Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice, Investigations Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Room 4706
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Fine,
I write because I can no longer stay silent with wide spread and unprecedented mismanagement, waste fraud and abuse and unethical conduct within the management system inside the San Francisco Field Division of ATF. The following circumstances relate specifically to the San Francisco Field Division management team.
Hostile work environment. Mismanagement. Waste fraud and abuse, and abuse of authority.
I have attempted to address the issues outlined in this letter internally but to no avail. I am now reporting the violations officially. I have attempted to mitigate and mediate the issues prior to making official allegations. The current violations I am reporting are regarding primarily the lack of accountability of law enforcement sensitive property and potential gross mismanagement and misrepresentation of the status of the property to the OIG during a recent audit and also to the ATF OPRSO inspection team.
Admittedly the property has been mismanaged in the San Francisco Field Division for years. Within the last 6 months, I have been designated as the property custodian of the entire ATF SFFD. This assignment and more than 20 adverse actions are currently in litigation and are the subject of formal grievances to Deputy Director Ronnie Carter and Assistant Director William Hoover. I have no choice but to identify the manner in which the division’s inventories have been conducted as I am now formally identified as the official point of contact and ultimately responsible for the reporting of same.
Between October 2007 and January 2008 a wall to wall inventory was conducted by all offices within the SFFD as part of our field division review by Headquarters. Overages, shortages and corrections were to be indentified. It was my assignment to compile not verify the inventory’s submitted. Almost immediately problems arose when receiving and reviewing the inventories. Several groups were reporting 20-30 missing sensitive items to include several firearms, computers and police radios. As I had repeated conversations with DOO Lyster my immediate supervisor and the deadline approached, I was advised by him that the division’s property was an “abortion”, and these supervisors are not complying with policy and are grossly mismanaging the inventory.
This precipitated a conference call between the SAC and the supervisors to primarily address this issue. I was not included in this conference. I heard repeated conversations between the SAC Martin and several different supervisors stating “this number” is unacceptable.
It became clear that the volume of the shortages that the SAC would be forced to report was paramount to an accurate accounting and reconciliation. Simultaneously, the OIG conducted an audit of field division property to include firearms and ammunition, computers and vehicles. That is what I was told. I was not included in this process either, although I was formally assigned to account for ALL property.
I asked repeatedly for any information related to missing computers and whether or not the missing computers had been entered in NCIC and reported to the FBI or OPSRO as required by policy. I was told repeatedly this was none of my concern. I was told that I should not look for skeletons in the closet. I asked Whether or not the sensitive property previous reported had ever been reported, investigated and/or entered into NCIC. I asked about shortages relating to sensitive law enforcement equipment and was advised “its been handled”. Only to find out on the first day that the inspection team arrived that they had immediately identified multiple items that needed to be entered into NCIC as I had advised when I became aware of these mandates.
Ultimately my requests were answered with the explanation that this was not relevant to conducting “my portion” of the inventory.
I told DOO Lyster IN WRTING via email that I suspected the property was far worse than certified in the SACs memo in January 2008. I was also present in the DOO Tom Lysters office when SAC Martin advised DOO Lyster that our response to the OIG audit should not suggest that the computers in question are missing or stolen but under investigation. Upon review of the previous years inventory in an attempt to reconcile the current one, I observed that 19 additional computers had been listed as missing or stolen. Sensitive items such as encrypted radio encoders were listed as missing or stolen yet a cursory check of NCIC indicates they were never entered. As the newly assigned property custodian, the task being assigned to me, not only placed me in a position of liability but also responsibility for the abysmal state of the property from that point forward.
Coincidentally we were required to complete a second wall to wall inventory to be completed within 45 days of the aforementioned inventory. I was then given approximately 35 days to travel to and conduct and reconcile the property of the entire field division. I immediately advised DOO Lyster that this was not physically possible nor would I be able to achieve an accurate accounting of the field divisions property. I requested to speak with our second line supervisor ASAC Jeff Vind.
This inventory was in compliance with prescribed Bureau mandate each year. During this period of time, Administrative employee Phyllis Goins was assigned to assist me in the Just SSFD 5601 Arnold Rd. portion of the inventory. She approached me to state that she had transferred a call from one of the supervisors to DOO Lyster who can openly be heard from his office. She reported to me that she didn’t want to be responsible for the inventory because she believed management was lying. I asked why she felt that way and she stated she heard DOO Lyster say sorry; you are going to have to do it right this time, no lies on this inventory. She was concerned that she would be held liable for any misrepresentations. I advised her that this would not occur because I was the only one who would certify her and my finding and I wouldn’t let them change it.
I advised DOO Lyster it was apparent that some of the supervisors had falsified their original inventories. After conducting the first couple inventories of the groups, we as a field division were amassing extensive inconsistencies that should not be present in approx. 30 days of an inventory. I continued this endeavor advising DOO Lyster throughout the process of my findings and that we should discontinue any attempt at a 100% wall to wall inventory in the time allowed. DOO Lyster them challenged my revelations as inaccurate and stated he could not understand how 2 inventories could be so skewed.
I have reported the minor discrepancies as well as the major policy violations and have been ignored and ultimately retaliated against and suffered an extremely hostile work environment for making the mismanagement known to SFFD management. I have requested removal from the hostile work environment with supporting doctors documentation, suffered the most derogatory evaluations in my career and been ridiculed and demeaned for attempting to comply with Bureau policies.
I cannot fathom how this field division has reported over 300 items as missing and/or stolen with minimal or no explanation, failed to make the appropriate notifications and NCIC entries, and no one has notice or demanded real accountability. I have reported these and other shortcoming as they have arisen with virtually no response.
However, a question arose as to a technical issue related to my permanent change of station expenditures and not one but two Internal Affairs agents flew 3000 miles to “investigate” this administrative matter. Additionally, the lead internal affairs Investigator was Fred Milanowski who I had previously alleged misconduct and unethical practices against to Deputy Director Carter in a formal grievance currently under review well past any Bureau authorized response time and advised that I was going to forward the allegations to your office. These actions illustrate a clear cut case of gross mismanagement, waste fraud and abuse, deviation from Bureaus policies and procedures. I did not and have not defaulted to immediate allegations. These allegations are not to be confused with my ongoing EEOC or retaliation complaints that are pending. The retaliation in this case would seem to be directly related to exposing the fictitious inventory reports that show the loss of tens of thousands of dollars if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in sensitive government equipment. Undercover body wires, televisions, countless digital recording equipment, police radios, and radio encoders are just some of the items missing w/o explanation.
I will also be filing a whistleblower report with the Office of Special Counsel. The problem has become so pervasive in the San Francisco field division and it is readily apparent that I will ultimately be made the fall guy for years of lack of accountability. Documents, emails and inventory representation can be provided upon request.
Respectfully Submitted
*****************
Special Agent
