I really had to go looking for this after I found it referenced in this document below.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/OIG%20Agency%20Performance%20Plan%20FY%202023.pdf
Special Report, expected in December 2023, (actually sneakily came out the 30th of November) details the OIG’s recommendations for DOE to improve its oversight efforts referenced above is now released below.
I will paste some more of the interesting tidbits below; as the document expressed that one may quote it without permission since it’s public.
I want to be clear that the connection to this topic, is the traditional association of the DOE with this subject due to its potential radiological nature and David Grusch’s claims, and secondly and more importantly it’s important context to the SCIF coming up. Stuff in this report will come up there one way or another, with more or less detail. This could be a vital document to look at as a political staffer whom their representative is going into this SCIF.
In short there are a multitude of connections to this topic, not many of which are directly on the surface of this document. To be clear; everything from after this text that isnt in parentheses I didn’t create and all credit goes to the US government.
This is the document this post is titled for below.
(Quotes from the second link of note below)
“The Department conducted counterintelligence evaluations on the President, Vice President, and other high-ranking Federal executives, in violation of Federal requirements; this violation increases the risk that personally identifiable information of high-ranking Federal executives will be compromised”
(Someone with legal expertise please chime in on this quote, does this mean the Biden administration improperly acquired data about federal people in relation to DOE projects? Did I misinterpret that? What does this mean zooming out?)
“The OA/ OIIS Leadership Development Program had 6 participants, each with a GS-15 mentor. Major accomplishments in FY 2023 included developing a mandatory training program for all Department personnel on reporting responsibilities to the OIG, working with the Department’s National Training Center and the Office of Chief Human Capital Officer to add it to the mandatory training schedule and Learning Nucleus; updating the OIG New Employee Handbook; developing a new OIG intranet site; developing and leading the OIG all-hand OA supervisory session; and other major projects.”
(Sounds like a rather major overhaul)
“Cases closed after being open more than 365 days that have a reportable outcome target: 55% actual: 90% “
(They closed 90 percent of the investigations more than a year old last year. The target painted a very different picture of what they thought they would achieve. Hmmmmm. Wonder what was going on this year that could have closed some multi year investigations………)
“Over the past 3 years, the OIG has enhanced internal legal competencies in four areas to prevent, detect, and report wrongdoing. First, the OIG enhanced its capacity to handle whistleblower matters by improving processes to report wrongdoing. Second, the OIG enhanced its capability to provide support to the Department in its suspension and debarment function by referring parties to the Department for suspension and debarment consideration. The chart at the right quantifies the increased productivity and demand in these first two areas. Third, in response to increasing legal complexity in the OIG’s work, we expanded our capacity to provide internal legal counsel to the OIG’s program offices. And fourth, we hired certified ethics officials to provide independent ethics guidance to OIG employees.”
(Someone who works in the professional ethics field could interpret how meaningful this is better than I. If that’s you please chime in here but the first questions i have is if that independent ethics body is publicly available? Im unsure if thats how it works. I took it to mean that they hired a private company that specializes in ethics and payed them a to be a consultant on matters in this office. If it is a private company that advertises on their website that they do that for the OIG, I’d be curious to glean the mechanisms they use to determine ethical situations in this regard. This could perhaps provide insight into the current happenings, also maybe not. )
“In FY 2023, the OIG continued to lead the CIGIE Working Group on the IIJA. IG Donaldson co- chairs this working group, which organizes an impactful coordination and outreach initiative to other Federal OIGs, as well as state, local, and tribal stakeholders. We led monthly meetings with 12 Federal OIGs that received IIJA appropriations; shared and compared oversight strategies and work to leverage the OIG community’s expertise to improve oversight; and oversaw, as a key part of this working group’s activities, a sub-working group that addresses communication and coordination with state, local, and tribal stakeholders. In this capacity, OIG leadership organized monthly meetings and has built meaningful bridges with the National Association of State Auditors, Controllers, and Treasurers; the GAO; the OMB; and other interested stakeholders. Further, through our outreach campaign, OIG leadership presented at numerous professional conferences, grant fraud training events, and training seminars. Finally, the OIG had an active outreach effort with US Attorney offices throughout the U.S.”
(The United States government seems to be taking a comprehensive approach to integration of accountability measures. This was a ton of alphabet soup that I honestly have to go look into more. Something interesting is here though, even if not super interesting on the surface )
” Cybersecurity vulnerabilities identified 22888(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Investigative cases closed 76 Reports issued 45 Recommendations for improvements 182 Hotline complaints and inquiries 4661(!!!!!) Administrative remedy referrals 30
“
(We can glean alot from this information. I’ll leave it at that.)
submitted by /u/36_39_42
[link] [comments]