>> i'm not aware that it's not comparable paid to dod. i'll have to look at that. >> i would appreciate that. thanks. and want to know if that's true. has the va considered offering other incentives such as loan repayment or increase pay for va providers willing to work in rural and underserved areas? >> we have not looked at that, congressman. >> that's interesting. my understanding is the rural areas, rural areas and underserved areas, is typically

-- well, we don't know enough about the investigation to know how this gaming the system sort of matches up, whether we are seeing the manipulation of wait times sort of the more prevalent in these underserved and rural areas. what additional professional opportunities could the viet offer it health care providers would recruit and retai retraine who are dedicated serving veterans? >> i think we are doing things like market day, which gives them an additional pay to the base pay. the performance pay, the contracts that they do come off like it's an additional they for us to try to meet the external payments. we will never meet it but we do try to make it more attractive. >> thank you. >> mr. runyan, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

it's really two observations and i want to say there's probably not a lot of people in the basis of all what all these discussions were having. i don't think there's a lot of people on this committee that really have much faith in a lot of the metrics that we use va wide. because i know we all go through, whether it's her health centers or our regional offices, and are totally confused by any metric they throw at us. and to be able to award performance awards off of those type of metrics are mind numbing to me. and to go back to what doctor roe really said, and i think he testified to it, you are setting out the template that the secretary setting out a template, how low is that bar really? obviously, in my past career, we

have performance incentives all the time. we had several tiers of it. we would have two categories, would be likely to be earned and unlikely to be earned, and it would actually count against the salary cap of that team. it wasn't either all in or all out. they were tiers to it. but i just wanted -- i'll in here and really don't have a question. just want to say too, to be able to have something you're going to set a bar that low, and not be able to really truly measure it, you know, incentives are great. and i don't think anybody here would agree that uniformly across the va that they are being applied equally. and you said, too. it's very subjective. the basis of it is getting the

facts. and i think we are so far away from that at this point, i really don't even have a question for you because until we fix that, having the discussion about performance incentives, you ca you can't eve the discussion because there's no basis of fact to have it on. so with that i would yield back, chairman. >> thank you very much. ms. kuster, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for your testimony before us today. i'm feeling like we're expensing what they would call in the academic world grade inflation, or what would be referred to as all of the children are above average. coming from the private sector it's hard for me to believe that 80% of employees can be either outstanding or this other category that is above and

beyond what the expectation is. and it makes me feel like the expectation is lower to replace that doesn't serve our veterans the way we had wished. but i would focus in on where we go from here and how we can fix this problem, because obviously this is a bipartisan issue. we are all concerned. fortunately this is one of the few bipartisan committees where we can work together and make a difference. my concern lies in how we can fix this situation or help the va to fix the situation. because it doesn't appear that the policies provide for a methodology to make this kind of change. and by that what i mean is that we have had some oversight, but at the end of the day it doesn't seem to change. i just want to make reference to

the vha is unable to assure that, although the identified problems, that the problems will be corrected and do not recur. this is a review of one medical center a year later found the identical problems, that you don't end up with a change. i want to focus in on, is there ever an opportunity in the system that we have now where 80% of the people get enhanced pay, is there ever an opportunity for reduction or denial of this enhanced pay? and just moving forward, now that we know what we do know, what would be the consequences to people that, frankly, were lying and cheating and stealing, both veterans health care and taxpayers hard earned dollars?

>> yes, thank you for the question. i do believe there is room for change. part of the change will come with more training of our senior executives and understanding are critical elements that are put in a performance plans in establishing very real goals. the metrics we talked about, and ensuring that our metrics are not too low. that, in fact, you must perform to reach that outstanding rating. that we pay much more attention, we have no automated the system of the performance appraisal system. i personally could not see them until they came into hard copy previously. this is the first year, it's an automated system, we will have a chance to look at all the metrics in defense. we will do a lot more training with her senior executives on what these critical elements of mean and how the performance review board need to view these metrics. i am certain -- >> what about the lack of performance? can someone lose their job?

