OIG: A Review Of Allegations Of Unauthorized Activity By An Executive Assistant To A Former NASA Administrator
“In his OIG interview, Bolden initially denied that the EA had provided administrative support to him following his resignation. He stated that the EA could not provide additional support to him while she was a government employee and “I knew it was inappropriate for her to do that.” When asked how he knew that, Bolden replied: “Because it’s illegal. It’s unethical for me to come in and ask a NASA employee … to do administrative work for somebody who’s not in the government.” Id. “She can’t serve as my executive assistant when I’m not here…. That’s wrong.” … When asked if he ever considered instructing the EA to stop providing administrative support to him, Bolden said no and conceded “my judgment was clouded.” He said, “I did not think I was asking her to do personal work for me since almost everything I was doing was space related.” Bolden, however, took responsibility for creating the problem. He stated, “This was my error. This was my error in judgment.”
Keith’s note: Bolden used government employee services for several years after he left NASA. Indeed:
“In January 2017, immediately prior to his departure from NASA and in direct response to concerns about the lack of transition planning when the previous Administrator left NASA following the 2008 presidential election, Bolden added a third Critical Element to the EA’s Employee Performance Plan. This new element explicitly authorized the EA to continue to provide administrative support to Bolden such as coordinating his appearance at certain speaking engagements and providing contact information to him and others following his resignation as NASA Administrator.”
But since Bolden charges $20,000 speaking fees and did a lot of free stuff for NASA after leaving the agency the OIG did some math and decided that these NASA-provided services probably balanced out. Bolden admits this was all wrong but the OIG says that only the Executive Assistant probably broke the law. It does not seem to be fair to me that a subordinate gets stuck with the illegality.
Och. It looks like he meant to do the right thing…but it also looks like the EA was directed to do what she did.
Someone needs to revise the rules for scrutiny of direct supervisees’ EPP when the supervisor ins the Administrator. Maybe the IG’s Office should be involved to prevent this kind of thing?
Being a subordinate, and directed to do something illegal, does not absolve anyone of wrongdoing. Even being ignorant of the law does not constitute an excuse. Understanding the law and pushing back on improper direction is an individual responsibility.
(that said, there can certainly be mitigating factors when determining consequences/punishment – intent, knowledge, context, etc.)
I don’t mean to be harsh here, but this can be a slippery slope (see “Nuremberg Defense” – which casts a haunting shadow over current events in the U.S. right now). This case sounds like small potatoes (and, probably, IS) – but the idea that we’re somehow not responsible for our actions if we were directed to take them is quite dangerous.
I can’t argue with your comment, but it bears remembering that the way the Federal government works, if the EA had complained, his or her career would have been over regardless of the outcome. Nobody likes a squealer.
I am curious. Are NASA employees required to take annual ethics training? It’s pretty common at both large non-profits, corporations and universities. Part of the training is how to report issues and a reminder that harassment of those making reports is illegal.
The EA would have been covered by whistleblower protection laws and agency policy, which is covered in annual ethics training. I realize the last few administrations have not taken whistleblower protection seriously, but if faced with a choice of breaking the law (and those consequences, if caught) or doing the right thing…
I’d think, though, that something as simple as a phone call could have avoided this. “Hey, there’s something odd in my performance plan; I’m sure it wasn’t meant the way it looks – can we fix that before it’s approved?”
He should have been forced to reimburse the government. He initially lied in his OIG interview. It makes one wonder if after he initially lied if the investigators warned him about the penalties for lying to investigators and he finally came clean. I agree with Keith that placing the blame on the EA is unfair.
The rules are 100% clear about use of government resources when you leave these positions and the report even says Charlie initially told the IG he understood those were the rules. Is anyone else wondering how on your last day as a government employee – you are allowed to write a new position description for your EA, giving her responsibility to continue supporting you as a non-government employee? Did the General Counsel, acting Administrator Lightfoot and NASA HR sign off on that? This EA supported me for several years before the Administrator and is so incredibly reverent of her supervisors that she wasn’t able to say “no” out of respect and probably would have done the same for me. Anyone care to guess if I would have been given the same “pass” if this had been me? I remember asking Bill Ingles for a photo of me for a presentation after I left and feeling bad for taking his time! We should all live up to the same standard and should expect to be held accountable for our actions.
According to the quote, the change was in the EA’s performance plan, not a change in position description. Isn’t that just between the EA and her supervisor (Bolden?), not sure HR would be involved…
Bolden cannot supervise a NASA employee when he is no longer employed at NASA. NASA employees cannot do work for private individuals.
Yes, clearly. My point was that this could have been done with no one other than EA and Bolden having to sign off on it.
It is still wrong.
I don’t quite get your response since, well, I just agreed it was clearly wrong. My post went to how it could have happened on Bolden’s last day at NASA, and who would have had to have been involved.
it does not matter what day it happened on.
The premise was Ms. Garver’s, I was just responding to it.
And they were both government employees specifying how one government employee was going to do their government job in support of another government employee.
