 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:22 am Post subject: Investigation of the National Archives & Records Adminis |
 |
|
Could this investigation have anything to do with Kerry's new and improved "Official Records"?
"Study of the National Archives and Records Administration for the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency." From the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Health And Human Services. April 1993. Released on paper to Michael Ravnitzky in fulfillment of a FOIA request.
Link to the 113 page report
| Quote: | The investigation determined that on September 4, 1987, NATIONAL ARCHIVES sent the security contract request for proposal (RFP) to four security companies: VANCE INTERNATIONAL, WACKENHUT, PINKERTON AND WELLS FARGO. The RFP required interested companies to submit their proposals (bids) by September 18, 1987. Because there was inSUfficient time to prepare a bid, WACKENHUT and WELLS FARGO did not respond. Only two companies, VANCE INTERNATIONAL and PINKERTON, INCORPORATED submitted bids to NATIONAL ARCHIVES.
Officials of PINKERTON advised the FBI they had to "throw together" their proposal in order to meet the time restrictions imposed by the RFP. VANCE INTERNATIONAL's bid price was $ 3.8 million and PINKERTON's bid price was $ 2.7 million. On October: 1, 1987, VANCE INTERNATIONAL was awarded the contract.
A review of the NATIONAL ARCHIVES security contract file determined that NATIONAL ARCHIVES procurement personnel waived several procurement regulations on the basis of exigent circumstances. Basically, these exigent circumstances were created when a determination was made on September 3, 1987, to terminate the contract with the security company then providing services to NATIONAL ARCHIVES. That termination was to take effect on October 5, 1987.
At the time of the procurement, JAMES MEGRONIGLE was the Assistant Archivist for Management and Administration and LAWRENCE OBERG, MEGRONIGLE's SUbordinate, was the Director of Administrative Services. OBERG sat on the two member technical review panel which recommended that VANCE INTERNATIONAL receive the contract award. OBERG justified the award to the highest bidder based on VANCE INTERNATIONAL's superior technical qua1ifications.
The investigation further determined that prior to the aforementioned RFP being sent out, JAMES MEGRONIGLE directed that LAWRENCE OBERG meet with representatives of VANCE INTERNATIONAL. On August 14, 1987, OBERG held a conference with JAMES LEVINE, a Vice President with VANCE INTERNATIONAL. Evidence obtained during the investigation determined that OBERG told LEVINE of NATIONAL ARCHIVES' intentions to replace their security contractor. OBERG described for LEVINE the type of services being provided by the 'contractor, including the number of guard stations in place at the NATIONAL ARCHIVES building.
On August 18, 1987, OBERG, MEGRONIGLE and other NATIONAL ARCHIVES officials met with representatives of VANCE INTERNATIONAL.
On September 18, 1987, VANCE INTERNATIONAL SUbmitted their bid to NATIONAL ARCHIVES after the deadline had passed. The VANCE INTERNATIONAL bid was accepted only after JAMES MEGRONIGLE directed procurement officials to waive the deadline requirement.
It was also determined that during 1988, OBERG frequently went to lunch with DANIEL THESSEN, the VANCE INTERNATIONAL employee who supervised the NATIONAL ARCHIVES contract. No evidence was found that THESSEN or other VANCE INTERNATIONAL representatives paid for OBERG's meals.
When interviewed by the FBI regarding their contacts with representatives of VANCE INTERNATIONAL, both OBERG and MEGRONIGLE stated that the purpose of these contacts was to gather information to be used in the preparation of the RFP. Both of them denied telling VANCE INTERNATIONAL officials of their intentions to hire another security company. Although the investigation found evidence to the contrary (August 14, 1987 contact with JAMES LEVINE), OBERG denied that he provided VANCE INTERNATIONAL officials with information which would be useful in preparing their (VANCE INTERNATIONAL's) bid. Both OBERG and MEGRONIGLE denied that their actions during the procurement process were intended to assist VANCE INTERNATIONAL in that company's attempts to win the contract award. OBERG stated MEGRONIGLE never attempted to pressure him into taking actions favorable to VANCE INTERNATIONAL.
FINDINGS
An extensive investigation conducted by the FBI discovered no evidence that VANCE INTERNATIONAL defraUded the Government. Furthermore, there was no information developed during the investigation which indicated that MEGRONIGLE and OBERG accepted bribes and/or gratuities from representatives of VANCE INTERNATIONAL.
OPINION OF THE US ATTORNEYS OFFICE
On January 23, 1990, the above information was discussed with AUSA WILLIAM LANDERS, Chief, Public Integrity Section, Office of the United States Attorney, Washington, DC. AUSA LANDERS declined prosecution in the captioned matter due to a lack of evidence to support a criminal prosecution against the captioned subjects. In view of AUSA LANDERS' position, the FBI will conduct no further investigation in the captioned matter. |
| Quote: |
This is to advise you about the status of our request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for additional information which the FBI obtained during the investigation of the award of the Vance contract. AS you are aware, the FBI Report discussed generally the meetings between NARA officials and Vance representatives, but there were few details included. I wanted to review this information before completing my report to you. You requested access to this information by letter to the FBI dated January 3, 1992. Since early Feburary 1992, I have called at least once a week attorney Duncan Wainwight, of the FBI legal staff, to discuss our request. The discussions have covered various issues and concerns by the FBI about providing access to information from FBI sources. At the end of each conversation, I have requested a timely response to our request, even if the response were negative. To date, I have yet to receive a definitive response from the FBI.
Given the reluctance of FBI to provide us with any additional information, or even a response, I recommend that we proceed with our report to the Office of Government Ethics without this additional information. Pursuant to your instructions, I have prepared the attached report based upon all of the information available to me. After you have the opportunity to review this report, I will be pleased to meet with you to answer any questions and discuss the next steps in the process.
