Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DELIVERED
BAD NEWS FOR HEATHER WILSON THIS WEEK.
THE REPORT LOOKS AT CONSULTING CONTRACTS THE FORMER CONGRESS
WOMAN HAD WITH FOUR NATIONAL LABORATORIES INCLUDING SANDIA
AND LOS ALAMOS, RAISED, QUOTE, SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH
ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT, END QUOTE, OF THOSE CONTRACTS.
HEATHER WILSON MADE NEARLY HALF A MILLION OFF THOSE
CONTRACTS AND, QUOTING HERE AGAIN, DID NOT RECEIVE
EVIDENCE THAT WORK PERFORMED UNDER THE AGREEMENTS HAD BEEN
COMPLETED, END QUOTE. FIRST, DISCLOSURE, I WAS ON
HER STAFF FOR MS. WILSON 15 YEARS AGO IN HER FIRST TERM
AND, TOM, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, DOES THIS QUALIFY AS, THE WORD
GAFF COMES THE MIND, BUT THAT IS USUALLY SOMEWHAT OF LIKE AN
INNOCENT MISTAKE, A GAFF OR A GOOFY MISTAKE.
HOW WOULD YOU CLASSIFY THIS THING FOR MS. WILSON?
>> BEING ALSO WITH THE CONTRACT WITH SANDIA AND LOS
ALAMOS NATIONAL LABS, I CAN TELL YOU THAT YOUR CONTRACTS
SAY WHAT EXACTLY IT IS THAT YOU NEED TO DO.
THE FACT THAT THIS HAS BLOWN UP INTO SOMETHING THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT NOW IS SOMEWHAT SURPRISING.
JUST BECAUSE, BEING IN THE FEDERAL CONTRACT PROCESS, IT
IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR SOMEBODY TO COME BACK AND SAY, HEY, LOOK,
CAN YOU PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ON THIS.
FAR'S WE'RE LOOKING AT 1900 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS BROKEN INTO
53 DIFFERENT SECTIONS SO JUST TO SAY, OH, YEAH, THEY ARE IN
VIOLATION OF FAR'S; REALLY? SO I AM SURPRISED THAT IT IS
CATCHING A LOT OF HEAT AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME.
>> WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF THE IG'S WORDING THERE?
THAT IS STIFF WORDING. THEY ARE TO BE JUDGE AND JURY
OF THESE THINGS, WE CAN ASSUME THEY ARE, I AM HEARING GUILTY
HERE. THERE IS NO WIGGLE ROOM ON
WHAT DID OR DID NOT HAPPEN. DID YOU HAVE THE SAME SENSE?
>> WELL, I READ IT JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE AND I WAS LIKE,
OKAY, THAT IS PRETTY STIFF LANGUAGE.
I AM NOT NECESSARILY -- I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY THE WORK
THAT WAS CONTRACTED FOR BUT KNOWING THAT IN THOSE
PARTICULAR CIRCLES SOMETIMES A CONVERSATION IS ALL -- YOU
KNOW -- IS WORTH, YOU KNOW, QUITE A BIT, YOU KNOW.
JUST TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE, SAY, HEY LOOK,
ARE YOU AWARE OF THIS? YOU'RE ABLE TO PROHIBIT ABOUT
FOUR OR FIVE DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS.
NOBODY KNOWS WHAT WAS TALKED ABOUT.
SANDIA, LOS ALAMOS, AND OTHER LABS ALL SEEM TO BE HAPPY WITH
IT. THEY WERE REFUNDED THE MONEY.
AND, YOU KNOW, 440 GRAND REFUNDED SO FAR.
I REALIZE IT IS DIFFERENT FOR HIGH FLYERS, SOMETIMES YOU GET
BROUGHT ON FOR YOUR EXPERTISE, SHE IS A FORMER HIGH FLYER IN
ALL KINDS OF SECURITY CIRCLES. SANDIA HAS COME OUT AND SAID,
IN ESSENCE, LOOK, WE WERE GAINING HER EXPERTISE ON
CERTAIN ISSUES AND THAT IS WHAT WE WERE PAYING FOR.
