Congress, NASA

Double-barreled hearing action today

A couple of relevant hearings today:

The energy and environment subcommittee of the House Science and Technology committee will hold a NPOESS status report hearing at 1 pm this afternoon (note that the hearing is starting an hour earlier than previously announced.) Witnesses include David Powner of the GAO; Brig. Gen. Sue Mashiko, NPOESS program executive officer; and OSTP director John Marburger.

Despite the hopeful wishes of some commenters, the hearing likely to get more attention is the joint House-Senate hearing “Oversight Review of the Investigation of the NASA Inspector General”, hosted by the space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee at 2 pm. The hearing will feature two panels: one consisting of a number of officials from other government IG offices and outside experts, and a second with NASA IG Robert Cobb. In advance of the hearing, Cobb has released his prepared statement and supporting exhibits, where he defends his conduct against “unjustified allegations”. This hearing promises to be interesting political theater; whether it’s anything more constructive than that remains to be seen.

10 comments to Double-barreled hearing action today

  • anonymous

    Did anyone watch the hearing or have links to the testimony of any of the witnesses on the first panel? I’m curious if there were any revelations regarding Cobb’s actions from the attending Senators and what opinions were expressed by the other IGs and expert witnesses. I almost hope that there is evidence of a major transgression to make the taxpayer dollars and Senate time spent on this investigation worthwhile.

    It’s strange that none of the witnesses appear to be from the HUD IG office that did the investigation or from the White House panel that initiated the investigation in the first place. Cobb’s accusers appear to be MIA.

    Cobb’s testimony itself appears to be a pretty scathing indictment of the whole affair. It’s interesting and ironic that so much of his prior career was spent running ethics offices and investigations.

  • Cliff Gordon

    Meanwhile, NASAWatch makes the bizarre comparison between the IG issue and congressmen receiving campaign contributions–seemingly unaware of exactly what an Inspector General is and why independence and integrity are so important for an IG.

  • sceptical

    Honestly, the testimony of the panel was pretty pathetic. There were two outside experts who could only comment on what the allegations would theoretically mean if they happened to be true. The other three were former employees fired by Cobb who now work in other IG offices. Obviously they were totally objective.

    It was almost amusing: one witness testified to the fact that Cobb wouldn’t allow NASA to publicly participate in the search for an astronaut’s ring (clearly an excellent allocation of federal resources even if it existed) and ADMITTED that there was no evidence a ring ever existed. A second witness testified that there weren’t enough audits and Cobb required standards of quality that were “totally impossible” because he wanted total preparedness. (this simultaneously shocked me and reminded me of a preschooler) The last witness was a woman who said she had 15 years’ experience as a AUSA, including the prosecution of drug crime. She then went on to say that the scariest experience she’d ever had was Cobb yelling “you know as well as I do this warrant is a fucking piece of shit” and hitting his desk. This was after Cobb and the OIG Counsel had questioned the legality of a warrant the IG was required to execute and debated what to do. She suggested that Cobb didn’t have a right to question the judgement of an AUSA and magistrate judge. I was so shocked by what I percieve as the inanity of the accusations of these witnesses. As a citizen, I damned well hope that any member of government who is asked to invade the constitutional rights of a citizen without his knowledge would question every single warrant that comes across his desk. Interestingly, this action was painted as too independent and presumptuous, which Nelson did not find inconsistent with his general claims of a lack of independence. This practice of appointing career civil servants and then pillorying them publicly (and expensively) is starting to make me sick. I can’t believe that our tax dollars have been wasted because some lady who no longer works at the NASA OIG gets upset when she hears naughty words.
    The Senator only introduced the issue of the ITAR theft. Nelson said it was illegal to fail to inform the State Department. Cobb said they were working with the DOD and the FBI and that the NASA deputy Admin talked with the state department shortly after the incident, so they were fully aware of the occurrence. I mean I assume this is verifiable, and if so, I can’t believe that time was wasted on it. Anywa didn’t mean to rant I’m just extremely disilliusioned with our elected officials, particularly the Democrats I voted for to clean up the bloody government. I think you can probably find a transcript online somewhere, possibly on the committee website, possibly on the OIG website.

