just described by the chairman or was there someone above him who had some authority and to whom he reported on matters of the kind that have just been described? >> at -- >> can i clarify mrs. norton's point? they asked for legal opinion on the bicycles, correct? >> only. >> yes, they did. >> and what was the legal opinion? >> the legal opinion was if the charity maintained the bicycles it would not be a disposal of federal property. >> it was that in writing? >> no, it was not in writing. >> is it normally in writing? >> yes, it is. the regional commissioner requested that it not be in writing to avoid any obligation under foia. >> is that in writing? >> i believe we have some evidence of that. i'm not sure if it's a direct writing or not. but we do have evidence of that. >> they tried to cover it up after they made the request?

>> well, he requested that it not be in writing. >> thank you. sorry. >> so the council himself didn't want his opinion in writing. what i'm trying to establish, who was the operating officer who was in charge of this conference and whether he in fact had to report what happened in the conference or had to ask for any permission or whether he was an island unto himself who had control in region 9 over the matters that we have just heard about. >> what we found in our investigation was that the regional commissioner essentially controlled everything and that he was the final say-so, he was acting regional administrator at the time. there was little oversight or

supervision by central office. and as a practical matter the regional commissioner decided -- >> well, i'm going to have questions for mr. tangherlini and miss johnson about the structure of gsa, which are troubling in this regard. i'd like to ask mr. peck a question. mr. peck, there are many who have come to your defense. i have known you in this administration and a prior administrati administration. and so it's unusual for people to publicly speak well of someone who has had -- has encountered what you have, been discharged by the president. do you understand why the president took out the top of the agency, and do you believe that that was the right thing to do and the fair thing to do? >> i understand why he did it. and as i said in my testimony, it was on my watch.

i was brought up in a military family. i was an army officer. and i subscribe to the axiom that someone in charge is responsible for everything their organization does or fails to do. >> yeah, i just want that on the record. the way in which -- normally in this country it doesn't operate the way it does in parliamentary democracies, where the top resigns somehow in our country often only people who have hands-on but not direct authority are the ones held culpable. so i can understand the feelings for you. but in line -- in light of how structures should be structured in this country, i understand your response. there's a question, mr. peck, about the letter of reprimand for mr. neeley. we just heard that mr. neeley

was essentially an island unto himself. you didn't know anything about him. but when it became known, you believed he deserved only a letter of reprimand. i mean, he may be facing termination now. he may be facing criminal charges. what made you believe that what is one of the lightest forms of penalty, given his large responsibility, regional administrator, and commissioner, that a letter of reprimand was all that should take place here? especially when you say you understand why the president would fire you and other top officials, because of the responsibility that the top must have for what goes on. and those charged with those charged to him. >> mr. peck, i'll allow you to answer, but i'd ask you to be brief.

>> yes, sir. i believe it was the appropriate response at that time. the i.g. investigation was ongoing. it was under my impression. and i think i've seen documentation since that the i.g. was asking us not to take disciplinary action against anyone involved in this until -- >> do not take any personnel action. and that's a personnel action, isn't it? >> the letter? >> yeah. >> well, i'm not sure the letter was actually sent. there was a great deal of conversation about what we could and could not do at that time given what we knew about mr. neeley. the other thing i'll just note is that a lot more facts have come out since about what happened at that conference. but we certainly -- >> you still believe he deserved only a letter of reprimand? >> not based on what i know now. >> no, at the time. what you knew about the conference. you think deserved no more than a letter of reprimand? >> at the time we took it into account, i took it into account in his rating.

i spoke to him p. i spoke to the other regional commissioners about conferences. i took other actions at that time given what we knew about what ha happened at the conference. particularly with respect to him. and we donate know a lot of other things about his travel expenditures, other things. we thought that that was an appropriate response. at that time it was kind of like a shot across the bow rather than -- >> thank you, mr. peck. chairman mica, before we do, in consulting -- we're three minutes over. in consulting with democrats in a bipartisan fashion, we have made the determination that miss daniels, after receiving transcript over the last 48 hours, it is in our judgment on a bipartisan level that we will excuse you at this time. i would advise you as chairman of this committee you ought to seek legal counsel. you're dismissed.

