The White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001
Presidential Transition (07-JUN-02, GAO-02-360).
Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House
complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Several
Executive Office of the President (EOP) staff claim that they
observed (1) messy offices containing excessive trash or personal
items, (2) numerous prank signs containing derogatory and
offensive statements about the president, (3) government property
that was damaged, and (4) missing items. Further, EOP staff
believed that what they observed during the transition was done
intentionally. Some former Clinton administration staff
acknowledged that they observed some damaged items and prank
signs. However, the former Clinton administration staff said that
(1) the amount of trash found during the transition was what
could be expected; (2) they did not take the missing items; (3)
some furniture was unintentionally broken before the transition,
and little money was spent on repairs and upkeep during the
administration; and (4) many of the reported observations were
not of vandalism. This report makes several recommendations
regarding the prevention and documentation of vandalism during
future presidential transitions.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-02-360
ACCNO: A03546
TITLE: The White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001
Presidential Transition
DATE: 06/07/2002
SUBJECT: Crimes or offenses
Presidential transition
Property damages
Crime prevention
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-360
A
Report to the Honorable Bob Barr House of Representatives
June 2002 THE WHITE HOUSE Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential
Transition
GAO- 02- 360
Letter 1 Background 1 Scope and Methodology 3 Results 6 Conclusions 19
Recommendations for Executive Action 20 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
20 White House Comments 21 GSA Comments 34
Appendixes
Appendix I: EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff 36
Missing Items 38 Keyboards 44 Furniture 49 Telephones 56 Fax Machines,
Printers, and Copiers 66 Trash and Related Observations 67 Writing on Walls
and Prank Signs 73 Office Supplies 75 Additional Observations Not on the
June 2001 List 76
Appendix II: Observations Concerning the White House Office Space During
Previous Presidential Transitions 77 Observations of EOP, GSA, and NARA
Staff During Previous Transitions 77 Observations of Former Clinton
Administration Staff Regarding the 1993 Transition 79 News Report Regarding
the Condition of White House Complex
during Previous Transitions 80
Appendix III: Procedures for Vacating Office Space 81
Appendix IV: Comments from the White House 83
Appendix V: GAO?s Response to the White House Comments 161 Underreporting of
Observations 161 Underreporting of Costs 177 Additional Details and
Intentional Acts 185 Statements Made by Former Clinton Administration Staff
196
Past Transitions 205 Other 208 Changes Made to the Report 213
Appendix VI: Comments from the General Services Administration 214 Tables
Table 1: Estimated Costs of Replacing Damaged Keyboards 48
Abbreviations
EEOB Eisenhower Executive Office Building EOP Executive Office of the
President GSA General Services Administration NARA National Archives and
Records Administration NEOB New Executive Office Building OA Office of
Administration ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy WHCA White House
Communications Agency
Lett er
June 7, 2002 The Honorable Bob Barr House of Representatives Dear Mr. Barr:
This report responds to your June 4, 2001, request that we review alleged
damage at the White House during the 2001 presidential transition. We agreed
to determine (1) whether damage, vandalism, or pranks occurred in
the White House and the adjacent Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB)
during the transition by obtaining the observations of Executive Office of
the President (EOP) staff and preparers of White House office space during
the transition and reviewing any available documentation, as well as
obtaining the comments of former Clinton administration staff; (2) to the
extent possible, how the 2001 presidential transition compared with previous
presidential transitions in terms of damage, vandalism, or pranks;
and (3) what steps, if any, should be taken to help prevent and document any
vandalism during future presidential transitions.
Background On January 29, 2001, you wrote us that you had become
increasingly concerned about media reports of damage to the White House and
the EEOB that was discovered by the incoming Bush administration and asked
that we investigate whether damage may have been deliberately caused by
former Clinton administration staff. We subsequently asked EOP and the
General Services Administration (GSA) whether they had any information
that may be responsive to your request. On April 18, 2001, the director of
the Office of Administration (OA), 1 an EOP unit, wrote us a letter
indicating that the White House had no record of damage that ?may have been
deliberately caused by employees of the prior [a] dministration? and that
?.? repair records do not contain information that would allow someone to
determine the cause of damage that is being repaired.? In late May and early
June 2001, these allegations resurfaced in the news
media and on June 4, you asked us to investigate the matter further. On June
5, 2001, the counsel to the president provided us with a list of damage that
was discovered in the White House complex during the first days of the
1 This official?s title is also special assistant to the president.
Bush administration. In his transmittal letter, the counsel to the president
said that the list ?? may be responsive to your earlier request for written
records documenting damage deliberately caused by employees of the prior [a]
dministration?.? Further, the counsel said that the list was not the result
of a comprehensive or systematic investigation into the issue and
should not be considered a complete record of the damage that was found. The
list was prepared by OA, which provides common administrative support and
services to units within the White House complex, which may
include the procurement and maintenance of computers, telephones, furniture,
and other personal property. OA prepared the list on the basis of the
recollections of five EOP officials with responsibilities in the areas of
administration, management, telephones, facilities, and supplies. It listed
missing building fixtures, such as doorknobs and a presidential seal;
computer keyboards with missing ?W? keys; damaged and overturned furniture;
telephone lines pulled from the wall; telephones with missing telephone
number labels; fax machines moved to the wrong areas and a
secure telephone left open with the key in it; offices left in a state of
?general trashing,? including the contents of desk drawers dumped on the
floor, a glass desk top smashed and on the floor, and refrigerators
unplugged with spoiled food; writing on the walls; and voice mail greetings
that had obscene messages. The list also indicated that six to eight 14-
foot trucks were needed to recover usable supplies that had been thrown
away.
The EOP consists of a number of units, including the White House Office, the
Office of the Vice President, the National Security Council (NSC), and OA. 2
The White House Office is composed of staff who directly support and advance
the president?s goals and are commonly referred to as ?White
House staff.? Offices of the White House Office include, but are not limited
to, advance, cabinet affairs, communications, counsel, the first lady,
legislative affairs, management and administration, political affairs,
presidential personnel, press secretary, public liaison, and scheduling.
Although White House Office staff generally leave their positions at the end
of an administration, many EOP staff at agencies such as the NSC and OA hold
their positions during consecutive administrations. In this report, we
referred to staff who are working or worked in the White House complex
during the current administration as ?EOP staff? and staff who worked in 2
Other EOP units include the Council of Economic Advisers, Council on
Environmental
Quality, Office of Homeland Security, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), Office of Science and
Technology Policy, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative.
the previous administration and no longer worked in the White House complex
after January 20, 2001, as ?former Clinton administration staff.?
The White House complex consists of several buildings, including the White
House, the adjacent EEOB, and the New Executive Office Building (NEOB). This
report focuses on observations that were made in the West Wing of the White
House and the EEOB during the transition, and not the White House residence
or the NEOB. Excluding military staff, most White House Office staff work in
the East and West Wings of the White House or the EEOB. GSA maintains the
White House office space, including cleaning the offices and repairing the
physical structure. OA asks GSA to repair furniture in the White House
complex. Some EOP agencies, such as the
Office of the Vice President, also handle some of their own administrative
functions. The Secret Service, a unit of the Department of the Treasury, is
responsible for the security of the White House complex and its occupants.
Scope and To obtain information regarding observations of damage, vandalism,
and
Methodology pranks, we interviewed the five EOP officials who contributed to
the June
2001 list (the OA director, the OA associate director for facilities
management, the OA associate director for general services, the management
office director, and the telephone service director); the OA associate
director for information systems and technology; an on- site manager for a
contractor providing telecommunications services in the White House complex;
the Secret Service deputy special agent in charge, presidential protection
division, White House security branch; the director of GSA?s White House
service center; the chief usher for the executive residence; and four GSA
cleaning crew leaders who worked in the White House complex during the
transition.
We also sent letters to 518 EOP staff who worked in the West Wing and EEOB
during the first 3 weeks of the Bush administration, asking those who
observed any damage, vandalism, or pranks during the weeks surrounding the
2001 transition to arrange a meeting with us through the Office of White
House Counsel. 3 We believed that staff who were in the complex during the
first 3 weeks of the administration were the most likely staff to have
observed damage, vandalism, or pranks. The Office of White
House Counsel arranged for interviews with a total of 78 EOP staff, and an
associate counsel to the president was present during our interviews with
EOP staff. Of the 78 staff, 23 worked for the EOP before January 20, 2001, 4
and 55 began working for the EOP on or after January 20. The interviews
with EOP staff were conducted between June 2001 and May 2002. Because these
interviews were conducted between 5 and 16 months after the transition, we
recognize that recollections could have been imprecise. It was not possible
to determine whether, in all cases, the reported incidents had occurred,
when they occurred, why they occurred, and who may have been responsible for
them. More detailed information about our methodology in reporting the
observations is contained in appendix I. To determine if any documentation
existed that may not have been previously located, we asked the EOP, GSA,
and the Secret Service to provide any documentation they had regarding
damage or theft reports, requests for repairs, and invoices for items that
had to be purchased. In a
June 6, 2001, letter to an associate counsel to the president, we said that
?we will need access to any records and documents maintained by the White
House, GSA, the Secret Service, or other organizations at the White House
that relate to the alleged damage as well as to federal employees and
contractors working at the White House who might have information bearing on
the allegations.? We also interviewed a total of 29 GSA staff who prepared
the office space
for the new administration. In addition, we interviewed two National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA) staff who worked in the 3 We did
not send letters to occupants of other EOP office space, such as the East
Wing, because our initial interviews of EOP and GSA staff did not indicate
that any damage, vandalism, or pranks were observed there. We also did not
send letters to eight EOP staff
whom we had already interviewed before July 31, 2001, when we prepared the
letters. 4 Most of the EOP staff we interviewed who worked for the EOP
before January 20, 2001, were OA staff. We did not interview any EOP staff
who worked for certain EOP units, such as the United States Trade
Representative, ONDCP, or the Office of Homeland Security.
White House complex to assemble presidential materials during the last days
of the Clinton administration about their observations; a contract employee
who helped discard keyboards from the EOP after the transition; and an
official from the White House Communications Agency (WHCA), which handles
communications equipment for the White House.
After interviewing EOP and GSA staff about their observations, we
interviewed a total of 72 former Clinton administration staff to obtain
their comments on the allegations during the 2001 transition and to obtain
their observations about the 1993 transition. We interviewed 35 former
Clinton administration staff who were identified by the senior advisor for
presidential transition during the Clinton administration as having worked
in the White House complex during the 1993 or 2001 transitions. We also
contacted an additional 37 former Clinton administration staff because they
were former directors, managers, or representatives from the primary
offices where observations were made. We did not, however, obtain comments
from former Clinton administration staff regarding every observation. Of the
72 former Clinton administration staff we interviewed, 67 worked in the
White House complex during the 2001 transition and 19 worked there during
the 1993 transition. Five of the 72 former Clinton administration staff we
interviewed left before the end of the administration, but had worked in the
White House complex during the 1993 transition.
We obtained repair or replacement costs for some of the observed incidents.
However, as explained in more detail later in this report, we did not
request cost information associated with all of the observations because we
did not believe certain costs would be material or readily
available. We also believed that the effort that would have been needed to
obtain and verify cost data for all observed incidents would not have been
commensurate with the benefit of having reported the information. Further,
although certain repair and replacement costs were provided, it was unclear
what portion of these costs was incurred or will be incurred
due to vandalism. To determine how the 2001 presidential transition compared
with others in terms of damage, we asked 14 EOP and 2 GSA staff who worked
in the White House complex during previous transitions about their
recollections of damage, vandalism, or pranks during previous transitions.
In addition, we reviewed news media reports to identify any reported damage,
vandalism, or pranks during previous transitions. We searched for news
reports concerning the 1981, 1989, and 1993 transitions.
We assessed what steps could be taken to help prevent and document any
damage during future presidential transitions by discussing the issue with
GSA and EOP officials and by obtaining the check- out procedures for
departing Clinton administration staff. We also discussed check- out
procedures with personnel responsible for the office space and equipment at
the U. S. Capitol, including staff from the Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, House of Representatives; Office of Customer
Relations, Office of the Senate Sergeant- at- Arms; and Office of the
Building Superintendent, Office of the Architect of the Capitol. We
contacted them because the change of staff and offices on Capitol Hill after
elections appeared somewhat comparable to the turnover of EOP staff at the
end of an administration. We did our work from June 2001 to May 2002 in
Washington, D. C., in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks did occur in the White House
complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Multiple people said that,
at the beginning of the Bush administration, they observed (1) many offices
that were messy, disheveled, or contained excessive trash or personal items;
(2) numerous prank signs, printed materials, stickers, and written
messages that were left behind, some of which contained derogatory and
offensive statements about the president; (3) government property that was
damaged, including computer keyboards with missing or damaged ?W? keys and
broken furniture; and (4) items that were missing, such as office signs, a
presidential seal, cellular telephones, doorknobs, and telephone number
labels. In addition, documentation provided indicated that some
broken, missing, or possibly stolen items were repaired or replaced at the
beginning of the Bush administration. Several EOP staff said they believed
that what they observed during the transition, such as broken furniture and
excessive trash left behind, was done intentionally.
Some former Clinton administration staff acknowledged that they had observed
a few keyboards with missing ?W? keys and some prank signs at the end of the
administration. However, the former Clinton administration staff we
interviewed also said that (1) the amount of trash that was observed during
the transition was what could be expected when staff move out of their
offices after 8 years; (2) they did not take the items that
were discovered missing; (3) some furniture was broken, but not
intentionally, before the transition and little money was spent on repairs
and upkeep during the administration; and (4) many of the reported
observations were not of vandalism. Further, two former Clinton
administration representatives told us that, in their opinion, most of the
observations were not true.
Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of
various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and
written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers, clearly were done
intentionally. Any intentional damage at the White House complex, which is a
national treasure, is both inappropriate and a serious matter.
The theft of or willful damage to government property would constitute a
criminal act in violation of federal law. Although it is clear that some of
the reported incidents were intentional, such as the removal and damaging of
keys on computer keyboards, it was unclear whether, in all cases, the
reported incidents occurred, when they occurred, how many occurred, and
who was responsible for them. In addition, regarding the items reported
missing, it was not known whether all of them were thefts, and if they were,
who was responsible for them.
Some documentation corroborating a number of the observations existed. EOP
facilities, computer, and telephone officials said that much repair and
replacement work was done during the transition without documentation being
prepared because of the need to complete the work quickly. The OA
associate director for facilities management, for example, said that no
documentation was prepared regarding three to four missing office signs, a
doorknob, and two or three medallions (small metal presidential seals
affixed to office signs) that were replaced during that time. Further,
documentation was provided indicating that much telephone service work was
done during the transition, but this information did not directly
corroborate allegations of vandalism and pranks involving the telephones.
Observations of EOP Staff Seventy- eight EOP staff who worked in the White
House complex during and Related Documentation
the 2001 transition provided observations about the condition of the complex
shortly before or at the beginning of the administration. In addition, 10 of
the 29 GSA staff we interviewed told us about observations that related to
the items contained in the June 2001 list. The observations generally
reflected the types of incidents included in the June 2001 list and
also included additional items that were not on it. In certain categories,
the observations of EOP staff differed from the June 2001 list in terms of
the total numbers of incidents or the alleged extent of the damage. More
observations of damage, vandalism, and pranks were made on the first floor
of the EEOB in the offices of advance and scheduling, the counsel?s
offices, and the offices of the first lady; and on the second floor of the
EEOB in the offices of the vice president, than in other offices. 5
Summarized below are observations made in specific locations 6 in the main
categories, related comments from former Clinton administration staff and
GSA staff, and any documentation relating to the observations. Appendix I
contains additional information about the observations and additional
comments from former Clinton administration staff.
Twenty- nine EOP staff said they observed about two dozen prank signs,
printed materials, stickers, or written messages that were affixed to walls
or desks; placed in copiers, desks, and cabinets; or placed on the floor.
They said some of these were derogatory and offensive in nature about the
president, and sometimes there were multiple copies in
certain locations. Six EOP staff also said that they had observed writing on
the walls (words) in a total of two rooms. Thirteen former Clinton
administration staff said that they saw a total of 10 to 27 prank signs in
the EEOB during the transition, but one former employee also said that the
prank signs that she saw were harmless jokes.
In June and November 2001, EOP staff provided copies of 2 prank signs that
they said were found during the transition, which were derogatory jokes
about the president and vice president. In August
and September 2001, we were also shown a roll of political stickers that
were left behind and 2 stickers affixed to a file cabinet and desk
containing derogatory statements about the president.
Twenty- six EOP staff said that they observed a total of 30 to 64 computer
keyboards with missing or damaged ?W? keys. Two former Clinton
administration staff said that they saw a total of 3 or 4 keyboards with
missing ?W? keys. Purchase records indicated that the EOP bought 62
computer keyboards on January 23 and 24, 2001. The January 23 purchase
request for 31 keyboards indicated that the keyboards were ?needed 5 The
vice president has an office in the West Wing and a ceremonial office in the
EEOB. Most of the vice president?s staff work in the EEOB. 6 Appendix I
contains information regarding additional observations that staff identified
by floor or building, or about which staff did not provide information about
where they made their observations.
to support the transition,? and the January 24 purchase request for another
31 keyboards indicated that it was a ?second request for the letter ?W?
problem.? The purchase requests were approved by an OA financial manager
who, in April 2001, sent an E- mail to an OA branch chief indicating that
the 62 keyboards purchased in January 2001
were approximately the number that were defective because ?W? keys were
missing or inoperable during the transition. (The actual number of keyboards
that were damaged during the transition is uncertain because of different
statements provided by EOP staff regarding the number of damaged keyboards
that had to be replaced.)
A March 27, 2001, OA excess property report indicated that 12 boxes of
keyboards, speakers, cords, and soundcards were discarded, but did not
specify the number of keyboards that were included. (More information about
the excess property report is contained in appendix I.)
Twenty- two EOP staff and one GSA employee told us that they observed
offices that were messy, disheveled, dirty, or contained excessive trash or
personal items left behind. Some of those staff also said they believed that
offices were intentionally ?trashed.? Former Clinton administration staff
said the amount of trash that was observed during the transition
was what could be expected when staff moved out of their offices after 8
years.
The EOP provided seven photographs that, according to an associate counsel
to the president, were taken of two or three offices in the EEOB by an EOP
employee on January 21, 2001, and that showed piles of binders and office
supplies, empty beverage containers, and
other items. However, a Clinton administration transition official said that
the pictures showed trash and not vandalism.
A January 30, 2001, GSA facility request form documented a request to
clean carpet, furniture, and drapes and to patch and paint walls and
moldings in an office that an EOP employee said was ?trashed
out,? including the carpet, furniture, and walls, and had three to four
?sizable? holes in a wall. The facility request was made by the EOP employee
who told us about this observation.
Another January 30, 2001, GSA facility request form documented a request
to clean carpet, furniture, and drapes in a different office that
an EOP employee said was filthy and contained worn and dirty furniture.
January 25, 2001, and February 17, 2001, GSA facility request forms
documented requests to clean carpet, furniture, and drapes in a suite of
offices that an EOP employee told us was ?extremely trashed? and smelled
bad. The facility requests were made by the EOP employee who told us about
this observation.
Ten EOP staff said that they observed a total of 16 to 21 pieces of broken
furniture. Former Clinton administration staff said that some furniture was
broken before the transition and could have been the result of normal wear
and tear, and little money was spent on repairs and upkeep
during the administration.
January 25 and 29, 2001, GSA facility request forms documented requests to
gain access to and for a key to a locked file cabinet in a room where an EOP
employee said that he had found a key that was bent and almost entirely
broken off in a cabinet that, once opened by a locksmith, contained Gore-
Lieberman stickers. The requests were made by the EOP employee who told us
about this observation.
A January 30, 2001, GSA facility request form documented a request to fix
a broken desk lock in an office where an EOP employee told us that a lock on
her desk appeared to have been smashed. The facility request was made by the
EOP employee who told us about this observation.
A February 12, 2001, GSA facility request form documented a request to
repair a leg on a sofa in an office on a floor of the EEOB where an EOP
employee observed a sofa with broken legs.
A February 21, 2001, GSA facility request form documented a request to
repair arms on two chairs in an office where two EOP staff told us that they
had observed broken chairs. The facility request was made for the EOP
employee who told us about this observation. However, the manager of the
office during the Clinton administration where EOP staff said they observed
broken chairs said that arms on two chairs in that suite of offices had
become detached a year or two before the transition and that carpenters had
glued them back, but that they did not hold. Two GSA facility request forms
in 1999
documented requests made by the former office manager for previous repairs
of chairs in that office suite.
Five EOP staff told us they observed a total of 11 to 13 pieces of
furniture that were on their sides or overturned. Six EOP staff said they
observed a total of four to five desks with a sticky substance or glue on
the top or on drawers.
Six EOP staff said that they observed a total of 5 to 11 missing office
signs, which include medallions (presidential seals about 2 inches in
diameter), and one of those six EOP staff also said he observed that six
medallions were missing from office signs; four EOP staff said that they
observed a total of 10 to 11 missing doorknobs, which may have been
historic originals; an EOP official, a GSA official, and a Secret Service
official said that a presidential seal 12 inches in diameter was stolen; two
EOP staff said they observed a total of 9 to 11 missing television remote
controls; and two EOP staff said that two cameras were missing. In addition,
two EOP officials said that about 20 cellular telephones
could not be located in the office suite where they belonged. The former
occupants of offices during the Clinton administration whom we interviewed
where items were observed missing said that they did not take them.
An April 19, 2001, GSA facility request form documented a request for
?replacement of frames & medallions? for four rooms, including an office
where three EOP staff observed a missing office sign and medallion. The
three other rooms that, according to the facility request form, needed
office signs were located on one of two floors
of the EEOB where an EOP employee observed four missing office signs.
A February 7, 2001, GSA facility request form documented a request to ?put
doorknob on inter- office? door? in an office where an EOP employee told us
that he had observed two pairs of missing doorknobs. The facility request
was made for the EOP employee who told us about this observation. However, a
GSA planner/ estimator said that the work done in response to that request
was not to replace a missing doorknob, but to perform maintenance on a
doorknob with a worn- out part.
A Secret Service report documented the theft of a presidential seal that
was 12 inches in diameter from the EEOB on January 19, 2001.
Purchase records indicated that the EOP bought a total of 15 television
remote controls on March 6 and 15; June 5; and July 10, 2001. The EOP
indicated that these purchases were made to replace remote controls that
were missing from offices during the transition. Purchase records
indicated that the EOP bought two cameras on
March 16, 2001, and April 4, 2001. The EOP indicated that these purchases
were made to replace cameras that two EOP staff said were discovered
missing. However, the director of the office during the Clinton
administration where the cameras belonged said that the cameras were still
in the office when the staff left on their last day of employment with the
EOP.
Purchase records indicated that the EOP bought 26 cellular telephones on
January 26, 2001. The EOP indicated that these purchases were made to
replace cellular telephones that could not be
located. However, former Clinton administration staff who worked in the
office where the cellular telephones belonged said that they left them there
at the end of the administration. In addition, a former official from that
office during the Clinton administration provided
copies of check- out forms documenting that the staff had returned their
cellular telephones at the end of the administration.
Five EOP staff said that they observed a total of 98 to 107 telephones
that had no labels identifying the telephone numbers, and seven EOP staff
said they saw telephones unplugged or piled up. Former Clinton
administration staff said that some telephones did not have labels
identifying the numbers during the administration, mainly because
certain telephones were used for outgoing calls only.
The EOP provided documentation summarizing telephone service orders closed
from January 20, 2001, through February 20, 2001, containing 29 service
orders that cited the need for or placing of labels on telephones; 6 of the
29 service orders were for work in offices where telephone labels were
observed missing. EOP also provided two blanket work orders and four
individual work orders
that cited relabeling or placing labels on telephones for which the summary
document did not mention labels. However, all of the 29 service orders on
the summary document and the blanket and individual work orders EOP provided
were part of other requests for service and the extent to which the work was
done solely to replace missing labels was not clear.
A January 29, 2001, telecommunications service request documented a
request for services including ?replace labels on all phones that [sic]
removed.? 7
A February 7, 2001, telecommunications service request documented a
request to remove a telephone from an office where piles of telephones were
observed.
Thirteen EOP staff said they heard a total of 22 to 28 inappropriate or
prank voice mail greetings or messages, and two EOP staff said they heard a
total of 6 to 7 obscene or vulgar voice mail messages that were left on
telephones in vacated offices. One former Clinton administration
employee said that he left what he considered to be a humorous voice mail
greeting on his telephone on his last day of employment.
Two EOP staff said that they saw a total of 5 to 6 telephone lines
?ripped? (not simply disconnected) or pulled from walls, and another EOP
employee said that at least 25 cords were pulled from walls in two rooms.
Former Clinton administration staff we interviewed who occupied those
offices said they did not pull the cords from the walls.
A January 24, 2001, GSA facility request form documented a request to
?organize all loose wires and make them not so visible? in an office suite
where an EOP employee said that at least 25 cords were pulled from the
walls. The facility request was made by the EOP employee who told us about
this observation. The former occupant of the main room in that office suite
said that he did not observe any computer or
telephone cords that were cut or torn out of walls, and that his office only
had 5 telephone and computer cords. Observations of damage, vandalism, or
pranks were reported by EOP staff in about 100 of about 1,074 rooms in the
EEOB and in 8 of about 137 rooms 8 in the East and West Wings of the White
House. According to the OA
7 In commenting on a draft of this report, the counsel to the president
cited other documentation that the White House believed was indicative of
having to replace missing telephone labels. However, we were not provided
with all of the documentation cited, and we did not believe that the
documentation that we were provided, other than the one cited above, was
definitive in that regard.
8 The total number of rooms in the East and West Wings included reception
areas, restrooms, and nonoffice space.
associate director for facilities management, approximately 395 offices were
vacated during the transition: 304 in the EEOB, 54 in the West Wing, and 37
in the East Wing. In the overwhelming majority of cases, one person said
that he or she observed a specific incident in a particular location.
However, more than one person observed most types of incidents. In addition,
we were generally unable to determine when the observed incidents occurred
and who was responsible for them because no one said he or she saw people
carrying out what was observed or said that he or she
was responsible for what was observed, with three exceptions: (1) an EOP
employee who said she saw a volunteer remove an office sign from a wall, (2)
a former Clinton administration employee who said he wrote a ?goodwill?
message inside the drawer of his former desk, and (3) another
former Clinton administration employee who said that he left what he
believed to be a humorous voice mail message greeting at the end of the
administration. 9 Further, we were told that many contractor staff, such as
movers and cleaners, were working in the White House complex during the
weekend of January 20 and 21, 2001, but the White House did not provide the
data we had requested regarding visitors to the EEOB during that time. 10
From our interviews of EOP staff, we totaled the number of incidents that
were observed in the categories indicated in the June 2001 list of damage.
In certain categories, the observations of EOP staff differed from the list
in terms of the total numbers of incidents or alleged extent of the damage.
For example, regarding the statement contained in the June 2001 list that
100 keyboards had to replaced because the ?W? keys were removed, EOP staff
provided different estimates of the number of keyboards that had to be
replaced because of missing or damaged keys, ranging from about 33 keyboards
to 150 keyboards. As a result, we could not determine how
many keyboards were actually replaced because of missing or damaged ?W?
keys. Regarding the statement contained in the list that furniture in six
offices was damaged severely enough to require a complete refurbishment or
destruction, we were told that 16 to 21 pieces of broken furniture were
observed during the transition. This included 5 to 7 chairs with broken legs
or backs, but we did not obtain any documentation indicating that they were
either completely refurbished or destroyed. The EOP provided
9 See appendix I for more information about these incidents. 10 GSA
indicated that the staff who cleaned the EEOB during the weekend of January
20 to 21, 2001, included 55 GSA custodial workers, 67 contract workers, and
additional contract crews for carpet cleaning and furniture moving.
photographs of 4 pieces of furniture that, according to an associate counsel
to the president, were moved to an EOP remote storage facility that is now
quarantined. They included a chair with a missing leg, a chair with a
missing back, a sofa without a seat cushion, and a desk with missing drawer
fronts. However, no information was provided identifying the offices from
which these pieces of furniture were taken, when the damage occurred, or
whether any of the damage was done intentionally. Further, EOP staff told us
about fewer incidences of writing on walls than were indicated in the list.
Regarding the statement in the list that eight trucks were needed to recover
new and usable supplies that had been thrown
away, the EOP official responsible for office supplies said that about eight
truckloads of excessed items were brought to an EOP warehouse where they
were sorted into usable and nonusable materials, but he was not aware of any
usable supplies being discarded.
Costs Associated with the Cost data were not readily available regarding all
of the observations.
