was inappropriate behavior with benders by employees of the gsa. would inappropriate behavior mean possible criminal behavior? >> we don't want to talk about criminal charges. i would decline to answer. i know you're looking at other conferences around the country. this would send a red flag that this abuse would be more than just conferences. are we also just looking out throughout the entire agency. >> my office does look throughout the entire agency. and we have had a number of

important criminal prosecutions over the last couple of years. we have individualings selling koubt fit i.t. products to the united states. we sent them to federal prison. there was a chief of staff that lied to our agents and the fbi. we've had a number of property managers receiving bribes and kickbacks. about 11 of them were sentenced recently. so we have a number of criminal prosecutions. to answer congressman walsh's question, more precisely, the ultimate deterrent to this kind of behavior is criminal prosecution. >> thank you.

>> i think we would be very naive not to see this in other regions. i'm deeply concerned about the decentralized accounting, which to me goes back to the lack of transparency and oversight and direct accountability which makes it difficult. and in this culture, there can be healthy and unhealthy business practices and healthy and unhealthy agencies. this one i'm getting very concerned about. i'm going to segue. which region is kansas city in? >> six. >> so it's a different region here. an ig report that dates back to 2010, and i think i quote here, the inspector general includes regional commissioner's office of providing misleading information, damage to gsa's credibility in an audit of health and safety conditions. there's a con sen there, are some of you aware of what's being reported here? it was again last night on wusa about the health risks that are being reported by gsa members

and it troubled me deaf deeply, were they squashed like bug, too, when they brought this concern forward? apparently this was a big enough concern for the commissioner there that she spent $234,000 oaf taxpayer money to get a pr firm, i quote, respond to questions regarding toxic substance exposure instead of dealing with that. mr. miller, can you tell me about this? is this out of your rel .of responsibility? how familiar are you with this -- >> i read the report. and we did a report of the federal building in kansas city, missouri, at the request of senator bond and other senators and congressman cleaver. and we did a report, we found gsa did not manage the environmental risks at that fafltty well over the last ten years. in the last year, they were taking steps to manage the environmental risks, but

historically they did not. >> the risks? ? or the risks of bad pr. it seems they spent more on the risk of bad pr than the environmental risks. >> that's a fair statement. our audit report was on the environmental risks. now, as soon as we announced oyou are audit, they entered into a pr skrt within 24 hours to handle pr, even though they had a pr staff there. >> is that legal to do that? >> in our opinion, they violated just about all the procurement rules in hiring this pr firm. >> how long did it take them to get this contract? it's taken me 18 months to get the contract on the community outpatient clinic in southern minnesota for our veterans. >> they had it done within 24 hours. the co was starting to do a competition, a bid, the co was directed not to do that bid. >> so a no-bid contract for $243,000 to cover-up -- i will not use that term. we'll let the courts decide

that -- to address concerns by employees trying to do a job. again, these are good civil servants trying to do a job and were exposed to toxic substances in their opinion. >> we didn't get into the exact -- how much toxic substances were there. we only looked how gsa managed the risks. what did they do when they got notice of a problem. we're not scientists, we didn't get into the environment. >> did you get into how -- for lack of a better term, the whistleblowers or effected people were treated? were they squashed down? the reason i bring this up is because i think, you know, being the cultural studies teacher, not the lawyer, it doesn't take a great leap of imagination here to see this is not just the western region. now we have another region with a very similar cultural disinterest in their employee and a desire to have pr trump -- >> as an ig, before i make a general statement, i need to have facts supporting it.

we have facts in region nine. we do have this incident in kansas city. we did the report, they hired the pr. there were hearings before senator mccaskill's subcommittee on contracting, and senator mccaskill tried to hold them accountable. we noticed a number of misstatements. we informed the committee of that, the misstatements by gsa officials in the context of that hearing. >> that just deeply troubling. we move at a snail's pace until it's something with pr and an agency and we were able to issue a contract. again, it goes back to this, we have a cross between healthily skeptical to cancerous cynicism. that doesn't make it any better. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i want to get down to who reported to who and who was accountable on these budgets? ms. brita, who did neely report to? everything is getting blamed on neely because he's pleaded the

fifth. i want to know who he reported to. >> jeff neely had two reporting streams. one was to the regional administrator and then a separate reporting requirement to the commissioner of the public building service. so he had 2w0 people who reported to. . >> and there was no regional administrator, correct? >> at that time, he was acting in both capacities. >> in that position, who did he report to? he reported himself in one hand. >> as acting regional administrator, he also reported to steve leads who was senior accountant to the administrator. so he had jeff -- reported to bob and then he reported to steve leads. once ruth cox was reported, he then reported to her and stopped reporting to steve leads. >> do you agree with that, mr. peck, yes or no? >> yes, sir. >> so he was a direct report?