GARY BROOKS
Designated Agency Ethics Official |
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ok, I bit and scanned the whole 113 pages.
Seems the vast majority of the document is about the improper bidding on that Vance contract. There is some other re archives mismanagement & security issues. Very little else popped out, except a couple blubs on
pg92 some valuable historical documents stolen ( Kerry wouldn't be considered a national historical treasure --LOL)
pg61 lengthy discussion on payments (improper) to a Defense Intelligence Service agent who was downgraded & relocated (they dont say for what?) circa 1987
What angle were you looking at Sal?
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kate wrote: | ok, I bit and scanned the whole 113 pages.
Seems the vast majority of the document is about the improper bidding on that Vance contract. There is some other re archives mismanagement & security issues. Very little else popped out, except a couple blubs on
pg92 some valuable historical documents stolen ( Kerry wouldn't be considered a national historical treasure --LOL)
pg61 lengthy discussion on payments (improper) to a Defense Intelligence Service agent who was downgraded & relocated (they dont say for what?) circa 1987
What angle were you looking at Sal? |
A couple of things really. The first being the DIS officer and why it was included in the investigation? Why did this guy get so many perks if he was being let go for wrong doing? The second is why the FBI refused to release their investigation to congress? Also, if there was no bribe involved and no money exchanged, why the push for the Vance contract? Could the pay-off have been to someone else who needed access to the records? There has to be a reason for the actions taken in order for Vance to get the contract and the report does not disclose what that reason was and who was ultimately behind it.
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Various presidential EOs had been around awhile to look at "Integrity and efficiency in Federal programs" - it was hard to dig up much on this particular investigation by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
Found this on some academic archivists list-serve archives -- Oberg seems the target. (don't see any skerry tie-in )
| Quote: | Stanford listserve
Wed, 04 Nov 92
Since Richard Cox mentioned the report of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on "Serious Problems at the National Archives and Records Administration" and suggested that news and wire services might pick up on it, I am providing a transcription of an article that appeared in the November 4 issue of the "Washington Post". It contains a brief statement by the Archivist (Don Wilson). I offer it without comment.
* * * * TRANSCRIPTION BEGINS * * * * *
Senators Lambaste Archives Officials
Committee Charges Leader Is Often Absent and Inspector Errant
By Bill McAllister
Washington Post Staff Writer
The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs yesterday sharply criticized Don W. Wilson, head of the National Archives and Records Administration, and the agency's inspector general, whom the committee portrayed as a pistol-loving official who engaged in questionable activities.
"In what may be called 'the case of the absentee archivist,' " the panel said, "Archivist Wilson bears primary responsibility for the myriad of expedient and shortsighted actions raising questions of compliance with laws, regulations and standards of
conduct."
The committee urged the White House and Justice Department to review Wilson's actions and those of Lawrence Oberg, the Archives inspector general whom the committee said Wilson selected while Oberg was under FBI investigation for contract fraud and was the subject of several internal complaints.
Wilson said he welcomed the reviews and had "temporarily relieved" Oberg of his duties pending their outcome.
In a 40-page report, the committee said archives officials had inflated Oberg's credentials for the job and had shredded some documents dealing with his selection.
"While I fully support the work of the IGs in ferreting out waste, fraud and abuse in government, I will not tolerate misconduct by any IG office," said committee Chairman John Glenn (D-Ohio) in releasing the report. "This is clearly what happened at the National Archives, and I see the need for a new IG."
Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for the Archives, said its management agreed that the "charges are very serious." But she said management also "has real concern about the accuracy and objectivity of the report." She declined further comment until the agency completes a formal response to the Senate committee. The report questioned Oberg's 1989 selection as the agency's first inspector general and said his performance "has been characterized by special problems of conduct, independence, objectivity, apparent conflict of interest and statutory compliance."
It dealt with allegations that Oberg spent two weeks conducting an undercover surveillance of a woman who previously had filed Equal Employment Opportunity complaints against him, gave pre-bid information to a company that won a $3.8 million guard contract and spent a month in Southern California helping establish the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Those actions were outside his role as inspector general and raise questions about his ability to act as impartial reviewer of agency actions, officials said.
The FBI investigated the awarding of the guard contract to a Virginia firm but found no evidence to merit prosecution of Oberg or other agency officials, according to the report. Many of the employment complaints involving Oberg were described as pending resolution in U.S. District Court. The report also noted that Oberg, a longtime archives employee, had kept a historic revolver used on Adm. Richard Byrd's 1926 polar expedition in his office safe for eight years and had shown the weapon to visitors. It said he had used his government secretary to handle correspondence involving his work with the Boy Scouts and his appeal of a suspension from coaching in a basketball league.
Once part of the General Services Administration, the National Archives was separated as an independent agency in 1985. Wilson, 49, a history professor and former director of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library, was sworn in as head of the agency in 1987. |
| Quote: |
muohio listserve
NCC Washington Update, May 23, 1995
<couple snips>
Senate Holds Confirmation Hearing for Carlin as U.S. Archivist
Senator Glenn offered some very sobering words about the role of the National Archives. He noted that the essence of democratic government is openness and that leaders can not be held accountable unless records are preserved. He then referred, as he did several other times in the hearing, to the 1992 Senate report on mismanagement at the National Archives. Stressing that the National Archives has a "glorious mission" but a "managerial mess," Glenn discussed the agreement that former U.S. Archivist Don Wilson signed with former President Bush that gave Bush "veto power" over preservation of such sensitive records as Iran Contra records.
Senator Glenn again harkened back to the 1992 Senate report on mismanagement at the National Archives under Archivist Wilson's leadership and stated that "things were going on that one would never believed possible." Glenn concluded that the National Archives "needs to move into a whole new day."
|
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