DOES THAT RING OKAY FOR YOU? DOES THAT SOUND LIKE WORTH A
HALF MILLION OF CONTRACTS JUST TO HAVE SOME EXPERTISE AT THE
TABLE TO GUIDE FOLKS? >> I'LL SAY THAT, I MEAN I
DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT MARKET BEARS IN THAT AREA, FOR
EXPERTISE OF THAT SORT, SO, I CAN'T SPEAK AS TO WHETHER THAT
VALUE WAS APPROPRIATE. IT WAS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING
THEY WERE WILLING TO PAY FOR AT THAT AMOUNT.
WHAT IS A BIG CONCERN IS LABS AND LABS THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY IN
THE BUSINESS OF CONTRACTING FOR VARIOUS SERVICES AND
HAVING VENDOR RELATIONSHIPS AND ALL KINDS OF OTHER THINGS
THEY DO AS INSTITUTIONS, THAT THEY FAILED IN MAKING SURE
THAT THERE WAS ENOUGH DETAILED INFORMATION TO PASS ANY KIND
OF QUESTIONS. AND I THINK THAT IS THE KEY
HERE. WHAT IS GOING ON THAT YOU ARE
NOT ABLE TO PROPERLY DOCUMENT WHAT YOUR CONTRACTOR IS DOING,
IF THE WORK WAS HER EXPERTISE AND PROVIDED CONSULTING ADVICE
THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE, WHY WASN'T IT BEING DOCUMENTED
APPROPRIATELY? THAT IS A FAILURE OF SANDIA
AND LOS ALAMOS AND WHOEVER ELSE NEEDS TO TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT. I THINK SHE SHOULD HAVE HAD A
GOOD ENOUGH RELATIONSHIP WHERE SHE COULD PROVIDE INFORMATION
TO DOCUMENT THAT, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING SOMEBODY SHOULD BE
WORKING COMPLIANCE AND ENSURING THAT KIND OF
INFORMATION IS BEING COLLECTED.
>> AS IT GOES ALONG. DAN, THE BIG BUZZ WORD IN
THESE CIRCLES IS DELIVERABLES. EVERYONE TALKS ABOUT
DELIVERABLES, THE FAVORITE BUZZ WORD.
WITH THE IG SAYING THERE WERE NO DELIVERABLES, HOW DO YOU
COME BACK FROM THAT AND SAY, HERE IS, IN ESSENCE, WHAT WE
DID AS DELIVERABLES, IF IT WAS ABOUT GIVING EXPERT ADVICE AND
OPINIONS? >> I THINK A COUPLE THINGS.
YOU AND I MAY BE READING THIS DIFFERENTLY.
I DON'T THINK THE IG IS QUESTIONING WHAT HEATHER
WILSON DID. THEY ARE SAYING THERE IS NO
PAPERWORK TO SHOW WHAT SHE DID AND IG IS NOT DEALING WITH
THOUGHTS. THEY ARE GOING TO LOOK AND
SAY, YOU HIRED TOM TO SHOW UP AND PRODUCE A GUIDE, WHERE IS
THE GUIDE? YOU SAID IT WAS GOING TO BE 70
PAGES, LET'S SEE THAT. IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THIS IS
REALLY MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING WITH HEATHER WILSON.
SHE DID HER JOB SHE CONTRACTED FOR.
