Just six months ago, Americans were outraged by revelations of a widespread patient scheduling scandal in U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs facilities across the nation — a shameful story of secret wait lists, calculated executive greed and veterans dying while awaiting care from a dysfunctional bureaucracy.
That scandal set the stage for the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act, a serious set of reforms passed by Congress this summer and signed into law by the president. Along with the appointment of a new VA secretary, it appeared the VA was on a positive path toward change.
But now that the initial furor has subsided, the question remains: Is the VA really reforming itself? For veterans, their families and their advocates, there’s reason to be very wary of the department’s promises.
Case in point: The recent announcement from VA officials that four department executives are facing “proposed termination” for their poor performance. Under the newly passed accountability provisions Congress included in the VA reform law, senior VA executives can, for the first time, be fired for failure to perform.
So far, so good — it would appear the VA is taking advantage of this new capability to clean house. Headlines read “VA Moves to Fire Execs in Scandal.” Outrage subsides. People move on.
But a closer look suggests there may be less to the firings than meets the eye.
One of the executives lined up for “termination” had already announced he was retiring. At least one other, a high-ranking procurement officer implicated in questionable contracting practices, was in the process of securing a new job at the Department of Energy until it fell through as a result of the negative publicity. (Let’s pause to recognize that while reassigning poor performers to other agencies may improve the talent pool at the VA, it’s hardly a solution that benefits the taxpayer).
That led Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., who chairs the House Veterans Affairs Committee, to question if the VA is really holding its employees accountable for performance. Miller suggests the VA appeals process is giving the poor performers an opportunity to get out before they’re forced out.
“By creating an added appeals process in which VA employees are given advance notice of the department’s plans to fire them, VA appears to be giving failing executives an opportunity to quit, retire or find new jobs without consequence — something we have already seen happen in recent weeks,” Miller said in a statement.
Miller suggests that the VA bureaucracy is engaged in a game of “semantic sleight of hand” to make it appear they’re holding executives more accountable while giving them a head’s up to preserve their retirement benefits or seek other government employment at further taxpayer expense.
Indeed, “proposed termination” is a telling bureaucratic euphemism, as it indicates that the firing of a poor performer isn’t a final decisive act, but notification of intent and the start of a negotiation process. More importantly, it suggests that — a mere two months after its enactment — VA attorneys and leadership are already seeking ways to circumvent the law’s intent in order to protect its employees.
The uncertainty surrounding VA’s “proposed terminations” is one more link in the chain of evidence that real change at the department will not come from within. The VA’s bureaucracy and lawyers will work relentlessly to protect the department’s leaders from consequences. Absent deeper veteran-centric reform, the department’s mission of serving veterans and their families will continue to be at best a secondary goal.
The lesson here is clear. Although the VA scandal may fallen off the front pages, we must remember that oversight — as provided by Congress, by veterans advocates groups, by conscientious VA whistleblowers, by the media and by veterans and their families — will be critical to ensure follow-through on the needed reforms.
Pete Hegseth is the CEO of Concerned Veterans for America and a Fox News contributor. Pete is an infantry officer in the Army National Guard, and has served tours in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions for editorials, available at this link.