chairman mica. >> thank you. first of all, miss doone, an expenditure that rises about 300% for the public buildings commissioner's expenditures from 2.9 million to 9 million, did that raise any -- does that raise any flags to you? a 300% increase. actually, it's in about two years. because it was about 3.2 in 2009. >> i'm sure -- i'm not sure what number you're referring to. >> the expenditures for the public building commissioner's operations is administrative and personnel costs. does that raise any flags? or are you aware of a request

that i've had and our committee's had in? we sent it to david foley on december 7th, 2011, to give us a breakdown of administrative costs. >> i was not aware of that request, and i only became aware of it as the public building services came close to finalizing its response. >> we've been trying to get this information since last year. so you're the chief financial officer. and of course, in my opening statement i described what was sent to us. and we see why there wasn't much detail sent to us now. mr. miller -- well, first of all, susan brita, you asked -- this conference took place in october 2010. in november, shortly thereafter, you asked for an u.g. review, is that correct? >> correct. >> and it looks like a preliminary briefing was not

done until may of 2011. all this was not made public until a few weeks ago, mr. miller. what took so long between briefing administrator johnson and miss brita in may 2011? >> chairman mica, we investigated a number of individuals. we interviewed individuals. we turned over every stone. and every time we turned over a stone we found 50 more with all sorts of things crawling out from under -- >> but you never published a report. but in june, after providing that briefing to miss brita and administrator johnson, you -- somehow the gsa chief, mr. robinson -- michael robinson yesterday, who was before the ogr committee, informed kimberly

harris, the white house counsel, about the investigation going on. were you aware of that? >> i was not aware of that. >> you were not aware of it. it was interesting that back in may you advised administrator johnson to get a handle on the regional commissioner neeley's -- this is may of 2011. on rc's travel. the regional commissioner neeley's travel. is that correct? >> chairman mica, i did brief administrator johnson on the interim report -- >> but did you tell them to get a handle on his travel expenditures? >> i told the regional administrator to get a handle on his travel in august of 2011 -- >> so you told him. >> i told her. it's ruth cox. >> okay. ruth cox. okay. and then we have a trip to hawaii. we have another trip by neeley

to hawaii in october. another trip to atlanta. another warning. susan brita warned i guess you about an upcoming 17-day south pacific junket head by neeley? >> actually, chairman mica, we were so concerned about it we contacted ms. brita, the deputy administrator. >> you contacted her. >> and said do you know that this travel is going on? >> and you notified the regional administrator ruth cox about the upcoming junket and expressed concern, right? >> i did. >> and what happened? >> i expressed concern and asked her to review the plans, made sure -- >> and that called it off, didn't it? no. so they went on that junket. then another one down at point california. the hawaii, guam, saipan trip

with staff. another trip to atlanta. four-day site visit to hawaii. and then i guess one -- where's napa? this off-site trip to napa. is that california? you've got to go to the wine region. well, i see why mr. neeley is with us today and the only pictures i can get of him are in his hot tub suite. but i thank you, miss brita, for your coming forward and for your trying to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars. yield back. >> thank you, chairman mica. mr. michaud. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and ranking member for having this very important hearing today. needless to say i was appalled when i first heard about some of the things that gsa administration had charged to

the taxpayers for their conference. this congress has had its share of disagreements over the past on how to reduce the federal spending and how to address the deficit issue. however, i think that we all can agree on that there's no place for this type of taxpayer's abuse of funds. the employees that put together this conference forgot that the federal government is supposed to work on behalf of the taxpayers, families, and small businesses throughout maine should have -- not have to pay for employees of gsa to take lavish vacations in las vegas or anywhere else throughout the country. and i hope that we can get the information that we need here today to make sure this does not happen again. additionally, i plan to offer an amendment to the financial

service and general government appropriations bill to prevent gsa from holding this type of conference in the future. but this is just extremely disturbing. i do want to commend miss brita for what you have done and are going to do hopefully with the agency. i guess my question is for the inspector general and miss brita both, is since this has been brought to light in the public's attention what has been done or will be done in the future to make sure that this does not happen again and for the inspector general, mr. miller, has the i.g. 4r50kd at other agencies that you're aware of for a similar type of abuse that might have occurred or is occurring. >> we are currently looking at all the conferences in region 9.

and we're looking at conferences in general. >> just region 9? >> no. well, we're focusing on region 9 right now. but we are generally looking at conferences. we are receiving a number of hotlines, as you can imagine, about other conferences throughout the country. >> mr. michaud, acting administrator tangherlini has agreed to do a complete top to bottom review of the agency, management structure, reporting lines, centralization versus decentralization, and with an eye to improving the management and overall service delivery of the agency. >> is the acting director also looking at making sure that the federal government's reimbursed -- >> yes, sir. he's already taken action in that regard. three letters were sent out, and additional letters will be

