leeds and susan britta, my deputy administrator, my senior counselor, both of whom had been involved with those activities, both of whom had met with the ig more than i had been able to meet. britta was the chief operating officer and we have processes by which we're formally interacting with the i.g. -- >> ms. johnson, in retrospect, if you had to do it all over again, would you have taken more affirmative steps to rein in the spending and to get a foothold on the excesses and spending and conduct that were reported that you might have done something about? >> hindsight is always much better than current vision. i believe i was working from the best understanding i could make of what my -- of what the situation was. there were a number of levers that i was pulling, putting

leadership into the region, as i believe allison dune mentioned. she, or maybe it was bob peck -- >> you don't believe -- you don't believe other actions, given what you knew at the time, should have been taken? >> i believe other action should have been taken. i believe -- i believed other actions were being taken. i dealt -- i tasked my commissioners and my senior staff with various issues and responsibilities. i assumed that they were managing accordingly. they were -- they were part of this. my deputy, my senior staff, my senior counselor and the commissioner and i was hearing that things were moving. so i was assuming it was going on. i did not review in a line item way all of these things with each one of them all of the time. i do want to go to the point about the financial controls.

the cfo, bob peck, and i had met and were beginning to move in the direction of consolidating the financial reporting structure that you asked about earlier. and i am heartily in agreement with the need to pull a much more -- much more of that reporting structure into the central office of the public building service. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> to get back to this timeline here in a minute, but -- you're an administrative appointee. you're appointed by the president. >> yes, i was, and approved by the senate. >> you were approved by the senate when? when did your confirmation -- >> in february -- in february 2010.

>> commander in chief appoints you to a position, i assume that you follow his directives? >> i certainly tried to. >> december 22nd, 2010. executive order 13561, adjustments of certain rates of pay. executive order was given by the president in december 2010, prior to you being confirmed as an appointee. why would you not follow that directive by the president? >> i -- i'm not sure i can speak to that substantively. i assumed that directives from the president about salaries and so on flowed through opm and we received them in our human resources office and responded. >> were you giving raises? >> i believe that there are -- when -- i believe the raises that were allowed were within a

grade, but i don't have a lot of detailed knowledge about that nor substantive memory of it right now. >> did you give bonuses? >> we did give bonuses to the senior executives, yes. >> did you give a bonus to mr. neely? >> we did give a bonus to mr. neely. >> why? >> the recommendation from the performance review board chaired by ms. britta was to give him a three. i asked ms. britta if they had discussed in the review the i.g. report and where it was. she said there was virtually no mention of it in the meeting. i can't remember exact words. but she said that they did not consider that in their deliberations of recommending a three. the buildings commissioner recommended a four. he said that based on mr.

neely's performance with respect to the leasing portfolio was the strongest across the country and that fit with a four recommendation. i appreciate the issues between conduct and performance, but both recommendations given to me were based on these performance measures, and i accepted the commissioner's recommendation. >> you have a report that's been issued by the i.g. the i.g., if the i.g. called my office, i think everybody in our office would snap to attention. i mean, the fbi comes into your business, you bet people pay attention. now if the fbi came back to a business and issued a preliminary report, do you think that -- let me back up. mr. miller, when you go into somebody's office and you issue a preliminary report, what happens?

>> people pay attention to the report. they read it. >> they pay attention. they take the recommendations you give serious? >> yes. >> you gave some recommendations in this case? >> well, it was an interim report. so we went through the interim report and -- >> you gave the top execs a heads-up. >> yes. >> there's a problem here. we have identified there's a problem. i just want to let you know that we're going to dig deeper. >> yes. and there's a big problem. >> mr. neely is mentioned several times by name all over this report. >> yes, sir. >> ms. britta comes back and says that part of this commission, he should not be approved for a bonus. the president issues an executive order december 22nd of 2010. so between the president's executive order to his appointed

secretary and ms. britta coming back and saying he should not be recommended for a bonus and your i.g. report that shows at a minimum egregious behavior, but probably some criminal action. obviously the doj, we're not going to name names, but the doj has been alerted to criminal action. we have dismissed people from this committee because of that. >> yes. and she also had a final hats off report that identified bad behavior on the part of the regional commissioner. >> so if you're taking the commander in chief, the president who appointed you, serious and you follow his direction and he issued an executive order and your own

