Posted: 2:20 am EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]
Back in 2013, we blogged about the State Department Special Government Employees: Who Are the State Dept’s 100 “Special Government Employees”? Dunno But Is Non-Disclosure For Public Good? and this: State Dept refused to name its SGEs because of reasons #1, #2, #3, #4 and … oh right, the Privacy Act of 1974:
At that time, there was a message from Mission Command:
“Good morning, Mr. Hunt (or whoever is available). Your mission, should you choose to accept it, involves the retrieval of all Special Government Employee (SGE) names. There are more than a hundred names but no one knows how many more. They are padlocked in the Privacy Act of 1974 vault, guarded by a monstrous fire-breathing creature from Asia Minor. PA1974 vault location is currently in Foggy Bottom. As always, should you or any member of your team be caught or killed, everybody with a badge will disavow all knowledge of your actions. This message will self-destruct in five seconds. If not, well, find a match and burn.”
In January 2014, without Mr. Hunt, the State Department finally released its SGE list as reported by ProPublica here . ProPublica concluded then that “the list suggests that the status is mostly used for its intended purpose: to allow outside experts to consult or work for the government on a temporary basis.” Which makes one wonder why it wasn’t readily released in the first place.
The recent Clinton email debacle, revived interest on Secretary Clinton’s use of the SGE program that allowed some political allies to work for the government while pursuing private-sector careers. In March, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who heads the Judiciary Committee was on it.
“The public’s business ought to be public with few exceptions,” Grassley said in a statement Saturday. “When employees are allowed to serve the government and the private sector at the same time and use private email, the employees have access to everything and the public, nothing.”
Senator Grassley’s request to the State Department, apparently not yet answered, is available here.
Last week, Senator Grassley received confirmation that the State Department Office of Inspector General will review the department’s use of the Special Government Employee program. Below is part of Senator Grassley’s statement:
“This program is meant to be used in a limited way to give the government special expertise it can’t get otherwise,” Grassley said. “Is the program working the way it’s intended at the State Department or has it been turned on its head and used in ways completely unrelated to its purpose? An independent analysis will help to answer the question. An inspector general review is necessary. Available information suggests that in at least one case, the State Department gave the special status for employee convenience, not public benefit.”
In response to Grassley’s request, State Department Inspector General Steve Linick confirmed his office “intends to examine the Department’s SGE program to determine if it conforms to applicable legal and policy requirements, including whether or not the program, as implemented, includes safeguards against conflicts of interest.”
Grassley is concerned about potential conflicts of interest arising from a top State Department employee, Huma Abedin, who worked for both the government as a Special Government Employee and an outside firm, Teneo, at the same time.
More about Ms Abedin’s consulting work here. Senator Grassley’s request to IG Linick is available here. IG Linick’s response to Senator Grassley is available here.
You get the feeling that State/OIG is the most wanted office in WashDC these days?