can they get docked pay? is there any capacity in the system to take action when performance is less than stellar, which apparently it is for 80% of the people? >> yes. that is absolutely a process to do that. you can -- >> what does that entail, how someone would get fired? >> it entails proposal of removal, if we're talking about removing somebody from the federal government, that employer would have a right to respond. they get a 30 day notice period, then they can respond, say if there's any mitigating circumstances. that paper then goes to the deciding official who were taken to consider this for consideration with employee said and a decision-maker will make within 30 days a decision on the personal action to happen. depending on what the evidence is for with employee has done wrong, there is a range of things you can do to an employee. >> can i ask you, would criminal conduct be evidence of lack of

performance? >> it would be misconduct. >> and with the misconduct be sufficient for someone to lose their position for? >> if the evidence proves that through investigation, yes, that is possible. >> and how about lying to the extent that it wasn't a crime, but it was certainly harmful to veterans being able to get access to care? >> there is certainly a range of punishment, and depending on all of the details of that, it is possible they could be proposed for mobile depending again on the evidence in the details. >> thank you very much. my time has expired. >> dr. benishek, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here, ms. farrisee. dr. petzel testified in february of this year in the subcommittee

on health at six as he is implicit in involuntarily removed in the last few years. however, we try to get information as to what the details are of that and we haven't gotten that. are you a where of this? >> congressman, we did receive it yesterday. i know just receive just a but the committee did receive that from the va yesterday. >> okay. so if that's correct that six people were removed and not a single person in the ses received less than a satisfactory rating, how did that removal take place? >> removals come once they were removed they did not receive a rating so they went up show up in having received a less than satisfactory rating. so when you see numbers that show no unsatisfactory ratings, it's a little misleading because those employees than did not get followed up with a rating because --

>> so you're telling me there is actually unsatisfactory ratings but they're just not listed? >> congressman, once somebody departs, they did not -- >> that's not accurately depicting what's really going on. >> that is true, congressman. >> let me just ask you this question. this is from my briefing here. and ses employee works with her supervisor to create a performance review plan for each fiscal year. and then they rate their own performance on each critical element at the end of each fiscal year. >> yes, and then -- >> so that then is reviewed by the direct supervisor. >> by the direct supervisor, the rating official and -- >> so they rate themselves? >> they -- they put out all their accomplishments. >> right. but they rate themselves according to this, right? then that process is reviewed by the direct supervisor? >> it is.

>> and that's approved or disapproved by the direct supervisor? >> correct. >> the direct supervisor does write the review themselves. the actual employer writes the performance review and the supervisor just oks it or just allows it. is that what happens? >> the -- the portion on the appraisal, there is a self-assessment on there that is optional. so the employee can put a self-assessment in there. but the rating -- >> does that usually occur? >> in some of the ratings. not all of them. >> have you ever been involved in this process personally? >> i am just being involved in this sense of arrived at the va personally. i just finished doing my own ses appraisal plan. we are at the point of turning in our plans right now. you write -- >> i guess i don't know this. how long have you been there? >> since the timber in this role. >> so you haven't been there

direct supervisor to anyone better done their own plan your self? >> i'm just doing that now. >> you are doing your own plan, but direct supervisor? >> i am. and my deputy has provided to me his plan. we are not to the point of writing the final appraisal yet. >> do you think this is a good idea that the employee themselves write their own plan? it seems to me that would lead to an 80% percentage of people getting good results. >> i understand, but before the plan is written, there is discussion. they don't just go off and write a plan with some sort of discussion of what's reasonable and what should be considered exceptional. >> that's what you say but the process seems to indicate that the guy writes his own plan. if i did this, this and this over the next year i'll be

successful. he accomplishes that, even better, and then you get sick superior rating. this whole -- i mean, the questions that were previously brought up here in the committee, you know, tends to think there's not a real rating going on here. everybody is getting a good rating. i'm very concerned over the fact that people are writing their own review plan. it just gets checked by their supervisor, and then the numbers that you present to us aren't accurate. zero, you know, 0%, or six people removed. there's inconsistencies in your testimony. a testament of dr. petzel, it's very disturbing to me that here we are in the middle of trying to reform the va and we get inconsistent answers. and it makes us not want to trust anything that comes from you people.

>> mr. congressman, the numbers that we provide as far as the ratings are when there's actually an appraisal plan. we did not do this on the individuals who departed. that's why they don't show up in the numbers. >> well, it's very disappointing to me to get these answers from you today. i think i'm proud of time. >> thank you, dr. benishek. mamma, you said that the self if of the -- mamma you said the self if i wish it is optional. are you sure are? >> as part of the plane speed i'm looking at the performance appraisal form casino executive performance appraisal form. >> the 3482? >> yes. >> and there are rating official narratives that is -- >> i guess the only place i see

is optional is is the person is asking for a higher level review for their pay. or its optional to put a letter of input. but the other two sections, section three, senior executive self-assessment does not appear to be optional. form 3482, section three, senior executive self-assessment. describe your accomplishments, outcomes and results. i think he just told dr. benishek that was optional. >> i'm going to take that back and say i may have misspoken. can i get back with you on that? >> yes, you can. thank you very much.

