To stop fraud, waste and abuse in govt, adopt the inspector general system
First word
AFTER reviewing at length the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the many provisions of the 1987 Constitution concerning crimes of corruption and dishonesty in the government service, I have concluded that the continuing frustration of President Duterte with the government bureaucracy will abide for as long as we persist in making do with a statute and constitutional guideline that forgot to 1) distinguish between graft and corruption, and 2) cannot define the terms.
All our elections are conducted with all candidates pledging to root out graft and corruption. And all are concluded without making a difference in the tone and character of our public life.
I will wager that no candidate running next year can draw a clear line between graft and corruption.
As a rule we prefer a general condemnation of this menace to public service, to a specific and clear indictment of the offense.
Consequently, I have become skeptical and cynical about the schemes of anti-corruption crusaders, including a certain coalition against corruption that lately demanded the resignation of Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez 3rd because of the mess of the Customs bureau (I mention this now because I mistakenly attributed the resignation call to the Presidential Anti-corruption Commission [PACC], and I want to express my apologies to the commission and its chairman, whom I personally know).
All the grand schemes and plans to stop graft or corruption are perennially bound to fail, because the wherewithal to check it is not institutionalized.
It is in this light that I have switched focus from “graft and corruption” to stopping “fraud, waste and abuse” in the government service.
And I have found a proven formula to make this happen — namely, the adoption of the inspector general system in our government bureaucracy.
Rationale for inspector general
I want to propose to the President and to the majority party or coalition that they join together in passing a law that will institutionalize the inspector general system in the executive branch of government, including the military.
The rationale for the system is simply stated. In our government system today, we have the Commission on Audit firmly in place to ”examine, audit and settle all accounts, pertaining to revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by or pertaining to the government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities.”
Through the vigilant work of the audit commission, the nation is able to monitor the expenditure of public funds, and in so doing has become aware of malfeasance in the handling of public funds.
This laudable vigil and scrutiny covers only the expenditure of public funds. But we have no system for monitoring whether government agencies are doing their work or accomplishing desired targets. And we have no way of checking abuse or abuses.
US Inspector General Act
In 1978, the US Congress embarked on a remarkable reform dramatically designed to intensify its oversight over the federal government — it enacted the Inspector General Act of 1978 (the “IG Act”) to combat fraud, abuse, and waste in the “programs and operations” of federal departments and agencies.
Congress passed the IG Act after hearing evidence that fraud and waste had reached epidemic proportions within the federal government.
Congress’ solution to the problem was the creation of Offices of Inspector General within executive agencies.
The offices of Inspector General have broad powers to investigate the agencies that they are obligated to oversee. In this regard, the Offices of Inspector General possess broad subpoena power in conducting its investigations. Consequently, the various Offices of Inspector General are well equipped to uncover fraudulent activity on the part of those who contract with the government.
Much of what I cover here refers mainly to investigative offices in the United States. There are similar offices in many countries, especially in Europe.
In the United States, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) is a generic term for the oversight division of a federal or state agency aimed at preventing inefficient or illegal operations within their parent agency. Such offices are attached to many federal executive departments, independent federal agencies, as well as state and local governments. Each office includes an Inspector General (or IG) and employees charged with identifying, auditing, and investigating fraud, waste, abuse, embezzlement and mismanagement of any kind within the executive department.
There are today 73 federal offices of inspectors general in the US, a significant increase since the statutory creation of the initial 12 offices by the Inspector General Act of 1978. The offices employ special agents (criminal investigators, often armed) and auditors. In addition, federal offices of inspectors general employ forensic auditors, or “audigators,” evaluators, inspectors, administrative investigators, and a variety of other specialists. Their activities include the detection and prevention of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement of the government programs and operations within their parent organizations.
While the IG Act of 1978 requires that inspectors general be selected based upon their qualifications and not political affiliation, presidentially appointed inspectors general are considered political appointees and are often selected, if only in part and in addition to their qualifications, because of their political relationships and party affiliation.
While all of the federal offices of inspector generals operate separately from one another, they share information and some coordination through the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. As of 2010, the CIGIE comprised 68 offices.
There is notable evidence of the offices’ return on investment to taxpayers, judging mainly from the semi-annual reports to Congress that inspectors general are required to file regularly.
Congress committees in both houses rely on the IGs reports when they conduct inquiries into the work of federal offices.
Accountability state and inspectors general
Nadia Hilliard, a research fellow at the University of Oxford, paid the inspector general system the highest compliment when she made it the subject of her book in 2017, The Accountability State: US Federal Inspectors General and the Pursuit of Democratic Integrity.
I am still awaiting my own copy of the volume, but this early I can report on wide praise for Hilliard’s work judging by some comments I have found on the web.
I can cite two of these:
1. From Melvin J. Dubnick, professor of political science, University of New Hampshire:
“Hilliard brings the perspective and critical skills of a democratic theorist to the study of the IG, and in the process highlights both the problems and prospects of improving accountable governance. Each case provides insights on par with classics in the field that demonstrate how politically challenging the ’watchdog’ role can be, and yet she never loses sight of broader contemporary context (the ‘web of accountability’) within which these unique agents of accountability operate.”
2. Katy J. Harriger, professor of political science, Wake Forest University:
“The Accountability State is an excellent exploration of the evolution of and variation in Inspectors General in the federal government. It moves beyond mere case study to situate this important bureaucratic actor in both public administration and democratic theory. Relying on a wealth of public documents, elite interviews, and analysis of media coverage, Hilliard demonstrates the way in which the Inspector General reflects the long recognized tension between democracy and administration and the central role accountability mechanisms play in resolving that tension. It is a must read for those concerned about the democratic implications of the modern administrative state.”
There are other favorable reviews, and their collective message is clear: The Accountability State is a timely book for readers who are concerned about government accountability. It explains why inspectors general play an essential role in preventing fraud, waste, and abuse in government.
Our own Inspector General Act
If my advice or assistance is welcome, I am willing to draft a bill for an Inspector General Act of the Philippines that is designed to fit our unitary system of government and our conditions.
The key benefit from having our own inspector general act is that we will put in place in our entire government bureaucracy a system for continually checking fraud, inefficiency and abuse in government.
The system that was severely abused by Janette Lim Napoles and her fraudulent foundations will be uprooted by a different system of control.
The post of inspector general will be an ideal career goal for many of our new lawyers and new graduates of schools of public administration and political science.
The title carries some distinction, which serious professionals will be proud to uphold.
If the Duterte administration effects this reform, in just a few short years, and right before the close of DU30’s term in 2022, we will start building our own accountability state.
yenmakabenta@yahoo.com
The post To stop fraud, waste and abuse in govt, adopt the inspector general system appeared first on The Manila Times Online.