>> it's not a -- there's not a -- in gsa organization chart, there's not a direct report between the regional commissioners to the pbs commissioner. but as i said, for all intents and purposes, the public buildings service commissioner has a lot of command and control over -- >> you signed his letter of reprima reprimand? >> yes, sir. >> you did not feel that letter of reprimand went far enough? >> that's correct. >> and what did you think should be done at the time? >> at the time, we had not decided what we were going to do. it was still in draft. i felt the letter was too weak given what we knew already about western regional as well as the hats off program. >> let me read your e-mail. or the -- you were not there and you're not in a position to judge the entirety of the

conference. we will not be sending two separate letters if i have anything to do with it. that was bob peck's e-mail to you. >> that's correct. >> and though he didn't -- you're saying he did not officially report to you, and even though you sent a letter of reprimand to him, you still recommended him to be upgraded so that he could receive a bonus? >> well, i recommended -- >> you're under oath and i do have the e-mail in front of me. >> i don't know what you mean by upgraded, but i did recommend a rating of 4 for his performance for the year, most of which was based on the performance of his region on business metrics that we had in place. >> what did the performance review board recommend? >> i thought the performance

review board recommended a 4 as well, but i don't have access to that information anymore. >> do you not chair that board? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> what did you recommend. >> the rating that was out of the board be recommended that his rating be held as a 3. he came in as a 3, we recommended he be held as a 3. >> let me read a separate e-mail from martha joen son. i spoke to bob yesterday after the session. he's recommending a 4. yes on a bonus, he was also the acting ra forever and a day. martha johnson. should he have received a bonus? >> the board did not recommend that he git a bonus. >> should he have received a bonus, mr. peck? you're the one that upgraded him? >> in retrospect, no, sir. >> what haze changed your mind today? what do you now know now that you didn't know a year ago when you were recommending him for a bonus?

>> that principally that there were contracting irregularities in the western regions conference and a pattern of conduct that mr. neely apparently engaged in that i did not know about at the time. >> you didn't know about it at the top. you were at the conference. >> no, sir, i didn't know about the pattern of the other trips, the travel, the other conferences that were held in the region nine. that's the difference. >> you are the public buildings commissioner. when it comes to public buildings you're the top person. each of these different 11 regions report to you. you're supposed to be overseeing the budgets and doing an authorization -- let me ask. i know you're going to give me a long-winded question. i only have so much time. ms. dune, do you not see all of these budgets? >> no, my office does not see those budgets for the regional commissioners. >> should mr. peck be able to

see all of those budgets? >> yes, he should. >> is there any reason that those budgets would have been hidden from him? >> i don't know. >> is there any reason that mr. peck should be hiding those budgets from this committee after requesting them for over a dozen times? >> not that i know of. is. >> is there any reason this issue should not have come to life a year and a half ago when the ig released its initial report? >> i don't know. >> i'm out of time, mr. cummings. >> thank you, very much, mr. chairman. i just want to follow up on the chairman's question. mr. peck what's up with this? what's happening with the budget? why can't you get that information to us? and don't tell me that you don't have it now. i'm talking about when you did have access to it. >> mr. cummings, the -- as to the detailed questions that chairman denham mentioned about

personnel employment and those kinds of things, i believe that we submitted that -- that we first got a request in that detail from the committee, to my memory, my memory, last december and i believe we submitted it in late february or early march. and it had to go through -- we had to dig out the information, get it reviewed and approved and sent it up here. i believe that was delivered. >> no uh, let me go back to the questions that i was asking you a few minutes ago with regard to your supervisory role over mr. neely. i think you said that you had heard some complaints about him, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> and tell me what the nature of those complaints were again? >> well, it was general and not specific. but i had heard that mr. neely in his headquarters at least was regarded as someone who you didn't -- you didn't -- he didn't take well if people

debated with him on his decisions. >> and did that concern you? >> yes, sir. and i discussed it with mr. neely on more than one occasion. >> so you did -- did you hear about this on more than one occasion? >> yes, sir. >> and did you hear about it from a number of employees, one, two, three? >> i actually heard about it more senior management than from employees of the region itself. >> so, you know, i guess what's bothering about your role, and i listened to your testimony very carefully. it seemed as if you played down your role in all of this. but as the immediate supervisor, and you can call it whatever you want to call it, when you've got a man who's got two supervisors and one is himself and the other is you, as far as i'm concerned, you're his supervisor. it seems as if you, you know, would have had more hands on mr.