ms. brown. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, ms. farrisee. so now understand you've been in this position for a short period of time. were you in human resources with the va prior to? >> i was not. i retired from the army. >> thank you. so it's been widely reported in newspapers that regional director in pittsburgh, i think, received a performance pay reward of $62,000. you are aware that? >> i am aware that. >> i'm just going to do the calculations, and i will add $62,000, median income in the county i represent is $76,000. so i just want to state that for the record, but if this employee received $62,000 a bonus, and in your testimony said that the performance they cannot exceed 20% of the base salary for and

ses employee, then if you do the math on that than the base salary is over $300,000. $300,000. >> yes. that award was because of a presidential rank award. >> and what's special about that? >> very few of those are given each year, and -- >> so that doesn't follow any of the rules that we've been talking about? >> it is not an award given by the va. >> i see. so there's -- i know this hearing is about performance by, but there's also a retention incentive pay. >> yes, congresswoman. >> and so the process for awarding retention incentives, i presume, differ from performance pay incentives. and so do you have the

information on what percentage of ses employees receive retention incentives last year? is that -- can they receive both retention day and performance they? >> they can receive both, congresswoman. we currently have 40 ses is out of the 470 some ses is the receive retention incentives. >> is there a cannot exceed percent or retention to? >> there is. 's. what is that? >> 25% of the sour per year and it can be given up to four years. >> are there other kinds of awards that we are not aware of beyond performance and retention? >> relocation incentives. if you're asking reassigning someone come you can offer a relocation incentive. and a recruitment incentive for people new joining the agency.

>> is there a cannot exceed percentagpercentag e of -- >> on all of them there is a percentage and a number of years that can be given. that is across the federal government. >> in 2010, the va did its own review. can you just describe what specific actions the va took to reform and restructure the ses a bonus structure on the result of their own internal review? >> i'll have to take that for the record, congresswoman. >> similarly, a gao report in 2013, and i wanted to know what specific action has the va taken to improve the performance a policy sense that was issued? >> we updated our handbook that was missing some very key points that the gao pointed out, we put

out an updated handbook in march to include everything they asked us to include. >> can you describe some of those elements of? >> one of the elements was not meeting a 90 day time frame in which you would counsel and talk about this performance pay. it would have to put in the plan and be done with a 90 days. we did not have the time frame in the handbook. things were not being done according to policy. >> and finally have you as the assistant secretary for human resources and administration, and given the situation that we're in currently, have you been able to assess the ig's ability to investigate this just in terms of personnel and human resources? and do you believe that they have enough resources to do this to? >> congresswoman, i cannot personally assess it, but i have heard the ig in testimony say

that he has enough resources to do this. >> but you don't do that as a practice to review the resources of? >> not the igs, no, ma'am. >> thank you. i yield back. >> dr. witt strip, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have some questions concerning the hold evaluation system. and i guess i would like to compared to have the military does it for officers. you can do a support order to fill out a support forum for yourself years. talk about what your goals work with you, whatever the case may be. so as i understand, that would be part of the process. >> it is. >> currently. through the process with the military you do have meetings periodically with your radar to the are you achieving those goals. and also give the reader the opportunity and other goals that you may want to put in there. does that take place of? >> that is correct.

>> do you think that there's a point in time where the person is just pretty much writing their own you violation, sending in electronically and maybe the rater issues cutting and pasting and putting in there and sending it off approved? do you think that happens within the system? i know you haven't been there very long. >> i haven't i cannot comment whether that does or doesn't happen. >> that would be a concern of mine that this is kind of a network, why don't you just fill it out, send it along to me in we will be okay. i'm also wondering how much the va's core values come into play when it comes to evaluation. can you tell everyone what those core values are? >> we have core values. i care, our integrity commitment, advocacy, expect and excellence. that is a part of our performance appraisal plan. >> is there a part in there were the rater can take those values and comment on those values on that person? >> yes, there is.