Observations Further, although certain repair and replacement costs were
provided, it was unclear what portion of these costs was incurred or will be
incurred
due to vandalism. The EOP and GSA provided documentation indicating that at
least $9, 324 was spent to repair and replace items that were observed
broken or missing in specific locations and for cleaning services in offices
where observations were made. The following list itemizes those costs:
$4, 850 to purchase 62 keyboards; 11 $2, 040 to purchase 26 cellular
telephones;
$1, 150 for professional cleaning services;
$729 to purchase 2 cameras; 11 Although the EOP provided documents
regarding the purchase of 62 computer keyboards in late January 2001, EOP
staff with responsibilities involving computers provided different estimates
of the number of keyboards that had to be replaced at the beginning of the
new administration because they were intentionally damaged, ranging from 33
to 150. Using the $75 per- unit price that the EOP paid in January 2001 for
keyboards, 33 keyboards would cost $2, 475, and 150 keyboards would cost
$11, 250. The $4, 850 that the EOP paid for keyboards
in January 2001 included $200 in expedite fees, which we excluded in
calculating the perunit price.
$221 to purchase 15 television remote controls;
$108 for locksmith services regarding furniture;
$76 to remove a telephone from an office;
$75 to repair 2 chairs with broken arms; and
$75 to repair a sofa leg. EOP and GSA officials also provided estimates of
$3, 750 to $4, 675 in costs that could have been incurred or may be spent in
the future to replace missing items for which no documentation, such as
facility request forms or purchase records, was available. Because specific
locations were not provided regarding some of the observations of missing
items, we were unable to determine whether all of the missing items had been
replaced.
The costs estimated by EOP or GSA staff for replacing the government
property that was observed missing included:
$2, 100 to $2, 200 for 9 to 10 doorknobs; 12
$675 to $750 for 9 to 10 medallions;
$625 to $1,375 for 5 to 11 office signs; and
$350 for a presidential seal that was 12 inches in diameter. Based on what
the White House said were extremely conservative estimates and
straightforward documentation, the White House said that the government
incurred costs of at least $6, 020 to replace missing
telephone labels and reroute forwarded telephones. The documentation
provided included two blanket work orders and associated bills, a closed
orders log for the period January 20 through February 20, 2001, 8 individual
work orders for telephone service, and two monthly AT& T invoices. The
12 This total estimated cost assumes that all of the doorknobs that were
observed missing, except for one, were replaced with historic replicas,
which was unknown. We deducted the value of replacing one historic doorknob
from the total number observed missing because as noted earlier, a GSA
planner/ estimator said that a facility request to install a doorknob in an
office where one was observed missing during the transition was to perform
maintenance on a doorknob with a worn- out part, not to replace a missing
one. It was also unknown whether all of the doorknobs that were observed
missing were historic originals.
White House also identified, but did not provide, other individual telephone
service work orders that cited the need for or placing labels on telephones.
Six of the 29 work orders listed on the closed orders log that cited needing
or placing labels and four individual work orders that included labels were
for work in offices where telephone labels were observed missing. However,
both the orders listed on the closed orders log and the individual
work orders, as well as the blanket work orders, cited other services
besides labeling, and it was not clear to us from the documentation provided
the extent to which relabeling was done solely to replace missing labels or
would have been necessary anyway due to changes requested by new office
occupants. None of the documents provided specifically cited correcting
forwarded telephones. Thus, while we do not question that costs were
incurred to replace labels or reroute forwarded telephones, we do not
believe the documentation provided is clear enough to indicate what
those costs were. Appendix I contains information regarding additional costs
to repair furniture that was not in locations where EOP staff told us they
observed pieces of damaged or broken furniture during the transition. We did
not request cost information associated with some observations, such as the
time associated with removing prank signs, placing overturned furniture
upright, or investigating missing items because we did not believe these
costs would be material or readily available or that the information would
be beneficial relative to the effort that would have been required to obtain
the data. These costs also did not include any EOP or GSA costs associated
with our review or responding to other inquiries related to the alleged
damage.
Previous Presidential According to a limited number of EOP, GSA, and former
Clinton Transitions
administration staff we interviewed who worked in the White House complex
during previous transitions, as well as a press account that we reviewed,
some of the same types of observations that were made concerning the
condition of the White House complex during the 2001 transition were also
made during the 1993 transition. These observations included missing office
signs and doorknobs, messages written inside desks, prank signs and
messages, piles of furniture and equipment, and excessive trash left in
offices. We also observed writing in a desk in the EEOB that was dated 1993.
In addition, words and initials were reported
observed carved into desks during the 1993 transition, which were not
reported observed during the 2001 transition. On the other hand, no one said
they observed keyboards with missing and damaged keys during
previous transitions, as numerous people said they observed in the White
House complex during the 2001 transition.
Seven EOP staff and one former Clinton administration employee who had
worked in the White House complex during previous transitions made
comparisons regarding the condition of the space during the 2001 transition
with conditions during previous transitions. Six EOP staff said
that the condition was worse in 2001 than previous transitions, while one
EOP employee and one former Clinton administration employee said the office
space was worse in 1993 than 2001. Because of the lack of definitive data
available to compare the extent of damage, vandalism, and pranks
during the 2001 transition with past transitions, we were unable to conclude
whether the 2001 transition was worse than previous ones. Appendix II
contains observations and a press account regarding the condition of the
White House office space during previous transitions.
Avoiding Problems in Former Clinton administration officials told us that
departing EOP staff Future Transitions
were required to follow a check- out procedure that involved turning in such
items as building passes, library materials, and government cellular
telephones at the end of the administration. The procedure did not include
an inspection of office space or equipment to assess whether any damage had
occurred. A January 4, 2001, memorandum from President Clinton?s chief of
staff encouraged staff to check out by January 12, 2001, but did not
indicate in what condition the office space should be left or provide any
warning about penalties for vandalism. When members of Congress and
their staff vacate offices on Capitol Hill, their office space and equipment
are inspected, and members are held accountable for any damages.
Because it is likely that allegations of damage, vandalism, and pranks in
the White House complex could be made during future transitions and because
of the historic nature of the White House complex and the attention it
receives, we are recommending actions to help deter future problems during
presidential transitions, including a check- out process for departing EOP
staff that includes clear instructions; and an office inspection
documenting the condition of office space, furniture, and equipment. In
addition, EOP, GSA, and former Clinton administration staff identified a
number of issues related to office cleaning during our interviews, such as
whether (1) a sufficient number of people were available to do the cleaning
as quickly as necessary, (2) cleaning had begun soon enough, (3) sufficient
coordination existed between the EOP and GSA, and (4) a sufficient
number of containers were available for departing staff to deposit their
trash. Accordingly, we are recommending that the EOP and GSA work together
to explore what steps should be taken to expedite the cleaning of
White House office space during presidential transitions. Appendix III
discusses steps to help prevent damage to government property during future
presidential transitions.
Conclusions Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House
complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Incidents such as the
removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of various items; the
leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and written messages; and the
placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were intentional acts. However, it
was unknown whether other observations, such as broken furniture,
were the result of intentional acts, when and how they occurred, or who may
have been responsible for them. Further, with regard to stolen items, such
as the presidential seal, because no one witnessed the thefts and many
people were in the White House complex during the transition, it was not
known who was responsible for taking them. Moreover, regarding other items
reported missing, such as doorknobs, cellular telephones, and
television remote controls, it was unknown whether all of them were thefts,
and if they were, who was responsible for taking those items and when they
were taken. Further complicating our attempt to determine the amount of
damage that may have occurred was the lack of documentation directly
corroborating some observations and our inability to reconcile certain
observations only a few hours apart in locations where some people saw
damage, vandalism, or pranks and where others saw none.
We realize the difficulty of preparing the White House office space for
occupancy by the new administration in the short amount of time that is
available during presidential transitions. We also recognize that some
prank- type activity has occurred in the White House complex during past
transitions and could occur in the future. Because of the historic nature
and symbolism of the White House and the public attention it receives, as
well as the costs associated with investigating allegations of damage, we
believe that current and future administrations should have a cost-
effective inspection of office space, furniture, and equipment as part of
the checkout process for departing employees during transitions and document
any damage observed. We also believe that departing EOP staff should be
given clear instructions regarding what condition their office space and
equipment should be left in and how to handle office supplies, and they
should be informed about the penalties for damage and vandalism.
Many EOP staff reported observing what they believed to be an excessive
amount of trash in the office space during the transition. Because future
presidential transitions may not fall on a weekend, as the 2001 transition
did, even less time will be available to clean the space. The EOP and GSA
should explore what additional steps could be taken to ensure that the EOP
office space is immediately cleaned and prepared for an incoming
administration, including communicating with both outgoing and incoming
administrations concerning the timetable and procedures for the transition.
Recommendations for
Steps should be taken to help (1) prevent and document damage that Executive
Action
results in repair or replacement costs during presidential transitions; (2)
ensure that the space is ready for occupancy; and (3) avoid potential future
costs associated with investigating allegations of damage, vandalism, and
pranks. We recommend that the director of the Office of Management and
Administration for the White House Office and the GSA administrator work
together to
revise the employee check- out process to require a cost- effective
inspection of office space, furniture, and equipment by the EOP and GSA
within their respective areas of responsibility and to document any
damage observed; and
explore what additional steps could be taken to ensure that the EOP office
space is immediately cleaned and prepared for an incoming administration,
including communicating with both outgoing and
incoming administrations concerning the timetable and procedures for
transition. We also recommend that the officials provide clear instructions
to staff about what condition the office space and equipment should be left
in, how office supplies should be handled, and the penalties for damaging
and vandalizing government property. Agency Comments and
In March and April 2002, we held exit conferences with White House Our
Evaluation
officials and former Clinton administration representatives during which we
provided them an opportunity to review our preliminary findings. The White
House provided written comments on the preliminary findings, and former
Clinton administration representatives provided oral comments. We considered
those comments in preparing our draft report.
On May 3, 2002, we provided copies of a formal draft of this report for
comment to the counsel to the president and the GSA administrator. On May
31, 2002, the counsel to the president provided written comments on the
draft, which are reprinted in appendix IV. Our response to the White House?s
general statements is provided below, and our response to the White House?s
specific comments is contained in appendix V. The deputy commissioner of
GSA?s Public Buildings Service also provided comments on May 13, which are
summarized below and reprinted in appendix VI.
We had intended to provide representatives from the Clinton administration
with a draft of this report for their review and comment. However, we did
not do so because one or more representatives prematurely provided
information to the press on the basis of their
discussions with us during our review, and we believed that another
premature release of the contents of the draft report was likely.
Nonetheless, on the basis of the discussions we did have with Clinton
administration representatives during the course of our review, we believe
that our report fairly reflects the information they provided to us.
White House The White House?s general comments on the draft and our response
follow.
Comments Report Comment Process The White House said that, in our May 3
draft of the report, we had failed to
address many of the concerns it had raised in its April 26 set of comments
on our preliminary findings. Accordingly, the White House said, it had
provided us with a second set of detailed comments on the May 3 draft. The
White House also said that it was disappointed that it would not have an
opportunity to consider or reply to our response to its comments prior to
publication of the final report. It said that this was inconsistent with all
previous representations regarding our process.
We carefully considered the comments that the White House provided regarding
our preliminary findings and made changes in our report where we believed
appropriate. On May 13, the White House provided written comments on our May
3 draft report that included the names of people we interviewed during our
review. The White House subsequently decided to delete these individuals?
names from its comments, and on May 31, provided us with a second set of
comments on our May 3 draft report that did not contain those names.
Moreover, we did not provide the White
House with an opportunity to reply to our response to its comments because
that is not part of our normal comment process; we do not normally provide
agencies with our response to their comments prior to publication of the
report. The White House is incorrect in indicating that, by not providing
the White House with an opportunity to consider or reply
to our response to its comments prior to the publication of the report, we
were being inconsistent with all previous representations regarding our
process. We explained the process on numerous occasions and provided a copy
of our congressional protocols to an associate counsel to the president, and
we never indicated that the White House would have an opportunity to
consider or reply to our response to its comments before the
report was published. Amount of Detail Provided The White House said that we
had not reported many facts that readers needed to know to have a complete
and accurate understanding of what happened during the 2001 transition. The
White House said that it believed the report did not provide sufficient
detail to respond to Representative Barr?s request or to meet Government
Auditing Standards, and noted that we did not specifically identify each
reported instance of vandalism, damage, or a prank. Further, the White House
said that, in many cases, we reported a former staff member?s comments
without having discussed the observation itself. The White House noted that
reporting when, where, and by whom an observation was made would be helpful
in determining the likely perpetrator. The White House also noted that we
had not reported the specific content
of graffiti, messages, and signs. According to the White House, this written
content would provide (1) indications of who wrote the messages and when;
(2) an insight into the mind- set or intention of the person who wrote the
message; (3) an opportunity to infer that, if departing staff left a vulgar
or derogatory message, those same individuals may be responsible for
other incidents that were observed near the location of the message; (4) an
opportunity to compare the 2001 transition to prior ones; and (5) an
opportunity to decide whether we had fairly and objectively characterized
the content of the messages. In transmitting a revised set of comments on
May 31, the counsel to the president stated his objection to our decision to
redact from the White
House?s comments, which are reprinted in appendix IV, a word that we
considered to be inappropriate that was contained in a prank sign that was
found during the transition. He also said that with respect to our
description of a particular message that said ?jail to the thief? as
?arguably? derogatory to the president, because we did not reveal the
content of the message, readers have no way of knowing whether our
characterization of it being ?arguably? derogatory is accurate. We disagree
with the White House that we had not reported many facts that readers needed
to know to have a complete and accurate understanding of what happened
during the 2001 transition. Our report includes the information (1) we
agreed to provide to Representative Barr, (2) to support our conclusions and
recommendations, and (3) to comply with
Government Auditing Standards. As provided for under our congressional
protocols when we receive congressional requests, we work with the
requesters to agree on a scope of work and an approach that takes into
consideration a number of factors. They include the nature of the issues
raised; the likelihood of being able to address them in a fair, objective,
and complete manner; a consideration of professional standards, rules of
evidence, and the nature and sufficiency of evidence likely to be
available on the particular engagement; known or possible constraints
related to obtaining the information needed; and the time and resources
needed and available to accomplish the work. For this review, after
independently taking these factors into consideration, we used a thorough,
reasonable approach to provide as complete and objective a picture as
possible of the damage that may have occurred during the 2001 presidential
transition, given that (1) we could not physically observe evidence of most
of the incidents that were reportedly observed, (2) limited definitive
documentation was available regarding these events, and (3) views of
interested parties would likely differ on many issues and would be difficult
or impossible to reconcile. Accordingly, we agreed to respond to
Representative Barr?s request by reporting on the documentation provided
by the White House; summarizing the observations made by occupants and
preparers of White House office space during the 2001 transition; and
obtaining explanations and other comments of former Clinton administration
staff related to any damage, vandalism, or pranks. We neither agreed to nor
performed an investigation into who may have been
responsible for any damage, vandalism, or pranks identified, nor did we
agree to report each individual observation.
We reported all observations in a summary fashion (i. e., total number of
observations in a particular category) and discussed some observations in
detail when warranted. For example, in the section of appendix I regarding
furniture, we not only provided the total number of pieces of broken
furniture that people observed, but also described the specific problems
they observed. However, regarding other categories of observations, such as
missing telephone labels, we did not provide details regarding each
observation because such information would not have been meaningful; rather,
we reported a range of the total number of telephone labels observed
missing. Reporting each instance was not only unneeded, but would have been
redundant. Further, we separately mentioned each
observation that was made in the White House itself. Although we would agree
with the White House that the details about when, where, and by whom
observations were made may be relevant in assessing the credibility
of statements and determining the likely perpetrators, we do not believe
that reporting additional detail would have allowed readers to make sound,
independent conclusions.
Although, as the White House correctly states, Government Auditing Standards
require audit reports to contain all the information needed to satisfy audit
objectives and promote a correct understanding of the matters to be
reported, these standards also recognize that considerable judgment must be
exercised in determining an appropriate amount and level of detail to
include. Excessive detail can detract from a report, conceal the real
message, and confuse or discourage readers. Consistent with these
professional standards, we believe that we have provided the appropriate
amount of detail needed to satisfy our objectives and support our
conclusions and recommendations. In our view, reporting more detail could,
at a minimum, confuse readers and contribute to unproductive speculation,
rather than lead to sound conclusions. As we have reported, we believe that
sufficient, competent, and relevant evidence exists to support our
conclusion that damage, vandalism, and pranks did occur during the 2001
presidential transition, and we have presented this evidence in our report.
However, we believe it is also
important to recognize that corroborating evidence was not provided for all
observations, and that definitive evidence regarding who was responsible for
the incidents observed generally was not provided. In addition, although a
number of incidents appeared intentional by their nature, it often was
unknown whether other types of incidents were intentional, malicious acts.
Accordingly, we do not believe it was appropriate to include all of the
details that the White House suggested because we did not want to mislead
readers into concluding that corroboration existed and that all of the
reported incidents occurred and were intentional, nor did we believe it was
appropriate to contribute to speculation about who may have
been responsible for any acts that were intentional for which credible
evidence was not provided.
In its comments, the White House cited several cases where we failed to
report information regarding what staff said other people had seen or had
told them. This is correct; in reporting the observations, we did not
include information people relayed to us from third parties. We reported
what people told us they personally observed. In addition, in certain cases,
the
White House cited statements in its comments that it claimed staff had said
that were not contained in our interview records. An associate counsel to
the president told us that, in preparing the White House?s comments, she
discussed the accuracy of statements attributed to EOP staff in the report
draft with those individuals. Had we known in advance that an associate
counsel to the president was going to recontact the EOP staff we
interviewed, we would have asked to participate in those discussions. Since
we did not participate in those discussions, we have no information about
the context or manner in which they took place. Therefore, we reported only
what our interview records indicated EOP staff told us.
Although we would typically confirm our understanding of statements made to
us during interviews directly with the interviewees whenever a question or
doubt arises, this was problematic in this review due to the protocol
established by the White House for our work. Under this protocol, we were
asked to provide written requests for follow- up interviews or additional
documentation to the counsel?s office, and all such interviews were arranged
by that office. This was a time consuming process that at times involved
significant delays in gaining access to the individuals we
sought to interview. Had we been granted direct, prompt access to the people
we needed to interview, we would have been in a better position to have
quickly and efficiently resolved any questions or misunderstandings
that may have arisen. Nonetheless, with the exception of one follow- up
interview, at least two GAO staff attended interviews in the White House
complex, and we believe this approach provided reasonable assurance that
we accurately captured what the interviewees told us. Regarding the White
House?s statement that, in many cases, in reporting a former staff member?s
comments in response to a particular observation, we had not discussed the
observation itself, each observation was included in summary fashion, and in
some cases, in detail, before we reported the comments by former Clinton
administration staff. In a few cases, in response to the White House?s
comments, we added additional detail regarding an observation. Moreover,
although we reported every
observation in summary fashion, we did not obtain comments from former
Clinton administration staff regarding all observations, nor did we report
every comment provided by former Clinton administration staff. Further,
we did not report positive actions that people said former Clinton
administration staff had taken to facilitate the transition or welcome new
staff because they did not directly relate to the allegations.
Regarding the specific contents of graffiti, messages, and signs, we did not
believe that it was appropriate or necessary to report their specific
contents. Although most of the messages reportedly observed or heard did
not contain profane language, some of them did. However, we will not report
them and, thus, we decided to redact an obscene word that the White House
included in its comments in reference to a message that was found. Further,
although we did not report their specific content, we described the general
nature of those messages. We believe that the White
House is being speculative in suggesting that reporting their specific
content would provide indications of who wrote them and when they were
written and would provide an insight into the mind- set of the person who
wrote them. Further, although whoever left a vulgar or derogatory message
could have been responsible for other incidents that were observed near the
location of the message, no substantive evidence was presented linking
messages to other incidents that were observed. We also do not believe that
reporting the specific contents would have provided a meaningful
opportunity to compare the 2001 transition to previous ones because we also
did not report the specific content of signs and messages that were found
during previous transitions, nor was there sufficient information about the
condition of White House office space during previous transitions to make a
meaningful comparison.
In a draft of this report, we had characterized a sticker that said ?jail to
the thief? as being ?arguably? derogatory to the president because we did
not know the intent of the person who left the message. However, in response
to the White House?s comments, we deleted ?arguably.? We informed an
associate counsel to the president of our intention to make this change
before the White House sent us its May 31 letter raising this concern.
Although we agree with the White House?s view that it is solely responsible
for its comments, we are publishing its comments as part of our report, and
we are responsible for our report. Further, although we would normally not
make any changes to an agency?s comments on our draft report, the situation
in this case is highly unusual and, in our view, calls for an unusual
step on our part. With respect to the White House?s objection to our
redaction of a word contained in a sign found during the transition, the
word in question is clearly obscene and, in our independent and professional
judgment, should not be used in a public report that bears
GAO?s name. As a result, we have deleted this word from the White House?s
comments, used ?*? to reflect the number of letters in the word, and
indicated that GAO deleted an obscenity. By doing so, we believe that
readers will know that an unacceptable word was used in a message left in
the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition. In
addition, because the word was part of its comments, we will refer inquiries
about this matter to the White House. Finally, we do not believe that our
deletion of one word out of over 70 pages of detailed comments, with full
disclosure of the reason why we deleted it, seriously undermines the White
House?s comments.
June 2001 List of Damage The White House objected to our structuring the
report around the June 2001 list of damage and comparing the staff members?
observations with the contents of the list. In stating its objection, the
White House
highlighted the cautionary statement that the counsel to the president made
in transmitting the list to us. Further, the White House indicated that we
did not ask the individuals who prepared the list to explain how the list
was prepared, who transcribed it, what its purpose was, and or what each
line referred to. In addition, the White House indicated that we, at times,
misstated the contents of the list. We structured appendix I, but not the
letter portion of this report, around the June 2001 list because the list
highlighted congressional and other interest in initiating our review.
Further, interviewees were not restricted to observations about items on the
list. Rather, during our interviews, we solicited observations regarding
anything that could be damage, vandalism,
or pranks. Before the list was prepared, the OA director informed us in
writing that no documentation existed regarding the allegations. On page 2
of our draft report and this report, we quoted the counsel to the
president?s cautionary remarks about the list that were contained in his
June 4, 2001, transmittal letter to us. Further, we note that, according to
an article in the June 4, 2001, issue of the Washington Post, the White
House press
secretary provided the list to the newspaper, which suggested that the White
House had sufficient confidence in its contents to release it publicly. In
addition, the White House?s assertion is incorrect that we did not ask the
individuals whose names appeared on the list to explain how it was prepared.
Our record of a June 6, 2001, entrance conference at the White House
indicated that the OA director, who contributed to the list, discussed at
that meeting how it was prepared. Further, our initial interviews of EOP
staff included four of the five individuals who helped prepare the list,
which allowed us to ask them about their observations, and, in one case,
our interview records indicated that one of the individuals said that a
statement on the list ?bothered? him. Regarding the White House?s statement
that we often misstated the contents of the list, we summarized the contents
of the list on page 2 of the report and revised the report as necessary to
quote directly from the list throughout the remainder of the
report. Number of Observations
The White House said that we materially understated the number of Reported
observations, and that our methodology of calculating the ranges was flawed.
For example, the White House objected to the method that we used to
calculate a range of keyboards observed with missing and damaged
?W? keys. The White House said that our flawed methodology infected each of
the ranges presented in the report. Further, the White House also said that
the problem with our analysis was compounded because, in the instance cited,
we had grouped three offices together. As indicated in our report regarding
the methodology used to report the
number of keyboards observed with missing or damaged ?W? keys, we reported a
range representing the number of incidents observed because some staff said
they saw different numbers of incidents in the same rooms or offices. Our
methodology in calculating the range of keyboards with
missing or damaged keys, as well as for other categories of observations,
was used to include both the lowest and the highest numbers that were
reported to us in particular locations and to eliminate possible double
counting. The White House mischaracterized how we determined our range in
the hypothetical cases it provided. For example, in the hypothetical case
involving three people who observed 1, 25, and 100 incidents, respectively,
the White House said that, using our methodology, we would calculate the
range of total observed incidents as being from 1 to
126, which the White House said would be an absurd conclusion. However, the
White House?s application of our methodology in this hypothetical case is
incorrect and would have resulted in the wrong conclusion; our range of
observed incidents in that location would be 1 to 100. The White House
similarly mischaracterized the other example it gave on this issue. We
disagree with the White House?s argument that, when multiple people provided
different numbers of observations in the same specific locations, the lowest
number observed in a particular location cannot be used as the low end of
the range. We used ranges to account for the different observations made in
the same locations and did not make any judgments about which observation
was correct because it was not possible in many
cases to do so. We believe this approach is the most accurate and objective
depiction of views that were shared with us. Further, we did not conclude
what the precise numbers of incidents observed in various categories were
because they would have been impossible to determine. Regarding the
situation that the White House cited when we grouped observations of
keyboards with missing and damaged ?W? keys in three offices, we did it that
way because an EOP employee said that her observation pertained to them. Use
of the Term ?EOP? The White House objected to our use of the term ?EOP?
staff, rather than
identifying the specific EOP unit being discussed. The White House said that
it is not accurate to refer to each EOP unit individually or all units
collectively as the EOP because not all offices in the complex fall within
the EOP umbrella and that we did not investigate all EOP units. Further, the
White House said we had inaccurately referred to EOP units as agencies.
Except for staff we interviewed who worked for the Secret Service, GSA, and
the Executive Residence, all of the people we interviewed at the White House
complex worked for or had worked for the EOP. We did not believe that it was
necessary to break out, in all categories of observations, staff members?
respective EOP units, nor was it an objective of our review.
However, when we reported specific observations or comments made by EOP
officials, we used their titles, which identified their respective EOP
units. To address the White House?s comment that the term ?EOP? may be over-
inclusive, we added a note to the report indicating that we did not
interview, for example, any staff who worked for the United States Trade
Representative, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, or the Office of
Homeland Security. We also noted that most of the EOP staff we interviewed
who worked at the White House before January 20, 2001, worked for OA.
Concerning the White House?s comment that we misidentified units that
comprise the EOP and misidentified EOP components as ?agencies,? we
understand that the Executive Residence, although treated as ?analogous
to an EOP unit? (by the court, e. g., in Sweetland v. Walters, 60 F. 3d 852,
854 (D. C. Cir. 1995)), is technically not an EOP component because it was
not
created as such. 13 Notwithstanding this technicality, we had listed the
Executive Residence as an EOP component because it is shown as such in the
White House staff manual that was in effect at the time of the transition
and in the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2003. To
recognize the White House?s comments about this issue, however, we
deleted the Executive Residence from our list of EOP components. On the
other hand, we do not agree with the White House?s objection to our
characterization of EOP components as agencies. We recognize, as the White
House contends, that EOP components are not all treated as agencies for
purposes of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U. S. C.
sect. 552 (Sweetland v. Walters, supra), although some are. Armstrong v.
Executive Office of the President, 90 F. 3d 553, 559 (D. C. Cir. 1995).
However, a government entity may be an agency for some purposes but notfor
others. We have, for example, consistently viewed the Executive Residence as
an agency in applying 31 U. S. C. 716. 14 Reporting the Extent of
Finally, the White House said that we made a concerted effort to downplay
Damage the damage found in the White House complex because we (1) did not
individually report each instance of vandalism, damage, or a prank; (2)
underreported the number of observations in nearly every category of damage
and ignored additional observations that were made; (3) omitted any mention
of several individuals who told us that damage found during the 2001
transition was worse than during prior transitions; (4) ignored documents
that showed requests were made to repair telephone damage and clean offices;
(5) failed to quantify or estimate certain real costs incurred to remedy or
repair the damage; (6) failed to report the content of the graffiti and
signs that were found in the complex; and (7) were
unwilling to conclude that the vandalism, damage, and pranks were
intentional, even when the circumstances plainly indicate that they were.
We did not downplay the damage found in the White House complex, as the
White House suggested. Rather, we tried to eliminate possible or actual 13
See Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, reprinted in 3 U. S. C., Ch. 2, note
at 431, 434 (1994) (Message of the President) (listing units within the
EOP).
