EPA Employee Examplifies Agency Agenda of Corruption and Fraud

Just what we need now is more government and more people making demands for more tax payer funding. If the EPA isn't already a sink hole of taxpayer funding and a virtual domestic terrorist organization run by progressive socialist liberal democrats, which has run amuck of our Constitution as a federal agency that is suppose to be at the beck and call of the people, what we have instead is one person believing there isn't anything more important then her needs and how she is entitled to what ever compensation she wants. exemplifies

Welcome to the real world of the ideology of progressive socialist thinking. A big government agenda that is designed to take what ever it needs to sustain itself and grow, and at the same time destroy any concept of personal freedom among the citizens that this government is suppose to represent. 

I wonder if those that voted for this nightmare have any buyers remorse? Not hardly, there isn't any moral or ethical standards among the progressive democrats to abuse.

New EPA Employee Bonuses Spark OIG Investigation
By Belinda Silva

Back in the day, if one needed to relocate for a new job, they could elicit the aid of a few strapping young men for little more than the cost of a pizza and a six-pack of beer. Add the cost of a rental truck, and one could probably recoup their expenses after the first paycheck.

Today, the same could probably happen, unless you’re a newly hired Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Director of Finance, in Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina. As detailed in a November 30th investigative report by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), the OIG hotline received an anonymous call stating a new EPA Director in the RTP Finance Center requested a $250,000 reimbursement of relocation costs. The complainant alleged that on the new Director’s behalf, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) intended to award the funds.

The subsequent investigation found that the new Director had inquired about relocation reimbursement during the interview process and was informed the hiring package did not include such a benefit. However, shortly after she accepted the position, she approached the OCFO, again asking for relocation reimbursement. Thus began the tale of the North Carolina EPA Financial Director’s money chase.

Facts at a glance

10/2014	EPA posts job announcement for Director of Finance.
02/05/2015	The subject employee agrees to accept job with no relocation reimbursement per HR denial citing agency rules.
02/25/2015	OCFO contacts HR after being asked by subject employee to revisit the issue as a relocation “incentive” as opposed to relocation “reimbursement.”
03/09/2015	OCFO submitted request for a relocation incentive to HR for $15,000 representing estimated moving and storage costs.  Again, the request denied.
04/02/2015	HR denied two subsequent revised requests from the OCFO for the subject employee’s relocation incentive.
04/05/2015	Subject employee begins working as New Director with no reimbursement or incentive for relocation.
04/21/2015	Hotline call to OIG regarding OCGO’s intent to give new Director a total of $250,000 compensation for relocation.
05/13/2015	OCFO awarded new Director $4,500 bonus (6 weeks after start)
06/25/2015	OCFO awarded another $4,500 bonus (12 weeks after start)
07/07/2015	The OIG began its audit and investigation as a result of the hotline call. During the audit, OIG learned another bonus was forthcoming. That order was withdrawn as a result of the notice of the investigation.

The OIG concluded its financial audit on September 22, 2015, noting in the report the new Director never received the proposed $250,000 relocation reimbursement.  However, the two $4,500 bonuses within 3-months of her start date were unprecedented and represented approximately 25 percent of her salary for the 3-months covering the time period of her employment.

Upon conclusion of the investigation, the OIG recommended the EPA’s Deputy Administrator revisit the awards made to the new Director, RTP Finance Center, to determine whether the awards are reasonable and properly justified and, if needed, take appropriate action. In addition, for future awards, EPA should establish and require a proper level of management review for multiple awards that total in excess of $5,000 during a fiscal year to ensure that awards are reasonable and justified in comparison to other awards.