>> it seems to me that for some of the people, especially the part on integrity, really fell short. and yet some people got their performance payment. would that be correct? >> congressman, at the time it was written we may not have understood there was an integrity problem. if it were to be written right now once the investigation is complete, i would expect to see that. >> i was just trying to understand your process more. i think you and i yield back. >> thank you, congressman. >> thank you, mr. chairman punishing. thank you for being here. we know based on delayed data released that 46,400 veterans who enrolled into the health system in the past 10 years haven't received appointments and that more than 86,200 veterans have been waiting more than 90 days for the first appointment at the va medical

facility. unconscionably senior executives who oversaw health care facilities with manipulated data were awarded bonuses based in part on faulty wait times. and as doctor winstead said, clearly demonstrating a lack of integrity, as an emergency physician i'm appalled by the thought of the officials covering up the fact that they are not providing much-needed medical care to our veterans and still obtaining bonuses. so in an effort to get to the bottom of this reprehensible behavior and ensure these executives are held responsible i would like to know, in what year bonuses started being tied to scheduling metrics. >> i'll have to take that one for the record. >> it's important to know because if you can clearly see the difference between free bonus and post a bonus, and things don't move very fast in the va. including behaviors and performances will be very important to determine which

facilities had those drastic changes. also, spoke to some of my veterans back on. there's a veteran, major bill young, very well-respected man, good human being. peace in line with a veteran centered approach was absolutely agree with. his question is, are there any bonuses based on patient satisfaction feedback? >> i'll have to take that for the record to see if that is a metric in any of the appraisals. >> okay. i think that there's -- we need a very drastic cultural change so that when the question is asked again, it should be in the top three answers as to what our va personnel are measured against. number one, two and three, a patient-centered, patient feedback bonus, okay? and has been being any analysis of the effect of bonuses on scheduling metrics?

>> there has not been analysis to this point. >> okay. what was the exact criteria for awarding these bonuses regarding scheduling metrics? >> the scheduling metric, to my understanding, was to the schedule within 14 day time period. >> okay. and you know, i think my closing comments here, and we were talking of bonuses, you know, my father worked in the fields. hard manual labor. he was a mechanic, a truck driver. he did whatever it took to put food on my table and to pay for our education. something you didn't have. and he taught me the value of an honest days work. and he said whatever you do in life, just work hard, be the best at it. and honesty and integrity are the values of this country. and those are the values that america was founded on.

and lying to get a bonus flies in the face of our values as americans. and i think that we really need to have some introspection within the va system to come back to those root values that make this country great. thank you and i yield back my time. >> thank you very much, doctor. mr. cook, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. there's been some conversation about once the evaluation report is written, that you cannot undo that. can't you have a supplemental or special fitness report per se based upon certain circumstances under someone's watch? watching? >> i'm not aware of doing one in addition to the annual appraisal. >> so if something like this happens that shows the character or unsatisfactory performance, there's nothing that goes in the jacket of that individual that

gets these bonuses or what have you? >> that would be included in their current year of brazile -- >> no, no. i'm talking about because of what happened, things that happen on their watch but they get a special extra port based upon unsatisfactory performance. no? okay. i just want to go on, a couple of things here. we had a number of veterans testified -- i don't know, maybe six weeks, ma and i asked them basically i was using the comparison of the military being, you know, fully combat ready or non-combat ready. i used it analogous to the va and everybody was here, and across the board everybody went down the line and basically said, they are not mission capable which, everyone here i think has that same agreement. but it seems as though -- and we talked about mission performance standards but we don't apply

them. we are not taking care of veterans. that is the bottom line. we're talking about all these intangibles and we're not doing the job we are supposed to do. i want to ask you, have you ever heard the term truth teller? >> truth -- >> keller. truth teller. the military alleys in the marine corps, you had great create, everybody is outstanding. you write your own evaluation report. you love yourself, blah, blah, blah, bought. but truth teller takes everybody that's in the same rank, who ever is writing the evaluation and you have to list them one, two, three, four by because everybody is outstanding. everybody here is outstanding but some people are better than others. that evaluated has to do that. i don't see that happening. i think you need to shoot is going to get everybody bonuses being housed in an e-rate of the outstanding. let me ask you a question and be

a part of the term bennie sugg? >> i have been. bennie sugg, idaho, i guess if you been around a long time, bennie sugg meant beneficial suggestion. it was in at least the marine corps i thought it was in the army, it's a beneficial suggestion where you might get a promotion. you might get a bonus, and the suggestion normally from one of the troops who knows what's going on, hey, ma the scheduling system is all screwed up for the following reasons, and they should be changed. blah, blah, blah, loblaw. instead of giving ratings, everybody's outstanding, i think you want to look at this where the people that deal with his have an incentive to change it. instead of an automated bonus if you will, that quite frankly when you do that i think it makes it ridiculous when a lot of people in this room, even the

