March 24, 2004 - PCOL Exclusive: Peace Corps Inspector General Charles Smith's Statement on Safety and Security of Peace Corps Volunteers before the House International Relations Committee
Peace Corps Online:
Peace Corps News:
Special Reports:
March 24, 2004: The House holds Hearings on Safety and Security of Peace Corps Volunteers:
March 24, 2004 - PCOL Exclusive: Peace Corps Inspector General Charles Smith's Statement on Safety and Security of Peace Corps Volunteers before the House International Relations Committee
Peace Corps Inspector General Charles Smith's Statement on Safety and Security of Peace Corps Volunteers before the House International Relations Committee
Congressman Henry Hyde, Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, presided over hearings on March 24 on Safety and Security of Peace Corps Volunteers. Read and comment on the written statement by the witnesses at the hearings at:
Peace Corps Inspector General Charles Smith's Statement on Safety and Security of Peace Corps Volunteers before the House International Relations Committee*
* This link was active on the date it was posted. PCOL is not responsible for broken links which may have changed.
Peace Corps Inspector General Charles Smith's Statement on Safety and Security of Peace Corps Volunteers before the House International Relations Committee
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.
In this written statement, I will address the role of the Office of Inspector General in Peace Corps Volunteer safety and security and the proposed legislation on the Peace Corps IG’s independence. As the General Accounting Office report makes plain, Volunteer safety and security needs careful and continuing review, and staff turnover in the Peace Corps is a major impediment to professional management.
In the post-9/11 era, the agency has given unambiguous priority to Volunteer safety and security. The Director created the Office of Safety and Security with responsibility for overseas training, data collection and analysis, and physical security here and overseas. This is the preventative office which will guide the agency’s response to safety and security issues surrounding Volunteer service.
In addition, the Director appointed a Compliance Officer, who has focused on two main areas. First is up-to-date emergency action plans. The high quality of this work became clear when the Peace Corps’ evacuated Volunteers from Cote d’Ivoire, Morocco, and Haiti. Her second area of attention is IG reports. She receives all our reports, both preliminary and final, and works with the regions to obtain evidence that posts have carried out the agreed-upon responses to our recommendations, with particular attention to safety and security.
In the new safety and security design, the IG now has principal responsibility for the agency’s response to violent crimes against Volunteers. With the Director’s office and the General Counsel, we developed the “Protocol: Violent Crimes Against Volunteers,” which clarified the IG’s responsibility and authority to assist and coordinate in the prosecution of serious crimes against Volunteers. In January 2004, the Director advised all overseas offices and headquarters that the Protocol is agency policy.
We are in regular contact with the Director, the regions, overseas posts, and the Offices of Safety and Security, Medical Services, Special Services, and General Counsel, among others. . Compliance is working: we are receiving regular notice of incident reports, both major crimes—e.g., rape, aggravated assault, robbery—and crimes of less immediacy—e.g., simple assault, theft, burglary—that still carry important signals about safety. Importantly, the Protocol also establishes a cleaner balance between medical care for victims and pursuit of justice for victims. The GAO report noted that “the Volunteer’s identity and details of the incident may not be disclosed” in cases of sexual assault.[1] The new Protocol clarifies, however, that such fundamental information is needed for law enforcement purposes, and there are full privacy protections against its disclosure.
When a Volunteer is the victim of a violent crime, our investigators are quickly involved. We are careful not to interfere with any medical care while we help launch the investigative process. The country director and headquarters offices notify us of the incident; we continue contact with them and, at the State Department, work with Diplomatic Security and the embassy’s RSO; through the RSO, we assist in developing the best evidence for local trial, from witness statements to photo spreads to DNA analysis; and, as needed, we accompany witnesses back for lineups, depositions, and trial. We consult with the Justice Department’s Office of Foreign Litigation, and obtain assistance from the FBI, including the forensic laboratory at Quantico and the overseas legal attaches, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and the Secret Service Forensic Services Division. In short, we manage and coordinate the agency’s part of the investigative and prosecution process from the initial incident to the closing of the case.
