flanz. dr. hooker: we had one patient -- you are really technically not supposed to continue giving that medication that someone has abnormal drug screens. repetitive positive urine drug screens should be the cause for not giving the medication. we had a clinical specialist who reported that practice going on. rather than investigate they investigated the nurse. he has been sitting in a clerical position. doing no functions a windowless office reporting to clerks who need something moved or carried around when he has a masters degree. he is on active duty. just this past weekend in the reserve, they have no proposed -- he didn't contact the office of special counsel back in august. they did propose discipline against him proposing suspension on something that occurred in 2013. a couple other things that they alleged occurred in 2014. rep. benishek: i just want to interrupt you because i have heard of this before from other members and physicians, saying they have a peer-reviewed ga ig, without r

flanz's department? ms. lerner: we are working to expedite the identification of cases where it is appropriate. i want to mention we know all 40 disciplinary actions against employees who were complicit in their wrongdoing identified by whistleblowers. on the disclosure side where people can't toss and make the disclosure of health and safety problems, it is part of our review on the agency and we look at what there taken disciplinary actions. on that par we know of at least $.40 -- 40. rep. benishek: you are only aware of three cases. three cases of disciplinary action being taken amongst the case. it seems surprising especially in view of dr. head was here last summer. and still under investigation. mr. tresmaine seems like he is under quite a bit of distress. let me ask dr. head what have you been doing in the last -- since your testimony here? what actions have you taken? it seems i you are still having trouble? dr. head: i continue to report each and every event. you know -- rep. benishek: is anybody co

flanz and ms. lerner. but i do want to thank the whistleblowers for bringing your individual cases and encourage you to work with our good colleagues. i know representative robie is on the case for you, mr. tremaine. and encourage you to work with the office of special counsel as well to make sure you get the protection you deserve we don't have any other tragedies. >> absolutely. the office of special counsel has been a lifeline working with page kennedy and nadia piunta throughout this ordeal for the last year made a huge difference. i don't think there's any question they're totally understaffed. but the opportunities i had to speak with them made a huge difference in my ordeal. >> good. and i hope your situation will get resolved. and it sounds like we've got 45 settlements of va whistleblower cases which hopefully did bring some relief to those people. and i know there have been reinstatements with back pay and such. and it's important to send that signal to others. one of the issues that i wanted to

if i might ask of miss flanz. of the 15 corrective actions that were identified from the office of special council, i would like to know how many of those actually have visits with senior v.a. officials? >> i don't know. >> would you please find out and report to the committee? >> yes. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. walsh, you're now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, and i'm going to venture out on a limb. i bet you get a call from the secretary now. miss flanz might back me on that, i would bet. it goes to something bigger for me. i would argue and go back to the issues with sk tear shinseki and others, and i think many times they're let down by others around them. it takes us back to the core issue of delegation and authority. and in an organization that big, this has to happen. so how are we going to change it? how are we going to make it better? i would bet everybody in this room at one time another has gone gone through some form of professional training. whether it's on a friday af

miss flanz. visiting with whistleblowers, has the current secretary visited the l.a. facility where dr. head works? >> yes, he has. >> did he meet with dr. head at that time? >> i honestly don't know. dr. head would know. >> okay. mr. head. >> yes. i was prevented from meeting with the secretary. i was told that my i.d. badge -- that there was a problem with my badge. i went to human resources. >> say that again? something wrong with your badge? >> i was told you have to have an updated cord on your badge, that mine had expired, and that i would not be allowed to see the secretary, and so -- >> did that expire when you were before the congressional committee, by any chance? >> there's a possibility it could have expired. >> i appreciate it. i want to go back to miss flanz. >> i was instructed to get that taken care of. i went to human resources. when i was in human resources trying to resolve the issue, which was resolved they instructed me a block was placed on my i.d., and they had a problem wi

flanz: i am aware of three.e numbers from the facility level are kept in our database and i would love to provide you specifics which i do not have to my fingertips. rep. coffman: you're here to testify on the congress and you do not have specifics? ms. flanz: i have the specifics i have -- rep. coffman: how convenient. i was ask you on the record to submit. dr. head: thank you. i am frustrated by this.

miss flanz. visiting with whistleblowers, has the current secretary visited the l.a. facility where dr. head works? >> yes he has. >> did he meet with dr. head at that time? >> i honestly don't know. dr. head would know. >> okay. mr. head. >> yes. i was prevented from meeting with the secretary. i was told that my i.d. badge -- that there was a problem with my badge. i went to human resources. >> say that again? something wrong with your badge? >> i was told you have to have an updated cord on your badge that mine had expired and that i would not be allowed to see the secretary, and so -- >> did that expire when you were before the congressional committee, by any chance? >> there's a possibility it could have expired. >> i appreciate it. i want to go back to miss flanz. >> i was instructed to get that taken care of. i went to human resources. when i was in human resources trying to resolve the issue, which was resolved. they instructed me a block was placed on my i.d. and they had a problem with

miss flanz. i just want to go back to the conversation we were having where you were talking about the burden of proof or retaliators. what is the burden of proof you apply when looking at allegations of whistleblowers? >> in any case it depends on the tribunal who might hear an action. >> say it's you. >> i'm not a tribunal. >> say it's you making a recommendation to a d.a.'s office or who? u.s. attorney? who are the possible -- >> in most cases employee discipline is going to be subject to appeal to the merit system's protection board. the merit system protection board in almost all cases applies a preponderance of evidence standard. >> is that true for retaliators and whistleblowers? >> if an action is going to be taken against an employee, if it's subject to appeal, most actions, now there are differences if we're talking about title 38 doctors and nurses who have their own disciplinary process. but if we're talking about a government employee under title 5, if the allegation is that person d

flanz, what steps are being taken to foster a more collaborative workplace?and in the interest of time i'll just combine this with my follow-up question. we hear about steps that are taken here in d.c. for improvement but how are these -- what are the specific steps that are being taken to improve va culture and ensure accountability font front line at the visens, step by step with the people that can protect the lives of these whistleblowers and protect the quality of service to all veterans? >> i want to speak to both of those questions. i think i heard two of them. one, with respect to improving the culture at the front line across the va system. the veterans health zrirns has an office called the national center for organization development. and that office is looking at an issue of psychological safety and how psychological safety can be improved in va workplaces. psychological safety is a larger term of which i think protecting whistleblowers is very definitely a component. the head of the national center for organization development speaks in terms of

flanz: with all the respect that's not how the process works. congresswoman rice: no, no, no. i have to stop you because i have limited time. why is it that whistleblowers have made allegations that were not basing -- based in fact, it seems you could do that pretty expeditiously. it seems to be able to and you cannot do as expeditious and investigation when it comes to holding a retaliate or against a whistleblower accountable. you can give whatever expiration you want, but i'm telling you right now, the level of disrespect you are showing to the veterans, who by the way -- and we know allegations are true in terms of mistreatment of patients, the laundry list of stuff we know was going on. everyone knows it's there. you are telling you are spending all this time to try to hold someone accountable. forget about what is actually fixing the problem where veterans are not getting the services that they need. that is another disturbing thing to me. that is almost an afterthought to you. >> "washington journal" continues. host: already a very busy week in 2015. here to read all do