Good point – but performance plans should also be reviewed by HR to make sure they are aligned with the correct “grade” etc. I can’t imagine why this would have been allowed as a last-day change if it was reviewed. Former senior NASA people (especially astronauts) already capitalize on our backgrounds for future employment & paid speaking engagements – which is of course allowed, “Giving back” by doing unpaid talks and volunteer work is therefore pretty standard for us all and not something that we expect the government/NASA to facilitate.
Yep, thanks… I don’t know all the details of NASA HR processes. I was just speculating it might have been a change that Bolden could make without further review, or one that wasn’t noticed or reviewed till after the fact. Not to say it shouldn’t have been reviewed or noticed…
The performance plan is a document created as part pf a government employee’s employment as an official government action to specify that that government employee will do and it is signed by the government employee and their government supervisor. This is between the EA and the government. It was all specified and carried out as official government business. Full stop.
No argument with any of that… I was getting at how far beyond Bolden and the EA the circle of blame goes. Apparently this went on for a couple of years? If Bolden was the EA’s supervisor then his successor certainly would have been aware of it, and if he (Bolden) wasn’t, then the EA’s supervisor would have had to have been aware of it. In her reply to one of my posts Ms. Garver indicated HR would have also known about it.
The tone and content of your reply is plain, and clear, yet drives me to ask a question.
The fact that a very senior person who served us all admirably has taken the time to comment on Administrator Bolden’s departure from expected behavior reinforces my confidence in the level of ethical commitment from those in authority.
What non-NASA folks like me are missing is a sense of context.
How should a non-NASA private citizen view this? Questions that come to mind include: is the behavior incredibly unusual? And is it possible to say anything about the ‘seriousness’ of the activity?
I appreciate the question and your recognition that commenting on an investigation of former colleagues shows my high-level of discomfort and concern with the situation. If this was truly a misunderstanding – I would not be commenting. The context is that what the former Administrator did is widely recognized as well beyond acceptable practice & it went on for two years. He knew it was wrong and initially told the IG if he had it would have been illegal & unethical. He denied even doing it until presented with the evidence and then said he must have been confused & thought it was okay because almost everything he did was “space related”. Most of us who leave NASA continue to do “space related” work & we all manage our own commitments, businesses & speech writing without abusing former loyal government staff members. The report says Charlie told them “one of his biggest disappointments since leaving NASA was how little support he received” – including “assistance in creating Power Point presentations or use of speechwriters to prepare his remarks after resignation. One wonders if he said this before or after he suggested that additional ethics training should be given to departing employees. Given this IG report – I may be the one that is confused – since I received plenty of ethics training had no such expectations when I left the agency.
Many are sharing their dismay at the findings privately -and recognize the sense of entitlement & preferential treatment. The IG’s stated reason for withholding a claim of unjust personal enrichment is that the level of benefit he received from NASA in his private practice (2-years of administrative and communications assistance) was offset by his willingness to give unpaid speeches – again, something most of us do as part of the privilege of serving in these positions. The report’s conclusion notes Charlie’s legacy as a 4-time shuttle astronaut & retired Marine Corp General & service as Administrator – reinforcing the notion that there are differences in legal & ethical standards for individuals based on privilege, seniority and perceptions.
This is especially troubling to me because as a Senate-confirmed public servant at NASA in the Obama Administration we pledged to be held to a high standard and knew that if we ever had a question of legality or ethics – officials were waiting at our finger-tips to provide guidance. I’m not sure if I would have been afforded a similar double-standard – given I was just the deputy and not an astronaut or retired general – but I made sure never to put myself in a position to find out.
Lori said: “He knew it was wrong and initially told the IG if he had it would have been illegal & unethical. He denied even doing it until presented with the evidence and then said he must have been confused & thought it was okay because almost everything he did was “space related”.”
Yup. He denied it – then he admitted it – and then he said he was confused. It is still wrong regardless of which excuse/answer you consider.
Thank you.
Questions remain. At some point over the course of two years wouldn’t someone pull the General aside and just ask him: “WTF? Knock it off!”
It’s a testing environment for Inspectors General these days. I’ve always felt that these public servants are qualified, and walking tall. The high-level meddling over the past few years is shameful.
Presumably, this would have shown up in the Executive Assistant’s annual performance reviews. Who ever is responsible for them should have known and said something. Which may be how the OIG found out. Or not, in which case the person responsible for those reviews may also be in some trouble. But, other than that, who would know about it?
The EA.
Charlie Bolden clearly broke the rules. And he admitted that. No civil servant at NASA (or elsewhere) gets 2+ years of free secretarial and organizational support for private business purposes. This was an abuse of the system.
LOL (not); more GOB (good ‘ol boys) privilege at work.
“It does not seem to be fair to me that a subordinate gets stuck with the illegality.”
The general rule is that the highest ranking person who knew or should have known and was in a position to do something about it takes the blame. However, my Federal experience taught me that in reality, it’s the lowest ranking person they can stick with the blame who gets the shaft.