In addition to our investigations of cases, our program evaluations and audits have for years included a section on safety and security. Audits focus on post physical and vehicle security. Evaluations concentrate on elements of Volunteer safety and security, such as site development, housing, jobs, in-country transportation, and emergency action plans. Our program and management assessments will continue to include reviews of overseas office and Volunteer safety and security. An example of one safety and security issue is our urging action on monitoring and closing Volunteer hostels, and the agency has issued directives tightening requirements. Another safety and security area we always examine overseas, but have not addressed formally on an agency-wide basis, is job development. A good job is a central element in Volunteer safety and security, and each of our reports covers jobs and assignments as both a program and safety issue.[2]
Turning to the question of IG independence, I want to distinguish between independence based on one’s ability and support from the agency’s administration and independence strengthened by legal and structural support. I have enjoyed the former while being troubled about the latter.
All three parts of the proposed legislation would impact the work of the Office of Inspector General, but the first is clearly most important to us.
It would establish the Peace Corps Inspector General as a Presidential, Senate-confirmed appointee by amending the Inspector General Act. This change would directly address the Peace Corps IG’s independence through the appointment and removal power and the term of office for the IG and OIG staff. It would cure the serious independence issue that the Peace Corps IG, uniquely among all IGs, currently faces: periodic but uncertain reappointment within a set, non-renewable time-frame.
IGs appointed by the President can only be removed by the President, with communication to Congress.[3] In Designated Federal Entities,[4] IGs are appointed by agency heads [5] and may be removed by them, with Congress being informed after the fact.[6] Since the IG Act does not specify a term of office, removal under this procedure requires action by the agency head. Like other heads of DFE agencies, the Peace Corps Director may remove the IG at any point under the IG Act.
While the Peace Corps Director exercises the regular DFE appointment and removal authority, the Peace Corps Act—which requires that a term limit on employment be set for all employees—gives him additional appointment and removal flexibility.
In the Peace Corps, appointments do not exceed 30 months, and the employee may receive a series of reappointments, some as short as a year or even a few months. [7] While 8 ½ years is the maximum total appointment term under the Peace Corps Act,[8] the IG, like any other Peace Corps employee, faces possible termination of employment every 30 months or less. This is because Peace Corps policy splits the five-year limit into half, a first tour of 30 months and a likely but not required second tour of 30 months.[9]
Applying the Peace Corps Act’s appointment and removal provisions to the IG can impact the appearance of IG independence through short, sequential appointments and can accomplish IG removal simply through appointment expiration. In contrast, under the IG Act, appointments are unlimited and removals must be reported to Congress. These same rules apply to OIG staff, and for the first five years, personnel decisions are made by the IG. [10] Because OIG staff are Peace Corps employees subject to the “five-year rule,” their extensions require the Director’s approval. I may hire them for five years—the maximum I can control—but for anyone to work in the OIG beyond five years, I need the Director’s approval, and there still remains the 8½ year ceiling.[11] In this fashion, the Peace Corps Act injects itself through the Director’s discretion into the IG’s personnel decisions, and presents an additional limit on independence. [12]
Like this bill, DFE IG leadership has focused on IG appointments and has proposed that the IG Act be modified in two ways. One would establish a term limit—9 years has been suggested since it spans administrations—that is renewable. The other would permit IG removal only for cause.
The idea of an ombudsman is useful. In some situations, the OIG acts as an ombudsman. Staff or Volunteers come to us seeking the kind of help that we conclude is best referred to an office in the agency for their attention.
Other Peace Corps offices may serve in an ombudsman role, too: for example, General Counsel, American Diversity/EEO, and Special Services. If establishing an ombudsman office were recommended, the function might, like the Designated Agency Ethics Official, be located in the Office of the General Counsel, with the statute providing necessary special authority, including mandatory access to the Director, and the Director using his budgetary authority to make it effective.
One concern I have with a statutory Office of Safety and Security is possible impact on agency flexibility. For instance, today that Office is responsible for background checks on U.S. direct hires, traditionally a personnel function. The responsibility for IT security might also be housed elsewhere. The bill places both under the Office. The most important focus of the Office should be Volunteer safety and security. Anything separate from that should, I would suggest, call for a second look.