neely. and i just -- you know, my mother used to -- she was a former sharecropper. used to say son, you can have motion, co-motion and emotion and no results. and i don't want these hearings to be, you know, very emotional and then we don't get results. so i'm trying to get to what happened here. i'm wondering if somebody -- the structure was one which the person in your position should have had more authority and should have had access to more information, or whether you didn't do your job. whether you failed to overlook mr. neely. then i wonder, too, whether you felt intimidated by mr. neely. because obviously he had a reign of threats going on around him. and so i just -- help me with this. if you had to restructure that

relationship, that is the neely position and your position, how would you restructure that? because mr. tangherlini is trying to make sense of this. i know he's going to do a great job. he's watching you, so tell him -- give him your suggestion. >> mr. cummings, before i left the agency, i was discussing with ms. dune and with former administrator johnson doing what mr. tangherlini is doing, providing more direct control from the central office over the financial operations of the regions. that's one. two, i would have the regional commissioners unequivocally report directly to the pbs national commissioner. i was focused a lot on the business metrics for each of the regions including how much space the government was occupying, how much we were spending on leasing, and we were working very hard to get those numbers down because they're in the billions of dollars and they could exercise real savings. >> so as far as the conferences were concerned, you would have

nothing to say about that? a person in your position? >> unless someone brought something to my attention and i thought there was something out of line, i would not generally be supervisoring where and when regional conferences were happening. >> very well. i just think you -- i think -- i meaner as i listen to you, you made it sound like you played a very lightweight role in this. and sir, i must tell you, that i think you played a major role. and i'm sure we'll get to the bottom of it at some point. with that, i yield back. >>. >> mr. peck, i'm going to remind you that you're not only under oath, but this has already been referred to the department of justice. there are criminal issues at hand here, and to play this lightly that everything is mr. neely's fault certainly i think has this entire committee puzzled. i just want to bring back those e-mails that i was talking about. the e-mails from you to ms.

brita july of last year. the whole bonus, november 5 of last year. an ig report which came out in play of last year. this is an internal report. the conference happened in 2010. ms. brita very bravely stepped forward and brought this attention to the ig. the ig did a preliminary report, issued that report back to mr. miller. who did you submit this report to? >> administrator johnson. >> and who did the administrator give it to? >> ms. brita was well. i'm not sure who she gave it to. i don't know the exact nature of the list, but i believe she gave it to mr. peck and regional -- >> mr. peck, did you receive a copy of this? >> i'm sorry, could you say again what it -- >> did you receive a copy of the western regions conference oig

intermim alert report on investigation into potential fraud, waste and abuse. >> i did, yes, sir. >> and did you receive it in a timely fashion somewhere around may of last year? >> yes, sir. >> this gets to a bigger question of the culture in gsa. if somebody stepped forward, a whistleblower stepped forward and alerted to the ig to an issue and the ig came back and issued a report on investigation into potential fraud, waste and abuse, why then would you have a dispute with ms. brita and martha johnson and recommend somebody to get a bonus at the end of the year? >> mr. chairman, as i described, the bonus system is based on a number of performance metrics.

and i was looking at the performance of the region with respect to its major real estate responsibilities as well as mr. neely's problem with the conference. but i'll say again as i said in my testimony -- >> this is 20 pages long with quite a bit of detail. and you told susan brita you were not there, you're not in a position to judge the entirety of the conference, we will not be sending two separate letters in i have anythi if i have anything to do with it. she sits on the committee. she recommended a 3, no bonus. you came back and sent an e-mail to martha johnson. or martha johnson sent an e-mail to susan brita. i spoke to bob yesterday after the session. he's recommending a 4. yes on the bonus. he was also the acting ra forever and a day. there are criminal issues at stake here. this is all in this report that you had a copy of a year ago. that you read, that mr. neely