14 See The White House: Status of Review of the Executive Residence, pages
6- 7, Statement of Robert P. Murphy, General Counsel, U. S. General
Accounting Office, November 6, 1997, before the Subcommittee on Treasury,
Postal Service, and General Government, Committee on Appropriations, House
of Representatives.
double- counting of observations, present the information fairly and
objectively, and avoid speculation. Regarding the White House?s statement
(1) that we omitted a reference to each reported instance of vandalism,
damage or a prank, as previously explained, all of the reported
observations were reported in a summary fashion (i. e., total number of
observations in a particular category) and some were also discussed in
detail. We also disagree with the White House?s statement (2) that we
underreported the number of observations in nearly every category of damage
and ignored additional observations that were made. As previously explained
and discussed in appendix V in our response to the White House?s specific
comments, we reported the number of observations in various categories as a
means of eliminating possible or actual double- counting. Regarding the
White House?s statement (3) that we omitted any mention of several
individuals who told us that the damage found during this transition was
worse than prior transitions, the letter portion of the report summarized
these individuals? observations, and appendix II contained statements by six
EOP staff that the condition of the White
House complex was worse in 2001 than during previous transitions.
Consequently, we did not revise the report. Regarding the White House?s
statement (4) that we ignored documents that showed requests were made to
repair telephone damage and clean offices, the report in fact cited several
facility requests for cleaning and telephone service orders, but we could
not conclude that they documented intentional damage. This conclusion is
inconsistent with the OA director?s April 2001 letter in which he stated
that repair records do not indicate the cause of repairs. Further,
we did not ignore any of the documentation that the EOP provided, but
carefully reviewed all of the documentation that was provided. Finally, the
White House did not provide us with copies of all of the documents related
to telephone repairs that it cited in its comments. Regarding the White
House?s statement (5) that we failed to quantify or estimate certain real
costs incurred to remedy or repair the damage, it was not our objective to
independently estimate or determine all such costs, and we clearly stated in
our report that we did not do so. We did not obtain repair and replacement
costs for all reported incidents because we did not believe that they would
be readily available or material, nor did we believe
that the value of the information would have been commensurate with the
level of resources required to obtain and verify such data. Regarding the
White House? s statement (6) that we failed to report the content of
graffiti and signs that were found in the complex, as previously discussed,
we did not believe it was necessary or appropriate to include their specific
content in this report, but we did describe their general nature. Finally,
contrary to
the White House?s assertion (7) that we were unwilling to conclude that the
vandalism, damage, and pranks were intentional, even where the circumstances
plainly indicated that they were, we stated in our conclusions that
incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of
various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and
written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were done
intentionally. However, we also concluded that it was unknown whether other
observations, such as broken furniture,
were the result of intentional acts and when and how they occurred.
Government Auditing
In its specific comments, the White House identified instances in which it
Standards
did not believe that the oral evidence or the amount of detail included in
the report was sufficient to meet provisions of the Government Auditing
Standards pertaining to the competency of evidence or the objectivity and
completeness of reports. Although we address the White House?s specific
substantive points in appendix V of our report, we believe that it is
important to state here that the report does comply with Government Auditing
Standards. In citing the particular standard in question, the White House
either did not cite the entire standard or all of the factors that must be
considered in interpreting the standard, or both. For example, in discussing
the competency of the oral evidence provided by an EOP
employee, the White House described the employee?s overall responsibility
for handling telecommunications problems during the first month of the new
administration and cited the following excerpt from Government Auditing
Standards 6.54( f):
Testimonial evidence obtained from an individual who? has complete knowledge
about the area is more competent than testimonial evidence obtained from an
individual who? has only partial knowledge about an area.
However, in addition to excluding a portion of this standard, the White
House did not refer to other parts of standard 6.54 or other factors that
need to be considered. Other relevant parts of standard 6.54 follow:
6.54 The following presumptions are useful in judging the competence of
evidence. However, these presumptions are not to be considered sufficient in
themselves to determine competence. 6.54( e) Testimonial evidence obtained
under conditions where persons may speak freely is more competent than
testimonial evidence
obtained under compromising conditions (for example, where the persons may
be intimidated). 6.54 (f) Testimonial evidence obtained from an individual
who is not biased or has complete knowledge about the area is more competent
than testimonial evidence obtained from an individual who is biased or
has only partial knowledge about the area. Thus, in considering the
competency of oral evidence, other factors besides a person?s level of
responsibility must be considered, such as the circumstance under which they
provide the oral information; whether they are reporting what they observed
versus what someone else said they saw; factors that could influence their
objectivity; the reasonableness or consistency of the information presented
compared to other information or
facts; and the extent to which corroborating or contradictory information is
provided. We gave appropriate and careful consideration of all of these
factors in conducting this review. Similarly, in interpreting other
Government Auditing Standards, such as those related to the objectivity or
completeness of reports, considerable judgment must be exercised regarding
the amount of detail provided to
promote an adequate and complete understanding of the matters reported and
to present the information in an unbiased manner with appropriate balance
and tone. This must be done so that readers can be persuaded by
facts, as called for by the standards (7.50, 7.51, and 7.57). In making
judgments about the level of detail to provide, it must be recognized that
too much detail can detract from a report, as previously discussed. But,
even more importantly, aside from the level of detail, the competency and
sufficiency of the evidence and completeness of information must be
considered, including differentiating between uncorroborated oral statements
and substantiated facts. In judging what details to report and how to report
them, it is also important to consider what information is not known about
particular situations so as to avoid misleading readers into drawing
inappropriate or premature conclusions.
Notwithstanding our disagreement with the White House?s interpretation of
Government Auditing Standards, we agree that efforts should be made to avoid
possible misinterpretation of information in audit reports. In that regard,
we have clarified our report where we felt it was appropriate. Finally, both
in its general and specific comments, the White House expressed concern
about our exclusion of certain EOP staff observations
in the report, or what it views as our lack of consideration of the
documentation it provided and our unwillingness to draw the same conclusions
it did based on the information at hand. We believe that it is important to
note here that many of the observations in question involved
relaying views espoused by others, which we do not believe is acceptable
evidence in these cases. Further, although we carefully reviewed and
considered all of the evidence that the White House provided, we did not
always believe it was sufficient to support the conclusions that the White
House suggested or reached.
The White House did not provide any comments on our recommendations. GSA
Comments GSA?s deputy commissioner of the Public Buildings Service said that
GSA
had carefully reviewed the draft report and agreed with the two
recommendations regarding the logistics of future transitions. The deputy
commissioner said that GSA had made every effort during transitions to meet
the very considerable demands that are placed on the agency when
several hundred staff move out of the White House complex. For this reason,
the deputy commissioner said GSA believes that its ability to carry out its
responsibilities during future transitions will be strengthened by working
with the Office of Management and Administration of the White House Office
to develop procedures for both office space inspection and
cleaning and office space preparations. He added that improved communication
will be an integral part of these procedures.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the
report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
chairman and ranking minority member, House Committee on Appropriations; the
chairman and ranking minority member, House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government; the
chairmen and ranking minority members, House Committee on Government Reform
and Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; the chairman and ranking
minority member, Senate Committee on
Appropriations; the chairman and ranking minority member, Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury and Postal Service; the deputy
assistant to the president for management and administration; the
administrator of the General Services Administration; former President
Clinton; and the former deputy assistant to the president for management
and administration during the Clinton administration. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http:// www. gao. gov. Major
contributors to this report were Bob Homan, John Baldwin, and Don Allison.
If you have any questions, please contact me on (202) 512- 8387 or at
ungarb@ gao. gov.
Sincerely yours, Bernard L. Ungar Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendi xes EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from
Appendi x I
Former Clinton Administration Staff This appendix contains the observations
of Executive Office of the President (EOP) and General Services
Administration (GSA) staff and former Clinton administration staff regarding
the condition of the White House office space during the 2001 presidential
transition. Staff we
interviewed generally told us that they saw evidence of damage, vandalism,
or pranks shortly before or at the beginning of the administration. The
observations are discussed in the categories contained in the June 2001 list
of damage. 15 Some EOP staff said they believed that what they observed
during the
transition, such as broken furniture and excessive trash left behind, was
done intentionally. Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer
keyboards; the theft of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail
messages, signs, and written messages; and the placing of glue on desk
drawers clearly were done intentionally. However, regarding other
observations, we generally could not make judgments about whether they were
acts of vandalism because we did not have information regarding who was
responsible for them, when they occurred, or why they occurred. Further, in
most cases, we were unable to determine the exact number of incidents. When
staff said they observed different numbers of incidents in
the same location and/ or category, we did not attempt to make judgments
regarding which account was correct; rather, we used ranges. In the few
instances where people observed a different number of items in a particular
location, we used the lowest and highest numbers observed by different
people in that location as the range. In addition, when an individual
provided a range of the number of items that he or she saw, we included that
range in our calculation of the total range of observations for that
category. When people said they observed incidents, but did not provide a
specific number, we did not estimate a number, but noted this situation when
relevant. Our interviews were conducted between 5 and 16
months after the transition, and we recognized that recollections could have
been imprecise. Further, in some cases, when we conducted followup
interviews with certain individuals for the purposes of clarification,
different accounts of their observations were provided. In those instances,
we generally noted both accounts. 15 As noted on p. 2 of this report, in
transmitting the list of damage to us, the counsel to the president
indicated that the list was not the result of a comprehensive or systematic
investigation into the issue and should not be considered a complete record
of the damage that was found.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, one person said that he or she
observed a specific incident in a particular location. However, more than
one person we interviewed observed most types of incidents. In some cases,
people said that they observed damage, vandalism, or pranks in the same
areas where others said they observed none, sometimes only hours
apart. In calculating the number of incidents, we attempted to eliminate
double counting when people said that they observed the same types of
incidents in the same locations or could not recall any location. We
included repair and replacement costs provided by EOP and GSA for some,
but not all, reported damage, vandalism, and theft in this appendix. When it
opened in 1888, the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB), which was
originally known as the State, War, and Navy Building and later as the Old
Executive Office Building, contained 553 rooms. Over the years, the original
configuration of the EEOB office space has been altered, and it now contains
about 1,074 rooms. During the Clinton administration, the
office space in the East and West Wings of the White House consisted of
about 137 rooms. 16 EOP staff 17 cited about 100 rooms in the EEOB and 8
rooms in the White House where incidents were observed. 18 According to the
Office of Administration (OA) associate director for facilities management,
approximately 395 offices were vacated during the transition: 304 in the
EEOB, 54 in the West Wing, and 37 in the East Wing.
Observations were made in 16 different units of the White House Office. 19
However, more observations of damage, vandalism, and pranks were made on the
first floor of the EEOB in the offices of advance and scheduling, the
counsel?s offices, and the offices of the first lady; and on the second
floor of the EEOB in the offices of the vice president, than in other
offices. 20 Observations that were made in the White House are specifically
noted in
16 This included reception areas, restrooms, and other nonoffice space. 17
GSA staff generally cited observations made on certain floors, rather than
in specific rooms or offices. 18 Room numbers were identified for most of
the observations. Rooms in the West Wing do not have room numbers.
19 This includes the names of two units that did not exist during the
Clinton administration. 20 The vice president has an office in the West Wing
and a ceremonial office in the EEOB. Most of the vice president?s staff work
in the EEOB.
this appendix, while observations made in the EEOB are provided in the
totals for each category or discussed as examples.
Missing Items The June 2001 list indicated that six door signs, six
medallions, two EEOB doorknobs, and a presidential seal were stolen.
Observations of EOP and Six EOP staff told us they observed that a total of
5 to 11 office signs, which
GSA Staff and Related are affixed with medallions (presidential seals about
2 inches in diameter) Documentation
were missing. One of those six EOP staff also said he observed that six
medallions were missing from office signs. These observations included an
office sign that an EOP employee said that she saw a volunteer remove on
January 19 outside an office in the EEOB. The EOP employee said that the
person who removed the sign said that he planned to take a photograph with
it, and that she reported the incident to an OA employee. Further, the EOP
employee said that the person attempted to put the sign back on the wall,
but it was loose. Two other EOP staff said they noticed that the sign
outside that office was missing during the transition.
Four EOP staff said they saw that a total of 10 to 11 doorknobs, which may
have been historic originals, were missing in different locations. 21 A
February 7, 2001, GSA facility request form documented a request to ?put
doorknob on inter- office? door? in an office where an EOP employee said he
observed two pairs of doorknobs were missing. A GSA
planner/ estimator who said he was in charge of repairing and replacing
building fixtures in the EEOB, including office signs, medallions, and
doorknobs, said he received no written facility requests made to GSA for
replacing missing office signs, medallions, or doorknobs during the
transition. He said that work done in response to the February 7, 2001, GSA
facility request form was not to replace a missing doorknob, but to repair
one that had a worn- out part. He also said that over the past 20
years, doorknobs have been found missing about a half- dozen times in the 21
Another EOP employee said she observed that a doorknob was missing in the
EEOB, but did not specify a location, so it is not included in the total
above. It is unknown how many of these doorknobs were historic originals.
The director of GSA?s White House service center said that historic
doorknobs, which are bronze cast and have different designs for the
former State, War, and Navy Departments? sections of the EEOB, are favorite
souvenirs of departing staff. (The EEOB was built between 1872 and 1888 to
house the Departments of State, War, and the Navy.)
EEOB, and not only during transitions. In addition, he said the medallions
are difficult to remove and that a special wrench is needed to remove them
from an office sign.
An April 19, 2001, GSA facility request form documented a request for
?replacement of frames & medallions,? including an office where three EOP
staff observed a missing office sign and medallion. The three other rooms
that, according to the facility request form, needed office signs were
located on one of two floors of the EEOB where an EOP employee
observed four missing office signs. The OA associate director for facilities
management said that much repair and replacement work was done during the
transition without documentation being prepared because of the need to
complete the work quickly. This official said, for example, that three to
four missing office signs, a doorknob, and two or three medallions were
replaced during the weekend of the inauguration without documentation being
prepared.
The OA director for facilities management; the director of GSA?s White House
service center; and the Secret Service deputy special agent in charge,
presidential protection division, White House security branch, said that a
presidential seal was stolen from a door in the EEOB. The Secret Service
provided an incident report indicating that a presidential seal was reported
missing at 8: 40 a. m. on January 19, 2001, and last seen at 6: 30 a. m.
that day. According to the report, the seal was molded, hand- painted, 12
inches in diameter, and had been attached to a door with glue and screws.
The Secret Service deputy special agent in charge of the presidential
protection division, White House security branch, said that fingerprints
were taken from the door where the seal was located, but no suspects were
identified. The OA associate director for facilities management showed us
where the seal had been located. EOP staff told us about additional missing
items that were not contained in the June 2001 list. Two EOP staff told us
that a total of 9 to 11 television
remote control devices were missing from two offices. 22 In addition, two
EOP officials said that about 20 cellular telephones could not be located in
22 One of these two EOP staff worked in the office where the remote controls
were observed missing during the previous administration. In the scope and
methodology section of this report, we indicated the number of EOP staff we
interviewed who worked in the White
House complex before and after January 20, 2001, but did not break out the
observations reported in this appendix made by staff who worked for the EOP
before and after January 20, 2001.
the office where they belonged. Regarding the cellular telephones, the
deputy assistant for operations in that office said that she was told by an
OA employee at the beginning of the administration that the telephones could
be found in a particular room; however, they could not be found anywhere in
the office suite, so new ones were purchased. Two EOP staff said that two
cameras were missing from an office in the EEOB, and another EOP employee
said that an ethics manual that a former Clinton administration employee
told him had been prepared could not be located. Three EOP officials and one
GSA official said that items that were on loan
from a private collector and on display in the EEOB during the Clinton
administration were found to be missing sometime after the beginning of the
new administration. According to the OA senior preservation and facilities
officer, the items consisted of a small oil painting, two china soup bowls,
a china plate, a brass mantle clock, and a bust of President Lincoln. We
were also provided with documentation describing these items. The
director of GSA?s White House service center said that he observed the items
in the office (except for the Lincoln bust, which was in a different room,
the vice president?s ceremonial office) during the morning of January 20;
but when he returned to the office in midafternoon, he noticed that many of
the items were missing, but did not know the exact number.
In August 2001, the OA associate director for security said that the Lincoln
bust had been returned from the former vice president (for more information
about the return of the missing bust, see comments later in this section
made by the former vice president?s former staff). Regarding the other
collector?s items that had been on display in another office, this official
also said that he had contacted several former Clinton
administration staff who had worked in the office where they had been
displayed and that he was unsuccessful in locating the items. The associate
director for security said that all of the former Clinton administration
staff whom he contacted said that the items were still in the office when
they left on January 20. Further, the associate director for security said
that he had
contacted the person in charge of the contract movers who were working in
that office on January 20; according to the associate director for security,
this person said that the items were still there at 4: 00 p. m. or 4: 30 p.
m. on January 20.
Costs According to a GSA planner/ estimator, it would cost $400 to replace
an historic doorknob set (doorknobs on both sides of a door) with a solid
brass replica, or $300 for a single historic doorknob replica; $125 for a
new office sign with a medallion; and $75 to replace a medallion. Using
those per- unit costs, if all of the items observed missing were replaced,
it would
have cost $2, 100 to $2,200 for 9 to 10 doorknobs; 23 $625 to $1, 375 to
replace 5 to 11 missing office signs with medallions; and $675 to $750 to
replace 9 to 10 missing medallions. However, because specific locations were
not provided regarding some of the observations of missing items, we were
unable to determine whether all of the missing items had been replaced. In
addition, the estimated cost of replacing missing doorknobs assumes that all
of the doorknobs that were observed missing will be replaced with historic
replicas, which was unknown. It was also unknown how many of
the doorknobs that were discovered missing were historic originals. We also
did not obtain any information on the value of the original historic
doorknobs. The EOP provided purchase records indicating that it spent $2,
040 for 26 cellular telephones on January 26, 2001; $729 for two cameras
(including a digital camera costing $685) on March 16, 2001, and April 4,
2001; and $221
for 15 television remote controls on March 6 and15; June 5; and July 10,
2001. The OA associate director for facilities management estimated it will
cost about $350 to make a replica of the presidential seal that was reported
stolen which, as of March 2002, had not been replaced. Although we did not
obtain a dollar value regarding the possible historic value of the seal that
was stolen, according to the OA associate director for facilities
management, the $350 purchase price would not purchase an exact replica
of the brass seal that was stolen; the seal was purchased in the mid- 1970s,
and is no longer available; and the $350 would purchase a plastic- type
casting.
23 This total estimated cost assumes that all of the doorknobs that were
observed missing, except for one, will be replaced with historic replicas.
We deducted the value of replacing one historic doorknob from the total
number observed missing because, as noted earlier, the GSA official in
charge of building fixtures in the EEOB said that a facility request to
install a doorknob in an office where one was observed missing during the
transition was to perform maintenance on a doorknob with a worn- out part,
not to replace a missing one. Another EOP employee said that she observed a
missing doorknob in the EEOB during the transition, but could not recall the
location. We did not count that doorknob in the total cost because it could
have been the same one seen by other EOP staff.
Comments by Former The former director of an office where an EOP employee
told us that she Clinton Administration Staff
saw someone remove an office sign said that an elderly volunteer in her
office removed the sign from the wall on January 19, 2001. She said that she
did not know why he had removed the sign. She said that she
attempted to put the sign back on the wall, but it would not stay, so she
contacted OA and was told to leave it on the floor next to the door. The
former office director said that she left the sign on the floor, and it was
still there when she left between 8: 00 p. m. and 10: 00 p. m. on January
19.
The former director of an office where an EOP employee told us that he
observed two pairs of missing doorknobs said that the office had several
doors to the hallway that at some time had been made inoperable, and he
was not sure whether the interior sides of those doors had doorknobs. The
former occupant of an office, where an EOP employee told us he observed that
two pairs of doorknobs were missing (interior and exterior doorknobs for two
doors to the outside that were no longer used) and a
bolt was missing from a lock, said that a bookcase covered the door to the
outside, and he did not know if that door had ever had any doorknobs. He
said that to the best of his recollection, the bookcase still covered the
door when he left between 10: 00 a. m. and 11: 00 a. m. on January 20, 2001.
He also said that he did not take any doorknobs. A former employee whose
office was next door also said that shelves were in front of the door with
the missing doorknobs when she worked in that office suite. 24 The deputy
assistant to the president for management and administration from 1997 to
2001 said that people frequently take items such as doorknobs
from the EEOB to keep as souvenirs, and he believed that visitors to the
building were responsible for most of the thefts. He estimated that two to
three doorknobs were taken from the EEOB per year.
No former Clinton administration staff we interviewed who worked in the two
offices where remote controls were observed missing by two EOP staff said
they took the remote controls. In one of those two offices, we obtained
comments from four former employees. One of those former employees said that
it is possible that the remote controls were missing
when she worked there; she remembered having to manually change 24 The EOP
employee who occupied this office at the beginning of the administration
said that he put a safe in front of the doors with the missing doorknobs to
keep them closed.
channels on a television set in that office, and she questioned why someone
would take a remote control if they also did not have the television set.
Another former employee said that some remote controls were missing from
that office throughout the administration. A third former employee said that
some of the televisions in that suite of offices did not have remote
controls, and he was not sure whether they had ever had them. The fourth
former employee said that it was possible that the remote controls were
missing when he worked there.
The former director of another office where two EOP staff told us that she
observed four to five missing television remote controls said that most of
the television sets that were in her suite of offices were very old and may
not have had remote controls. She said that she remembered staff in her
office standing on chairs to manually change the channels on the televisions
in the suite of offices.
The former director of the office from where two EOP staff told us two
cameras were missing 25 said that the cameras were still in the office when
she and her staff left between 9: 30 p. m. and 10: 30 p. m. on January 19,
2001. The former office director said that she was instructed to leave the
office unlocked (she did not recall who gave her that instruction); she also
said that, when the staff left, the cameras were left on an open shelf in
the
office. Regarding an ethics manual that an EOP employee told us that he
could not locate, a former official who handled ethics issues during the
Clinton administration said that a manual containing ethics materials was
being compiled at the end of the administration for the new administration
staff, but he did not know where the manual had been left. Three other
former employees who worked for that office said that they were unaware of
such a manual. With regard to the collector?s items that two EOP staff and a
GSA official
told us were missing, the former director of the office where the items were
displayed said that they were still in his office when he left at 12: 30 p.
m. on January 20 (except for the Lincoln bust, which was in another room).
Another EOP employee who worked in that office during both the Clinton and
Bush administrations said that she saw the items in the office at 5: 00 25
One of the EOP staff who told us about the missing cameras noted that the
office where the cameras belonged was a locked office with an alarm.
p. m. on January 20, but she noticed that they were missing when she
returned on January 22. She also noted that the office was left unlocked
when she left on January 20 and that the items were left on open shelves.
Regarding a Lincoln bust that two EOP staff told us was missing, but was
subsequently returned, a former employee who also worked the former vice
president?s transition office provided us with a copy of a July 6, 2001,
letter that he received from the counsel to Vice President Cheney asking
about the missing item. The former employee said that, after receiving the
letter, he located the bust at former Vice President Gore?s personal
residence and that he returned it to the White House on July 11, 2001. The
former employee also provided us with a July 11, 2001, letter to the counsel
to the vice president, in which he wrote that ?it appears that the bust was
inadvertently packed with the personal effects of Vice President Gore.? The
former counsel to the former vice president told us that Mr. Gore did not
pack his own items in his office at the end of the administration. The
former director of an office where an EOP official told us that she could
not locate cellular telephones anywhere in the office suite where they
belonged said that the former staff from that office turned in their
cellular telephones as part of the check- out process. A former official
from that office provided copies of the check- out forms completed for 71
staff
who worked in that office indicating that the cellular telephones were
returned or that the category did not apply to certain employees. A former
employee who helped collect the cellular telephones in that office said that
all of the cellular telephones were returned and that he left them on a
shelf in his office.
Keyboards The June 2001 list indicated that 100 computer keyboards had to be
replaced because the ?W? keys had been removed.
Observations of EOP and Twenty- six EOP staff told us that they observed a
total of 30 to 64 computer GSA Staff and Related keyboards with missing or
damaged (glued, whited- out, or pushed down)
?W? keys in specific rooms or offices. 26 We developed a range reflecting
the Documentation
observations because some staff said they saw different numbers of keyboards
with missing or damaged ?W? keys in the same rooms or offices and as a means
of eliminating double counting. In calculating the range, we took the lowest
number of keyboards with missing or damaged keys observed and the highest
number observed in specific rooms or offices, and then added the
observations of all people. The low end of the range could be understated,
however, because some EOP staff did not indicate that they looked at every
keyboard in a room or office or did not provide a specific number of
keyboards that they observed with missing or damaged keys. Further, the high
end of the range could be overstated because, in at least one case, the
number of keyboards observed with broken or missing ?W? keys was greater
than the number of keyboards that former Clinton
staff said was in that space. Five other EOP staff said that they saw a
total of four keyboards with inoperable, missing, or switched keys; they
said they were not ?W? keys or could not recall which keys were affected. In
addition, five EOP staff and one GSA employee said that they saw 13 to 15
?W? keys taped or glued on walls; 27 five EOP staff said they observed piles
of keyboards or computers or a computer monitor overturned; three EOP staff
said that something was
spilled on their keyboards; one EOP official said that she found 3 ?W? keys
in a desk; and one EOP employee said that his keyboard was missing at the
beginning of the new administration. In addition to the EOP staff we
interviewed about their observations regarding the keyboards, we interviewed
EOP personnel who worked with computers during the transition. The OA
associate director for information systems and technology provided us with
documentation indicating that on
January 23 and 24, 2001, the EOP purchased 62 new keyboards. The January 23,
2001, purchase order for 31 keyboards indicated that
?[ k] eyboards are needed to support the transition.? The January 24, 2001,
26 This included the observation of the branch chief for program management
of the OA information systems and technology division, who said she saw 6 to
10 keyboards with missing ?W? keys in the West Wing. 27 This included an
observation of a ?W? key taped to a wall in specific location in the West
Wing. Two other EOP staff also said they observed ?W? keys taped or glued on
walls in the EEOB but did not specify how many.
purchase request for another 31 keyboards indicated ?[ s] econd request for
the letter ?W? problem.? The OA associate director for information systems
and technology said that some of the replacement keyboards were taken out of
inventory for the new administration staff, but she did not know how many.
In an interview in June 2001, this official said that 57 keyboards were
missing keys during the transition, and 7 other keyboards were not working
because of other reasons, such as inoperable space bars. She also said that
she believed that more of the keyboards with problems were found in the
offices of the first lady and the vice president, compared to other offices.
After later obtaining an estimate from the branch chief for program
management and strategic planning in the information systems and technology
division, who worked with computers during the transition, that about 150
keyboards had to be replaced because of missing or damaged ?W? keys, we
conducted a follow- up interview with the OA
associate director for information systems and technology. In February 2002,
the OA associate director for information systems and technology said that
her memory regarding this matter was not as good as when we interviewed her
in June 2001, but she estimated that 100 keyboards had to be replaced at the
end of the Clinton administration and that one- third of them were missing
the ?W? key or were intentionally damaged in some way. She also said that of
those 100 keyboards, about one- third to one- half would have been replaced
anyway because of their age. The official also said that she was not focused
on the keyboards during the transition, but saw about 10 keyboards with
missing ?W? keys, some space bars that were
glued down, and a lot of keyboards that were ?filthy.? This official said
that she took notes regarding the computers during the transition, but she
was unable to locate them. An April 12, 2001, E- mail sent from the OA
financial manager who approved the request to purchase 62 keyboards in
January 2001 to an OA Information Systems and Technology Division branch
chief indicated that
There were a number of keyboards which had the ?W? missing/ inoperable
during [the] transition. Based upon our need to provide working keyboards to
incoming EOP staff, we placed rush keyboard orders on January 23rd and
January 24th. We ordered a total of 62 keyboards for a total cost of $4,850.
This is the approximate number of keyboards that were defective.
The EOP provided a copy of a March 27, 2001, OA excess property report that
was prepared regarding its disposal of computer equipment. The report
indicated that 12 boxes of keyboards, speakers, cords, and soundcards were
discarded, but did not specify the number of keyboards that were included.
The contract employee who prepared that report said that she did not know
how many keyboards were discarded, but that each box could have contained 10
to 20 keyboards, depending on the size of the box. The EOP also provided a
copy of a February 11, 2002, E- mail from a computer contract employee to
the OA associate director for information systems and technology indicating
that the contract employee had told the OA employee that ?? she excessed
eight boxes of ?junk? after the transition. Six of those boxes each
contained 20 or more keyboards with
either the ?W? problem or a broken space bar.? When we interviewed the
contract employee who was referred to in the E- mail as having excessed
damaged keyboards, she said that she did not pack all of the boxes and did
not look at all of the keyboards, but that most of the keyboards that she
saw were missing ?W? keys. She also said that she did not know how many
discarded keyboards had missing or damaged ?W? keys and that she did not
know how many damaged keyboards were discarded after the transition.