committee staff said that this is not a good idea, why did you move forward? >> the performance review board was recommending bonuses. i don't believe they were covered by the president's executive order. we were encouraged and we were reducing the amount of the bonuses substantially. the performance review board made a recommendation to me of a three, which could have carried a bonus. i just -- they recommended the three. the commissioner recommended a four. and i accepted the four. >> if the fbi came to my business and said that they were investigating several individuals, i can tell you those individuals would not be traveling. those individuals would not be

getting raises or bonuses. and you had the equivalent of that, the inspector general, coming to you and saying there's an issue. not only saying there's an issue. heads-up, we've got an investigation going on. but they gave you documentation back that you then shared with other people in your agency. is that customary to share that information? >> i did not share that information with anyone else. >> you didn't give it to anybody? >> no, i did not. >> how did bob peck get it? how did mr. neely get it? >> ms. britta and mr. leeds and bob peck and michael robertson and i discussed the entire matter together in a meeting. it was a meeting in which we reviewed what was happening. we agreed it was egregious. it was of high concern -- >> who was at the meeting? >> the deputy administrator, the chief of staff, the

commissioner, the senior counselor, and myself. >> mr. robertson, mr. peck, ms. britta -- >> mr. leeds and myself. and we discussed this report and we agreed it was egregious and we were eager -- we were eager to get the final report so we could act. it took nine months before we were able to receive a final report. i will say that had i had that report earlier, i felt i could have moved much more strongly with respect to -- >> we will come deeper into those details. mr. walz? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and ms. johnson, i want to make sure i avoid gross generalizations and due process and myself and i know this committee as a whole, the interest is not for grandstanding and while the loss of your career is personally tragic to you, i have to tell you, if you will excuse me, my concern lies with the taxpayers today.

regardless of what happened here today, i don't doubt your sincerity that you're sorry this happened, but i hope you recognize the magnitude of how far this reaches. and it's just incredibly difficult for me to imagine that this happened having worked in different organizations and seen it. i think your analysis was very honest about the organization or your matrix design whatever, but first year graduate students can do a gap analysis and see there were problems here. and it doesn't appear like that was done in waiting for -- i'm not going to pass judgment other than what we have seen here. there's certainly some problems. i want to turn a little bit here, mr. tangherlini, to you. how did you get this job? >> i was asked by the white house to step in. >> what were you doing prior to this? >> i was the assistant secretary for management and chief financial officer of the united states department of treasury. >> does things at treasury work the same as you see it working in gsa? >> based on what i have seen just through this report and the

little i have seen, no, they do not. >> i have a question on this. now you came in and you made a command decision. you cancelled 34 conferences. what was your criteria to determine that those were wasteful? the reason i ask this is professional development and conferences for personal and professional employees isn't necessarily a bad thing. if they are done correctly and that internal personal development i see it in myself as a teacher, the professional development communities we put together while we didn't go off staff and while we had coffee that someone made in the back room, that gathering together was certainly valuable. and i would make in the long run our outcomes for student achievement were improved by those. how did you determine these 34 weren't going to live up to the standards of professional development? >> we cancelled those actions pending the outcome of people providing us with some explanation as to the value of those. there was no centralized program by which people would explain in detail the value of the activity they are undertaking. and i'm not saying there isn't value to these activities. >> there was no outcome-based approach to this that said this is what it was?

we had standards that said this is what our professional learning community was going to do during the nine-month school year. here was our july meeting, our august meeting, these outcomes and then they were measurable by performance reviews and outcomes that were metrics. were any of those available for these professional developments? >> i'm not sure about these in particular, but i will tell you there's a combination of both the conferencing and the formal training. the formal training does have those kind of metrics and we're doing whatever we can to preserve those trainings. however, we're also asking the employees of the agency to see if there are nontravel-based approaches that we can use to get that training, to get that activity. >> i would assume in house that your trainers are following best practices and all that. that's why i'm still amazed by this. there had to be professional trainers at this thing. what a waste of time. it is like pulling teeth to get money for professional development in any organization let alone governmental organizations. didn't somebody say this is going to kill -- you know this, ms. johnson. when's the next time we're going

