DHS manager slammed by IG for aiding relative

A Homeland Security Department manager abused his position and violated ethics guidelines when he schemed to provide taxpayer-funded software to a relative administering a federal contract, according to a new report from DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner.

The audit was initiated when a Science and Technology Directorate official raised concerns about a manager’s interaction with a small business. The review was conducted from February 2008 to January 2009, and an abbreviated report on the results was published on Aug. 18.

RELATED STORIES

The ethics of contracting: Still an open question

DOD ethics officers warn of interest conflicts from insourcing

The inspector general reviewed allegations that the program manager plotted to help a relative at a federal laboratory by providing the relative with federally funded software from the directorate.

Under the plan, the program manager delivered the software to a program at a federal laboratory administered by a relative of his.

The program manager did not fully inform his supervisor or ethics officials of the plan, and provided misleading information about his activities, the audit states.

On the basis of the misleading information, the manager was allowed to continue transferring funds to the laboratory. “However, he later transferred money to fund his relative’s employees’ work,” the report states. "The program manager did not follow the department’s policy to act with honesty and integrity, and to avoid appearances of legal or ethical violations."

The program manager also violated policy when he provided contracting officers with inaccurate information and on two occasions instructed the company to charge work for one contract to another without informing the contracting officer.

To cover his tracks, the program manager also delayed approval of an invoice and might have violated the Anti-Deficiency Act “by coercing the small business to provide software and services without compensation,” the inspector general’s report states.

The manager’s relative allegedly used the software to compete with the company that created it, and pressure was put on that company to relinquish the rights to the software.

The inspector general made four recommendations. However, they were not published in the abbreviated version of the report available online. Comment from the department was not immediately available, nor was information available on when and how the program manager might have been disciplined as a result of the findings.