veterans themselves, thinks that the veterans administration is not performing the services that they are supposed to. i got a -- let's see. going into some of the other things i had in mind. you talked about core values and everything else. in the evaluation system, going back to mission performance standards, about taking care of the veterans. is that part or spelled out, is that the bottom line on the evaluation? you know, because integrity is open to interpretation. but this is a yes or no. is this organization or your organization fully capable of taking care of veterans? and have they done that? is the part of the evaluation system or the evaluative process? >> not stated in the board but

it is part of the process spent it's not stated -- >> in the exact word you said but our mission is to take care of veterans. >> who do you think that's got to be reinforced over and over again? because right now from a cultural standpoint, it doesn't seem to be happening. you go back down there, you start with the premise. it's like we talked a lot about taking care of veterans, taking care of people on the battlefield, a band of brothers, and that's sisters, et cetera. that's what holds the military and the veterans together. >> i believe the majority of our employees do for our veterans. >> i yield back. >> thank you very much. mr. o'rourke for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to start by continued the line of questioning begun by doctor rowe and mr. takano and others, and look at the local vha is a little at the hospital or the clinic, and something

other are concerned about provider shortage and what it will take to attract and retain the best talent possible to serve the veterans that we represent. and so i'd like to understand how salaries and incentives are set for the providers that, the doctors, psychiatrists and nurses, nurse practitioners and others are to provide the care to our veterans. >> it is a complex process of calculation on market day so that we can look at what the national pay is, and that is used in calculating what we recommend for me. it's and addition to a base pay. if we're talking but sas, talk about title v. there's no addition to any other base pay. our title 38, physicians and tenses, will receive in addition to the base pay, this market day which must do these calculations to come and then also they can

receive a performance pay that has nothing to do with an award of performance but it is a contract and objectives that they must meet in order to receive that performance by. >> and so apart from the formulas and calculations, does the local vha director have discretion to deviate from those formulas to attract or retain somebody in the committee's? >> they can request improvement incentives and they can request relocation incentives or retention incentive. if someone have on board that the want to keep the can request those type of incentives. >> is there any -- i want to make sure i'm using the right words. we don't use bonus, but any incentive offered to a vha director for returning money back to the va for coming in annually under budget or not spending a certain amount or over a certain amount in a certain category? >> there is i would say not an

incentive. incentive. >> so no part of a vha director's performance incentive is based on how they perform financial? >> they would need to stay within budget, absolutely spent there's a penalty for going over but no reward for coming under? >> not that i'm aware of. >> one of the things we're trying to figure out in el paso, brought this up repeal it at this committee, we have a mental health care crisis. one that was confirmed by the vha audit released last week the show that we are the worst in the country for setting an appointment for an existing veteran patient within the va for mental health care. fourth worst for new patients. second worst for specialty care. and for those of us in el paso, it's not a surprise. we've known it for a while. what we've been told as providers and others within the va in el paso in division 18 that we are in can start to come to office, in many cases anonymously, is a deep concern

that the directorate is not providing those discretionary incentives to attract and retain people. so if we have these terrible performance measures in terms of being able to connect a veteran with an appointment, if we have a provider shortage that was 19 and a half full-time employees when i started a year and half ago, it was 13 and a half as a last month. i'm wondering how we can provide greater incentives or leverage or discretion to the local director to bonus or incentive providers to get them or keep them in the first place. any thoughts on how you might be able to do that, how the administration might be able to do that, or how we are between your interested in this my proposed if we need to change legislation to do this? >> i would need to know what incentives they have already attempted to you if they have or

if there's anything we can do to help them look at those incentives. >> we, again, had an acute issue, have an acute issue it comes to providing mental health care at the el paso va. we were told by an anonymous source that into we really start to push on the director, he had not once deviated from the formula recommendation for what you pay someone to practice medicine at the va in el paso. it was only through our pressure that there was this one deviation that ended up in hiring a much-needed psychiatrist to el paso. it's very hard to get direct answers from the local vha even through the administration as we've seen. i look forward to following up with you to find out what those forms are, how we improve them, change them, what discretion there is and how we hold people accountable for the performance, given discretion power they already have. ideal back. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

you talk in your opening statement about stringent controls, clear standards. on th these performance awards. in your opinion what happened? >> on the awards? >> on the performance awards. how did we go from your opening statement of stringent controls and clear standards, and end up over here with this massive amount of money and the revelation of presidential awards and all these other awards, 20 and 25% of income, 80% among people who received them. was there any red flag, i'm we've only been there since september but when you came in just over the past several months, as you look at the structure was there any red flags or alarms or inklings our gut feelings or anything that says, wow, this is a lot of money? anything to set up a red flag in your mind that something is really, really wrong? because it seems like it got away from the stringent controls