THE FOLKS SHE WAS WORKING FOR CANNOT MEET MUSTER IN TELLING
THE PEOPLE THAT WERE PAYING THEM, THIS IS WHAT WE DID,
THIS IS HOW WE DID IT, DON'T HAVE A PROCESS TO GO THROUGH.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS CLAIMING THAT HEATHER WILSON
STOLE HALF A MILLION, WAS WRONGFULLY GIVEN HALF A
MILLION, I DON'T THINK THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS MAKING
THAT ASSUMPTION. IT SEEMS TO ME HE IS SAYING,
THE PEOPLE SHE CONTRACTED WITH DIDN'T KEEP APPROPRIATE
RECORDS AND DIDN'T QUANTIFY WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND
ARTICULATE IT IN A WAY THEY CAN DEFEND IT WHEN THE TIME
CAME IN. >> ISN'T THE ONUS ON THE
CONTRACTEE? >> NO.
IT IS ON THE PERSON YOU'RE CONTRACTING WITH. IF I TELL
YOU, I AM HIRING YOU TO DO A JOB, I HAVE TO GIVE THE SCOPE
OF WORK I WANT YOU TO DO. IF THAT SCOPE OF WORK MEANS
YOU HAVE GOT TO FILL OUT WEEKLY REPORTS, IF YOU DON'T
FILL OUT WEEKLY REPORTS, YOU'RE IN VIOLATION OF YOUR
CONTRACT. IF ALL I SAY TO YOU IS, GENE,
I WANT TO PAY YOU X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS FOR YOUR INTELLECTUAL
CAPITAL, THAT IS THE OTHER THING, SHE
WASN'T HIRED TO BUILD SOMETHING, TO DO SOMETHING.
SHE WAS HIRED FOR HER INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL.
SHE IS A RHODES SCHOLAR, A VERY WELL RESPECTED MEMBER OF
CONGRESS, SERVED ON THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
EVERYTHING THESE GUYS HAVE, LAURA MADE A GOOD POINT, I
DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PRIVATE MARKET BEARS FOR THAT, BUT I
AM WILLING TO BET WHEN YOU SAY, WE WANT A RHODES SCHOLAR,
WHO HAS BEEN IN CONGRESS, SERVED ON THE COMMITTEE, THERE
ARE NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT FIT THE BILL TO GET
THIS STUFF DONE, AND SHE DOES, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU LOOK WHAT
HER SPECIALTY WAS, WORKING WITH SECURITY AND NUCLEAR
WEAPONS. I THINK THIS IS MUCH TO DO ON
HEATHER'S SIDE ABOUT NOTHING AND THAT IS WHY THE
CONTRACTORS, I THINK, PAID THE MONEY.
HAD THE CONTRACTORS FELT HEATHER DIDN'T DELIVER IT,
THEY WOULDN'T BE EMPTYING 500,000.
>> THAT IS A QUESTION I HAVE AS WELL, WHY WOULD THEY PAY
THIS BACK. >> THEY ADMITTED THEY WERE
USING HEATHER WILSON FOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BY ANOTHER NAME IS CALLED
LOBBYING. AND, SO, THIS DOES NOT PASS
THE SMELL TEST, IN FACT, I THINK IT STINKS.
BECAUSE THE LARGER QUESTION HERE IS, SHOULD
REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS WHO DON'T WIN ELECTIONS BE
ALLOWED TO IMMEDIATELY GO INTO AND SET UP A CONSULTING
PRACTICE AND MASSAGE THEIR FORMER, YOU KNOW, THEIR FORMER
COLLEAGUES TO GET BUSINESS FOR THEIR CLIENT AND THIS IS WHAT
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS LEADING TO, THAT SANDIA IS
LOOKING FOR NEW LINES OF BUSINESS WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND SHE WAS HIRED BECAUSE OF HER CONTACTS.
>> ISN'T THAT THE NEW MEXICO WAY?
>> IT SHOULDN'T BE. LET ME SAY, THE HOUSE AND THE
SENATE HAVE RULES ABOUT NOT ALLOWING THEIR MEMBERS TO
LOBBY. IN THE HOUSE, YOU CAN'T LOBBY
FOR ONE YEAR AFTER YOU LEAVE SERVICE.
AND, IN THE SENATE YOU CAN'T DIRECTLY LOBBY YOUR COLLEAGUES
FOR TWO YEARS. THOSE ARE RULES.