Further, she said that some of the keyboards that were discarded had been
waiting to be disposed of before the transition because they were dirty or
because of wear and tear. In a February 2002 interview, the OA associate
director for information systems and technology said that she believed that
four of the boxes of excessed computer equipment contained damaged
keyboards.
Costs Because of the lack of documentation, we could not determine how many
keyboards may have been taken out of inventory to replace keyboards that
were intentionally damaged during the transition. As a result, it was not
possible to determine the total costs associated with replacing damaged
keyboards. However, we are providing cost estimates for various totals
provided by EOP staff. In reviewing the costs, it must be recognized that
according to the OA associate director for information systems and
technology, one- third to one- half of the keyboards for EOP staff,
including the ones provided to EOP staff at the beginning of the
administration, may have been replaced anyway because staff receive new
computers every 3 or 4 years. Therefore, some of the damaged keyboards would
have been replaced anyway. We did not attempt to obtain information on any
other costs that may have been associated with replacing damaged keyboards,
such as those related to delivering and installing new keyboards.
Below is a table showing the different costs that could have been incurred
on the basis of different estimates we were provided regarding the number of
damaged keyboards that were replaced and the range we calculated regarding
the observations of keyboards with damaged and missing keys. The cost
estimates were calculated on the basis of the per- unit cost of the 62
keyboards that the EOP purchased in late January 2001 for $4, 650, or $75
per keyboard. 28
Table 1: Estimated Costs of Replacing Damaged Keyboards Source of estimate
regarding the number of damaged keyboards Total replacement cost
Range of 30 to 64 keyboards that were observed by EOP staff with missing and
damaged keys $2, 250-$ 4,800
in specific rooms or offices Estimate provided by the OA associate director
for information systems and technology in
$2, 475-$ 4,800
February 2002 interview that one- third of 100 keyboards replaced during the
transition were intentionally damaged, or about 33 keyboards; and a
statement by her in June 2001 that 64 keyboards were missing keys or were
inoperable in some way
Statement by an OA financial manager in an April 2001 E- mail that the 62
keyboards purchased $4, 850 a
in January 2001 were approximately the number of keyboards that were
defective because ?W? keys were missing or inoperable during the transition
Estimate by the branch chief for program management and strategic planning
in the information $11, 250
systems and technology division, who worked with office equipment during the
transition, that 150 damaged keyboards had to be replaced a Includes a $200
expedite fee. Source: EOP staff.
Comments by Former One former senior Clinton administration official said
that he found the Clinton Administration Staff
reports of keyboards with missing ?W? keys to be believable but regrettable
and indefensible. Two former employees said that they observed a total of
three to four keyboards with missing ?W? keys in offices in the EEOB at the
end of the administration. Another five former Clinton administration staff
said that they heard people talking about removing ?W? keys or keyboards
with missing ?W? keys before the end of the administration, but did not see
any keyboards with missing ?W? keys or see anyone removing them.
28 The EOP also paid a $200 expedite fee in January 2001, which we excluded
in calculating the per- unit cost.
The former senior advisor for presidential transition questioned whether as
many as 60 keyboards could have been intentionally damaged because, while
helping with the downloading and archiving of data from computers during the
morning of January 20, he moved about 50 computer central processing units
29 from offices in the EEOB during the morning of January 20 and did not see
any ?W? keys missing from keyboards. In addition,
regarding an observation of two keyboards with missing ?W? keys in a certain
office suite, this former official said that he was in that office suite
after 10: 30 a. m. on January 20 helping with the downloading and archiving
of data from computers, and he did not see any keyboards with missing ?W?
keys there. The former manager of an office where an EOP employee said she
observed 18 keyboards with missing ?W? keys in an office suite said that
there were 12 keyboards in that office suite at the end of the
administration.
Furniture The June 2001 list indicated that the damage included ?[ f]
urniture that was damaged severely enough to require complete refurbishment
or destruction-- 6 offices.? It also indicated that a glass desk top was
smashed and on the floor, and that desks and other furniture were overturned
in six offices.
Observations of EOP Staff Ten EOP staff told us that they observed a total
of 16 to 21 pieces of broken and Related Documentation
furniture, including 5 to 7 chairs with broken legs or backs; 5 to 7 broken
glass desk tops, including one on the floor; 30 1 to 2 chairs with missing
or broken arms; a desk with the drawer fronts removed; a sofa with broken
legs; a credenza with broken door glass; a broken mirror; 31 and a cabinet
with its doors hanging with only one hinge. 29 He said that these were
computers from which information had not yet been downloaded. 30 A GSA
cleaning team leader said that the cleaning staff accidentally broke a glass
top in an office, but that it was on the floor for only 10 to 15 minutes
before it was cleaned up.
31 A GSA facility request indicated that a request was made to fix a mirror
in a certain office. However, the EOP employee who said that he observed a
broken mirror could not recall where he saw it.
Six EOP staff also said that the locks on four desks or cabinet drawers were
damaged or the keys were missing or broken off in the locks. This included
the observation of a file cabinet with a key broken off, which, when opened,
contained a Gore bumper sticker. Another EOP employee said that he saw that
the fabric was torn on three chairs. This employee said that the tears were
made in the same spots on two of the chairs, which he observed in a hallway,
and that the fabric on them appeared to have been new. He thought that they
had been intentionally cut with a knife. One EOP employee said that her desk
had five to six large cigar burns on it, and other desks had scratches that
she said appeared to have been made with a knife. Five EOP staff also said
that they observed writing inside drawers of five desks. 32 Four of these
employees said the writing was found written inside
the top drawers of the desks. The other employee could only recall on which
floor he saw the writing. In August and September 2001, we were shown the
writing in four of the five desks. Five EOP staff told us that they saw a
total of 11 to 13 pieces of furniture that were on their sides or overturned
in specific rooms or offices. The five people who told us the approximate
time that they observed overturned furniture said they made those
observations between the early morning
hours and the afternoon of January 20. In addition, another EOP employee and
the director of GSA?s White House service center said they observed
overturned furniture, but did not indicate where. The director of GSA?s
White House service center also said that furniture could have been
overturned for a variety of reasons other than vandalism, such as to reach
electrical or computer connections. Further, five EOP staff also said they
saw pieces of furniture that appeared to have been moved to areas where they
did not belong, such as desks moved up against doors. 32 The writing in one
of the desks was dated January 1993.
Six EOP staff said they observed a total of four to five desks with a sticky
substance on them between January 20 and 22 in two different locations (an
office in the EEOB and an office area in the West Wing). In addition, three
EOP staff said that they saw a total of two to four desks with handles
missing on January 20 or 21. Included were the observations of two
employees who worked in the West Wing who said that their desks had a sticky
substance on the bottom of drawers or a pull- out tray (one of those two
employees who worked in that area also said that her desk was missing
handles); an employee who said that a desk in that area 33 had a sticky
substance on the bottom of a drawer and was missing handles; an
employee who said that another desk in the West Wing had glue on the bottom
of a drawer and was missing handles; and an employee who worked in the EEOB
who said that she had to scrub ?sticky stuff? on her desk, but did not know
what it was and that it could have been the
accumulation of years of grime. Documentation relating to the observations
made in specific locations included the following:
January 25 and 29, 2001, GSA facility request forms documented requests to
gain access to and for a key to a locked file cabinet in a room where an EOP
employee said that he found a key that was bent and almost entirely broken
off in a cabinet that, once opened by a locksmith, contained Gore- Lieberman
stickers. The facility requests were made by the EOP employee who told us
about this observation.
A January 30, 2001, GSA facility request form documented a request to fix
a broken desk lock in an office where an EOP employee said the lock on her
desk appeared to have been smashed. The facility request was made by the EOP
employee who told us about this observation.
A February 12, 2001, GSA facility request form documented a request to
repair a leg on a sofa in an office on a floor of the EEOB where an EOP
employee observed a sofa with broken legs.
33 It was not clear whether this desk was one of the desks that belonged to
the two staff who worked in that area and made the same observation.
A February 21, 2001, GSA facility request form documented a request to
repair arms on two chairs in an office where two EOP staff told us that they
had observed broken chairs. 34 The facility request was made for the EOP
employee who told us about this observation. In August 2001, we observed the
desk with the drawer fronts that were detached, which had not been repaired
at that time.
Other GSA facility request forms for the period January 18, 2001, to
February 27, 2001, documented furniture- related requests that were not in
locations where EOP reported observing these types of problems. They
included requests to repair a chair back, a desk lock, and a mirror, and
five requests to repair or replace broken or missing desk handles. Also
included were requests for furniture repairs that did not reflect
observations made by EOP staff, such as a request to repair a bookcase.
Definitive information was not available regarding when the furniture damage
occurred; whether it was intentional and, if so, who caused it. The
management office director said that during the first two weeks of the
administration, the EEOB was filled with furniture that had exceeded its
useful life. She believed that the broken furniture that she saw was in that
condition as a result of wear and tear and neglect and not something
intentional. Similarly, an EOP employee who saw four chairs with broken legs
placed in the hall said the chairs could have been in that condition due to
normal wear and tear and were not necessarily intentionally damaged. The OA
director said that some furniture was thrown away because it was damaged,
but ?not a lot.? He said that some furniture was put into a
dumpster, and other pieces were transferred to the EOP storage facility. He
also said that damaged furniture was put in the halls. 35 In addition, he
said that there were no records indicating that furniture was deliberately
damaged, and that no inventory of furniture in the EEOB exists. An associate
counsel to the president provided photographs of four pieces of furniture
that she indicated were moved to an EOP remote storage facility that is now
quarantined. They included a chair with a missing leg, a chair with a
missing back, a sofa without a seat cushion, and a desk with missing
34 One EOP employee (the occupant of that office at the beginning of the
administration) said that the arms on two chairs in his office were loose.
Another EOP employee said that the arms were missing from a chair in that
office. 35 Two of the three EOP staff who observed the chairs with broken
legs and backs said that they placed them in the halls for removal.
drawer fronts. No information was provided regarding from which offices
these pieces of furniture had been taken or when or how the damage occurred.
Costs GSA provided facility request forms dated between January 18, 2001,
and
February 27, 2001; we reviewed these and found 49 furniture- related
requests that cost a total of $6, 964 to complete. Some individual repair
costs were substantially more than others, such as $1,855 to refinish a desk
and $628 to repair a bookcase. It was unknown what portion of those repair
costs, if any, was the result of intentional damage caused during the
transition. Further, the work requests for some repairs indicated that they
included work other than furniture repair.
GSA facility request forms relating to observations made in specific
locations indicated that about $258 was incurred and included the following:
$75 to repair arms on two chairs,
$75 to repair a sofa leg,
$54 to gain access to a locked file cabinet, and
$54 to fix a broken desk lock. We did not obtain any additional possible
costs related to other furniturerelated observations, such as those
associated with placing overturned furniture upright, removing glue that had
been left on desks, or replacing broken glass desk tops.
Comments by Former A former Clinton administration employee who worked in an
office where Clinton Administration Staff
an EOP employee showed us writing in his desk told us that he wrote a
?goodwill? message inside a drawer of his desk. This former employee said
that he obtained the idea to write a message inside of his desk because,
historically, vice presidents sign the inside of a desk in their office. 36
36 According to a page on the White House Web site, which contains a
description of the EEOB, vice presidents since the 1940s have signed the
inside top drawer of the desk in the vice president?s ceremonial office.
Clinton administration officials said that some of the space they vacated
needed cleaning and that a conscious decision had been made early in the
administration not to spend much money on repairs and upkeep during the
administration in view of the generally tight budget; therefore, it could be
expected that some furniture showed wear and tear. The former director of
one office where EOP staff told us they observed two to four pieces of
broken furniture said that the office furniture had been in poor shape for
some time, but the staff tolerated it. He said that they did not want to
send the furniture away to be repaired because it was uncertain how long it
would take or whether the furniture would be returned.
The former manager of an office where two EOP staff told us they observed
one to two chairs with broken or missing arms said that arms on two chairs
in that suite of offices had become detached a year or two before the
transition, that carpenters had tried to glue them back, but the glue did
not
hold. We asked GSA to provide facility request forms for 1999, and we found
two requests to repair chairs in that office suite made by the former office
manager.
A former Clinton administration employee who worked in an office where three
EOP staff told us they observed a desk with two detached drawer fronts said
that the fronts of two drawers on his desk had come off when he worked there
and that someone was contacted once or twice over 5 years to have them
fixed, but the glue did not hold. In addition, this former employee said,
regarding observations by EOP staff of two to three chairs with broken backs
in his office, that a chair with a broken back had been in his office for a
long time before the transition. Another former employee in that office said
that he remembered that the front of a drawer of the other employee?s desk
was held on with rubber bands and that it had been that way for about the
last 2 years of the administration.
The former director of an office where an EOP official told us he observed a
broken glass desk top on the floor during the afternoon of January 20 said
that he did not observe that when he left the EEOB at about 1: 00 a. m. on
January 20, and he said that he and the deputy director were the last office
staff to leave. Similarly, the former senior advisor for presidential
transition said that he was in the same office after 11: 00 a. m. on January
20,
and he did not see a broken glass desk top. 37 Three former staff who worked
in an area of the West Wing where five EOP staff told us they found glue or
a sticky substance on two to three desks said that they left the White House
between midnight on January 19 and 4: 30 a. m. on January 20 and were not
aware of glue being left on desks. One of those former employees who worked
in that same area where EOP
staff said they observed one to three desks with missing handles said that
her desk was missing handles when she started working at that desk in 1998,
and it was still missing them at the end of the administration. The former
occupant of an office suite where an EOP employee told us she observed a
desk with five to six large cigar burns said that there may have been a burn
on one of the two desks in his office, but he did not put it there.
He said that he smoked, but not cigars, and not in his office. This former
employee also said that with respect to an additional observation by an EOP
employee that a desk in the office suite had scratches on it that appeared
to have been made with a knife, he did not recall seeing any
scratches on either of the two desks in his office. 38 Similarly, the former
senior advisor for presidential transition said that he was in the same
office after 10: 30 a. m. on January 20, and he did not see any scratches on
a desk in that office.
37 A National Records and Archives Administration (NARA) official said that
she went to various offices in the EEOB with the former senior advisor for
presidential transition around 11: 00 a. m. on January 20, checking to see
whether presidential materials had been obtained from computers. This NARA
official said that she did not remember the specific rooms where she went
that morning, but she did not see any evidence of damage, vandalism, or
pranks.
38 The same EOP employee made both observations about the burn marks and
scratches. During our initial interview with this employee, she said that
the desks with burn marks and scratches were in a particular office. During
a follow- up interview 4 months later, she said her observations pertained
to an office suite, rather than a single office.
Three former occupants of a suite of three rooms where two EOP officials
told us they observed a table and two desks overturned in the afternoon of
January 20 39 said that no furniture was overturned in their offices when
they left on January 20 and that their desks would have been difficult or
impossible to move because of the weight of the desks. One of the three
former occupants said that he was in his office until 3: 30 a. m. or 4: 30
a. m. on January 20, the second former employee said he was in his office
until 10: 00 a. m. or 11: 00 a. m. on January 20, and the third former
employee said that she was in her office until 11: 50 a. m. or 11: 55 a. m.
on January 20. Regarding another office where an EOP official told us that
he observed
overturned furniture between 3 a. m. and 4 a. m. on January 20, the former
senior advisor for presidential transition said that he was in that office
after 11: 00 a. m. on January 20, and he did not see any overturned
furniture. Similarly, the former director of that office, who said that he
left the office around 1: 00 a. m. on January 20, said that he did not
observe any overturned furniture. Regarding furniture in a hallway of the
EEOB that an EOP employee said she observed, 40 two former employees who
worked in an office outside of which the furniture was seen in the hallway
said that they had moved bookcases, file cabinets, tables, and chairs out of
their office into the
hallway to help the cleaning staff at the end of the administration.
Telephones The June 2001 list indicated that:
? The phones [sic] lines had been cut in the EEOB-- pulled from the wall.?
? 50- 75 phone instruments had been tampered with requiring more work than
the standard reset. Of those, most had the identifying templates removed.?
? Voice mail announcements had been changed to answer the line with obscene
messages. After finding 10- 15, workers stopped resetting them individually
and reset the entire system.?
39 The OA director, who observed overturned furniture in this office, said
that he began touring the floor of the EEOB containing this office starting
at 12: 02 p. m. on January 20. 40 The EOP employee said that furniture was
in the hallway so that offices could be cleaned.
? A stu3 phone 41 in the First Lady?s office was left open with the key in
it.? Observations of EOP Staff Two EOP staff told us that they saw a total
of 5 to 6 telephone lines ?ripped? and Related Documentation
(not simply disconnected) or pulled from the walls during the early morning
hours of January 20. 42 In addition, the OA director said he saw some plugs
that looked like they were damaged, and another EOP
employee said that she saw a telephone cord that appeared to have been cut
with scissors. One EOP employee said that she saw at least 25 cords torn out
of walls in two rooms on January 22. 43 That employee did not know exactly
what types of cords were torn out of the walls, but said she thought that
they were telephone and computer cords and also could have
been fax and electrical cords. A January 24, 2001, GSA facility request form
documented a request to ?organize all loose wires and make them not so
visible? in an office suite where an EOP employee said that at least 25
cords were pulled from the walls. The facility request was made by the EOP
employee who told us about this observation. 41 This is a secure telephone.
42 The OA associate director for facilities management, who was one of the
two EOP staff who made these observations, told us that telephone cords were
ripped out of walls in a certain office, but did not indicate how many he
saw. That office was located on one of two floors where he said he observed
3 to 4 telephone cords ripped out of walls.
43 This EOP employee originally said that 25 telephone and computer cords
were torn out of office walls. In a follow- up interview, this employee said
that the cords also could have been electrical and fax cords, but did not
know for certain. She also could not recall whether the cords were torn out
of several walls or whether they were concentrated in a certain area.
Five EOP staff said they observed a total of 98 to 107 telephones that had
no labels identifying the telephone numbers in specific rooms or offices. 44
Further, an EOP employee who coordinated telephone service during the first
month of the administration estimated that 85 percent of the
telephones in the EEOB and the White House were missing identifying
templates or did not ring at the correct number. 45 She did not identify the
locations of these telephones, which could include those that were observed
without identifying labels by four other EOP staff. This employee said that
she was the ?middleman? between EOP staff and contractors regarding the
telephones during the first month of the administration, and that she went
into every office of the EEOB and the White House during that time.
The OA telephone services coordinator said she believed that telephone
labels were removed intentionally and that ?quite a few? labels were missing
during the transition, but she did not agree that 85 percent of the
telephones were missing them. She said that she had observed 18 telephones
that were missing number labels. 46 The telephone service director said that
in one room, missing telephone labels were replaced before noon on January
20, but were found missing again later that day.
Five EOP staff said that 13 to 19 telephones were forwarded to ring at other
numbers. 47 Further, the EOP employee who coordinated telephone service
during the first month of the new administration estimated that about 100
telephones were forwarded to other numbers, but, with one exception, did not
specifically identify which telephones.
The telephone service director said the numbers for telephones that were
missing identifying labels were determined in most cases by placing calls 44
This range included 82 telephones in a suite of offices in the EEOB where an
official said that all of the telephones were missing identifying templates
at the beginning of the administration. The EOP estimated that there were 82
telephones in that office in January 2001. The range does not reflect a
number of telephones with missing labels in an office where the telephone
service director said that he saw them missing, but did not specify how
many.
45 We counted 699 telephone numbers in the EEOB and East and West Wings of
the White House in the February 2001 EOP telephone book; 85 percent would
have been about 594 telephones that were missing identifying labels or did
not ring at the correct numbers.
46 This observation was included in the total range of missing labels
provided in this section. 47 This included one report of calls being
forwarded from the West Wing.
and noting what numbers appeared on the displays of receiving telephones. He
also said that another way to identify the telephone numbers was for a
telephone technician to obtain them from the telephone service provider.
This official also said that, although there is a standard form for
telephone service requests, preparation of this paperwork was not required
between January 20 and 22 because of the urgency to get new employees moved
into their offices.
Seven EOP staff, including the telephone service director, said they saw
telephones unplugged and/ or piled up on two floors of the EEOB and in four
specific rooms on those floors. Two EOP staff said that they found
telephones that were not working. One of those employees told us that,
because many telephones were not working in a section of a floor of the
EEOB, the switchboard forwarded calls from that area to other offices where
telephones were working, and that she walked from office to office
delivering telephone messages. In addition, one EOP employee (a different
employee for each of the following observations) said that he or she
observed ?some? telephones that were moved to other rooms while still
connected, two telephones plugged into the wrong plugs, and one telephone
with an incorrect number.
The EOP provided documentation that summarized telephone service orders
closed from January 20, 2001, through February 20, 2001, and contained 29
service orders that cited needing or placing labels; 6 of the 29 service
orders were for work in offices where telephone labels were
observed missing. 48 All of the 29 service orders mentioning labels were
part of orders for other telephone services, as were four individual work
orders EOP provided that cited labeling that were not part of the 29 service
orders. In discussing the telephone service requests, the OA telephone
services coordinator said that the requests for labels did not necessarily
mean that the telephones had been missing labels with telephone numbers. She
said that a new label might have been needed for a new service, such as
having two lines ring at one telephone. Documentation provided by the EOP
included a work order to retrieve a telephone that was on the floor in one
room, and another work order that said, in part, ?replace labels on all
phones that [sic] removed.? The documentation did not include any work
orders indicating that work was performed specifically to correct the
forwarding of telephone calls.
48 None of the service orders mentioning labels were for work in the East or
West Wings of the White House.
Two EOP employees who helped establish telephone service for new staff said
that they heard a total of 6 to 7 obscene or vulgar voice mail messages that
were left on telephones in vacated offices. These employees could not recall
the specific content of the messages or the locations of the telephones. In
addition, 13 EOP staff said they heard a total of 22 to 28 inappropriate or
prank voice mail greetings or incoming messages left. Included in these
total numbers was the statement of the telephone service director, who told
us that he heard 10 inappropriate voice mail messages, 5 to 6 of which were
vulgar, during the early morning hours of January 20.
The content of the most commonly heard voice mail message that EOP staff
told us about (3 messages heard by four EOP staff) was that the former staff
would be out of their offices for the next 4 years. Two EOP staff said they
heard a voice mail greeting left by a former Clinton administration
employee, who identified himself in the message, that said he would be out
of the office for 4 years due to the Supreme Court decision and left his
home telephone number. The telephone service director said that EOP staff
needed to be physically present in the White House complex
to record these greetings on their voice mail by using a passcode. Ten EOP
staff said that they had no voice mail service when they began working in
the White House complex. The telephone service director said that they
initially attempted to erase inappropriate and vulgar voice mail messages on
an individual basis, but it was eventually decided to erase all of them. The
OA associate director for facilities management said that no record was kept
of voice mail complaints, but so many complaints were received about them
that voice mail service was discontinued for a while to clear out the
system. This official said that no one had access to voice mail for at least
5 days and possibly up to 2 weeks. This official said that he
made the decision not to erase all voice mail messages and greetings at the
end of the administration because doing so would have deleted voice mail for
all EOP staff, including staff who did not leave at the end of the
administration, and not just for the departing staff. The OA telephone
services coordinator said that voice mail greetings and messages were not
removed on a systemwide basis at the end of the Clinton administration
because the EOP had not yet done an equipment upgrade, which was done
later.
Two EOP officials said they observed a stu3 (secure) telephone with the key
left in it. We interviewed the director of operations support at the White
House Communications Agency (WHCA), which coordinates the installation of
secure telecommunications equipment in the White House complex. This
official said that WHCA had no record of having installed a secure telephone
in the office where EOP staff said they observed it and did not know whether
such equipment had been used during the Clinton administration. He also said
that, for the equipment to be operational in a
secure mode, the key in the receiving equipment also must be engaged. The
official said that, typically, this type of equipment is picked up from
offices by WHCA at the end of an administration, but because the agency had
no record of the equipment in that office, it was apparently left there. 49
Costs According to the White House, based on what it said was extremely
conservative estimates and straightforward documentation, the
government incurred costs of at least $6, 020 to replace missing telephone
labels and reroute forwarded telephones. The documentation provided included
two blanket work orders and associated bills, a closed orders log for the
period January 20 through February 20, 2001, 8 individual work orders for
telephone service, and two monthly AT& T invoices. The White House also
identified, but did not provide 19 other individual telephone service work
orders that it used in its cost estimate for or placing labels on
telephones. Six of the 29 work orders listed on the closed orders log that
cited needing
or placing labels and four individual work orders that included labels were
for work in offices where telephone labels were observed missing. However,
both the orders listed on the closed orders log and the individual work
orders, as well as the blanket work orders, cited other services besides
labeling, and it was not clear to us from the documentation provided the
extent to which relabeling was done solely to replace missing labels or
would have been necessary anyway due to changes requested by new office
occupants. None of the documents provided specifically cited correcting
forwarded telephones. The documentation provided included blanket work
orders representing 114 hours for work done on January 20
49 This official said that another secure telephone with the key in it was
found in the West Wing at the end of the administration. He said that
typically, at the end of an administration, the employee to whom the
equipment is assigned contacts WHCA to have it picked up. The official did
not know whether WHCA had been contacted in that case.
and 78.5 hours for work on January 21. Costs associated with individual
services were not identified for the blanket work orders, but they indicated
that the services were for ?install, moves, relabeling, rewire, etc.? The
summary of work orders closed between January 20, 2001, and February 20,
2001, listed work orders for services such as installing new telephones and
fax lines, replacing labels on telephones, clearing voice mail, resetting
passwords, and reprogramming telephone numbers.
The OA telephone services coordinator estimated that a technician could
determine the numbers for 20 to 30 telephones per hour, but also indicated
that a technician?s $75. 92 hourly charge ($ 113. 88 per hour on Saturdays
and $151.84 per hour on Sundays) would be charged even if it took less than
an hour to complete a service order. Although we do not question that costs
were incurred to replace labels or reroute forwarded telephones, we do not
believe the documentation provided is clear or descriptive enough to
indicate what those costs were.
A January 29, 2001, telecommunications service request documented a request
for services including ?replace labels on all phones that [sic] removed,?
but the orders closed log for this service request showed ?install
new [numbers]/ replace label.? This service request was not made for an
office where telephone labels were observed missing.
A February 7, 2001, telecommunications service request documented a request
to remove a telephone from an office where piles of telephones were observed
at a cost of $75. 92.
Comments by Former Regarding observations by EOP staff that telephone cords
were ?ripped? Clinton Administration Staff from walls, one former Clinton
administration employee said that cords may have been pulled out of walls as
a result of moving. She said that she remembered seeing two telephone cords
pulled out of walls previously, but not around the time of the transition,
which she believed was the result of
an office move. Another former Clinton administration employee noted that,
with respect to the observation that telephone cords were cut, when the
carpet was being stretched in an office, a computer cord was cut with a
carpet stapler. 50 (She said this did not occur during the transition.)
The former occupant of an office suite (consisting of his office and a
reception area) where an EOP employee told us she observed more than 25
cords torn out of the walls said that he did not observe any computer or
telephone cords that were cut or torn out of the walls in any office when he
was helping to remove hard drives from computers during the morning of
January 20. He said that his office had only 5 telephone and computer cords
when he worked there. 51 Similarly, the former senior advisor for
presidential transition said that he was in that office after 10: 30 a. m.
on January 20, and he did not see any telephone or computer cords cut or
torn out of walls.
50 The director of GSA?s White House service center said that there were
?any number? of reasons why problems could have been observed with telephone
and computer wires besides having people cut them deliberately. He said, for
example, that the cleaning staff could have hit the wires with the vacuum
cleaners; computer staff could have been working
with the wires; movers could have hit them, or wires could have been
disconnected for a long period and not removed. 51 The OA telephone services
coordinator said the EOP had no documentation regarding the number of
telephone and computer lines that were in this office at the end of the
Clinton administration. In February 2002, this official counted 14
telephone, computer, and fax lines in the main room of this office suite,
which was then occupied by several people. At the end of the Clinton
administration, two people occupied these two rooms.
The former chief of staff of an office where two EOP staff told us they
observed 9 to 11 missing labels identifying the telephone numbers said she
was aware that six telephones in that office suite were missing labels
before the transition. She said those telephones were used by interns to
invite people to events and that they were used for outgoing calls only, not
to receive calls. In addition, another former employee said that a telephone
in a room (a reception area) in an office where EOP staff told us they
observed missing labels identifying the telephone numbers was missing
such a label before the transition. She said that, while she worked there,
the office staff did not know the number for that telephone. 52 She also
said that the telephone was used only by visitors for outgoing calls. A
former
employee who also worked in that office suite said that other telephones in
the office suite were missing labels before the transition, but he did not
know how many were missing. Another former employee who worked in another
office where two EOP staff told us they observed missing telephone labels 53
said that her telephone did not have a label identifying the number when she
started working there in 1997, and that someone told her what her telephone
number was. The former director of another office, where an EOP official
told us he observed missing telephone labels, said that staff sometimes
moved to other desks and took their telephone numbers with them. The deputy
assistant to the president for management and administration during the
Clinton administration said that he did not know why labels identifying the
telephone numbers were missing. He noted that the label
for his telephone was missing when he started working in the White House
complex in 1997.
