From Fox News:
On paper, it sounded like a true government success story: The Social Security Administration in September opened a "state-of-the-art" data center in Maryland, housing wage and benefit information on almost every American, "on time and under budget."
However, six years after Congress approved a half-billion dollars for the project -- the largest building project funded by the 2009 stimulus -- a whistleblower says the center was built on a lie.
"We misled Congress," Michael Keegan, a former associate commissioner who worked on the project, told FoxNews.com.
Officials originally claimed they needed the $500 million to replace their entire, 30-year-old National Computer Center located at agency headquarters in Woodlawn, Md. But Keegan says they overstated their case -- the agency has no plans to replace the center, and only moved a fraction of the NCC to the new site. ...
Keegan maintains the agency didn't have to move anybody out of the NCC, and could have simply renovated the floor holding the old data center.
"The data center occupies one half of one floor in a four-story building," he told FoxNews.com. "We didn't need to build [the new center] to begin with." ...
Acting Commissioner Carolyn Colvin said in a deposition she "did not" know of any plan to abandon the NCC or move all its workers to another site. Other officials echoed this statement. ...
Former SSA Commissioner Michael Astrue, who led the agency under President George W. Bush and for several years under President Obama, also said he's not sure why the building isn't being replaced entirely.
Astrue said he made the original decision to replace the NCC, toward the end of the Bush administration. He said the building was "antiquated and fraying," and was worried a disruption in payments could send "the entire economy into recession." A backup SSA center in North Carolina, he said, was not enough.
Astrue said his intention was to replace and phase out the NCC entirely, and disputed Keegan's claims that Congress was misled. He maintains the proposal was the "correct decision."
But he said he was "surprised" to learn the NCC is still in operation. He doesn't know why. ...
When the Office of the Inspector General reviewed Keegan's complaints, it concluded the SSA "did not mislead" Congress to believe the NCC wouldn't be needed. At the same time, the OIG acknowledged SSA talked about "replacing" the center and "did not implicitly state" it would stay in use. (Further, while IG Patrick P. O'Carroll, Jr., oversaw the spending, he also was among those making the case for the project, telling Congress in 2009 the NCC was "rapidly approaching obsolescence.")
Like the OIG, the Office of Special Counsel last year also said they could not determine whether agency leaders misled Congress. Keegan disputes these findings.So what did Carolyn Colvin do wrong? She didn't order employees to make an unnecessary move to an unnecessary new building which was built at the insistence of her predecessor. If there's fault here, it's on Michael Astrue who insisted on building this expensive new structure instead of using stimulus money to hire additional personnel to work down the agency's backlogs. Much fault should also be laid at the door of the many members of Congress who were active cheerleaders for building the new National Data Center. My recollection is that Republican members of Congress were the biggest supporters of the new building. They always prefer spending money on contractors to spending money on hiring needed personnel.
8 comments:
At least they are using building. You can't say that about a lot stuff that the government has built in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nobody was mislead. There were a number of issues in the old building. Numerous congressional staff took a look at it and agreed with building a new one. Keegan didn't enter the game until it was a done deal so it's hard to believe his story is anything other than the story of a guy who didn't fit in.
Actually he fit in pretty good. Everyone in the agency still loves him and respects him.
He did not do anything wrong.
If this was six years ago and built with stimulus money, the Republicans had nothing to do with it. During that time period, the House and Senate were Democrat ruled. The Republicans had control of nothing.
Anyone ask the Ways and Means Committee members and staff what they thought? I'm a former staffer there and AFAIK, nobody thought what Keegan thought. Everybody knew the NCC building would have a life as a simple office building after they migrated the data center. Keegan is an idiot.
Just wondering whether the new building is in a different Congressional district, what political party is involved in that district, and did that have anything to do with any of the decisions made? If so, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.
First and foremost, I have respect for any and all opinions expressed on this valuable site.
I have been closely involved in the NCC / NSC project since day 1 and I assure you that many folks have questioned the need for and "facts" used to support the request for $500M. Many dedicated government workers are keenly interested in saving taxpayer monies and take great exception for the all too prevelant attitude that federal money is meant to spend no matter what.
I don't think that Keegan was an "idiot", I think and many other SSA folks think that he was trying to save taxpayer funds and be sure that the agency does the right thing in all cases.
Take it up with Mike Astrue. He micromanaged SSA to the nth degree. Nothing of any significance went anywhere without his say so. So if you don't like the rationale for the building tough darts. He was the Commissioner and he called the shots. If Keegan or 9:05 were the Commissioner they could have called the shots, but they weren't. SSA has 60,000 employees that by and large are dedicated to serving the country. That said, they all don't agree on everything and, in this case, the buck stopped with Astrue. So enough of this pious crap about being the protector of the taxpayer. This whole thing stinks of Monday morning quarterbacking.
I remember Congressional Hearings happening because this project was so far behind. There was great debate about the location, and explanations of why the topography of HQ property was not conducive to the building (too hilly). At that time, the project was 1-2 years behind schedule. Somehow this finished ahead of schedule? I have to wonder if the choice not to move the full operation was made in part to make up the time and open "ahead" of schedule. If I recall, the data move alone was to take a year or so after the building completion. By moving only a little data and saying they were "done", it looked better. Maybe they just decided to stick with that.
Post a Comment