  • Well put sceptical. This is yet another political show trial aimed squarely at the Bush administration. When there’s a chance of nailing a Bush appointee they go for it with no regard for the functioning of government or the careers of those involved. Echoes of the pathetic accusations leveled at John Bolton during his hearing.

    Can’t win at the ballot box? Never mind we’ll dismantle the government person by person. The ends justify the means.

  • Chance

    Should congress have gotten involved? Maybe, maybe not. I for one am glad however that at least this Congress bothers to investigate, unlike the blank checks written by the last 3 or 4 congresses.

  • Chance

    “This is yet another political show trial aimed squarely at the Bush administration.”

    Hm. If this is true then why, according to the article posted, are two of the Republicans “witholding judgement” and a third flat out saying “According to the evidence, he has used this important position to interfere in the activities conducted by the investigative and audit divisions within his office for reasons that appear, at the very least, improper,”?

    Seems like they would use this as an oppurtunity to defend this guy and attack the Democrats if it were really a “show trial”.

  • Ciclops: This is yet another political show trial aimed squarely at the Bush administration . . . with no regard for the functioning of government or the careers of those involved.

    If so, this should sound vary familiar to you. After all, it was very similar attacks on the Clinton Administration, with no regard to the functioning of the United States, let alone our government, that saddled us with the ongoing disaster that is ITAR.

    Can’t win at the ballot box? Never mind we’ll dismantle the government person by person. The ends justify the means\

    I trust you’ll keep this advice in mind the next time a Democrat is in the White House.

    — Donald

  • D. Messier

    Given that the agency has lost 14 employees, 40 percent of its fleet, and years stuck on the ground to accidents, and that each investigation report indicated serious problems in the organizational culture, I’m not sure why anyone would appoint someone like Cobb to be NASA IG. It seems you would want someone with a different set of skills who, years into his tenure, would NOT need to go to management courses to deal with his behavior. And I’m not sure why people who have complained about NASA’s internal culture for years would be defending behavior that seems to epitomize everything they decry.

    As for the for cost and time, really. Calm down. It’s a fraction of what the government wastes on everything else. The bigger problem lies with Bush and his support (or lack thereof) of his own initiative. Unless that changes, Congress can’t do much.

  • Cliff Gordon

    “This is yet another political show trial aimed squarely at the Bush administration.”

    No, it’s not, and you’re just about the only person who has suggested that. There are Republicans who have had problems with what has happened too. Take, for instance, the comments of Republican Senator Charles Grassley, “According to the evidence, he has used this important position to interfere in the activities conducted by the investigative and audit divisions within his office for reasons that appear, at the very least, improper.” The destruction of the videotape recording was something that also caused some Republicans to get concerned.

    The issue may be overblown somewhat, but there is still an issue present. One problem, however, is that there are some complex and murky politics lurking behind this concerning the roles and oversight of Inspectors General as a group. For instance, there are no clear oversight and enforcement mechanisms. When Griffin essentially stated that he would keep Cobb it illustrated the point–is it really up to the administrator to decide upon how to punish somebody who is supposed to have the authority to investigate the administrator himself?

  • MaxQ

    I think sceptical is pretty much right about the hearing.

    My analysis overall: Cobb came in to try to fix problems (weak audits and investigations, poorly written reports, etc.) he saw within the OIG and is getting screwed for trying to do the right thing. While his management style may leave room for improvement , he did not do anything worth the hell he’s been handed.

    My guess is that working level investigators and auditors viewed Cobb’s demanding style and active management style as usurping their authority and independence, i.e. rocking the boat. Meanwhile, a staffer in Nelson’s office, who happened to be a NASA employee on a fellowship, had a sympathetic ear to his friends at NASA centers and used his fellowship in Nelson’s office as a way to get the Senator cranked up.

Leave a Reply to Cliff Gordon Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>