forthcoming. yes. >> and mr. miller, what do you expect, or what should congress do to make sure that this doesn't happen again? not only with gsa but other agencies when you look at these type of conferences. >> i think supporting i.g.s is something that helps. we have to investigate these frauds and abuses and waste. unfortunately, you cannot legislate good judgment. you can't legislate good management. and so i think one of the things you can do is strengthen inspectors general in all the agencies. >> now, as far as gsa, are you under staff in the inspector general's office for gsa, wand how many vacancies do you currently have? >> i'll leave that to the judgment of the appropriators. we currently have 70 special

agents. they are the ones that actually interview witnesses. and i think you've read some transcripts with our special agents on there. we have forensic auditors that are trying to find all of the funds that are charged to purchase cards as part of this conference, charged to building operations funds, just trying to trace the money. so we do have forensic auditors. we have auditors. currently, we're under our fte level and not hiring due to appropriations problems. >> could you submit to the committee the number of vacancies you currently have? >> i would be happy to. >> thank you. that's the end of my time. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> vice chair of the committee, mr. crawford. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. peck, what were your impressions of the $30,000 pool party awards ceremony where you were given an award for your work on the stimulus program? >> mr. crawford, there was a

reception i think the afternoon i got there. it was outdoors at the hotel. i wasn't aware of what it cost until reminded by the investigator, i didn't remember what the food was because i don't think i ate very much of it. but i -- nor was i aware that there might have been an awards ceremony there to justify food expenses. that's not something i would have thought of. not a rule i believe i was familiar with. i saw it as part of a hotel package i had seen both in private and public sectors before, that those kinds of receptions were provided as part of a hotel package. so i thought at the end of the day not knowing the expense, i didn't think it was out of the ordinary. may i say one thing about the awards? >> sure. >> i want to say if i have ab opportunity i'd like to say something about coins.

when i left the government in 2001, federal agencies did not give out coins. when i came back in 2001 this fad had apparently ephfield from the military, where civilian agencies had coins. everywhere i went somebody gave me a coin from their agency. there had been a coin minted for the commissioner office of the public building service. when i was asked. when i was told we were running out and we had to order more they told me how much they cost. they said $10 apiece. i said we don't need coins, i can give someone an atta boy or a paper certificate. i was concerned when i saw the coins. i will say that. >> we'll get back to that in a minute. i'm going to ask that they puppet the slide of your suite. when you arrived at your two-story, 2,400-square-foot suite, what was your impression? >> that it was ludicrously large and kind of like you'd see in las vegas. and i also, as i noted in my testimony, immediately asked

what the charge was for the suite and whether there was an extra charge for it. >> i have an e-mail here. it's dated october 28th. it's from you to jeff neeley. and it states, "jeff, the conference is unbelievable. awesome. a terrific lesson to all our folks about what preparation,pr professionalism and what a perspective and sense of humor can do. i just sent a rave review to martha johnson. thanks for inviting me. do you want to comment on that? >> yes, sir. at that time, remember, i had arrived monday afternoon, late monday morning. what i had seen during the presentations i saw, the one day i was there a number of presentations that were all substantive about the work of the public building service. i thought that the present tastes prepared by the four regions were good. the con ver igs that i saw during the sessions were the work of pbs and how we could get work done better. i thought that was professional and what that's what i was

referring to. >> when you threw a party in your suite, who paid for the food and alcohol. it was about a $2,000 bill for the food. you indicated that you actually paid for the alcohol. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> bar tenders and staff there for the party? >> no, sir. not to my -- no the to the best of my recollection, but i don't recall them. >> there were no awards at this party. why would it be okay to bill the taxpayers for $2,000 worth of food at your party. >> it would not. >> so it would not be okay to do that? >> no, sir. and i specifically because it was not an awards ceremony or part of an official function, i had a practice when i went to meetings whether defense regional office billings were somewhere else, to mostly talk shop, this thing was a predinner thing. i thought it was a nice thing to do. i specifically said it was not a part of the conference program. i was paid for it myself. i was not prepared to pay for

fancy food. that's why i said let's do beer, wine and chips. then this other food arrived and i said how did that happen? they said well, it's covered in the existing conference contract. eni believe i said something to the effect of so no additional cost? that's what i was told. i did not know it had been charged additionally or separately until i was interviewed by an ig agent about four weeks ago now and i asked him when he told me about the money whether that was an additional amount or covered by the contract. in any event, mr. crawford, i totally agree with you. i had no intention of charging to the tax pairs, did not believe it was a legitimate taxpayer expense, and i yesterday sent a letter to the inspector general saying if that, in fact, was an additional cost, i'm prepared to pay it back. >> i have one quick question for mr. miller. oig windows are a great window into how well or poorly the agency is being run. do you think the public would be better served having a central