and clear standards. standards. >> what i said in my opening remarks was we needed to have precise and stringent and clear standards but i feel that is what we need to do from here forward. i think we do need more stringent and precise written performance plans so that -- >> my question is, were you aware of that prior to this whole blog in the va, that there was something out of line with a performance bonuses and that's what you need the stringent controls and a clear standards? >> no. it was because prejudicial we did not have an automated system so you could not see these independence. having the opportunity to see these in advance and be able to look at these across the board prior to the end of the year i thought would allow us to have a better look, a more precise easy if we do have the correct metrics if the writings of income spent eight presidential we were doesn't come out of the va budget. whose budget is to come out of? >> i'm not sure. i'll come back to you on that. >> so is there an allotment of

money? do we know how many employees we have that received the presidential awards? >> very few but i will get to that number. it's a minimum amount across the federal government. >> could you also been give me for the state of indiana a list of all the ses level employees and for the past five years what their performance bonuses have been as will? >> i will gather that information and if it is useful absolutely we will release it to you. >> do you know how long it will take you to get that? ballpark. >> a couple weeks. >> okay. so as you look at this, as we move forward and look at this whole question, i echo dr. ruiz's question about when these incentives start the when was this thing tied to the majors of deployment times, and also i'm just sure he's going at this, and i heard i think in some of the news reports that this is old been in effect for a couple of years. we would look at like a place like phoenix where over the last

three years since been something like $10 million in bonuses, i'm trying to get my arms around why they didn't send signals or red flags somewhere in the system of the performance bonuses. it's such an inordinate amount of money even for just one place where this whole thing started with the investigation. it's unbelievable the amount of money that's gone into the system. >> i'm not confirm that amount that's been in phoenix i have to go back and confirm that. >> and then also when you send the information on the presidential bonuses, what i wanted to know is what budget comes from, is there a cap on how much money comes from a presidential bonus? how many people received it for years to to get? the details of that. appreciated. i yield back my time. >> ms. farrisee, i appreciate your legal answer if it's releasable, you will get it to ms. morse tea. let's make a deal but if you don't, we will subpoena it. >> i understand. >> thank you very much.

ms. titus for five minutes. >> i just want to echo some of the comments of oregon made by my colleagues and the concern about performance awards going to people who may or may not have earned him but i think it was the chairman pointed out earlier that the director of vsm 21 which oversees part of nevada turned out had put false information on a resume where she'd gone to school or she had gone to school but she goes all the way through the ranks to be the director of that? that's an enormous task overseeing tens of thousands of veterans that stretches all the way from guam to renew. i wonder if you could tell us how you verify people's resumes or when the file applications, how to look to be sure that this wouldn't happen again? this woman also received these bonuses as she moved up the letter but i think she out to

get some of them back now but could you address that issue for a? >> congresswoman, when we receive resumes we call references. we do background checks. i have just heard of this result is weeks i've not had opportunity to look into that matter. >> well, when you look into it would you get back to a? >> yes. >> just kind of along the same lines, the regional office in reno search all of veterans of las vegas which is where most of the veterans are in the state, let the office is in we know. i'm just wondering if given the fact that that was -- i think it was the fifth worst but one of the worst in the country for the backlog, backlogs there took over 500 days. the way you reduce the backlog there was broken out over half of the cases to other places around the country. you fire 25 in new people,

finally as we been harping about this for a year and a half. those are now in southern nevada but they are overseeing over the telephone by somebody who is still in reno. this person's head a number of problems, surely this is not a record of success. can you tell me if there's anybody in the arena office he was gotten any of these performance bonuses over the last couple of years? >> i will have to get back to you on that, congresswoman. >> okay. also recruitment incentives. i'd like to find out if they've gotten any of those incentives in addition to the bonus, and what you get back to me on the? >> yes, i will. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> mr. coffman for five minutes. >> i thank you for being here before this committee here today, and if i understand correctly your kind of oversees the personnel system within the department of veterans affairs, and as part of that is this