Thank you. We would be pleased to provide any further information you need.
Notes
[1] United States General Accounting Office, “Peace Corps: Initiatives for Addressing Safety and Security Challenges Hold Promise, but Progress Should Be Assessed,” July 2002, at p. 45.
[2] See id. at pp. 15-17.
[3] See The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, Title 5, Appendix, section 3(a) and (b).
[4] Id. Section 8G(a) defines “federal entity” and lists Designated Federal Entities, which include the Peace Corps.
[5] Id. Section 8G(c): “…the Inspector General shall be appointed by the head of the designated Federal entity in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations governing appointments within the designated Federal entity.”
[6] Id. Section 8G(e): “If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within a designated Federal entity, the head of the designated Federal entity shall promptly communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both houses of Congress.”
[7] Each Peace Corps employee receives form SF-50: Notification of Personnel Action, which includes a “not to exceed” date, recording when the appointment will end. An extension is reflected in a new SF-50 by a change in the NTE date.
[8] The Peace Corps Act, Section 2506, established parameters for employment. There is a regular tour not to exceed 5 years, and agency policy has split that period into two 2 ½ year or 30 month tours. The Director is given discretion to extend an employee’s appointment by one year and by another 2 ½ years, with both types of extensions exercised under certain criteria. Extension periods can be shortened or further subdivided. In sum, the outside length of employment is 8 ½ years, reached through incremental steps. Finally, before a person is eligible to re-apply to work at the Peace Corps, they must have been outside for as long as they most recently were employed: in for 3 years, out for 3 years.
[9] On a personal note, I will reach 8 ½ years of Peace Corps employment this August, and as Deputy and then IG, I have had five extensions under three Directors.
[10] Through the IG Act, DFE employees are subject to the employment rules of their agency. Section 8G(g)(2) provides: “In addition to the other authorities specified in this Act, an Inspector General is authorized to select, appoint, and employ such officers and employees as may be necessary for carrying out the functions, powers, and duties of the Office of Inspector General and to obtain the temporary or intermittent services of experts or consultants or an organization thereof, subject to the applicable laws and regulations that govern such selections, appointments, and employment, and the obtaining of such services, within the designated Federal entity.” I have made one change from Peace Corps practice. Unlike all other Peace Corps appointments, including the IG, I appoint OIG staff for a five year tour, rather than a 30 month tour with possible extension.
[11] I wish to underscore that, in my experience, there has been no effort to influence my personnel decisions, and no extension I have sought for staff has been denied. I do know, however, that in the earlier history of our office, extensions were denied.
[12] Congress applied the idea of unlimited appointments to the Peace Corps in the 2003 appropriations law, which gave the Director discretion to make unlimited appointments for positions in the safety and security area, with explicit authority to consider the OIG for this purpose. This statutory authority was based on a recommendation in the General Accounting Office report on Peace Corps safety and security.
March 23, 2004 - US Newswire: Hyde to introduce Peace Corps Safety and Security Act of 2004
Read and comment on this Press Release from the Committee on International Relations that Chairman Henry Hyde will introduce the Peace Corps Safety and Security Act of 2004 to create an agency ombudsman; enhance the Corps' security office; and give greater independence to the agency's Office of the Inspector General. Read the story at:
To: Assignment Desk, Daybook Editor*
* This link was active on the date it was posted. PCOL is not responsible for broken links which may have changed.
Safety & Security of Peace Corps Volunteers: Hyde schedules Wednesday oversight hearing; Plans introduction of legislation to remedy problems
BACKGROUND: The president's intention of doubling the size of the Peace Corps comes at a time of heightened risk for Americans living abroad. Recent critical reports by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and an award-winning series by the Dayton Daily News illustrate uneven performance by the Peace Corps in developing safe and secure housing and worksites, responding to volunteer concerns, and planning for emergencies. Among those scheduled to testify are Walter R. Poirier, the father of missing Peace Corps volunteer Walter J. Poirier. The younger Poirier, a native of Lowell, Massachusetts, and a 2000 graduate of the University of Notre Dame, served as a volunteer in Bolivia until his disappearance in March 2001. A subsequent GAO report found that "the Peace Corps failed to properly supervise Poirier and lost track of him." Peace Corps Director Gaddi Vasquez is expected to testify on recent policies adopted by the Peace Corps to promote the safety and security of its volunteers. Later this month, Chairman Hyde will introduce the Peace Corps Safety and Security Act of 2003 to create an agency ombudsman; enhance the Corps' security office; and give greater independence to the agency's Office of the Inspector General.