location where citizens could be provided with an opportunity to learn what the oig does, how to read the reports and how they're important? >> i think that would help. we have a website where you can access our public reports. and every ig does. there's also a website called ignet.gov that will give you a list of all the ig websites. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, chairman and ranking member. i would like to thank the chairman for his unwaivering commitment to transparency and i've had the opportunity along with congressman to work with mr. denham on the da side. it's always healthy in a

democracy to be skeptical about government and large institutions, but it's this type of behavior that moves into cynicism. and cynicism is cancerous. the american public is cynical, if you look at some of the polling at rates never before seen. they don't trust large financial institutions. they watch wall street go broke, they watch their taxpayer dollars pay them out and watch bonuses paid to the very people who caused the problem in the first place. and then the very people they expect to see oversee things being done do the very same thing. mr. denham said this attack on trust is so frustrated at a time when, yes, we're all sbg asked to provide efficiencies and get things out of this. but i think to put this into perspective, to understand the choices that were made here, for you to understand the folks who made those choices, exactly what this means, i would like to just talk a little bit about what it means, the choices we have. we have an unprecedented number of veterans. in my sunday paper in minneapolis this weekend, it talked about this.

$1.25 million veterans were preet treated for health care. 70% of these providers said they do not have adequate resources or space. we're asking them to do more forless on the very basic principle, providing mental health for our warriors when they return and somebody had the awe sdasty to do this. it goes beyond public trust. it goes beyond the thought that how can we get to a point of that type of selfishness, when others are being asked to do more with less. it's so frustrating to me that this to becomes -- i think the inspector general -- i'm an unabashed huge fan of inspector generals. they return $12 for every $1 we spend on them. i fought for years to make sure in the v.a., one of the most important jobs we do setting up here is to provide oversight in the checks and balances. amongst this whole thing, i think you brought up a good point. you can't legislate some of these poor choices that were made, but we can put in redundancies and safeguards. that's the way you protect

against bad judgment and against a rogue employer, whatever it might be. i'm just baffled here the redundancies fell through. at some point in time somebody is looking at this .. and mr. peck, you know this. there's no free lunch. if it's part of the contract, the price is jacked up. you can have a big suite. they know you're gong to spend the money elsewhere. that money is spent elsewhere. they're not going to give that away. i appreciate your attention to detail and trying to look at this. but at some point in time, somebody had to recognize that that it had to be. and your coin issue is right. members of congress have to use their own money or campaign money if they're going to use coins. i think you bring up a coin on that. but how does it get passed beyond, those redundancies. mr. miller i'm going to come back to you for just a second. when they knew this was being done, you know and we can pick out the thing, sushi that makes the highlight or whatever, but $44 for breakfast. i'm a big man.

i can't spend $44 for breakfast. are you kidding many e? then the american public believes every single employee and every single agency is corrupt and not doing what they're supposed to. and i watched those providers, those mental health providers in southern minnesota doing the best they can with the crowded waiting room and it's simply unacceptable. so mr. miller, i think what needs to come out of this is yes, somebody needs to be held accountable. and yes, ensuring it doesn't happen again and the safeguards are put into place. so is it -- how do we do that? how do we strengthen that? what are you suggestions going to be, if i can ask? >> sir, i think that we need to have stronger central control. i believe the new administrator has already instituted more centralized control of the finances so that each budget is not controlled by regional commissioner or regional administrator. i think he's working on having control over their i.t. systems as well.

but as you said, redundancies, controls, checks and balances. those are all things that can help check excesses, bad judgment, criminal activities of others. and we always rely on people to tell us when they see something wrong. that's why the administrator and i reminded all gsa employees recently to call our office if they see anything on. because we do rely on people telling us about this. and i, too, commend susan brita for bringing this so our attention. >> whould the i.g. have been able to figure out the way things are in place without her coming forward? >> that's a difficult question. we're told by witnesses the culture in region nine was a culture that put down anyone that complained. witnesses said the regional

commissioner would put people down and the witnesses -- and he knew how to put people down. one witness said there was somebody who tried to raise an objection and the witness said, quote, he squashed her like a bug, unquote. and with that kind of an atmosphere -- >> that's some of the most disturbing things i've heard. the culture of the organization where all of this starts, if it's in there, it will continue forward. that's the piece that has to be changed. mr. chairman, thank you for the extra time. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. barletta. >> i've been through this report and i don't know where to start. we could probably spend weeks talking about all the abuse and the different items of abuse, and to be honest with you, it actually makes me sick to my stomach. so i don't want to go there,