performance-based system or the bonus system. am i correct in that? the? >> you are correct. >> could you tell me how this bonus pay system works? for veterans winner serving on active duty, can you tell me how that process works for them? >> some active duty soldiers receive bonuses based on the specialty, but the majority of active duty soldiers don't receive bonuses. >> but on performance can you tell me how the bonus structure works for performance for active duty military? >> there is no performance. >> that's correct. can you tell me about your own military service? >> i spent 34 years in the army. >> that's amazing that you would serve this country in uniform, and yet you would be so tolerant to how this department treats our veterans. i think is just absolutely extraordinary. that how can somebody go from the united states army to this

environment and yet not take the values from the united states army into serving our nation's veterans? i think it's just absolutely extraordinary. and so as you know, certainly bonuses, if we do call them that, are based strictly on occupational specialties. when people perform in the military, they are rewarded through promotion. they are rewarded through various awards, but they are not financially driven. as they are in this department, which you seem to defend this extraordinary system. it seems to be the only thing that the department of veterans affairs is effective at doing is writing bonus checks to each other. those that are in leadership. i just think that it's done. certainly not serving our veterans. not providing a claims process

that is at all expedient. not providing the health care that they have earned. you know, certainly fudging way times to get these bonuses in which you don't seem to want to come down on these people for doing. you ought to be outraged. you ought to be outraged. at the man that these veterans are treated. based on the on background you ought to be outraged, but you're not. it's all status quo do. it's all all things are good, maybe they could be a little bit better but things are good. things are not good. this is the most mismanaged agency in the federal government yet it is entrusted with honoring our commitment to those men and women that make extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of this country. i've got to tell the, i think we be better served as a nation when you working outside of the veterans administration and not inside the veterans administration. mr. chairman, i yield back.

>> mr. jolly, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as the assistant secretary of human resource i'm sure much of the conversation today is not a case of first impressions. the conversations about metrics and what are appropriate metrics and how they are reviewed. i resume there's been many conversations within the department already in the wake of the crisis about how performance awards are distributed and based upon which metrics. is that an accurate assumption? >> so much so that the acting secretary has already said there will be no towards for vha. >> so within those discussions or based on your knowledge and even if it's not factual and even if it's hearsay, are you aware of any metric that's been included in any executives of bonus or performance award system reducing the incidence of

non-va care at a facility? >> i am not aware to my knowledge that if we written metrics at this point other than taking out the 14 day -- >> i don't mean rewritten. from existing bonus plans and identify metrics from 2010, 2013, whatever, or generally. are you aware of any metric that's been used to award a bonus based on reducing the incidence of referral to non-va care? >> i'm not. i'll have to get back to you on that. >> is it something that could be looked at to see if -- >> it certainly can be looked at. >> to document it for the record, if i were to send the letter would it be appropriate to send it to you? >> yes, congressman. >> i think mr. o'rourke asked the question about reducing costs. that's not a metric that you're aware of either? >> it's just that i'm not aware of it doesn't mean it's not there. >> i understand that the last

question is this, and maybe you can clarify it a little bit, but you referred to almost an extension of the review process, an additional layer of review that's been building. you've been there since september so maybe it's just a question about your impression. this really isn't a be a question but we often are asked, i ask the question all the time. i know a number of constituents do. how does government gets a big? it seems like there's an awful lot of money being spent on a very dense bureaucratic process to ultimately come out of the back end and provide these performance awards. can we do better? is there a better way to streamline this? can we reduce employees actually assigned to that bonus process? i mean, just based on what you said and maybe can clarify it, it seems there is a lot of bureaucratic infrastructure behind the process of determining what metrics need to

be met and evaluating those metrics, which at the end of the day as we part 1000 times everybody is on the right side of the curve and everybody is determined to be above average. can we save money? >> congressman, i concur it is worth streamline this process. >> you know if the active secretary is working on the? >> avastin i don't think that's where his attention is that we will definitely discuss it. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you very much. mr. hill's camp for five minutes. >> appreciate you being here today, madam secretary. don't you think retaining one's sellers is enough incentive for an mcs employee to do their job? >> that would be my personal opinion but i cannot tell you how everybody feels. i just joined the ranks of the civilian plan. >> and you're here to answer those questions about that. now, the announcement, can you

describe again, about these ses bonuses in the future? how will they be handled, suspended, deferred? >> the acting secretary has suspended any awards for 2014 for our sess in our veterans health administration. >> so you also state that they are critical to retention and performance but does that mean you'll lose employees and performance will go down with this announcement? >> there is always that probability. >> do you think that will happen? >> we did that last year with our veterans benefits administration. i do not think we lost a lot of people because of that. >> okay. you also made reference earlier to a deferred list on bonuses. can you describe that they can? i didn't understand it. >> at the end of every of which the appraisals are complete, we ensure that we do a check with the ig, with eeo, to ensure that