WHAT: Full Committee oversight hearing: Safety and Security of Peace Corps Volunteers
WHEN: 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 24
WHERE: Room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building
WITNESSES: Gaddi H. Vasquez, Director, The Peace Corps; Charles D. Smith, Inspector General, The Peace Corps; Jeffrey Bruce, Editor, Dayton Daily News; Jess Ford, Director, International Affairs and Trade, General Accounting Office; Walter R. Poirier, father of missing Peace Corps volunteer; and Kevin Quigley, President, National Peace Corps Association.
Issues expected to be examined at the hearing:
-- How does the Peace Corps monitor the safety and security of its volunteers in the field?
-- Is there a standard policy on a global or country-by- country basis that requires supervisors to visit or contact volunteers in person at a specified interval?
-- How does the Peace Corps train its volunteers, especially with respect to safety and security? After several months on assignment, do Peace Corps volunteers feel that they have been adequately prepared for their assignment?
-- Is it possible to expand the presence of the Peace Corps in additional countries while taking into account the safety of Peace Corps volunteers?
Click on a link below for more stories on PCOL
Read the series on Safety and Security here
Leave your comments on the series below.
Read comments by RPCVs here, here and here.
Some postings on Peace Corps Online are provided to the individual members of this group without permission of the copyright owner for the non-profit purposes of criticism, comment, education, scholarship, and research under the "Fair Use" provisions of U.S. Government copyright laws and they may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner. Peace Corps Online does not vouch for the accuracy of the content of the postings, which is the sole responsibility of the copyright holder.
This story has been posted in the following forums: : Headlines; Congress; Hearings; Legislation; Safety and Security of Volunteers
PCOL10620
27
.
|
By RPCV (ca1462-ch01-bl02.ma-cambridg0.sa.earthlink.net - 207.69.137.201) on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 10:15 pm: Edit Post |
The above testimony by Charles Smith is not quite correct or accurate. You don't act to protect volunteers. You are the guard dog in dropping cases and finding them not worthy of investigation.
For many volunteers and victims of Safety issues while in service, you have blamed the volunteer for being missing from their sites, held up staff members who blamed rape victims for the crime against them,blamed volunteers by dropping their cases because it may run into wrong doing, fraudulent assertions by staff who make things up. You have also aided and abetted the Peace Corps for medical malpractice through coercive discharges. By doing so, you help to stigmitize former volunteer's careers by protecting your own and Peace Corps staff.
If you are such an Ombudsman Mr. Smith, how many victims of violence out of the 2,800 have you overturned that were brought to your office. Maybe you can count them on one hand. The other hand is ready to wash the others out to dry.
You are not an Ombudsman, an Attorney, or even a decent man. You lie for the institution of the Peace Corps to protect them from bad press on safety issues at the expense of victims who serve their country. Did you ever serve in a hut or have no running water or electricity Mr. Smith. I doubt it very much.
By protecting staffers who have committed omission and negligence, you are not doing your job and deserve to be investigated yourself for all the cases you have hushed for the Peace Corps. YOU ARE WRONG MR SMITH and you know it.
Corruption, that is what it is Mr. Smith plain and simple. I don't care who you know. I don't care if Chris Shays is your friend or Chris Dodd. They are wrong in our cases too. But you know the detail. We will have a our day in court and we will see those files one day you are covering up and we will expose the nonsense you expound to Congress, to Peace Corps staff, and to People of the United States.
2,800 people Mr. Smith.
I also think you have abused the five year rule and circumvented it for your own gain in the name of Safety and Security.
Those people whose careers you are hurting by covering up cases will have redemption and you will be long gone by then.
Justice is in the detail and you are covering the detail up for the director in these cases.