The former manager of an office where an EOP employee told us he observed
telephones that were unplugged said that he was not aware of anyone in that
office unplugging them. A former employee in another office where EOP staff
told us they observed telephones that were piled up said that there were
extra telephones in that office that did not work and had never been
discarded.
52 This former employee said that a telephone in her office was also missing
a label when she worked there. No Bush administration staff said they
observed missing labels in that room during the transition.
53 One of the two EOP staff who made this observation said that all of the
labels were missing from telephones in this office.
The former senior advisor for presidential transition said that, during
transition meetings, EOP staff discussed a plan to erase the voice mail
greetings on all of the telephones during the transition. He provided a
typewritten copy of notes regarding an April 28, 2000, transition team
meeting indicating ?telephones- mass clearing.? However, he said that given
the reports of inappropriate voice mail messages found at the beginning of
the new administration, the plan apparently had not been carried out. He
also said that it would have been technically possible to erase voice mail
greetings for most departing EOP staff without also deleting the greetings
for staff who did not leave at the end of the
administration. 54 In January 2002, he provided us with his telephone number
in the White House complex during the Clinton administration; when we called
it, his voice mail greeting could still be heard. 55 This former official
also said that some telephones were forwarded to other numbers
for business purposes at the end of the Clinton administration. He said, for
example, that some of the remaining staff forwarded their calls to locations
where they could be reached when no one was available to handle their calls
at their former offices.
A former employee who worked in an office where three EOP staff told us they
heard a prank voice mail greeting said that on his last day of work at the
end of the administration, he left a voice mail greeting on his telephone
indicating that he would be out of the office for the next 4 years due to a
decision by the Supreme Court, and he provided his home telephone number. He
said that he presumed that the message would be erased the day after he left
because he would no longer be employed there. He also said that departing
staff were told that they would not be able to access voice mail after they
left, but could not recall who told him that or how it was communicated to
him (verbally or by E- mail). This former employee said that he left the
message in ?good humor.?
The former manager of the office where two EOP officials told us they
observed a secure telephone with the key left in it said that the telephone
had not been used for 4 years and was not active.
54 As noted earlier, the OA telephone services coordinator said that voice
mail messages and greetings were not removed at the end of the Clinton
administration because the EOP had not yet done an equipment upgrade. 55 The
OA telephone services coordinator said in February 2002 that this voice mail
greeting was attached to a telephone number, but not an actual telephone,
and that the greeting recently had been deleted.
Fax Machines, The June 2001 list indicated that ?[ s] ix fax machines were
moved to areas Printers, and Copiers
other than the ones in which they had been installed, making them
inoperable.? Observations of EOP Staff One EOP official told us that he had
seen 12 fax machines with the and Related Documentation
telephone lines switched and another fax machine that was disconnected.
Another EOP official said that he also observed some fax machines that were
swapped between rooms. Three EOP staff said that they observed a total of 5
copy machines, fax machines, and printers that did not work. Two EOP staff
said they observed fax machines moved to areas where they did not appear to
belong, including some in the middle of a room, unplugged. An EOP employee
who helped prepare the offices for new staff said that the serial numbers
for 5 to 7 copy and fax machines and 10 printers were marked out or removed,
and that without the serial numbers,
he was unable to determine whether the machines were subject to maintenance
agreements. He also said that no one knew the access codes needed for some
copy machines. Another employee said that a printer and fax machine had been
emptied of paper.
The EOP provided a copy of a log of broken copy and fax machines for the
period from January 29, 2001, to February 28, 2001. The log indicated 18
instances of problems with copiers, such as paper jamming, feeder not
working, and printing crooked during this period; and 19 instances of fax
machine problems, including not being able to send or receive and a request
for service that had not been completed the previous week. One of the items
on the log was to repair a copy machine in an office where an EOP employee
said that the copy and fax machines and printer did not work, although he
said that he did not believe that they were not working because of something
intentional. It was not possible to ascertain when
the copier and fax machines in the log were broken and whether they were
broken intentionally, and if so, who was responsible. Costs We did not
request cost information associated with preparing these fax
machines, printers, and copy machines for use by the new staff. Comments by
Former The former director of an office where an EOP official told us that
fax Clinton Administration Staff machines were swapped between rooms said
that a fax machine may have
been pulled around a corner, but it was not done as a prank. Regarding a
statement by an EOP employee that no one knew the access codes needed for
some copy machines, the former senior advisor for presidential transition
said he did not believe that any copy machines in the White House complex
had access codes.
Trash and Related The June 2001 list indicated that ?[ o] ffices were left
in a state of general trashing,? including contents of drawers dumped on the
floor, desk top
Observations glass smashed and on the floor, 56 and refrigerators unplugged
with spoiled
food. In addition, the list indicated that only 20 percent of the offices
could be made available to incoming staff late in the afternoon of January
20.
Observations of EOP and Twenty- two EOP staff and 1 GSA employee told us
that they observed
GSA Staff and Related offices that were messy, disheveled, or dirty or
contained trash or personal items left behind in specific rooms or offices.
57 In addition, 6 EOP staff and Documentation
4 GSA staff said they observed office space in this condition on specific
floors of the EEOB but could not recall the specific room or office. Nine
additional EOP staff and 2 GSA staff said that they observed office space in
this condition, but they could not recall any locations. (These could be the
same observations made by EOP staff in specific rooms or offices.) Included
among these observations were EOP staff who described the office space as
being ?extremely filthy? or ?trashed out,? and that a certain room contained
?a malodorous stench? or looked like there had been a
party. GSA?s director of the White House service center also said that
numerous unopened liquor and wine bottles were found. GSA facility requests
requesting cleaning in offices where observations were made included the
following: A January 30, 2001, GSA facility request form documented a
request to clean carpet, furniture, and drapes and to patch and paint walls
and
moldings in an office that an EOP employee said was ?trashed out,? 56 The
observations regarding broken glass tops are discussed in the furniture
section. 57 This included one EOP employee who said that in an office in the
West Wing, she saw a basketball hoop on a wall and champagne bottles in a
fireplace, and that it looked like there had been a party. Another EOP
employee told us that she saw empty cans of ?Texas Trash,? a nut mix, in the
West Wing.
including the carpet, furniture, and walls, and had three to four ?sizable?
holes in a wall. The facility request was made by the EOP employee who told
us about this observation.
Another January 30, 2001, GSA facility request form documented a request
to clean carpet, furniture, and drapes in a different office that an EOP
employee said was filthy and contained worn and dirty furniture.
January 25, 2001, and February 17, 2001, GSA facility request forms
documented requests to clean carpet, furniture, and drapes in a suite of
offices that an EOP employee told us was ?extremely trashed? and
smelled bad. The facility requests were made by the EOP employee who told us
about this observation.
We interviewed 23 GSA staff who cleaned the offices during the transition
and 4 GSA team leaders. 58 None of the 23 cleaning staff said they observed
any damage, vandalism, or pranks. Two of the cleaning staff said that they
saw personal items left behind, such as books and an eyeglasses case; 2
employees said that they observed a lot of trash; 1 employee said that he
saw empty desk drawers on tables; and 1 employee said that she saw discarded
unused office supplies. Three of the 4 team leaders, who were responsible
for different floors of the EEOB, said they did not observe any damage. 59
Three of the team leaders said that they saw personal items left behind,
such as unopened beer and wine bottles, a blanket, shoes, and a Tshirt
with a picture of a tongue sticking out on it draped over a chair. One team
leader said that the space on the floor of the EEOB where she worked was
?extremely filthy,? and another leader said that trash was piled up because
there were not enough dumpsters to handle all of the trash. 60
58 These were staff who worked during the first shift starting on January
20. 59 One of the team leaders observed ?W? keys glued to a wall. 60 These
team leaders? observations are included in the total of four GSA staff who
observed excessive trash or personal items on certain floors of the EEOB.
EOP and GSA staff also provided specific examples of their observations
regarding the condition of the office space. Four EOP staff (4 different
employees for each of the following observations) said they saw food left in
refrigerators 61 and that the furniture, carpet, or drapes in their offices
were dirty. Three EOP staff (3 different employees for each of the following
observations) said they saw holes or unpainted areas of walls where items
had been removed and a key broken off in a door leading to a balcony. 62 Two
EOP staff and 1 GSA employee said they saw drawers pulled out of desks. Two
EOP staff (2 different employees for each of the following) said they saw
the contents of desk drawers or filing cabinets dumped on the floor in two
offices; pencil sharpener shavings on the floor of two offices; and paper
hole punches arranged on a floor to spell a word. Either one EOP or GSA
employee said he or she saw the following: an unplugged refrigerator, a
plant turned upside down, a room without lightbulbs, a broken safe lock, and
a bolt missing from a lock on the door to the outside. 63 The director of
GSA?s White House service center during the transition said that most of the
cleaning began at about 7: 00 a. m. or 8: 00 a. m. on January
20 after OA provided a list of offices to be cleaned. 64 He said that OA
authorized GSA to clean only a few offices before January 20 and that the
cleaning was completed by the morning of Monday, January 22. The OA director
said that the offices were in ?pretty good shape? by the evening of January
22. Of the 23 EOP and GSA staff who said they saw offices that
61 A GSA facility request documented a request to clean a refrigerator in a
certain office. Two of the four EOP staff who said they observed food left
in refrigerators could not recall where they saw the food, so the GSA
facility request could corroborate those observations.
62 All three staff referred to the same door. 63 This was an office that had
a door to the outside that was no longer used. 64 The chief of staff to the
president said that he toured the first floor of the EEOB during the
afternoon of January 20, 2001, entered several offices, and did not see any
cleaning crews. Further, as explained later, in January 2002, two former
Clinton administration officials wrote us a letter indicating that they had
not seen any cleaning crews during the night of January 19 or the morning of
January 20. As a result, we asked GSA to contact the four former cleaning
crew leaders about when they started cleaning offices during the transition.
Two of the crew leaders said that they began cleaning the offices around 8:
00 a. m. or 8: 30 a. m. on January 20. Another former crew leader said that
she began cleaning offices at 6: 45 a. m. on January 20. The other former
crew leader was no longer employed at GSA when we inquired about this in
March 2002. The time cards for the four crew leaders did not indicate what
time they started working on January 20, but indicated that one leader
worked 8 hours, another worked 14 hours, and two worked 16 hours that day.
were messy, disheveled, or dirty or contained trash or personal items left
behind in specific rooms or offices, 13 staff made these observations on
January 20 and 21; the remaining 10 staff made these observations on or
after January 22.
The OA associate director for facilities management said that there were
?not a lot? of offices that could have been cleaned before January 20, and
that maybe 20 such offices were on a list that was given to GSA. He also
said that it took 3 to 4 days after January 20 to complete the cleaning. He
said that there was more to clean during the 2001 transition than during
previous transitions because (1) more staff were working in White House
office space during the Clinton administration compared with previous
administrations, (2) many people were messier than they should have been,
and (3) it was more difficult to do routine cleaning in some offices because
of their condition. This official said the amount of trash he saw was
?beyond the norm? and that he observed a limited amount of ?trashing? of
offices. He also said that it would have taken an ?astronomical? amount of
resources to have cleaned all of the offices by Monday, January 22. In his
opinion, he said that departing staff should have left their offices in a
condition so that only vacuuming and dusting would have been needed. A White
House management office employee who said that he went into almost all of
the offices on three floors of the EEOB and part of another floor said that
he observed trash ?everywhere? on January 21. He said that what he observed
was probably a combination of some trash having been
dumped intentionally and an accumulation built up over the years. Another
employee said that an office that he saw looked like someone had
deliberately left a mess, and that it appeared that someone was sending a
message that they were going to make a mess for everyone. For example, he
said that desk drawers were dumped out, lamps were on chairs, pictures taken
down from the walls, and the door was jammed with pictures leaning
against it so that the door could not be easily opened. Further, the OA
director said that it looked as if a large number of people had
?deliberately
trashed the place,? which he considered to be vandalism. The EOP also
provided seven photographs of two or three offices in the EEOB taken on
January 21, 2001, because, according to an associate counsel to the
president, they were possibly responsive to our request for any record of
damage that may have been caused deliberately by former
Clinton administration staff. These photographs showed piles of empty
binders and other office supplies left on the floor, empty filing trays
stacked on a sofa, an empty styrofoam coffee cup on a desk, a desk pad
with writing on it, a box of empty bottles left under a desk, a Christmas
wreath on a table, a string of Christmas lights on a wall, Easter
decorations, and three soda cans on a shelf. Costs A GSA facility request
form indicated that $1,150 was spent on professional cleaning services in a
suite of offices that included a room that an EOP
employee said was ?extremely trashed? and smelled bad. We did not attempt to
determine the costs associated with any additional cleaning effort that may
have been needed as a result of excessive trash that needed to be discarded.
Comments by Former Former Clinton administration staff generally said the
amount of trash that Clinton Administration Staff EOP and GSA staff said
they observed during the transition was what could
be expected when staff move out of office space after 8 years; many staff
were working up to the end of the administration and moved out at the last
minute; staff worked long hours in their offices, often eating meals at
their desks; certain offices were messy throughout the administration and
not only at the end of the administration; trash cans and dumpsters were
full, so trash was placed next to them; and that staff expected GSA to clean
their offices after they left.
Regarding the observations by some EOP staff who said that excessive trash
had been intentionally left in vacated offices, none of the 67 former
Clinton administration staff we interviewed who worked in the White House
complex at the end of the administration said that trash was left behind
intentionally as a prank or act of vandalism. One former employee who worked
in an administrative office said that she did not observe much cleaning of
offices before January 20, and she believed that GSA did not have enough
supervisors and decision makers to oversee the cleaning. A former
administrative head of another office that no one said was left dirty said
that he had asked 25 professional staff to help clean the office before they
left.
In a letter sent to us in January 2002, the former deputy assistant to the
president for management and administration and the former senior advisor
for presidential transition said that, for months before the transition,
they had been assured that additional cleaning crews would be
detailed to the White House complex to assist GSA cleaning crews during the
final week of the administration. However, the former officials said
that they did not observe any cleaning crews during the evening of January
19 or the morning of January 20. 65 Regarding files that an EOP official
told us he observed dumped on a floor in another office during the afternoon
of January 20, the former senior advisor for presidential transition said
that he was in that office after 11: 00 a. m. on January 20, and he did not
see any files on the floor. 66 The former director of that office also said
that files could not have been found
dumped on the floor on January 20 because they were archived before he left
on January 19. A former official in an office where an EOP employee told us
she observed dirty carpet said that, except for one room in the office
suite, no money had been available for carpet cleaning throughout the
administration.
A former employee of an office where three EOP staff told us they observed a
key to a door to a balcony broken off in the lock said that only the Secret
Service had a key to that door. The office manager for the office where an
EOP employee told us it appeared that a pencil sharpener was thrown against
the wall and that pencil shavings were on the floor said the sharpener in
that office did not work and may have been placed on the
floor with other items to be removed. Regarding things that appeared to have
been ?ripped? from walls that an EOP employee told us about, a former
employee said the room had not been painted for years, and items had been
put up and removed from that office several times. In addition, the former
director of an office, where an EOP employee told us he observed paint
missing from the walls, said that when the office was
painted about a year before the transition there were air bubbles in the
paint that turned into cracks and peeled. 65 As noted previously, the
director of GSA?s White House service center said that the cleaning began at
about 7: 00 a. m. or 8: 00 a. m. on January 20, 2001. In a follow- up
interview, the former senior advisor for presidential transition said that
two OA officials had provided the assurance that additional cleaning crews
would be detailed to the White House during the final week of the
administration.
66 A NARA official said that she went to various offices in the EEOB with
the former senior advisor for presidential transition around 11: 00 a. m. on
January 20, checking to see whether presidential materials had been obtained
from computers. This NARA official said that she did not remember the
specific rooms where she went that morning, but she did not see any
evidence of damage, vandalism, or pranks.
The former director of another office where an EOP employee told us she
observed a broken safe lock said that it had not worked correctly for some
time. The former occupant of an office, which an EOP employee told us
contained an odor when he started working there, said that his former office
had smelled bad since he started working there in 1999. He said the office
smelled moldy every time it rained, and he believed that water seeped into
his office from a balcony. In addition, regarding another office that an EOP
employee told us smelled bad, 67 the former occupant of that office said
that he did not smoke in his office.
Regarding the photographs of messy offices that the EOP provided of offices
during the transition, the former senior advisor for presidential transition
said the photographs showed trash, but they did not show evidence of
vandalism.
Writing on Walls and The June 2001 list indicated that ?[ w] riting on the
walls (graffiti) in six Prank Signs
offices? was found. Observations of EOP and
Six EOP staff said that they observed writing on the wall of a stall in a
GSA Staff
men?s restroom that was derogatory to President Bush. In addition, two EOP
staff and one GSA employee said that they observed messages written on an
office wall. 68 Two of those three employees said that the writing they
observed in that office was on a writing board that could be erased. Two
other EOP employees said that they saw pen and pencil marks on the walls of
two offices, but no written words. This included one employee who said that
it looked like there were cracks in the paint, but because the
marks washed off, he thought it looked like someone had used a pencil on the
wall.
67 This was a room that was part of a suite of offices where an EOP employee
requested professional cleaning of carpet, furniture, and drapes. A February
17, 2001, GSA facility request documented this employee?s request. This EOP
employee originally told us that the office smelled like cigars. In a
follow- up interview, this employee did not say that the office smelled like
cigars, but that it ?smelled bad? perhaps because it was in an old building.
68 The two EOP staff recalled the specific room number where they saw
writing on the wall. The GSA employee did not remember the room number, but
she said that she saw the writing on the same floor where the EOP staff saw
the writing. According to these employees, the content of the writing was
not profane in nature.
Twenty- nine EOP staff said that they observed a total of 25 to 26 prank
signs, printed materials, stickers, or written messages that were affixed to
walls or desks; placed in copiers, printers, desks, and cabinets; or placed
on the floor in specific rooms or offices, and that there were multiple
copies of these in some locations. 69 The observers said these materials
were generally uncomplimentary pictures or messages about President
Bush or jokes about the names of certain offices. Six EOP staff said they
saw a total of four messages that they said contained obscene words; three
of the messages were observed in the same location. No one told us the
pictures that they observed were obscene. Three other EOP staff and two GSA
staff said that they observed a total of eight to nine prank messages and
materials on certain floors of the EEOB, but they could not recall the
specific rooms or offices. The messages and materials that were observed on
certain floors, but not identified by specific office or room, could be the
same as those that were observed in specific locations.
In June and November 2001, EOP staff provided copies of 2 prank signs that
were found during the transition, which were derogatory jokes about the
president and vice president. In August and September 2001, we were also
shown a roll of political stickers that were left behind and 2 stickers
affixed to a file cabinet and desk containing derogatory statements about
the president.
Costs We did not request cost information associated with removing writing
on walls and removing prank signs, stickers, and other written messages from
the office space because we did not believe that such costs would be readily
available.
Comments by Former Thirteen former Clinton administration staff said they
saw a total of 10 to Clinton Administration Staff
27 prank signs in the corridors of the EEOB. 70 One of those former 69 Eight
EOP staff observed prank pictures or a sticker in the West Wing. One EOP
employee said she saw a prank picture in the East Wing. 70 One of those
employees also said that he found three to four Gore campaign signs and took
them down. Another former employee said that she saw writing on a writing
board that could be erased.
employees, who saw 2 signs, said she could not recall their content, but
said they were ?harmless jokes.? Office Supplies The June 2001 list
indicated that ?six to eight 14- foot trucks were needed to recover new and
usable supplies that had been thrown away.? Observations of EOP and
The OA associate director for the general services division, who is GSA
Staff
responsible for office supplies, said that about eight truckloads of
excessed items were brought to an EOP warehouse where they were sorted into
usable and nonusable materials. He said that departing staff brought excess
office supplies to a room in the basement of the EEOB, which eventually
became overloaded, and supplies were left in the hallway. However, he was
not aware of any usable supplies being discarded.
One EOP employee and one GSA employee said they saw supplies that were
thrown away, but no one said that trucks were needed to recover supplies
that had been thrown away. Another EOP employee said that there were no
office supplies in her office when she started working in the EEOB.
Costs We did not obtain cost information concerning the value of office
supplies that may have been thrown away because the statement that six to
eight 14foot trucks were needed to recover new and usable supplies that had
been thrown away generally was not corroborated.
Comments by Former The former deputy assistant to the president for
management and Clinton Administration Staff
administration said that departing staff were instructed at the end of the
administration to recycle usable office supplies by bringing them to the
basement of the EEOB. The former senior advisor for presidential transition
said that office supplies were brought to that room so that staff
could obtain them from there, rather than obtaining them from the supply
center. A former EOP employee said that the room where the supplies were
taken became overloaded at the end of the administration. A former office
manager said that staff received E- mails indicating that any office
supplies that were left in their offices would be thrown away.
Additional The OA associate director for facilities management said that he
found a Observations Not on
secure employee identification and two- way radios that were left in an
office and not turned into WHCA. Another EOP employee said that he the June
2001 List
observed materials that were not returned to the White House library. A GSA
employee said that she observed a few classified documents left unsecured in
closets and the telephone service director said that he found
classified documents in an unlocked safe. 71 Another EOP employee said that
he found sensitive documents in a room. No costs were associated with these
additional observations. Regarding two- way radios that an EOP official said
were left in an office and not turned into WHCA, the director of operations
support at WHCA, which handles such equipment, said that the agency had no
record of having provided two- way radios to the office where they were
observed. The official said that this type of equipment is typically picked
up from offices by WHCA at the end of an administration, but because the
agency had no record of having provided equipment to that office, it was
apparently left there. Comments by Former The former manager of the office
where an EOP official told us he observed Clinton Administration Staff
two- way radios left and not turned into WHCA said it was possible that they
were not turned into that office.
71 The locations were not identified. The director of records management
said that he went into every office on two floors of the EEOB during the
night of January 19 checking for documents and did not find any classified
documents.
Observations Concerning the White House Office Space During Previous
Presidential
Appendi x II
Transitions We attempted to determine how the condition of the White House
office space during the 2001 presidential transition compared with the
conditions during previous recent transitions by interviewing 14 Executive
Office of the President (EOP) staff, 2 General Services Administration (GSA)
staff, 19 former Clinton administration staff, and a National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA) official about their recollections of damage,
vandalism, or pranks during previous transitions. In addition, we reviewed
news media reports to identify any reported damage, vandalism, or pranks
during the 1993, 1989, and 1981 transitions.
Observations of EOP, Five EOP staff told us they observed damage, vandalism,
or pranks in the GSA, and NARA Staff
White House complex when they worked there during past transitions.
Regarding the 1993 transition, an EOP employee said that she observed five
During Previous desks containing prank pictures of former Vice President
Gore with written Transitions messages on them and a banner on a balcony. In
addition, two EOP staff (a different employee for each of the following
observations) said he or she observed 1 to 2 poster- sized signs, and 5 to
10 missing office signs. Another EOP employee showed us writing inside a
desk that was dated January 1993. Seven EOP staff who had worked in the
White House complex during previous transitions made observations comparing
the condition of the office space in 2001 to previous transitions; six said
that the condition was worse in 2001 than previous transitions and one said
that the office space
was messier in 1993 than 2001. The director of the Office of Administration
(OA), who had been present during five previous transitions, said that he
was ?stunned? by what he saw during the 2001 transition and had not seen
anything similar during previous ones, particularly in terms of the amount
of trash. The OA associate director for facilities management said that
there was more to clean during the 2001 transition than during previous
transitions. 72 The telephone service director, who had worked in the White
House complex since 1973, said that he did not recall seeing, in past
transitions, the large amount of trash that he had seen during the 2001
transition. Further, an employee who had worked in the White House complex
since 1984 said that office space in the complex was messier during the 2001
transition than all of the other transitions he had seen. 72 See appendix I
for the reasons that this official believed that there was more to clean
during the 2001 transition, compared to past transitions.
The chief of staff to the president, who was in charge of the 1993
transition for the George H. W. Bush administration, said that he saw
nothing comparable during prior transitions to what he saw during the 2001
transition. (He said that he saw during the 2001 transition, among other
things, overturned furniture, prank signs, keyboards with missing ?W? keys,
and trash and telephones on the floors of vacated offices.) The director of
records management, who had worked in the White House complex since 1969
said that, over time, he noticed that more personal items have been left
behind by departing staff. The OA senior preservation and facilities
officer, who had worked for the EOP since 1978, said she observed some
evidence of vandalism or pranks during the 2001 transition, but had not seen
any damage, vandalism, or pranks during previous transitions. However, a
facilities employee who said that she was responsible for overseeing the
custodial staff in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) during
the 2001 transition and was involved in the cleanup effort in the EEOB
during the 1993 transition said that she believed more trash was
left in the building during the 1993 transition than the 2001 transition.
She said that she found papers ?all over the floor? and the remnants of a
party during the 1993 transition.
The OA associate director for facilities management said that every
transition has had a problem with missing historic doorknobs. The telephone
service director said that telephone cords were unplugged and
office signs were missing in previous transitions and that unplugging
telephones is a ?standard prank.? The director of GSA?s White House service
center during the 2001 transition said that the condition of the office
space during the 2001 transition was the same as what he observed during the
1989 transition. (He said that he observed little during the 2001 transition
in terms of damage, vandalism, or pranks.) Similarly, a GSA employee who was
one of the cleaning crew leaders during the 2001 transition and was the EEOB
building manager
when we interviewed him in July 2001, said that he had not seen any damage
or pranks during any transition during his 31 years of working in the White
House complex. He said there was an excessive amount of trash during the
2001 transition, but that was not unusual for a transition.
Further, in a March 2, 2001, letter to Representative Barr on this matter,
the acting administrator of GSA said, regarding the condition of the White
House complex during the 2001 transition, that ?[ t] he condition of the
real
property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants
vacate office space after an extended occupancy with limited cyclical
maintenance, such as painting and carpet replacement.? (Real
property includes the physical structure of the building and not items such
as telephones, computers, and furniture.) NARA?s director of presidential
materials said that she was in the White House complex during the 1993 and
2001 transitions and that she went into about 20 offices in the EEOB during
the morning of January 20, 2001. She
said that she saw a lot of trash in the EEOB during the 2001 transition, but
that it was no more than what she observed during the 1993 transition. She
said that she did not see any damage, vandalism, or pranks during the 1993
or 2001 transitions.
Observations of Regarding the 1993 transition, five former employees told us
they observed Former Clinton furniture in hallways, piled up, or in places
it did not appear to belong. One
of those former employees also said there was no furniture in an office.
Administration Staff
One former employee (a different former employee for each of the Regarding
the 1993 following observations) said he or she observed each of the
following: a Transition
person?s initials carved into the front of the middle drawer of her desk,
words carved into two additional desks (a former employee said one of the
carved words was an obscenity; the person who observed the other carving in
a desk said it was the name of the vice president during the George H. W.
Bush administration), and broken chairs.
Seven former employees also said that computers were not operational or were
missing hard drives at the beginning of the Clinton administration. Two of
those employees said that it took 1 to 2 weeks for the computers to work. 73
Two former employees said that telephones were piled on the
floors or were disconnected. (One of those former employees said she was
told that staff would receive new telephones.) 74 Another former employee
said that she saw telephone lines pulled out of walls and that they appeared
to have been pulled out intentionally. One former employee who started
working in the White House complex in January 1993 and left in January 2001
said that the offices were messier in
73 In Armstrong v. Bush, 807 F. Supp. 816 (D. D. C., 1992), the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary
restraining order requiring personnel of the first Bush administration to
preserve backup tapes generated for certain EOP electronic systems.
74 The telephone service director said that the EOP received a new telephone
system during the Clinton administration.
January 1993 compared with January 2001. Another former employee said that
on January 20, 1993, his office contained leftover food and that the walls
needed repainting. A third former employee said the offices were still not
cleaned by the afternoon of January 21, 1993. Another former employee said
that there were ?dusty and dirty? typewriters on desks.