WE DON'T HAVE THOSE RULES IN NEW MEXICO AT ALL.
SO, THE REVOLVING DOOR IS VERY COMPLETE.
WE HAD ONE SENATOR LEAVE WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE BECAUSE HE
FELT THAT HE COULD GET A BETTER JOB AS A LOBBYIST.
AND, 24 STATES HAVE LAWS RESTRICTING THIS KIND OF
REVOLVING DOOR. THIS IS IN 2009 SHE SET UP HER
CONSULTING FIRM AND THAT YEAR SHE GOT A CONTRACT WITH
SANDIA. >> INTERESTING.
>> THAT PRESENTS AN ETHICAL PROBLEM FOR ME.
>> INTERESTING, SANDIA HAS COME OUT AND DEFENDED HER AND
THEIR RELATIONSHIP, NOT JUST HER BUT THE RELATIONSHIP AS IT
STANDS WITH THIS CONTRACT. INTERESTING THEY CAME OUT SO
QUICKLY AND EARLY WITH THAT. DOES THAT SPEAK TO THE
RELATIONSHIP SHE HAS WITH THEM AND THEM WITH HER, DO YOU
THINK? >> IT SPEAKS TO THE FACT THAT
SANDIA WANTS TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT WAS GOING ON AND SAY HERE
IS WHAT IS GOING ON. I DON'T THINK IT WAS ANYTHING
ELSE. >> OKAY.
>> YEAH, SANDIA HAS A LOT OF STRONG RELATIONSHIPS INSIDE
NEW MEXICO. YOU KNOW, HWC WAS ONE OF THOSE
MANY DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIPS. I THINK IT COMES TO THE IG'S
POINT IT COMES DOWN TO ACCOUNTABILITY.
AND I THINK THAT IS IN ESSENCE WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE.
THEY ARE NOT SAYING -- THEY DIDN'T GET A BAD PRODUCT OR
ANYTHING LIKE THAT, SO, YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU JUST NEED TO
DOCUMENT IT AND YEAH THERE IS SIMPLE WAYS TO DOCUMENT IT
WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE DETAILS OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED.
>> RIGHT, ESPECIALLY INTELLIGENCE THINGS.
DID THAT ALL MAKE SENSE TO YOU, CAN THIS, YOU KNOW,
SIGNAL SOMETHING MAYBE PERHAPS THE END OF A CERTAIN STYLE OF
CONTRACTING IN NEW MEXICO? WHAT IS THE BIGGER PICTURE
HERE ON THIS? >> YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT
UTOPIA IS THE END OF THAT KIND OF CONTRACTING.
I THINK OUR ENTIRE, CERTAINLY, STATE LEGISLATURE BUT OUR
ENTIRE STATE GOVERNMENT, THEY WORK THAT WAY.
THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO GO THROUGH PUBLIC LIFE AND
THEN COME OUT AND START, YOU KNOW, MAKING A LIVING BY
SHARING THEIR EXPERTISE. >> YOU KEEP SAYING --
[MULTIPLE VOICES] >> PAID BY THE TAXPAYER.
ISN'T THERE A DIFFERENCE THERE?
>> NO, THEY ARE ALL -- THERE IS LOBBYING FOR ORGANIZATIONS
TO GET MORE MONEY. >> EVEN THOUGH THERE IS
TAXPAYER MONEY BEING PAID, SANDIA AND LOS ALAMOS --
SANDIA IS A CORPORATION, IT IS A BIG INSTITUTION, AND IT HAS
GOT FEDERAL DOLLARS COMING TO IT, BUT IT ALSO MAKES BUSINESS
DECISIONS. >> THOSE ARE NATIONAL GLOBAL
COMPANIES. >> TRUE ENOUGH, FAIR POINT.
WE'RE BACK AFTER A QUICK BREAK WITH TROUBLE AT THE STATE
PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT WHEN IT COMES TO FUNDING
SPECIAL EDUCATION.