to get meaningful professional development conferences in gsa? not in our lifetime. that's the destructive outcome of this. and that's going to be detrimental for the services that need to be provided. so i ask you, mr. tangherlini. the ses folks. this mr. neely, i wish he was here today too because i'm kind of like ms. norton. this guy set up a fiftum. not since jack abramoff has anybody walked in with such swagger and ability is what it appears like this guy was able to do. here's what i would tell you. these ses folks, i have seen some of the most dedicated professional public servants that i have ever come across in both private and public sector in my life. and i have also seen some of the worst obstructionists. how are you going to deal with ses? these folks simply, many of them, have an attitude. they will outlive you. the next president will come and you will be gone. and they will continue. apparently that's what mr. neely did. this guy has been around forever. he outlasted -- he outlasted ms. johnson. whether he outlasts you or not will be seen what comes out of this. how are you going to address that with ses? >> i think that's a great

question, congressman. i think that that's part of what we have to look at in our top to bottom review is what kind of performance system do we have in the general services administration? how do we create a system that measures conduct as well as performance? and then how do we hold people accountable to it? so i'm committed to doing that and i look forward to working with you on it. >> the taxpayer in this, the services we could be providing, there are comparable people out there that serve in the position that mr. neely did and i would assume some of them are performing absolutely admirably. could probably take their talents and go into the private sector and make more money. they have chosen not to because they are trying to serve. every one of those is painted with the same brush now. we have got to, and what the chairman has been asking for, is i just encourage you, mr. tangherlini, and this is transparency and sunshine is the best disinfectant for everything. err on the side of overgiving, just as my advice. and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. walz. >> i want to go back to this

timeline. so this big extravagant trip takes place in october of 2010. there have already been nine different trips associated with it. ms. britta gets hired and she blows the whistle in november. the i.g. comes in. i.g. alerts you he's coming in. i.g. comes back with an initial document saying we have a problem here. he advises you to get a handle on the travel. then your chief of staff goes to the white house and lets them know there's an i.g.

investigation going on regarding fraud and wasteful spending related to the western regions conference. then we have a new appointee, ruth cox, regional administrator for region nine. she's advised, get a handle on the regional commission. then in october of last year, and there are a number of other trips. i've looked at all the different trips that he has taken, and we are going to continue to investigate that as a separate issue because you didn't take care of it. but in october, a nine-day trip to hawaii. in november, a five-day trip to atlanta for a nontraining conference. in december ms. brita is alerted to this 17-day junket to the south pacific. she alerts mr. miller.

mr. miller alerts you. and yet he's still allowed to go on it and his wife, their birthday trip? you don't see a pattern here? a pattern that you've been aware of for the last year and a half. but you took immediate action. that doesn't sound like immediate action to me. they went on a 17-day trip to hawaii, guam, saipon. and then in march this year, last month, a four-day visit to hawaii again, four-day trip to napa for the executive team meeting. $40,000, excluding travel expenses. and you took immediate action? you got a recommendation from the i.g. get a handle on it. you got a new administrator. get a handle on it. what immediate action did you take?

>> first of all, congressman, i did not know about those trips. i knew that the i.g., as he has said -- >> you knew about the nine preplanning trips and the vegas trip, did you not? >> i learned about those last may, yes. >> you heard -- no, no, no. you're under oath. you heard about them when? >> i learned about the vegas trips -- well, i learned about the vegas conference in september 2010 when i understood that my senior counselor was going to attend a conference in the western regions. that's when i learned about the conference. >> so you knew about the conference and the preplanning trips before the i.g. came in. >> no, i did not. no, i did not. i did not know about the preplanning conferences. the i.g. informed me of the preplanning conferences. it was through the i.g.'s office and our investigation, which my deputy requested that we learned

the extent of the expenditures, the frivolity, the contracting violation. >> on may 3rd of last year, you were made aware and you had a meeting with mr. peck, ms. brita and several other people to discuss this. >> yes, my senior staff, and we discussed this. >> and the immediate action you say you took was what? >> the -- >> did mr. neely go on anymore trips? >> i do not know about mr. neely's travel. >> yes, you did. a lot. you didn't know about any of his travel? >> i did not know -- i did not track his travel, no. >> did you know about any of his travel? did anybody ever tell you he had upcoming trips? >> i believe that summer in august there was a meeting of all of the regional commissioners in austin. i believe he was there, so i knew he had traveled to austin. i was not monitoring his trips personally. i had --