Three former staff said they saw a total of at least six Bush bumper
stickers in different offices, on cubicle walls, in a desk, and on a
telephone. One former employee said she saw one to two photocopies of
political cartoons left in a copy machine, a medicine bottle with a prank
note inside a desk, a banner on the balcony of the EEOB, and a tent tarp.
Three former Clinton administration staff said that there were no office
supplies when they started working in the White House complex in January
1993.
News Report We searched major newspapers and selected magazines for any news
Regarding the
reports regarding the condition of the White House office space during the
1981, 1989, or 1993 presidential transitions and found only one such
Condition of White mention. The March 1981 issue of Washingtonian magazine
indicated that House Complex during incoming Reagan administration staff had
some complaints about the Previous Transitions condition of the EEOB that
were similar to observations made by EOP staff in 2001. According to the
article, a visitor described the EEOB as being ?trashed,? and indicated that
memorandums taped to walls, lampshades
torn by paper clips hung on them to hold messages, a refrigerator with thick
mold, and a large coffee stain on a sofa outside the vice president?s office
were found.
Appendi x II I Procedures for Vacating Office Space According to former
Clinton administration and General Services Administration (GSA) officials,
departing Executive Office of the President (EOP) staff at the end of the
Clinton administration were required to follow a check- out process that
involved obtaining written approval in 21 categories, including the return
of library materials, government cellular telephones, pagers, and building
passes. The form indicated that the employee?s final paycheck and/ or lump
sum leave payment could not be issued until he or she had completed the form
and returned it to the White
House director of personnel. 75 However, the check- out process did not
include an office inspection, including an inspection of the physical
condition of the office, equipment, or furniture.
We asked former Clinton administration officials what instructions were
provided to departing staff regarding vacating their offices at the end of
the administration. We were provided with a January 4, 2001, memorandum sent
by President Clinton?s chief of staff to the office heads of the White House
Office and the Office of Policy Development that encouraged staff to check
out by the close of business on January 12, 2001, unless there was an
operational need to be on the premises until January 19. 76 However, this
memorandum did not indicate in what condition the office space should be
left or how office supplies should be handled, nor did it provide any
warning about penalties for vandalism. Provisions of 18 U. S. C. 1361
provide for the punishment of anyone who willfully commits or attempts to
commit damage to U. S. government property. If the damage to government
property exceeds $1,000, the crime is treated as a felony; if the damage
does not exceed $1,000, the crime is a misdemeanor.
We contacted congressional personnel to ask what procedures are followed
regarding offices on Capitol Hill that are vacated by members of Congress
and their staff. They included staff from the Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, House of Representatives; Office of Customer
Relations; Office of the Senate Sergeant- at- Arms; and Office of the
Building 75 We did not review whether this check- out process was followed
by all departing Clinton
administration staff. 76 The EOP provided us with records indicating on what
day building passes were terminated for departing staff in January 2001, but
also indicated that this information was not reliable, so it was not known
when former Clinton administration staff left at the end of the
administration. Forty- three of the 71 check- out forms for former staff
from one office (which we had obtained to check the return of cellular
telephones) indicated that their building passes were turned in on January
19 or 20, 2001. However, this office?s staff may
not necessarily be representative of when all former Clinton administration
staff left.
Superintendent, Office of the Architect of the Capitol. The staff said that
House and Senate offices are inspected when members vacate their space, and
they are held personally liable for any damaged or missing equipment. They
also said that former members of both the House and Senate have
been charged for this reason. Further, we were informed that furniture is
inspected in House members? district offices. In addition, we note that
landlords of privately owned office space and apartments routinely inspect
the vacated space when tenants leave, and they charge for any damages.
Appendi x V I Comments from the White House Now on pp. 8 and 14.
Finally, the content of the message allows the reader to assess whether the
GAO?s characterization of the observations is fair and objective. For
instance, in its report, the GAO describes a particular message as ?arguably
derogatory to the President.? Report at 10. That message reads, ?jail to the
thief.? But because the report does not reveal the content of the statement,
readers have no way of knowing whether the GAO is accurate in describing the
message as ?arguably derogatory.? By disclosing the content of the messages
and other important details about the reported observations, the GAO can
best assure the objectivity of the entire report.
Because we believe these details are important, many of our comments
highlight facts that the GAO omitted. These facts are undisputed. The GAO
omitted them from its report, we were told, not because it has reason to
doubt their truth, but because the GAO concluded that it was ?not
appropriate? to include this level of detail and that the facts were not
?material? to the GAO?s conclusions. On this, we simply disagree. By
including these facts in our comments and explaining their relevance, we
hope that the GAO will recognize the deficiencies in the current draft and
revise the final report accordingly. If not, the facts will be in our
comments for the readers to judge for themselves.
2. The ?June 2001 List.? Throughout the draft report, the GAO refers to a
?June 2001 list.? The GAO structures its report around the list and compares
the staff members? observations with the content of the list. The GAO uses
the list in this manner even though the Counsel to the President cautioned
the GAO, in transmitting the list, that
[t] he list is not the result of a comprehensive or systematic investigation
into the issue, and should not be considered a complete record of the damage
that was found. Rather, the list was prepared quickly and based on the
recollections of a handful of individuals who witnessed or learned of the
damage.
Further, the GAO never even asked the individuals whose names appear on the
list to explain how the list was prepared, who transcribed it, what its
purpose was, or what each line refers to. Nonetheless, the GAO features the
list prominently in its draft report as some type of benchmark or guidepost
against which the observations are measured.
Worse, the GAO often misstates the contents of the list. For instance, on
page 3, the draft report states that ?[ i] t listed . . . offices with a lot
of trash.? In fact, the list states that
?[ o] ffices were left in a state of general trashing.? (And under that
heading are three bullet points that read, ?Contents of drawers dumped on
floor,? ?Desk top glass smashed and on the floor,? and ?Refrigerators
unplugged (spoiled food).?) We highlighted the GAO?s error -
that in today?s parlance saying an office was ?generally trashed? is not the
same as saying it had ?a lot of trash? - in our April 26 comments on the
GAO?s preliminary findings. But for some reason, the GAO chose to ignore us.
We will continue to note this type of error in this set of comments to allow
the GAO another opportunity to correct the record and, in all events, to
inform the reader about what the list actually says.
3
3. Flawed Analysis. Rather than ?fully document? each observation, the GAO
generally states only ?a range? of the ?total? number of observations for
each category of damage. While we would prefer that that GAO simply provide
the underlying data, if the GAO includes these ranges, they must be correct.
In our opinion, they are not. The GAO materially understates the number of
observations, and its methodology for calculating the ranges, in our view,
is flawed.
Here is the problem. The GAO said that, in calculating the ?total?
observations, it is crediting as true each person?s observation. Yet, the
GAO reports a range that takes the
lowest number of observations in an office suite and then aggregates that
lowest- possible number for each suite to arrive at the low end of the
range. For the high end, the GAO, by and large, adds up each observation and
assumes that no observer is repeating an observation reported by anyone
else. Two examples - one taken from a data table which the GAO provided to
us and the other a hypothetical - illustrate the flaw in this approach.
For purposes of the first example, let us assume that only two of the office
suites from the GAO data table reported missing W keys - the Advance Office
and the Communications/ Media Affairs/ Speechwriting Offices. For those
office suites, the GAO data table shows:
Room no. or floor No. observed 2 No. for report (reason)
185 � 3- 4 2- 8 (used range for different
3- 4 recollections)
Adv. (174, 185, 185�) 2 7- 8 192- 198 3 1- 2
1- 7 (used range for different 197 4 (observed by three persons)
recollections) 1
198 1 Under the GAO?s methodology, and this data, the GAO would say that 10
staff members reported ?a total of? 3 to 15 damaged keyboards observed in
the two office suites. But that is incorrect if, as the GAO says, all
observations are being treated as truthful. One person alone said that he
saw 7 or 8 keyboards with missing W keys; thus it could never be the case
that a total of only 3 keyboards was observed damaged. Assuming the GAO?s
data were correct, the appropriate statement would be that 10 staff members
reported a total of 11 to 26 ( i. e., 7 to 18 in the Advance Office and 4 to
8 in Rooms 192- 198); here, the range properly reflects the possibility that
an observer may or may not be reporting a keyboard that was observed and
reported by another.
2 The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 10 separate
individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an observation by
one person. 3 The problem with the GAO?s analysis is compounded by the fact
that it groups offices together ( e. g., 192- 198)
that actually are three separate office suites - the Office of Media
Affairs, the Office of Communications, and the Office of Speechwriting.
4
A simplified and hypothetical example may further clarify the point.
Room no. or floor No. observed (observer) No. for report (reason)
Office Suite A 1 (Washington) 25 (Adams) 100 (Jefferson) Office Suite B 1
(Madison)
50 (Monroe) Under the GAO?s methodology, the number of ?total? observations
would be 1 to 126 for Office Suite A and 1 to 51 for Office Suite B - or a
total of 2 to 177 for both offices. But that would be an absurd conclusion
since three people said that they each alone observed more than 2 damaged
keyboards; so unless the GAO is going to simply ignore their observations,
or find them not credible, the total must reflect what they said. Therefore
a proper range would be 100 to 126 for Office Suite A and 50 to 51 for
Office Suite B, or a combined total of 150 to 177.
It appears that this flaw in the GAO?s methodology infects each of the
ranges presented in the GAO report. It also appears that some of the data is
inaccurate in the data tables that the GAO has provided. Without being
provided copies of all of the data tables for each category of damage, we
cannot know - and hence cannot comment specifically on - the factual
accuracy of all data, nor on how each range was calculated. Where the GAO
has provided copies of the data table or has described the underlying data
to us, we provide specific comments below.
4. Use of the Term ?Executive Office of the President.? Throughout the draft
report, the GAO refers to organizational units that are housed within the
White House complex - such as the White House Office (WHO), the Office of
the Vice President (OVP), or the Office of Administration (OA) -
individually and collectively, as the ?Executive Office of the President? or
?EOP.? As we explained to the GAO in our April 26 comments, it is not
accurate to refer to each unit individually or all units collectively as the
Executive Office of the President. In this context, the term is both under-
and over- inclusive. It is underinclusive because not all offices in the
complex fall within the EOP umbrella. And it is overinclusive to the extent
that it covers units that the GAO did not investigate. Thus, for example, it
is not accurate to say, as the GAO does, that it ?asked EOP? for information
(Report at 1). The GAO is also inaccurate when it refers to the EOP units as
?agencies.?
Now on p. 4.
Report at 3 n. 2, 4. They are not. We therefore again recommend that the GAO
state specifically the unit being referring to -
whether it be the WHO, the OVP, the OA, the NSC, etc. 5. Effort To Downplay
the Damage Found in the White House Complex. It appears that the
GAO has undertaken a concerted effort in its report to downplay the damage
found in the White House complex. The following facts lead us to that
conclusion:
5
2
the GAO omits from its report a reference to each reported instance of
vandalism, damage, or a prank;
the GAO underreports the number of observations for nearly every category of
damage;
the GAO omits from its report any mention of several individuals (all but
two of whom served during the Clinton Administration) who told the GAO that
the damage found during this transition was worse than prior transitions;
the GAO ignores documents that show requests were made to repair telephone
damage and clean offices;
the GAO fails to quantify or estimate certain real costs incurred to remedy
or repair the damage;
the GAO fails to report the content of the graffiti and signs that were
found in the complex; and
the GAO is unwilling to conclude that the vandalism, damage, and pranks were
intentional, even where the circumstances plainly indicate that they were (
e. g., damaged W keys, graffiti and signs disparaging the President and the
incoming Administration, damaged furniture that contained anti- Bush
statements, more than 100 missing phone labels, vulgar and inappropriate
voicemail greetings, etc.).
Part II: Specific Comments
Now on p. 2.
1. PAGES 2- 3. The GAO misstates the contents of the June 2001 list:
The GAO says that the list ?listed . . . offices with a lot of trash.? It
does not. It says that the ?[ o] ffices were left in a state of general
trashing,? and then provides examples that the GAO omits - ?[ c] ontents of
drawers dumped on the floor,? ?[ d] esk top glass smashed and on the floor,?
and ?[ r] efrigerators unplugged (spoiled food).?
The GAO says that the list ?listed . . . cut telephone lines.? In fact, the
list says ?[ t] en phone lines cut in the [E] EOB - pulled from the wall.?
The GAO says that the list ?listed . . . a secure telephone left
operational.? It does not. It says that ?a stu3 phone . . . was left open
with the key in it.?
Now on p. 2.
2. PAGE 3. The GAO misidentifies the units that comprise the EOP. As stated
above, not all of the units identified by the GAO fall squarely within the
EOP. See, e. g., Sweetland v. Walters, 60 F. 3d 852, 854- 55 (D. C. Cir.
1995) (? the Executive Residence is not a unit within the Executive Office
of the President?). And none of the EOP units are
?agencies,? as the GAO contends ( see Report at 3 n. 2 and 4). 3. PAGES 7
and 23. The GAO concludes that ?[ d] amage, theft, and pranks did occur in
Now on pp. 6 and 19.
the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition.?
Congressman Barr asked the GAO to address ?vandalism,? and elsewhere in the
report, the GAO discusses observations of vandalism. Is the GAO unwilling to
conclude that ?vandalism,? as well as ?damage, theft, and pranks? occurred?
Or did the GAO simply inadvertently omit the word ?vandalism? in these two
instances?
6
Now on p. 6.
4. PAGE 8. The GAO writes that ?[ m] ultiple people said that . . . they
observed (1) many offices that were messy, disheveled, or contained
excessive trash or personal items.? That is an understatement, to say the
least. The offices were not simply ?messy? and
?disheveled.? Multiple observers told the GAO that the offices, for example,
had more than 20 W keys glued to the walls; at least 14 to 19 pieces of
furniture overturned; computers piled up or overturned on floor; telephones
and fax machines unplugged and/ or piled on the floor in 25 or more offices;
at least a dozen fax lines switched; 5 or 6 glass desk tops broken; a plant
dumped in the middle of the floor; drawers open and their contents dumped on
the desk or the floor; food inside of desks; and beer, wine and liquor
bottles littering offices. When one knows the specific allegations, a reader
can evaluate the explanation offered by ?some former Clinton administration
staff? that ?the amount of trash that was observed during the transition was
what could be expected when staff move out of their offices after 8 years.?
Further, if the GAO is going to include the statement by former Clinton
administration staff that the amount of trash was ?what could be expected,?
it should also include the statements of longtime staff members who said the
opposite. For example, an individual who has worked in the White House
complex since 1971 told the GAO that the amount of trash ?was beyond the
norm,? and a different individual, who has worked in the White House complex
for 17 years, said that the trash was ?worse this time? than in prior
transitions and that the offices were ?more messy? than what he had observed
during other transitions.
5. PAGE 8. The GAO reports that some former Clinton Administration staff
said that
Now on p. 6.
?some reported observations were false.? We are disappointed that President
Clinton?s former staff would make such a reckless statement - a statement
that is neither based on nor supported by a single shred of evidence. We
believe that self- serving accusations like this one illustrate why it is
important to provide the reader with many of the details that the GAO omits.
If, for example, the reader is told that a particular observation was made
by a staff member who worked in the complex for many years (including during
the Clinton Administration), or that the damage was found in a location
where others observed lots of other damage, then the reader can determine
for himself the credibility of the observation.
6. PAGE 9. The GAO writes: ?[ D] ocumentation was provided indicating that
much
Now on p. 7.
telephone service work was done during the transition, but this information
did not directly corroborate allegations of vandalism and pranks involving
the telephones.? We simply do not understand how the GAO can say the
documentation does not corroborate the allegations. Several staff members
reported missing telephone labels, and the documentation shows, for example,
a list of closed telephone service orders that shows, among other things, at
least 28 separate work- order requests for replacement of labels on one or
multiple telephones;
a Telephone Service Request (TSR) that says, ?NEED Button labels typed. Tech
to label sets?;
7
a TSR that says, ?Room[ s] 274, 272, 284, & 286. Program phones . . . NEED
Button labels typed. Need tech to place labels on sets?;
a TSR that says, ?Room[ s] 272 & 276. Program phones . . . NEED Button
labels typed & placed on sets?;
a TSR that says, ?Reprogram sets in Room 263, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269 and
271. NEED labels placed on each set?;
a TSR that says, ?NEED TECH TO PLACE BUTTON LABELS? on sets in Room 270;
a TSR that says, ?Replace labels on all phones that removed? in Room 18;
a TSR that says, ?Need label placed on set? in Room 148; and
a TSR that says, ?NEED Label placed on set? in Room 100. In addition, the
GAO received two TSRs that show work - ?including . . . relabeling? -
performed on January 20 and 21, 2001, when individual work orders were not
completed. Likewise, staff members reported that telephones were left on the
floor, and the documentation shows a request for a technician to retrieve a
telephone found on the floor.
Now on p 7.
7. PAGE 9. The GAO writes that ?[ s] eventy- nine EOP staff who worked in
the White House complex on or after January 20, 2001, provided observations
about the condition of the complex at the beginning of the administration.?
This statement is inaccurate in two respects. First, many of these 79 staff
members worked in the complex before,
during, and after January 20, not simply ?on or after January 20, 2001.?
Second, those staff members provided observations of damage, vandalism, and
pranks that occurred shortly before ?the beginning of the administration? -
on January 19 and the early morning of January 20, 2001.
Now on p. 8.
8. PAGE 10. The GAO reports that ?EOP staff . . . observed a total of about
two dozen prank signs, printed materials, stickers, or written messages that
were affixed to walls or desks; placed in copiers, desks, and cabinets; or
placed on the floor.? We believe the GAO has substantially underreported the
number of signs and messages. The GAO was informed of, and has not disputed,
the following observations:
MESSAGES AND SIGNS WRITTEN ON OR AFFIXED (NOT SIMPLY TAPED) TO FURNITURE AND
OTHER GOVERNMENT PROPERTY Location Observation 4
EEOB - 191 Sticker affixed to filing cabinet that reads ?jail to the thief?;
shown to GAO EEOB - 191A Writing on a pull- out tray on desk that reads ?W
happens?; shown to
GAO EEOB - 191B Writing in top left drawer of desk that reads ?GET OUT?;
shown to
GAO 4 The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 7 separate
individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an observation by
one person.
8
EEOB - 196A Writing in middle drawer of desk that reads ?Hail to the Thief?;
shown to GAO EEOB - 197 Key broken off in file cabinet with Gore bumper
sticker with the
words ?Bush Sucks? stuck to the inside of the cabinet (observed by two
persons) EEOB - 125A Writing in middle drawer of desk that wishes all ?who
work here?
?good luck?; shown to GAO. EEOB - 1 st floor Writing in desk drawer West
Wing - outside
Gore bumper sticker stuck to the bottom of paper tray in the copier COS and
VP offices
SIGNS AND MESSAGES (not including messages and signs written on or
permanently affixed to property)
Location Observation 5
West Wing - Vice
?Vulgar words? on white board* President?s Office West Wing Sign comparing
President Bush to a chimpanzee found ?in a number
of printers?; ?laced? throughout the reams of paper** West Wing - Vice
Three copies of the same sign taped to wall (observed by two President?s
Reception
persons)*, *** Area 15- 20 copies of the same sign laced throughout ream of
paper in fax
machine and copier (observed by two persons) West Wing - First
Same sign shuffled throughout the paper tray in copy machine Floor
outside the Chief of Staff?s office West Wing 20- 30 copies of same sign
interspersed throughout ream of paper in
printer in office that is adjacent to the Oval Office East Wing 8? x 10?
color piece of paper that said ?see you in four, Al Gore? in
drawer of the copy machine EEOB - room not
Same President Bush/ chimpanzee sign found in a printer* identified EEOB -
basement In location where people ?dumped? supplies, a sign read ?Gifts for
the New President? (Head Telephone Operator)+ 5 The comments in this table
were, collectively, reported by 28 separate individuals. Unless otherwise
indicated, each line reports an observation by one person.
9
EEOB - 87 Sign taped to a desk of a mock MasterCard ad that includes a
picture of President Bush and reads, ?NEW BONG: $50, COCAINE HABIT: $300,
FINDING OUT THAT THE GOOD- OLD- BOY NETWORK CAN STILL RIG AN ELECTION IN THE
DEEP SOUTH: PRICELESS. For the rest of us there?s honesty.? The GAO was
provided with a copy of this sign. EEOB - 100- 104 T- shirt with tongue
sticking out draped over chair* EEOB - 128
Sign that read ?just laugh? taped to the wall Signs EEOB - 160- 164
?Inappropriate? message in printer or fax tray ?Quite a few signs? EEOB -
160 Picture of former First Lady taped to the inside of cabinet EEOB - 162
Photo in safe that had the word ?chad? spelled out in paper punch
holes (observed by two persons) EEOB - 177- 189
Signs Notes in the desk drawers EEOB - 192
Sign addressed to and disparaging of ?Bush staffer? on wall Obscenity
deleted by Sign of a mock Time magazine cover that read ?WE?RE ******?
GAO.
on wall (observed by five persons) EEOB - 197B Desk drawer had 2 Gore/
Leiberman stickers displayed inside EEOB - 2d floor Picture of Bush with
something drawn on it on the 2d floor^ EEOB - 3d floor
Sign reading ?VP?s cardiac unit? (observed by two persons) ++, +++. library
The GAO was shown a copy of this sign. EEOB - 4 th floor Pictures of
President Clinton and notes about President Bush ?were
everywhere.? ^^ EEOB Signs inserted into office nameplates, including signs
outside of the
former First Lady?s Office (Room 100- 104), the OMB, and the Office of
Faith- Based and Community Initiatives (observed by four persons; three of
these (two OA employees and one GSA employee) had worked in the White House
complex during the Clinton Administration) *OA employee who worked in the
White House complex during Clinton Administration ** OA employee who worked
in the White House complex during Clinton Administration *** OA employee who
worked in the White House complex during Clinton Administration + OA
employee who worked in the White House complex during Clinton Administration
++ OA employee who worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration +++ OA employee who worked in the White House complex during
Clinton Administration ^ GSA employee who worked in the White House complex
during the Clinton Administration ^^ GSA employee who worked in the White
House complex during the Clinton Administration
9. PAGE 10. While, in some cases, the signs listed above were easily removed
and, in a
Now on p. 8.
few cases, were probably meant as a joke, we believe the GAO should describe
the signs more fully and with greater detail for the reasons stated in
General Comment No. 1. Two statements on page 10 illustrate why. First, the
GAO reports that ?one former employee . . . said that the prank signs that
she saw were harmless jokes.? The reader is unable to determine whether the
signs were truly ?harmless jokes? in some, many, or all of the cases, unless
the content is included. Second, the GAO reports that it was shown ?2
10
stickers affixed to a file cabinet and desk containing arguably derogatory
statements about the [P] resident.? The GAO is referring to a sticker that
reads ?jail to the thief.? We do not think that statement is ?arguably
derogatory,? and we believe that many people would agree with us. Yet, since
the report does not reveal the content of the statement, the reader cannot
determine whether the GAO is accurate in saying the statement is ?arguably
derogatory.?
10. PAGE 10. The GAO reports that ?[ t] wenty- six EOP staff said that they
observed a total
Now on p. 8.
of 30 to 64 computer keyboards with missing or damaged ?W? keys? where a
specific room or office was identified. Again, we believe the range provided
by the GAO (? 30 to 64?) does not accurately reflect the number of
observations reported. According to our records, which we earlier provided
to the GAO and the GAO did not dispute, staff members observed a total of 58
to 70 computer keyboards with missing or damaged W keys where a specific
office or room was identified. In addition, staff members reported 150
keyboards with missing or damaged W keys, where the staff member did not
associate the observation with a particular room or office. The data are set
forth below:
MISSING OR OTHERWISE DAMAGED W KEYS (where a specific room or office was
identified) Room no. or office No. observed 6 No. for report (reason)
Former 1 st Lady?s Approx. 10 (observer ?A?) 7
Approx. 18 (C?s observation Office, 100- 104
7+ (? at least one in each of the 7 likely included the same
offices in suite?) (observer ?B?)
damaged keyboards seen by A, Approx. 18 (observer ?C?)
B, D, and E) 102 2 (observer ?D?)
104 1 (observer ?E?)
106 Approx. 2 Approx. 2 158/ 160A 2 2 160 1 1 172 1 1 173 1 1 176 1 1
Advance Office (177-
3- 4 15- 16
189) 3- 4
15- 16
?at least? 7- 8 196, 197, 197A, 197
1- 2 (observer ?V?)
5- 7 (W?s observation likely and/ or 199
included the same keyboards 197, 197A, 197B, and/ or
5 (observer ?W?) (4 missing, 1 seen by V, X, Y and Z)
199 defaced)
197B 1 (observers ?X? and ?Y?)
199 1 (observers ?Y? and ?Z?)
6 The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 26 separate
individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an observation by
one person. 7 Letter designations are for purposes of this table only.
11
198 1 1 OVP 4- 5
5- 10
?heavy concentration? **;
?some? *** 286 1 288 4
West Wing* 6- 10**** 6- 10
Total Approx. 58- 70
*Although no specific room was identified in the West Wing, we have included
this observation in this table because, as stated in footnote 19 of the
Report, the GAO places it in this category. ** OA employee, worked in the
White House complex during the Clinton Administration. *** OA employee,
worked in the White House complex during the Clinton Administration. **** OA
employee, worked in the White House complex during the Clinton
Administration.
MISSING OR OTHERWISE DAMAGED W KEYS (where NO specific room or office was
identified) Location No. observed 8 No. for report (reason)
EEOB and WW 150** 150 EEOB - no specific
1*** 0- 1 (observation likely counted location
above) First Floor, East Hall -
2 0- 2 (observation likely counted EEOB
above)
Total 150
** OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration *** OA employee, worked in the White House complex during the
Clinton Administration.
11. PAGE 11. The GAO repeats its statement (found on page 8 of the Report)
that staff
Now on p. 9.
?told us that they saw offices that were messy, disheveled, dirty or
contained excessive trash or personal items left behind? and that ?[ f]
ormer Clinton administration staff said that the amount of trash that was
observed during the transition was what could be expected when staff move
out of their offices after 8 years.? Please refer to the comments we
provided in Specific Comment No. 4.
12. PAGES 11- 12. The report states that the ?EOP provided seven pictures
that . . . showed
Now on p. 9.
piles of binders and office supplies, empty beverage containers, and other
items left behind. However, a Clinton administration transition official
said that the pictures showed trash, and not vandalism.? The GAO?s
description of the photographs is, in our view, incomplete. Any description
of the photos should also say that the pictures show, among other things,
binders, folders, papers, and other trash piled in the middle of the floor;
framed pictures and bulletin boards removed from the walls and placed on the
ground and on furniture; Christmas lights and strands of tinsel hung from
the walls; desk drawers and cabinets left open and containing Easter
decorations and personal products; and office supplies piled on sofas.
8 The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 3 separate
individuals. Each line reports an observation by one person.
12
Now on p. 10.
13. PAGE 12. The report describes two facility request forms that document
requests for cleaning in particular offices where the GAO was told by
current staff that the offices were ?trashed? or extremely ?filthy.? The
GAO, however, fails to mention three additional and similar facility request
forms that we provided:
A January 30, 2001, facility request form (Form No. 56990.) shows that an
employee asked for the following services in the Advance suite: ?Walls/
moldings need patching and paint. . . . 1 - Need carpet vacuumed - is awful!
2 - Furniture cleaned and drawers need vacuuming out. 3 - Drapery needs
cleaning or replacement.? Facility Request No. 56990. During her interview,
this employee told the GAO that the Advance suite was ?still trashed out?
even after the GSA crew went through the offices for the first time and that
it took approximately three weeks before things were
?back to standard.?
A January 25, 2001, facility request form (Form No. 56662) shows that a
different employee asked that GSA clean the carpet, furniture, and drapes in
Room 160A. Facility Request No. 56662. This employee had to repeat that
request on February 17, by submitting another form (which the GAO does
describe) to clean a room that the employee said was ?extremely trashed.?
A February 21, 2001, facility request form (Form No. 58369) shows a request
to clean the carpet in the former First Lady?s suite (Rooms 100- 104). At
least four current staff members told the GAO that this office suite was
trashed, including reports of pencil shavings, dirt, and trash covering the
floor.
In addition, in describing the January 30, 2001, facility request form, the
GAO writes that the form ?documented a request to clean carpet, furniture,
and drapes in an office that an EOP employee said was ?filthy? and contained
worn and dirty furniture.? This description is incomplete. The same
employee, as well as others from her office suite, also told the GAO about
significant damage to furniture in those offices, including a desk drawer
with its drawer fronts removed, chairs without legs, and a chair with its
entire back broken off.