had a copy of and he read. and still continued to take many other trips, which we're going to get into greater detail here shortly. many other trips with other criminal issues involved. and you felt it was important to go against committee staff and upgra i had him and give him a bonus. that is a culture within an agency that shows no matter what investigative report is going on, no matter what information or details we have, we're going to operate business as usual. so i don't think you can sit here and blame everything on mr. neely when you're the one who recommended him for a raise after giving him a letter of reprimand. >> do you have a response. >> mr. chairman, as i said, i take responsibility for everything that happened on my watch. as i said, i was focused on

performance among the regions on a lot of the metrics, things that you and i discussed about reducing the amount of space the government occupies, trying to do a better job getting real estate -- >> in this report -- >> excuse me, sir. but i understand -- what i knew at the time in that report, i believed it deserved him being graded down to a 4 because on performance metrics alone he might have gotten -- he would have gotten a higher number so we were grading him down to a number .. then we had a conversationn't whether it should be a 3 or a 4, yes, sir. >> the preplanning meetings, the dry runs. this goes to the overall culture of the expensive trips. back in 20 9, march 9 through 11 was the first planning trip with free stays at caesar's palace for several attendees. march 30 through 31, 2009, 13

attendees at the ritz carlton resort. august 17 through the 19th, 2009, other attendees, $6,000 cost. november 4 through 6, 65 attendees. march 8 through 12, 15 attendees back at the resort. june 30 through july 2, eight attendees. on several of these trips mr. neely not only approved all of them but on several of these trips, mr. neely went and brought his family and friends as well. many of these trips, i should verify, i don't know if all of these trips, included suites. the very large 2,200 square foot room that you and mr. neely

separate hotel rooms, but you and mr. neely both enjoyed. and then october 12 through 15, 31 attendees including mr. neely. nine trips before this lavish conference. this is part of the report that you saw, that you shared with mr. neely. you gave a copy to mr. neely, showed him what he did, you knew of it, and you still went against the committee's recommendation and gave him a bonus and upgraded him from a 3 to a 4. how can you blame all of this on mr. neely when you were the one who approved this. >> mr. chairman, i'm not saying that, as i made clear, i thought that mr. neely's actions were

wrong. i thought the conference went -- was clearly excessive -- >> i' not going to continue to beat up on the conference. i think that mr. cummings and mr. issa did a good job talk act the las vegas conference yesterday. this is about the overall culture. and you were the man in charge of the public buildings area that allowed all of these different trips. we're going to go into many other trips the gsa has gone through. the public buildings fund has been used not only on these nine trips but the lavish las vegas vacation and napa and everything else on your watch. not only the western region did but every other region. ms. norton? >> this question is not only for mr. peck. i've got to ask all of you sitting at the table because you all live with this system, this puzzled us yesterday at the

government reform hearing. i sit on that committee as well. this notion about performance and conduct sounds very, very bureaucratic, but i can tell you one thing, that there's nobody in the real world, i don't think in the private sector even which -- wh would acceseparate conduct and performance so that one could, in fact, be seen as an excellent performer or a good performer while engaged in conduct that the agency frown the on. you have got to make me understand where does the system comes from. if it is kplek peculiar to gsa whether you think it is defensible.

go right across the board. do you think it is a defensible system toby forka biforcate per and conduct? >> no. and i think some of the ways in which there are impediments to in personnel management and in conducting discipline get into -- have something to do with this. by which i mean -- on the one hand every civil servant should have the right to fair play, the right to due process. i think that gets into the way of mixing the two.

is this system where performance and conduct are on two separate tracks. >> no, i believe -- first of all, i'm not an expert on percent until. we brought in a lot of leases, but they did it through stealing. that's still a bad performance. you can't separate out the two. the fact of the matter is mr. neely got a performance award of $9,000 and he got a special act award. >> it does seem to me that civil service, which is supposed to keep favoritism out of the picture, this almost encourages favoritism. you can see that happen here. you can say this was based on one factor or the other. of course, it's -- it runs counter to everything you teach a child. how to handle this situation.

mr. peck and ms. johnson has extraordinary performance records in federal government, but the conduct of the employees under them was laid to them and so the president decided to appropriately that he could not biforkate even year of excellent performance. now, ms. brita, you have been in the government for a long time. chief of staff. the services administration brought you to the conference. did you see this in the agency when you were there before? mr. miller didn't know of any such biforcation elsewhere. and given your -- given time in the agency, i would like your view of the performance versus