we don't have any of our sess who are on will be considered a bad list to a are under investigation, is anything possible to robert roper the ig provided us a list of 13 games. we then the further rating. so they receive an appraisal performance, and so they have a rating. but that rating is held until such time as the investigation is complete and then i will go to the secretary to receive the results of the investigation, to see the original rating the employee receive and make a determination is that rating should be changed based on the results of the investigation. >> i think i speak for most of my constituents as well, until the veterans waiting list is shorter than the deferred bonus list, probably no reason to move forward on the bonus. may 7, 2013, mr. glenn hegstrom was before the committee, a gentleman in charge of overseeing construction projects which i think we determined the

committee and had a massive failures, massive cost overruns to the bonus is you came up with him. i asked him a lot of questions. i asked him exactly why did he get the bosses? massive bonuses for three years. he said he had no idea. he had no idea. how is there a connection between performance when shazam, the bonus of just shows up and a paycheck? are their personal visits every time between the immediate supervisor and folks like glenn hagstrom, or is it simply paperwork? >> there should be a personal visit. i cannot confirm that there is. they should've seen the rating and understand that the rating that they received is what is tied to the award amount. depending on your ratings depends on what percentage of an award he received. that rating is based on their performance. >> according to his testimony on may 7, 2013, there was no such a

visit, no such communication and no connection obviously between performance and retention and is pretty significant bonuses. is that required in the rules and regulations that there's an actual meeting? >> i do not believe in beating is required. >> no required reading. exactly how does this improve performance? and no understanding of that. i mean, i presume, you've only been there nine months and most of these, i guess there was end of year evaluation for most of these folks. so you can do that with your folks immediately below you, rights to? no. they were just receiving their final evaluation when i arrived. >> major evaluation? >> right now, yes, congressman speck so the december if i wish i understood, you didn't go through the december evaluations? who did those?

>> we do major about now in the last 30 days. it's not in december. >> end of the year is december. what did you do during the evaluations? did you meet with the folks who work for you? >> that's happening now. >> well, midyear is usually how -- you went through this in december though, correct? that i came in september spent but the in december we're just completing our performance review committees and performance review boards for the end of 2013 fiscal year spent so you do those in june major and then there's just once a year? >> the mid, just one major but you can council and discuss -- >> at the end of the year? >> september 30. >> okay. so your predecessor went through that. >> correct. >> your predecessor was how long in the position? >> i think he was there a little

over a year. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you very much, thank you, everybody, for being here today. i have two quick questions, if you would. yesterday after requests being made at three separate hearings by members of this committee, multiple staff request, va did finally provide a limited information on the six members of the ses who were supposedly fired last year. subsequent to this information the staff has requested a briefing on that there can ever commitment that that rating can take place within the week, within a week? >> yes, mr. chairman. next week we will have the briefing. briefing. >> and as the senior h.r. official at va, can you tell this committee if you think that susan bowers should have given thewhat we know now, should have given ms. zelman a fully

successful or higher review for last year? >> not if she knew what we know now. >> given that the review ms. bowers gave of ms. helmand was not a true indication of her performance from would've been your recommendation that the review given of ms. bowers should also be reevaluated and any bonus she has received rescinded? >> ms. bauer is retired. >> there's no way to go back after they retire? this is another one of the disciplinary actions that va takes that allows people to steal their benefits and not have anything taken back. >> thank you it was her right to retire. >> okay. any other questions? >> thank you, mr. chairman. ask unanimous consent that ms. kirkpatrick's statements be entered into the record as well as association letter that we received on april 19, or

june 19. >> without objection. >> thank you spent thank you, everyone for being with sure today. thank you, ms. farrisee, for being here today. this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> and f. on transparency and freedom of information, and i think my colleagues in journalism would get a similar grade whether they are liberal or conservative. the freedom of information process has become a joke but it was already well on its way prior to the obama administration but this administration has perfected the stall, the delay, the redaction, the excuses. and really it's shocking because i feel very strongly information that they withhold and protect many times belongs to the public. we own it but there's no sense of that when you ask for it. they covet it as if you are a

private corporation defending their trade secrets rather than understanding that what they hold this information on our behalf. >> investigative reporter should sharyl attkisson on the changing face of network news and her crew sunday night at eight on c-span's q&a. spent you are watching c-span2 2 -- television for serious readers. here are a few of the programs to watch for on booktv this weekend. ..