14. P AGE 12. The GAO underreports the number of reports of damaged
furniture and the
Now on p. 11.
number of observers. Our records show 17 current staff members reported a
minimum of 31 to 33 pieces of damaged furniture - not counting the furniture
that was defaced with writing and stickers - as follows:
13
DAMAGED FURNITURE Location Observation 9
100- 104 (Former First 4 chairs with broken legs
Lady?s office) 102 Desk drawers kicked in - ?clearly? intentional; ?not just
wear and
tear? 103 Desk drawers locked; pried open the drawers and found 2 pieces of
paper that had anti- Bush statements 104 2 broken chairs - arms lifted off
(observed by two persons) (The
GAO apparently believes that one of the two observers said that 1 or 2
chairs had broken arms. That is incorrect; he told the GAO that 2 chairs had
broken arms, and indeed showed the GAO the chairs.) 158- 160A ?Number of the
desks? appeared to have been scratched with knives;
multiple ?big scratches with a sharp object?; other furniture had red pen
marks and other stains 160A Desk covered with 5- 6 black, circular burn
marks; appeared to be
cigar burns 160- 164 (Cabinet Aff.)
1 or 2 chairs with broken legs (observed by three persons) 1 chair with its
entire back broken out (observed by two persons) 1 chair with ripped seat
162 Desk with 2 or 3 of the drawer fronts removed (observed by four
persons, and witnessed by GAO) 177- 189 (Advance) Glass top shattered on
floor; appeared that someone stomped on it
179 Lock to the cabinet in desk had been jammed inward so that it would not
function 185- 189 Desk had a key broken off in the lock
197B Key broken off in file cabinet; key hanging in lock by metal thread,
and Gore bumper sticker found inside (observed by four persons) 199 Glass in
glass- fronted bookcase was broken with glass still sitting in
cabinet EEOB - Southwest
Cabinet with two doors hanging from hinges** corner of first floor First
floor EEOB - in
Chairs with slit seats hall No specific room
Sofa with broken legs and other broken furniture - probably in identified
Counsel?s office, the Scheduling office, and in the Advance offices 9 The
comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 17 separate
individuals. Unless otherwise noted, each line reports an observation by one
person.
14
No specific room Some broken pieces of furniture; upholstered pieces of
furniture
identified were ?filthy? and had spills on them in same offices, where
months
and weeks earlier, things looked ?pretty good?** No specific room
Broken glass tops in 5 or 6 offices identified No specific room
Broken mirror identified
** OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration
Now on p. 11.
15. PAGE 12. The GAO reports that ?[ f] ormer Clinton administration staff
said that some furniture was broken before the transition and could have
been the result of normal wear and tear, and little money was spent on
repairs and upkeep during the administration.? This explanation cannot be
squared with the circumstances surrounding the reported damage. For example,
With respect to the key broken off in a file cabinet in Room 197B, the key
was found still hanging in lock by a metal thread (suggesting that the
damage occurred not long before the transition) and, when the locksmith
opened the cabinet, a Gore bumper sticker with the words ?Bush Sucks? was
prominently displayed inside (suggesting that the damage was intentional and
done by a member of the former Administration).
Similarly, when the locked desk drawers were pried open in Room 103, two
pieces of paper with anti- Bush statements were found displayed inside.
Again, in our view, these facts indicate that the damage was intentional,
occurred shortly before the transition, and was done by a member of the
former Administration.
One employee told the GAO that the drawers on her desk ?clearly? had been
kickedin intentionally and that it was ?not just wear and tear?;
A second employee told the GAO that it was unlikely that the slit seats were
the result of wear and tear because ?the fabric otherwise looked new,? and
?it looked like someone had taken a knife or sharp object to the seat?; and,
A third employee told the GAO that she saw damaged furniture in offices
where things had looked ?pretty good? weeks or months earlier.
Finally, in still other cases, the nature of the damage suggests that it
occurred shortly before the Inauguration because the offices? prior
occupants and cleaning staff would not have let the damage remain in the
office for long. For example, it is hard to believe that occupants would not
fix or remove a bookcase with broken glass (with shards of glass still in
the cabinet) or would allow chairs with broken legs and no backs to remain
in an office suite for very long.
16. PAGES 12- 13. The GAO lists four facility request forms that show that
staff requested
Now on p. 10.
repairs of furniture that they told GAO was damaged. The GAO, however, to
fails to include in its list a second facility request form (Form No. 56695)
submitted by a staff
15
member on January 29, 2001, to obtain ?a key to lateral file cabinet,? which
was
?locked.?
17. PAGE 13. We believe that the GAO has underreported the pieces of
furniture that were
Now on p. 11.
observed overturned. Our notes show (notes that were provided to the GAO and
the GAO did not dispute) that five White House employees, one OA employee,
and one GSA employee reported seeing at least 14 to 19 pieces of furniture
that were on their sides or overturned, as follows.
OVERTURNED FURNITURE Location Observation 10 No. of pieces
128 In each of the three offices and the 4+
secretary?s space, almost every desk was overturned - at least one desk or
table in each room 177- 189 (Advance
At least 2 ?desks turned over? 2+ Off.)
Coffee table standing on end 1 Sofa upside down 1 Tables upturned 2+ OVP
Chair overturned 1 1 st floor EEOB 3- 4 pieces of furniture turned over;
?couple
1- 3 desks on side,? ?couple of chairs?** Not identified Desks and credenzas
turned on their sides * 2 Not identified Overturned sofa 0- 1 (may or may
not
be same one seen by a different person) Not identified Desks turned on sides
0- 2 (may or may not
be same ones that others observed)
TOTAL At least 14- 19
*GSA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration ** OA employee, worked in the White House complex during
Clinton Administration
10 The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 7 separate
individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an observation by
one person.
16
Now on p. 11.
18. PAGE 13. The report reads: ?Six EOP staff said they observed a total of
four to five desks with a sticky substance or glue on the top or on
drawers.? That is inaccurate and incomplete. The GAO was told that a thick
layer of an oily glue- like substance was smeared on the bottom of the
middle drawer of the desks and smeared all over the top of the right pull-
out trays of at least two desks. In addition, three separate employees said
that the desk- drawer handle on at least one of the desks was missing, and
one of the three said that the handle was found inside the drawer along with
more of the glue substance.
Now on p. 11.
19. PAGE 13. The GAO writes that ?four EOP staff said that they observed a
total of 10 to 11 missing doorknobs, which may have been historic
originals.? In fact, the GAO was told that 11 to 13 doorknobs were missing,
as follows:
MISSING DOORKNOBS Location Observation 11 No. of doorknobs
EEOB - 128D 2 pairs of doorknobs missing on pair of 4
exterior doors EEOB - 1 st floor, closet
1 doorknob missing ** 1 at top of Navy steps EEOB - interior door
1 pair missing 2 between Rooms 286 and 288 EEOB - Room 288,
1 pair missing 2 exterior door to hall EEOB - 4 th floor 1 pair missing ** 2
EEOB - location not
Missing doorknob*** 0- 2 (may or may not identified
be accounted for in the above observations
TOTAL 11- 13
** OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration *** OA employee, worked in the White House complex during
Clinton Administration
20. PAGE 13. The GAO is incorrect when its states that ?two EOP staff said
they observed
Now on p. 11.
a total of 9 to 10 missing television remote controls.? An employee of the
OVP said that five or six television remote controls were missing from the
OVP offices, and a second employee said that ?approximately five remote
controls? disappeared from various offices throughout the correspondence
suite. (The second employee had worked in the same offices before the
transition.) Thus, there were reports of 10 to 11 missing remote controls.
11 The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 4 separate
individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an observation by
one person.
17
Now on p. 11.
21. PAGE 13. The report states that ?two EOP officials said that about 20
cellular telephones could not be located in the office suite where they
belonged? and that ?[ t] he former occupants of offices during the Clinton
administration where items were observed missing said that they did not take
them.?
The GAO is referring here to cellular phones that were missing from the OVP,
and should so state.
The second clause suggests that the GAO interviewed all former employees of
the OVP, and all former OVP employees said they did not take them. But that
is not true.
Now on p. 11.
22. PAGE 14. The GAO refers to a February 7, 2001 facility request form that
asks the GSA to ?put doorknob on? interoffice door. We ask the GAO to quote
from - rather than paraphrase - this request since the form shows that the
requesting employee is incorrect in his recollection that the doorknob was
simply repaired (not replaced). Also, if the GAO includes this employee?s
recollection, we ask that it state his recollection is inconsistent with the
facility request form and at least three current staff members, including
the employee who prepared the form.
Now on p. 8.
23. PAGE 15. The report states that ?[ s] ix staff said that they observed
writing on the walls of two rooms.? In fact, the GAO was told about writing
on the walls of four rooms, as follows:
WRITING ON WALLS Location Observation 12 No. for report
EEOB - 191M Graffiti in the men?s restroom read, ?What
1 W did to democracy, you are about to do in here? (observed by five
persons) EEOB - Scheduling
Writing on the wall that said something like 1
Office
?Republicans, don?t get comfortable, we?ll be back? EEOB - wall on or near
a wall was covered in pencil and pen 1
Room 158 marks, which was described as
?slasher marks? and ?beyond
normal? wear and tear EEOB - 2d floor Entire wall in one office was covered
in
1 lines that appeared at a distance to be cracks
TOTAL 4
24. PAGE 15. The GAO underreports the number of telephones found with
missing labels
Now on p. 12.
and the number of observers when it states that ?[ f] our EOP staff said
that they observed a total of 99 to 108 telephones that had no labels
identifying the telephone numbers.? Based on conservative estimates and
calculations, 5 (not 4) staff members (2 White
12 The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 8 separate
individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an observation by
one person.
18
House employees, 2 OA employees, and 1 OVP employee) recalled observing in
specific offices or rooms at least 112- 133 telephones that had no labels
identifying the telephone numbers. Specifically, our records show:
MISSING PHONE LABELS IN IDENTIFIED OFFICES OR ROOMS Location Observation 13
No. of pieces for
calculating total
18 ?at least 3 missing labels, possibly 5? 3- 5
(observed by two individuals) 100- 114 (? south
?additional labels missing in rooms on the 2+
corridor?) South corridor?
115 1 phone missing label 1 118 ?at least 3 phones? were missing labels 3+
119 8 phones; ?all phones were missing their
8 labels? - both the large paper panel that lists the lines that are in use
and the small label that lists the number of the phone 121 ?phones were
missing labels? 2+ 122 1 phone was missing label 1 118- 122 ?lot missing? in
Public Liaison space ** 0
?all stations? in the Public Liaison offices 0- 18
were missing labels; personally saw roughly 18 phones without labels 123
?phones were missing labels? 2+ 156/ 158 2 or 3 phones were missing labels
2- 3 168/ 170 ?couple missing phone labels? 2 177- 189 (Advance)
?couple missing phone labels? 2 ?some missing in Advance? ** 0 190- 199 (?
center
?some missing in center corridor? on 1 st 2+
corridor?) floor **
OVP ?labels on phones were all gone? in all OVP 82
offices
TOTAL AT LEAST 112- 133
** OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration 13 The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by
5 separate individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an
observation by one person.
19
Now on p. 12.
25. PAGE 15. The draft report states that ?seven EOP staff said they saw
telephones unplugged or piled up.? This statement provides the reader with
no information regarding how many phones or how many offices were affected.
Our records show that 25 or more offices in the EEOB had phones piled up or
unplugged.
Now on p. 58.
26. PAGE 16. In its summary of the reported damage, the GAO fails to mention
the telephones that were forwarded and reforwarded throughout the complex.
According to our records, roughly 100 telephones were forwarded to ring at
other numbers, as follows:
FORWARDED PHONES Location Observation 14 Total no. of pieces
129 ?couldn?t answer phone because, as soon as 1
it rang, it would bounce to another phone in the suite, and then went
straight into a voice- mail system that could not be accessed? 156 and other
?phones were forwarded and then 2+
Presidential Personnel reforwarded so we could not figure out what
offices number would ring the phone? on desk
187� Phone number in office (187�) did not ring 1
if dialed the number on the phone West Wing - NEC Phones forwarded 2- 5 West
Wing ?called someone and reached a different and
1 unrelated person? West Wing - Chief of
?the Chief of Staff?s phone had been 1
Staff?s Office forwarded to ring at a phone in a closet?
West Wing and EEOB ?majority of the phones did not ring? at the Roughly 100
assigned phone number; ?roughly 100? phones had been forwarded to ring at a
different number; ?phones [in the West Wing] were forwarded from the first
floor to the second floor? and ?phones from the West Wing were forwarded to
the EEOB? EEOB - not identified Found at least 7- 10 forwarded phones 7- 10
TOTAL Roughly 100
27. PAGE 16. The draft report states that ?[ t] wo EOP staff said that they
saw a total of 5 to 7 telephone lines ?ripped? (not simply disconnected) or
pulled from the walls, and another
Now on p. 13.
EOP employee said that she saw at least 25 cords torn out of walls in two
rooms. Former Clinton administration staff said that cords were probably
torn by moving or carpet repairs.? The GAO has failed to provide the reader
with important information -
information needed to promote ?an adequate and correct understanding of the
matters 14 The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 7
separate individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an
observation by one person.
20
reported.? Government Auditing Standard 7.51. The GAO fails to explain that
the ?two
EOP staff? were the White House Director of Telephone Services and the OA?s
Associate Director for Facilities Management who together began touring
offices and checking phone lines in the EEOB at approximately 1 a. m. on
January 20 - before any moving or carpet repairs began in these offices.
Thus, this is an instance where information that the GAO omits would have
allowed the reader to test the credibility of the explanation provided by
the Clinton administration staff.
28. PAGE 17. The GAO writes that, ?with three exceptions,? ?[ the GAO] w[
as] generally
Now on p. 14.
unable to determine when the observed incidents occurred and who was
responsible for them because no one said he or she saw people carrying out
what was observed or said that he or she was responsible for what was
observed.? We respectfully disagree.
In many cases, the undisputed facts indicate when the incidents occurred and
the likely perpetrators. For example,
With respect to the key broken off in a file cabinet in Room 197B, the key
was found still hanging in lock by a metal thread (suggesting that the
damage occurred not long before the transition) and, when the locksmith
opened the cabinet, a Gore bumper sticker with the words ?Bush Sucks? was
prominently displayed inside (suggesting that the damage was intentional and
done by a member of the former Administration).
Similarly, when the locked desk drawers were pried open in Room 103, two
pieces of paper with anti- Bush statements were found displayed inside.
Again, in our view, these facts indicate that the damage was intentional,
occurred shortly before the transition, and was done by a member of the
former Administration.
All of the obscene, inappropriate, and prank voicemail greetings must have
been recorded shortly before the Inauguration (since many of the messages
referred to the change of Administration and one presumes that former staff
would not have left vulgar or inappropriate such messages on their phones
during the Clinton Administration) and must have been recorded by the person
who was assigned that telephone during the Clinton Administration (since a
personal identification code is needed to change the voicemail greeting).
According to an individual who worked as White House Director of Telephone
Services from 1973 to 2001, some of the missing telephone labels ?were
replaced early on January 20 - before noon?; but the labels were found
?missing again later that day.? These facts show that the removal of at
least some of the labels was an intentional act, occurred early on January
20, and outgoing staff members were almost certainly responsible.
The oily glue- like substance that was smeared on desks in the Vice
President?s West Wing office; prank signs that were on walls and
interspersed in reams of paper in printer trays and copy machines in the
Vice President?s West Wing
21
office; and the ?vulgar words? on a white board in that office were all
discovered between midnight on January 19 and noon on January 20 by three
different individuals. Since we presume that Vice President Gore?s staff did
not generally work under these conditions, we can reasonably conclude that
that this damage occurred shortly before the Inauguration and again, members
of the former Administration were the likely perpetrators.
Similarly, it is unlikely that Clinton Administration staff worked for long
without having W keys on their keyboards, again suggesting that the
vandalism occurred shortly before the Inauguration.
In other cases, the person who observed the damage firsthand told the GAO
that the nature of the damage itself, and the surrounding conditions,
suggested that the damage was done shortly before the transition weekend.
For example, one employee told the GAO that she saw damaged furniture in
offices where things had looked
?pretty good? weeks or months earlier.
In still other cases, the nature of the damage suggests that it occurred
shortly before the Inauguration because the offices? prior occupants and
cleaning staff would not have let the damage remain in the office for long.
For example, it is hard to believe that occupants would not fix or remove a
bookcase with broken glass (with shards of glass still in the cabinet) or
would allow chairs with broken legs and no backs to remain in an office
suite for very long.
In addition, and with all due respect, it is not true that the GAO ?was
generally unable to determine who was responsible.? The GAO simply failed to
determine who was responsible. The GAO was able to identify the ?former
Clinton administration employee who said he wrote a ?goodwill? message
inside the drawer of his former desk? because the GAO called that
individual. The GAO failed, however, to try to contact the occupants of the
offices where other written messages - expressing things other than
?goodwill? - were left. Similarly, the GAO could have contacted - but failed
to contact - several former Clinton administration staffers who left
inappropriate voicemail messages. And the GAO did not contact all the former
staff members who occupied offices where missing or damaged W keys, missing
telephone labels, or other damage was found. Therefore, it is inaccurate, in
our view, to say that the GAO was ?generally unable to determine who was
responsible.? Respectfully, in our judgment, the GAO simply decided not to
pursue the inquiry in many cases.
Finally, the GAO?s suggestion (at page 17) that ?contractor staff, such as
movers and cleaners? were responsible for the vandalism, damage, and pranks
is, in our view, preposterous. It is an insult to the men and women who
worked so hard during the weekend of January 20 to clean up the conditions
left by the prior Administration and prepare the complex for the new staff.
29. PAGE 18. The GAO writes that, for certain categories of damage, ?the
observations of
Now on p. 14.
EOP staff differed from the [June 2001] list in terms of total numbers of
incidents or [the] 22
alleged extent of damage.? The GAO then provides, as an example, the
statement included in the list that furniture in six offices was damaged
severely enough to require a complete refurbishment or destruction. But the
GAO learned of at least 28 to 31 pieces of damaged furniture, including 5 or
6 chairs with broken legs (reported by four employees), 1 chair with its
entire back broken out (reported by two employees), and a desk with its
drawers kicked in (reported by one employee). These pieces of furniture, at
the very least, would have required a complete refurbishment or destruction;
they simply could not have been used in their current condition. In
addition, when the GAO asked the Director of the Office of Administration
what happened to the damaged furniture, he said that some of it was ?thrown
in the dumpster.? Thus the observations of staff members did not, as the GAO
suggests, differ from the June 2001 list.
Now on pp. 15- 17.
30. PAGES 19- 20. The GAO omits the following documented costs from its list
of ?Costs
Associated with the Observations?:
A January 30, 2001, facility request form (Form No. 56713) shows that
Cabinet Affairs asked for someone to clean the carpet, furniture, and drapes
in Rooms 160, 162, and 164. GSA charged $2,905.70 for that service. As the
GAO acknowledged earlier in its report (at page 12), this request was for an
office suite that a White House Office ?employee said was ?filthy? and worn
and dirty furniture.? As noted above, that same employee, as well as others
from her office, also told the GAO about significant damage to furniture in
those offices, including a desk drawer with its drawer- fronts removed,
chairs without legs, and a chair with its entire back broken off.
The GAO?s discussion of the ?costs? associated with telephone problems is
both inaccurate and incomplete. Based on extremely conservative estimates
and straightforward documentation, the government incurred at least $6020
just replacing removed labels and rerouting the forwarded telephones. The
evidence shows:
First, the GAO received, but fails to mention, a blanket work order and bill
for work - including ?relabeling? work - performed on Saturday, January 20,
2001. The techs billed 114 hours at a rate of $113.88 per hour for each hour
or fraction of an hour spent on a particular job. Consequently, if
technicians spent only ten percent of their time relabeling phones and
correcting forwarded telephones on Saturday (a conservative estimate given
that there were between 112 and 133 specifically identified missing labels
and roughly 100 forwarded phones), that means it cost the taxpayer $1,298
for one day?s work replacing the removed labels and fixing the forwarded
phones.
Second, and similarly, the GAO acknowledges that it received a work order
and bill for work - including ?replacing labels on telephones? - performed
on Sunday, January 21, 2001. But the GAO fails to estimate any costs
associated with that work. The bill shows that the techs worked 78.5 hours
that day at a rate of $151.84 per hour for each hour or fraction of an hour
spent on a particular job. That means that, if technicians again spent only
ten percent of their time
23
relabeling phones and correcting forwarded telephones, the taxpayer incurred
an additional cost of $1,192 for that day?s work replacing the removed
labels and fixing the forwarded phones.
Third, the GAO fails to estimate the costs associated with replacing labels
even where it was provided both individual work orders and a summary of
orders that specifically identify the relabeling work performed and the
amount of time spent on the job. Specifically, we provided the GAO with a
document entitled ?Orders
Closed 1/ 20/ 01 Thru 2/ 20/ 01? that lists many orders (some of which are
highlighted above) where a tech was asked to place one or more labels on the
telephone sets. For each of those orders, a ?T& M? charge (time and
materials) is identified in terms of hours and minutes. Those charges can be
computed in dollars by multiplying the total number of hours of T& M charged
times $75.92. We do not understand why the GAO failed to perform this simple
exercise, particularly given its willingness to provide cost estimates in
the context of missing and damaged W keys. Had the GAO done the calculation,
the reader would know that approximately $2201.68 was spent to replace
labels on telephone sets, as set forth below:
On Monday, January 22, 2001, a telephone tech was asked by the OVP to
?PROGRM PHNS PER MATT, NEED BTN [button] LABELS, TECH TO LABEL SETS.? The
tech billed ?4HRS? (4 hours) on this order, for an estimated total cost of
$303.68. TSR No. 01010183.
On January 31, 2001, a tech was called to Room 273 of the OVP because, among
other things, the phones ?NEED BTN [button] LABELS TYPED, PLACED.? The tech
billed ?2HRS? on this order, for an estimated total cost of $151.84. TSR No.
01010386.
On February 5, 2001, a tech was called to Room 200 because the phones
?NEED LABELS PLACED ON SETS.? The tech billed ?2HRS? on this order, for an
estimated total cost of $151.84. TSR No. 01020071.
On February 9, 2001, a tech was asked to ?REPROGRAM [phone] IN ROOM 276
EEOB, [and] PLACE BUTTON LABEL ON SET.? The tech billed
?1HR? on this order, for an estimated total cost of $75.92. TSR No. 01020225
On January 29, 2001, a tech was called to Room 18 to, among other things,
?REPLACE LABEL.? The tech billed ?1HR? to this order, for an estimated total
cost of $75.92. TSR No. 01010306.
On January 30, 2001, a tech was called to Room 113 because the occupants
?NEED LABEL PLACED ON SET BY TECH.? The tech billed ?1HR? to this order, for
an estimated total cost of $75.92. TSR No. 01010342.
24
On February 3, 2001, a tech was called to Room 100 to ?PLACE BTN [button]
LABEL.? The tech billed ?1HR,? for an estimated total cost of $75.92. TSR
No. 01020154.
Also on February 3, 2001, a tech was called to Room 100 because the
occupants ?NEED BTN LABELS FOR SET.? The tech billed ?1 HR,? for an
estimated total cost of $75.92. TSR No. 01020156.
In six additional and separate service orders on February 3, 2001, a tech
was asked to ?REPROGRAM? phones in the Room 100 suite and ?TO PLACE LABEL ON
SET.? TSR No. 1020330; see also TSR Nos. 1020325 (? NEED LABELS PLACED ON
SET?), 1020328 (? NEED BTN LABELS?), 1020329 (? NEED LABELS?), 1020331 (?
NEED LABELS PLACED ON SET?), 1020340 (? NEED LABELS PLACED ON SET?). The
tech billed ?1HR? on each of the six service orders, for an estimated total
cost of $455.52.
On February 5, 2001, a tech was told that the occupants of Room 135 ?NEED
LABEL PLACED ON SET.? The tech billed ?1HR? for this order,? for an
estimated total cost of $75.92. TSR No. 01020075.
On February 3, 2001, a tech was asked to ?REPROGRAM SET [in] ROOM 137? and
?PLACE LABEL ON SET.? The tech billed ?2HRS,? for an estimated total cost of
$151.84. TSR No. 01020099.
On February 3, 2001, someone in Room 131 asked a tech to ?PLACE LABEL ON
SET.? The tech billed ?1HR,? for an estimated total cost of $75.92. TSR No.
01020055.
In a separate service request on February 3, 2001, a tech was asked to
?REPROGRAM IN ROOM 137 EEOB? and ?PLACE LABELS ON SET.? The tech billed
?1HR,? for an estimated total cost of $75.92. TSR No. 01020168.
On February 3, 2001, a tech was told that the occupants of Room 154 ?NEED
BUTTON LABEL,? among other things. The tech billed ?1HR? to this order,? for
an estimated total cost of $75.92. TSR No. 01020327.
On February 5, 2001, a tech was told that ?LABELS ALSO NEEDED? in a
Presidential Personnel Office. The tech billed ?1HR? for this order,? for an
estimated total cost of $75.92. TSR No. 01020360.
On February 3, 2001, a tech was asked to ?REPROGRAM [a phone] IN RM 131? and
?PLACE LABEL ON SET.? The tech billed ?1HR,? for an estimated total cost of
$75.92. TSR No. 01020363.
25
On February 2, 2001, a tech was asked to ?REPROGRAM IN ROOM 184 EEOB? and
?PLACE LABEL ON SET.? The tech billed ?1HR,? for an estimated total cost of
$75.92. TSR No. 01020132.
On February 8, 2001, a tech was told that the occupants of Room 87 ?NEED
LABELS PLACED ON SET.? The tech billed ?1HR? on this order, for an estimated
total cost of $75.92. TSR No. 01020160.
Fourth, and even more perplexing, the GAO ignores the AT& T invoices (?
Activity Reports?) and individual works orders (TSRS) that we provided that
show the actual charges incurred on particular orders. We have not attempted
in preparing these comments to review all such invoices, but a sampling
shows $1,328.60 in charges in addition to those listed above:
TSR No. 01010184 (request to ?program phones? and ?place labels on sets? in
Rooms 272, 274, 284, and 286): $341.64.
TSR No. 01010185 (request to program phones and place labels on sets in
Rooms 272 and 276): $341.64.
TSR No. 01010195 (request for, among other things, labels for sets in Rooms
263, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, and 271): $341.64.
TSR No. 01010206 (request for, among other things, ?tech to place button
labels?): $303.68.
Fifth, the GAO also can and should estimate, based on this data, how much it
would cost to replace labels on 112- 133 telephones (or, at least, on the 99
to 108 that the GAO concedes were observed missing) by estimating how much
was charged per telephone and extrapolating that amount to account for the
total number of missing labels.
Sixth, the GAO suggests that it is unable to provide any estimate on the
costs to repair the damaged phones because ?the extent to which the service
order that mentioned labels involved missing labels was not clear and all of
the service order involving labels were part of order for other service.?
That is incorrect.
As we explained to the GAO, when a System Analyst (SA) performs work that
does not require a technician to be dispatched to the office (e. g.,
reprogramming a phone), there is no separate charge. If work requires a tech
dispatch (e. g., replacing a label), then there is a minimum charge of
$75.92 for each hour or portion of an hour ($ 113.88 on Saturdays and
$151.84 on Sundays), even if it takes only minutes to perform the work.
Therefore, for service orders that requested, for example, both a telephone
to be reprogrammed and its label to be replaced, the entire charge is
attributable to replacing the label. This is clear from the AT& T billing
invoices (or ?Activity
26
Reports?) that show that the cost associated with the work orders is for
?LABOR CHARGES FOR EQUIP. MOVES/ CHGS,? and not for reprogramming expenses.
In addition, for the service orders where the minimum charge of $75.92 was
assessed, it is immaterial whether work in addition to replacing the label
was performed; a charge of $75.92 would have been incurred for replacing the
label( s) regardless of whether other work was performed within that first
hour.
Finally, the closed order list and the service orders do far more than
?mention[] labels,? as the GAO suggests. See Specific Comment No. 79.
Now on p. 16.
31. PAGE 20 n. 9. In estimating the cost to replace missing doorknobs, the
GAO has
?deducted the value of replacing one historic doorknob from the total number
observed missing because . . . a GSA planner/ estimator said that a facility
request to install a doorknob in an office . . . was to perform maintenance
on a doorknob with a worn- out part, not to replace a missing one.? We are
puzzled that the GAO would decide to credit the recollection of the GSA
planner/ estimator, even though his recollection is inconsistent with both a
contemporaneous facility request form that asks GSA to ?put doorknob on?
interoffice door and the recollection of at least three current staff
members who recall that no doorknob was on the door. The GAO?s decision
simply makes no sense to us. But if the GAO persists with that decision, we
ask that the GAO also state in footnote 9 that the statement by the GSA
planner/ estimator is contrary to the documentation and the recollection of
at least three other witnesses.
