reviewed each case file to ensure that it contained the  information set forth in the OMB circular and the DOD FMR. We  conducted our work at the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense  (Comptroller), the Financial Management and Comptroller Offices of the  Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and 12 military service major  commands. We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 through  September 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We received  written comments from the Acting Deputy Chief Financial Officer, which  are reprinted in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, the following individuals made  key contributions to this report: Darby Smith, Assistant Director; Evelyn  Logue, Assistant Director; F. Abe Dymond, Assistant General Counsel;  Lauren Catchpole; Francine DelVecchio; Jamie Haynes; Wil Holloway;  Kristi Karls; Jason Kelly; Jason Kirwan; and Sandra Lord-Drakes.