>> the i.g. said get a handle on it. >> he gave that instruction -- >> the president had an executive order. we are cutting government. >> right. >> we are seeing cuts to military, to veterans. the president sure sees it's a big issue. there's seniors being cut. and the inspector general comes to you -- >> to the regional administrator. he said that himself. in august he informed the regional administrator she needed to get a handle on his travel. i had just put her into office. >> oig also advised administrator johnson to get a handle on the rc's travel. did the i.g. get it wrong? >> if i could clarify. i did speak to the regional administrator in august of 2011. and i told her to get a handle

to get control of mr. neely's travel and to perhaps get her cfo to look at his travel. in may when i met with administrator johnson, i went through the interim report that has the eight preplanning trips to las vegas. and exactly who was at these trips, which includes mr. neely at many of them. >> i'll ask you one last time. what was the immediate action you took when you received this report from the i.g.? >> there were a number of things i did. one is i appointed ruth cox into the regional administrator's office at the job in region nine. i also began the process of creating a centralized office, the chief administrative services office, pulling in a lot of the oversight across the agency for travel, conferences, a number of other things.

and we continued to work on an agenda that we had undergoing to streamline and shorten conferences gsa runs and we were quite focused on reducing their size and their scope. i can give more detail on that if you'd like. >> ms. norton? >> ms. johnson, you are very experienced in government. this is why the president appointed you to be administrator of gsa, in fact. if anything, a promotion because you had been at gsa before and had done such an incredible job. and i think everyone recognizes that up until this point you had had a very distinguished career. one thing that those of us who have been in the federal government are used to are gao

reports. i'm not here talking about i.g. reports. gao report can be particularly deadly. and what agency heads and supervisors do when they see the gao on the job is to rush to get in front of the gao report so that by the time it comes out, they are able to say we have already done x, y, z. it's almost a given if you run an agency. here you had virtually run an agency before and now you ran an agency, which is why i think you are getting these questions. you're not a novice. you had a storied career. and it's hard to understand why you would not have treated -- and let me go to the bonus. the bonus much like i treat

someone or i'm sure most people do when you're asked to do a recommendation for someone. the first thing i think about is, wait a minute. this is on me now. if i recommend that person and that person messes up, my reputation is attached to that person. that is what has happened to you with the bonus. you had a specific recommendation after the interim report. after the report that mr. peck -- no, neely, excuse me, was to receive a "three." apparently mr. peck lobbied and he got a four. i understand mr. peck can be persuasive. your own committee, though, had looked at all the circumstances and come out with a three and

you had knowledge of, or you knew or as it goes, should have known about the interim report and that much of that involved the commissioners, a commissioner, a pbs commissioner. it is hard to understand why you didn't understand that you would be implicated personally after you knew the interim report was out and what it had said if you actually raised this man beyond what your own committee had said. that is why it's difficult to understand how in light of your knowledge of the interim report would have felt it necessary to give mr. neely a bonus. that's what it is. a bonus. a bonus recommended by you overruling your own committee. i wish you would make us understand what was it that mr.

peck was offered factors that overcame the committee, overcame the interim report. make us understand why you would have raised that from a three to a four. >> congresswoman, there are two responses i can give. the first is, as i have said, i treated the interim report as inconclusive. it was not the final report. had i had -- >> in other words who thought -- wait a minute. mr. miller, weren't the allegations in the interim report substantiated and wasn't the point of the interim report to say that there were other things that were going to come out? and not that what was in the interim report should not be

given value. in fact, didn't your deputies say you should give it value? that's why we bring it to your attention. >> right. what's in the interim report is that there's a problem. we may not have the precise numbers. you know, we may adjust the numbers from the interim report to the final, but this was basically it. she also had the final hats off report that was final at the end of june. and she also had -- >> and hats off was under mr. neely? >> correct. >> and there were accusations that went to neely's conduct? >> yes, identified in that report. when i briefed administrator johnson, i also mentioned that he was less than candid, in our opinion, to our special agents when interviewed. >> congresswoman, if it was just short of a final report, why did it take nine months to get it to me? as the time went on --

>> just a moment, ms. johnson. are you criticizing the i.g. for not having rushed through to the report? he provided you with an interim report knowing full well that it's taking him longer than he expected. he was finding far more problems than he expected. so he says, why don't i do something here to alert the top people so that they know to proceed now before my final report. so how can you criticize mr. miller in this for not having gone faster? i'm glad he didn't go faster because he uncovered much by not going faster. >> yes. >> and by the way, he's still at it. >> yes, and he asked for the investigation and it was clearly quite serious because it was taking the kind of time and attention it did. so i was -- were i to have had the final report when i made the