Now on p. 17.
32. PAGE 21. The GAO concedes that it has not even attempted to quantify
additional costs that were incurred as a result of the damage, including:
To pay computer staff and contractors who spent time replacing keyboards
with missing and damaged W keys;
To pay staff who devoted extra hours to removing W keys and prank signs
affixed to walls and to clean up trash and dirt that exceeded reasonable
amounts or amounts seen in prior transitions;
To pay staff who devoted time to placing overturned furniture upright;
To pay telephone personnel and technicians to remove inappropriate or
obscene voice- mail greetings and to correct phones that had been forwarded
to unidentified numbers;
To pay telephone personnel and technicians to repair cables, phone jacks,
and/ or electrical cords pulled from the wall;
To pay personnel to investigate the theft of a Presidential seal;
To pay movers to remove damaged furniture;
To replace damaged furniture that was not repaired;
To remove and replace broken glass tops; and
To hire repairman to repair broken cabinets and copy machines. 27
While it may not be possible to associate precise amounts with these costs,
the GAO could have generated a range of estimates, but chose not to do so.
We believe that this shortcoming in the investigation results in a
substantial underreporting of the very real costs associated with the
damage, vandalism, and pranks that occurred during the 2001 transition.
Now on pp. 17- 18.
33. PAGES 21- 22. In describing how the 2001 presidential transition
compared with previous transitions in terms of damage, vandalism, or pranks,
the GAO fails to include the statements of several current staff members -
all of whom served during prior administrations and many of whom served
during the Clinton Administration - who told the GAO that the damage
observed during the 2001 transition was worse than prior transitions. The
following statements are representative:
?This was unusual. . . . Every administration has pranks,? but this was
?worse.? (An employee who oversaw White House telephone services from 1973
to 2001)
?Never remember seeing anything like this before.? (same employee as above)
?I never encountered any problems with telephones? when President George H.
W. Bush left office. (same employee as above)
Although he had been through many transitions, he ?never thought [he] would
find things like this.? (same employee as above)
One employee was ?stunned? by the condition of the EEOB; he had ?[ n] ever
seen anything like it? in prior transitions. (An employee who has observed
five prior transitions)
The amount of trash ?was beyond the norm?; it was ?cleaner in some other
transitions.? (An employee who has worked in the White House complex since
1971)
The damage ?was more than [he] ?d seen in other transitions?; in the 1993
transition, this official saw ?nothing comparable? to what he saw during
this transition. (This Bush Administration official, who worked in the White
House complex during Reagan Administration and the prior Bush
Administration, personally toured four floors of the EEOB and West Wing on
January 20, 1993)
The trash was ?worse this time? than in prior transitions; ?more messy than
other[]? transitions. (An employee who has worked in the White House complex
for 17 years)
In addition, while pranks and damage may have been observed in prior
administrations, the reported observations are not the same in number or
kind as those observed during the 2001 transition. Yet the GAO does not
mention this in its report. The reader, moreover, is hampered in drawing his
own conclusion because the GAO fails to include details about how much
damage was reported by current staff.
28
In addition, the GAO seems to overstate the extent of the damage reported
during prior transitions. For example, while the GAO writes that the
?observations included missing building fixtures like office signs and
doorknobs,? we understand there were no observations of ?missing building
fixtures? other than office signs and doorknobs, and those observations were
few in number. A more accurate statement therefore might read
?observations included ?no more than? 10 missing office signs and 1 or 2
missing doorknobs.? Similarly, the GAO writes that the ?observations
included . . . messages written inside and carved into desks.? We understand
that there was only one observation of a message written inside a desk - the
same observation that that the GAO repeats, for some reason, in the sentence
that follows. And apparently there were only three observations of carving
in desks by staff who served only during the Clinton Administration.
Finally, while the GAO refers to ?piles of . . . equipment? (apparently
referring to only one observation by a Clinton staffer of piles of
telephones), the GAO fails to explain that the individual who has overseen
telephone services since 1973, said that he ?never
encountered any problems with telephones? during the 1993 transition; he
said that
?perhaps some were unplugged, but that would be it.? This employee also told
the GAO that, as the Clinton Administration entered office in 1993, he was
instructed to ?get[] rid of [the] Republican phone system,? which apparently
resulted in the replacement of all the phones.
34. PAGE 22. The GAO says that ?[ f] ormer Clinton administration officials
told [the GAO]
Now on p. 18.
that departing EOP staff were required to follow a check- out procedure that
involved turning in such items as building passes, library materials,
government cellular telephones at the end of the administration.? We have
repeatedly told the GAO that some current staff members who served during
the prior administration believe that the checkout procedures were often not
followed and, in particular, building passes were not returned. The GAO
apparently did not ask the Clinton staff or the National Archives to produce
copies of the check- out forms, so there is no documentation to shed light
on the issue. Consequently, we asked the GAO to include in its report the
understanding of current staff - that some or all of the check- out
procedures were not followed - and that there was no documentation to
support or refute their claim. Or, alternatively, we asked that the GAO
delete from its report the description to the ?check- out procedures.? For
reasons that were not explained to us, the GAO has chosen not to do so.
35. PAGE 23. The GAO writes, ?Incidents such as the removal of keys from
computer
Now on p. 19.
keyboards; the theft of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail
messages, signs, and written messages; and the placing of glue on desk
drawers clearly were done intentionally.? We believe that this list of
incidents is incomplete. The GAO should also include on its list at least
the following observations - all of which appear, based on their timing,
recurrence, and/ or content, to have been done deliberately by former staff
leaving the complex.
Damage to computer keys (primarily W keys);
W keys glued to walls and placed in drawers; 29
Missing phone labels (some of which were replaced on January 19, only to
have them removed again before noon on January 20);
Forwarded telephones (including the Chief of Staff?s phone which was
forwarded to ring in a closet);
?Crank? calls;
Phones piled on floor (observed before cleaning staff and telephone
technicians entered offices);
Most if not all printers and fax machines emptied of paper in vacated
offices in the EEOB;
Removal of an office sign that was witnessed by current staff member;
Overturned furniture (observed before cleaning staff entered offices);
Key broken off in file cabinet that, when opened, displayed Gore bumper
sticker with the words ?Bush Sucks? on it;
Desk drawers locked that, when opened, contained messages disparaging
President Bush;
Gore bumper sticker stuck to the inside of copy machine;
Writing on and in desks that reads ?W happens,? ?Hail to the Thief, ? and
?GET
OUT.?
Sticker inside a filing cabinet that reads ?jail to the thief?;
Lamp placed on chair (observed before cleaning staff entered office);
Pictures and other objects placed in front of doors (observed before
cleaning staff entered office); and
Desk drawers turned over on the desk and on the floor (observed before
cleaning staff entered offices).
Now on p. 19.
36. PAGE 23. The GAO states that ?it was unknown whether other observations,
such as broken furniture, were the result of intentional acts and when and
how they occurred.?
While that may be true with respect to a few pieces of the furniture, that
is not a reasonable conclusion with respect to other items. For example, in
our view, it is not plausible that a key was broken off accidentally in the
lock of a cabinet, the key was left hanging by a thread in the lock, and,
when opened, a Gore bumper sticker with the words
?Bush Sucks? on it was prominently displayed. Nor, in our view, is it
reasonable to conclude that desk drawers were accidentally locked and just
happened to contain two pieces of paper with anti- Bush statements displayed
inside. It is also not plausible to think the cleaning staff completely
broke off the backs and legs of multiple chairs within the same office, and
then left that furniture in the offices for the new occupants. And it would
certainly be odd behavior, in our view, for occupants of these offices to
have broken those chairs through normal wear and tear and to have left those
chairs in the office - unrepaired - for some period of time. Likewise, the
nature of some of the damage - e. g., two seat cushions slit in an identical
manner on apparently new upholstery
- indicates that it was not accidental. And the GAO?s conclusion that the
furniture damage could have been accidental fails to take into account the
testimony of one employee who served during the Clinton Administration and
told the GAO that some of the upholstered furniture that she saw damaged
during the transition looked ?pretty good? when she visited the same offices
weeks and months earlier.
30
Similarly, it is not reasonable, in our view, to conclude that the furniture
was overturned unintentionally. First, most of the witnesses observed the
overturned furniture before the cleaning staff or new occupants entered the
rooms. Second, it is not plausible to think that cleaning staff would have
upended extremely heavy furniture in the manner described by the witnesses:
At least two ?desks turned over? in the Advance Office (observed by employee
with 29 years of service in the White House)
Desks and credenzas turned on their sides (observed by two witnesses)
Coffee table standing on end, sofa upside down, and tables turned over in
the Advance Office
In the Counsel?s Office, in each of the three offices and the secretarial
space, almost every desk was overturned - ?at least one desk or table in
each room?
?Couple desks on side? and a ?couple of chairs? turned over on the first
floor of the EEOB (observed by employee with 31 years of service in the
White House)
Sofa overturned with broken legs In fact, the GAO was told by two employees
of the GSA that cleaning staff would ?not
move? large pieces of furniture in this fashion, and none of these things
would happen in the normal course of ?moving? out of an office.
Likewise, we know that the removal of at least some of the labels was an
intentional act, occurred early on January 20, and outgoing staff members
were almost certainly responsible. The employee who oversaw White House
telephone services from 1973 to 2001 told the GAO that some of the missing
telephone labels ?were replaced early on January 20 - before noon,? but were
found ?missing again later that day.?
Now on p. 36.
37. PAGE 28. The GAO writes: ?Staff we interviewed told us that they saw
evidence of damage, vandalism, or pranks on or after January 20, 2001, when
they started working in the White House complex.? This statement is
misleading for two reasons. First, it suggests that all observations were
made by staff who ?started working in the White House complex? ?on or after
January 20, 2001?; in fact, many, if not most, of the observations were made
by employees who worked in the complex long before Inauguration Day. Second,
the statement suggests that the staff members saw evidence of damage only
?on or after January 20, 2001?; in fact, many observations were made on
January 19, 2001. Therefore, to be accurate, this sentence should read: ?The
staff we interviewed, many of whom worked here during the Clinton
Administration, told us that they saw evidence of damage, vandalism, or
pranks shortly before, on, and shortly after January 20, 2001.?
38. PAGE 28. The GAO repeats a statement made on page 23 that, although ?[
i] ncidents
Now on p. 36.
such as the removal of keys from computer keyboard, the theft of various
items, the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and written
messages, and the placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were done
intentionally,? the GAO ?generally could not make judgments about whether
[other observations] were acts of vandalism because [it]
31
did not have information regarding who was responsible for them, when they
occurred, or why they occurred.? Again, we respectfully disagree.
The GAO?s statement is categorical and speaks of an unwillingness to make
any
?judgments? about the observations. But the GAO certainly ?could? make a
judgment about whether at least some - if not most - of the observations
were acts of vandalism. As explained in Specific Comment Nos. 35 and 36, the
GAO?s list of ?clearly
intentional? acts is under- inclusive, and the GAO had considerable
?information
regarding who was responsible for [other incidence of damage], when they
occurred, or why they occurred.? The GAO, it seems, has simply decided to
ignore that evidence. It is simply not credible, in our view, for the GAO to
claim that it cannot make a judgment about the incidents listed in Specific
Comment No. 35.
In addition, we believe the GAO should report the views of many current
staffers (including employees who served during the Clinton Administration)
who said that, based on their firsthand observations, the damage appeared to
have been ?deliberate,? ?purpose[ ful],? and ?intentional.? For example, one
employee who has worked in the White House since June, 1998 told the GAO
that the missing phone labels ?must have been intentional,? and another
employee said that the damage done to a desk in Room 102 was ?clearly?
intentional and ?not just wear and tear.? A third person told the GAO that
the broken file cabinet looked ?deliberate.? And two others (one of whom has
observed five White House transitions, the other of whom has worked at the
White House since 1998) said that, in their view, people had ?deliberately?
trashed their offices. An employee who worked at the White House from August
1999- August 2001 likewise told the GAO that the condition of 30- 40 NSC
rooms ?was intentional, not accidental.? Two other employees (one of whom
has worked at the White House since 1971) also told the GAO that some of the
?trashing? was ?intentional.? A Bush Administration official said that the
conditions he observed were ?more than wear and tear.? And an employee who
has worked in the White House since 1973 said it looked like the prior
occupants had
?purposely trashed the place.? By including these sorts of statements, the
GAO would not only be providing the reader with ?information needed to . . .
promote an adequate and correct understanding of the matters reported,? 15
the GAO would also then be treating statements made by current and former
staff alike. As drafted, the report contains the views of ?[ f] ormer
Clinton administration staff? on whether the observed acts were intentional.
See, e. g., Report at 8 (Former Clinton administration staff said that some
furniture was broken, ?but not intentionally?); Report at 46 (? The former
senior advisor for presidential transition questioned whether as many as 60
keyboards could have been intentionally damaged. . . .?); Report at 83 (?[
F] ormer employee said that she saw telephone lines pulled out of walls [in
the 1993 transition] and that they appeared to have been pulled out
intentionally.?). But the GAO fails to report the views of the current staff
members regarding precisely the same issue.
15 Government Auditing Standard 7.51. 32
Now on p. 37.
39. PAGE 29. We disagree with the GAO?s statement that, ?[ i] n the
overwhelming majority of cases, one person said that he or she observed an
incident in a particular location.? According to our records, in many (if
not most) cases, more than one person reported seeing the same incident in
the same location. Indeed, the GAO reached that conclusion in its April 2002
preliminary draft report, where it stated (on page 22) that ?[ s] everal
people observed most incidents; however, in a few cases, only one person
observed them.? The observations have not changed; we do not know why the
GAO?s conclusion has.
40. PAGE 29. The GAO states that, ? [i] n some cases, people said that they
observed
Now on p. 37.
damage, vandalism, or pranks in the same areas where others said they
observed none, sometimes only hours apart.? In our April 26 comments on the
GAO?s preliminary draft, we explained that, without a description of the
specific instances where one current staff member recalled seeing something
and another expressly disavowed seeing the same thing, it was impossible to
know whether the apparent conflict in testimony could be reconciled or
whether the GAO?s statement is factually accurate. We also complained that
this vague sentence provides no indication of how many such conflicts
existed or what types of incidents are involved.
The GAO provided us with only two specific instances to which this sentence
refers. The first example was an observation by two individuals - a Bush
Administration official, and an employee who has observed five prior
transitions -- of overturned furniture in the Counsel?s Office suite (Room
128), which another person claimed could not be reconciled with a third
person?s alleged statement that he observed no overturned furniture in the
same office. First, according to our interview notes, when the GAO asked the
third person (who has worked in the White House for 33 years) specifically
about Room 128, and whether he had observed overturned furniture in that
office, he told the GAO that he had ?no specific recollection of going into
that room.? Second, this person told the GAO, during both interviews with
him, that he entered rooms in the EEOB between approximately midnight and 2:
30 a. m. on January 20, at which time his attention was diverted to the West
Wing. This person also told the GAO, during his first interview, that when
he entered the Counsel?s Office, ?there were still people working? there.
(This is consistent with the testimony provided by the prior occupants of
that office, who said they left the EEOB close to noon on January 20.)
Consequently there is no conflict between this person?s recollection and
that of the other two individuals, who said that they did not enter Room 128
until after noon on January 20. This person had no specific recollection of
entering that office and, even if had recalled seeing no overturned
furniture, he would have made that observation roughly 12 or more hours
before the observations of the two other individuals, leaving plenty of time
for someone to overturn furniture.
The second example that the GAO provided was an observation by an employee
who has observed five prior transitions, of a broken glass top and files on
the floor in the Advance Office suite, which the GAO claims is inconsistent
with ?other staff,? who ?said they didn?t see that.? While again, the GAO
has not identified who offered conflicting testimony, this employee?s
observations, which he made around 12: 15 p. m. on January
33
20, are entirely consistent with another employee?s recollection that he saw
5 or 6 broken glass tops when he surveyed the first few floors of the EEOB
shortly after noon on January 20. While current staff who occupy the Advance
Office may not have seen the broken glass top or dumped files, that would
not be surprising since they did not enter the building until much later,
allowing time for the broken glass and files to have been removed.
Thus we are aware of no instance where there is a direct conflict where one
person said they observed damage in a location where others observed none.
Now on p. 38.
41. PAGE 31. The GAO writes: ?Six EOP staff told us that they observed a
total of 5 to 11 missing office signs. . . .?
Four of the ?[ s] ix EOP staff? members are employees of the OA and served
here during the Clinton Administration. A fifth employee, who worked for the
White House Office, also served during the Clinton Administration.
One of the employees told the GAO that a former member of the Counsel?s
Office during the Clinton Administration told her that he too observed two
missing brackets on the morning of January 20, 2001.
42. PAGE 31. The GAO continues:
Now on p. 38.
These observations included an office sign that an EOP employee said that
she saw someone remove on January 19 outside an office in the EEOB. The EOP
employee said that the person who removed the sign said that he planned to
take a photograph with it and that she reported the incident to an Office of
Administration (OA) employee. Further, the EOP employee said that the person
attempted to put the sign back on the wall, but it was loose.
This statement implies that the individual who pried the sign off the wall
intended all along to put the sign back. In fact, it was only when he was
confronted by an OA employee that the individual claimed that he wanted to
take a photograph with it and tried to put the sign back. This employee does
not believe that the volunteer intended all along to return the sign, as the
GAO?s sentence suggests.
The GAO fails to mention that the same employee also said that a former
member of the Clinton Counsel?s Office told her that he saw that the sign
was missing at some point during the night of January 19, 2001.
43. PAGE 31. The GAO fails to mention in its discussion of missing office
signs that a
Now on p. 39.
facility request form, dated April 19, 2001, requests the ?replacement of
frames & medallions? on four rooms.
34
Now on p. 38.
44. PAGE 31. We disagree with the GAO?s statement that ?[ f] our EOP staff
said they saw a total of 10 to 11 doorknobs, which may have been historic
originals, were missing in different locations.? As explained above (in
Specific Comment No. 19), the GAO was told that 11 to 13 doorknobs were
missing.
45. PAGES 31- 32. The GAO writes:
Now on p. 38.
A GSA planner/ estimator who said he was in charge of repairing and
replacing building fixtures in the EEOB, including office signs, medallions,
and doorknobs, said he received no written facility requests made to GSA for
replacing missing office signs, medallions, or doorknobs during the
transition. He said that the February 7, 2001, GSA facility request was not
to replace a missing doorknob, but to repair one that had a worn- out part.
He also said that over the past 20 years, doorknobs have been found missing
about a half- dozen times in the EEOB, and not only during transitions. In
addition, he said that medallions are difficult to remove and that a special
wrench is needed to remove them from an office sign.
First, if the GAO says that this GSA employee ?said he received no written
facility requests made to GSA for replacing missing office signs,
medallions, or doorknobs during the transition,? it is important that the
GAO also say:
there is, in fact, a work request, dated April 19, 2001, for ?replacement of
frames & medallions? on 4 rooms, as well as the February 7 work request to
?put . . . on? a doorknob;
An employee of the OA said he provided a written request (although perhaps
not on a facility request form) to the GSA for the replacement of name
brackets and medallions;
An OA manager who has worked at the White House since 1971 recalled telling
the GSA to replace missing knobs, brackets, and medallions and asking the
GSA to check all signs and to take corrective actions; and
A WHO employee told the GAO that the GSA noted that the office sign on Room
457 was missing when the GSA did a survey of the rooms.
Second, we again ask that the GAO note that the employee?s recollection that
the doorknob was repaired (not replaced) is inconsistent with the facility
request form and the recollection of at least three current staff members,
including the individual who prepared the facility request form.
46. PAGE 33. GAO states that ?[ t] wo EOP staff told us that 9 to 10
television remote
Now on p. 39.
control devices were missing from two offices.? 35
Here, the GAO conflates two separate reports - one the disappearance of five
or six television remote controls from the OVP; the other the disappearance
of approximately five remote controls from various offices throughout the
correspondence suite - for a total of 10 to 11 missing remote controls. We
believe that the GAO should discuss these incidents separately.
The employee who reported the remote controls missing in the Correspondence
Office, worked for the Correspondence Office during the Clinton
Administration. This is an important fact because this employee?s prior
tenure with the Clinton Administration placed her in a position to know if
remote controls were in the rooms before the transition.
47. PAGE 35. The GAO says that ?the OA associate director for facilities
management
Now on p. 41.
estimated it will cost about $350 to make a replica of the presidential seal
that was reported stolen. . . . We did not obtain any information about the
possible historic value of the seal that was stolen.? That is untrue. The
GAO was told, in writing, that the $350 purchase price would not purchase an
exact replica of the brass seal that was stolen; that seal was purchased in
the mid- 1970s, and is no longer available. Rather, the $350 would purchase
a plastic- type casting.
Now on p. 42.
48. PAGES 35- 36. The GAO begins its section on ?Comments by Former Clinton
Administration Staff,? with the following statement:
The former director of an office where an EOP employee told us that she saw
someone remove an office sign said that an elderly volunteer in her office
removed the sign from the wall on January 19, 2001. She said that she did
not know why he had removed the sign. She said that she attempted to put the
sign back on the wall, but it would not stay, so she contacted OA and was
told to leave it on the floor next to the door. The former office director
said that she left the sign on the floor, and it was still there when she
left between 8 p. m. and 10 p. m. on January 19.
The GAO?s report omits the fact that another employee, who also worked here
during the Clinton Administration, told the GAO that she confronted the
volunteer while he was removing the sign and that she contacted the OA
immediately. We believe that it was the confrontation by this employee that
explains why the volunteer ultimately did not take the sign, and hence that
information should be included in the report. The GAO also fails to mention
that a former member of the Counsel?s Office said that the sign was missing
during the night of January 19, 2001.
49. PAGE 36. The GAO writes: ?The former director of an office where an EOP
employee
Now on p. 42.
told us that he observed two pairs of missing doorknobs said that the office
had several doors to the hallway that at some time had been made inoperable,
and he was not sure whether the interior sides of those doors had
doorknobs.? Even if it were true that the doorknob on the interior side of
the door was missing, that fact would not explain this employee?s
observation that the door was missing both an interior and an exterior knob.
36
Now on p. 44.
50. PAGE 38. It is noteworthy that the GAO describes one individual as ?[ a]
nother EOP employee who worked in that office during the Clinton
administration and continued working there during the Bush administration
for 5 months,? but the GAO fails to note when and for how long a current
staff member worked for the Clinton Administration. If tenure during both
Administrations is relevant for the individual referred to above, wouldn?t
it also be relevant for current employees? Again, we simply ask that the GAO
treat statements made by staff serving during this Administration just as
the GAO treats the statements made by members of the former Administration -
with the same kind of characterization and level of detail.
Now on p. 45.
51. PAGE 40. We believe the range provided by the GAO (? 30 to 64 computer
keyboards with missing or damaged . . . ?W? keys?) understates the actual
number of observations. According to our records, which we earlier provided
to the GAO and the GAO did not dispute, staff members observed a total of 58
to 70 computer keyboards with missing or damaged W keys where a specific
office or room was identified. In addition, staff members reported 150
keyboards with missing or damaged W keys, where the staff member did not
associate the observation with a particular room or office. The detailed
data are set forth in Specific Comment No. 10.
52. PAGE 40. The GAO states that ?[ o] ne EOP employee said that she
observed 18
Now on p. 49.
keyboards with missing ?W? keys in an office suite. However, the manager of
that office during the Clinton administration said that there were 12
keyboards in that office suite at the end of the administration.? We do not
understand why the GAO includes the second sentence in its section on
?Observations of EOP and GSA Staff,? instead of the section on
?Comments By Former Clinton Administration Staff,? where it would appear to
belong. 53. PAGE 40 n. 19. In calculating its range of missing or damaged W
keys where the
Now on p. 45.
observer identified a specific office or room, the GAO ?included the
observation of one EOP employee who said that she saw 6 to 10 keyboards
missing ?W? keys in the West Wing.? The GAO is referring to an individual
who was an employee of the Office of Administration. We ask that the GAO use
her title - Branch Chief for Program Management and Strategic Planning in
the OA Information Systems and Technology Division - and note (as the GAO
did in identifying the person referred to in Specific Comment 50) that this
individual worked in that position during the Clinton Administration and
during the first four months of the Bush Administration.
54. PAGE 41. The GAO continues its discussion of damaged keyboards on page
41: ?Five
Now on p. 45.
other EOP staff said that they saw a total of four keyboards with
inoperable, missing, or switched keys; they said they were not the ?W? keys
or could not remember which keys were affected.?
The GAO fails to mention that, in addition to these five additional
observations, the OA?s Associate Director for Information Systems and
Technology Division reported that she observed ?some glued down space bars.?
37
Also, for clarity, we recommend rewriting that sentence to read: ?Five other
current staff members said that they saw, in other rooms or offices, an
additional four keyboards that had damaged keys ( e. g., a key or keys that
were inoperable, switched, or missing). In these cases, either it was not
the ?W? key that was affected, or the observer could not specifically recall
the key or keys that were damaged.?
Now on p. 45.
55. PAGE 41. The GAO continues: In addition, five EOP staff and one GSA
employee said that they saw 13 to 15 ?W? keys taped or glued on walls; four
EOP staff said they observed piles of keyboards or computers or a computer
monitor overturned; three EOP staff said that something was spilled on their
keyboards; one EOP official said that she found 3 ?W? keys in a desk; and
one EOP employee said that his keyboard was missing at the beginning of the
new administration.
First, there were reports of at least 19- 21 W keys taped or glued on walls
(not 13 to 15), as follows:
W KEYS TAPED OR GLUED ON WALLS Location Observation 16 No. for report
EEOB - 128 W key ?stuck over doorway? 1 EEOB - 197, 197A,
Saw on the walls ?most? of the four keys 3
197B, 199, 199A, 199B that he observed missing from the
keyboards EEOB - 199 W key taped above door 1 EEOB - OVP 2nd floor ?some? W
keys on walls** 2+ EEOB - 4th floor 10- 12 Ws glued on the wall, over the
doors
10- 12 and beside doors* WW - including upper
?some keys? were taped above doorways? -
2+ press secretary?s office
for example, key was taped above door to press secretary?s office suite***
TOTAL At least 19- 21
*GSA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration ** OA employee, worked in the White House complex during
Clinton Administration *** OA employee, worked in the White House complex
during Clinton Administration
Second, the GAO fails to mention that two other staff members also reported
that they found W keys sitting next to keyboards and computers.
Third, five (not four) staff members ?observed piles of keyboards or
computers or a computer monitor overturned? - including two WHO employees
and three OVP employees -- in multiple locations in the EEOB.
16 The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 6 separate
individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an observation by
one person.
38
Now on pp. 45- 46.
56. PAGES 41- 42. The GAO?s two paragraphs on the observations of computer
personnel keyboards fail, in our view, to present the information that GAO
received in a fair and objective manner. These paragraphs (like the entire
discussion of damaged keyboards) appear to be designed to downplay the
extent of the damage reported. The GAO writes:
In addition to the EOP staff we interviewed about their observations
regarding the keyboards, we met with EOP personnel who worked with computers
during the transition. The OA associate director for information systems and
technology provided us with documentation indicating that on January 23 and
24, 2001, the EOP purchased 62 new keyboards. The January 23, 2001, purchase
order for 31 keyboards indicated that ?[ k] eyboards are needed to support
the transition.? The January 24, 2001, purchase order for another 31
keyboards indicated
?[ s] econd request for the letter ?W? problem.? The OA associate director
for information systems and technology said that some of the replacement
keyboards were taken out of inventory for the new administration staff, but
she did not know how many. In an interview in June 2001, this official said
that 57 keyboards were missing keys during the transition and 7 other
keyboards were not working because of other reasons, such as inoperable
space bars.
After later obtaining an estimate from the branch chief for program
management and strategic planning in the information systems and technology
division, who worked with computers during the transition, that 150
keyboards had to be replaced because of missing or damaged ?W?
keys, we conducted a follow- up with the OA associate director for
information systems and technology. In February 2002, the OA associate
director for information systems and technology said that her memory
regarding this matter was not as good as when we interviewed her in June
2001, but estimated that 100 keyboards had to be replaced at the end of the
administration and that one- third of them were missing ?W? keys or were
intentionally damaged in some way. She also said that of those 100
keyboards, about one- third to one- half would have been replaced anyway
because of their age. This official said that she took notes regarding
computers during the transition, but she was unable to locate them.
We offer the following specific comments:
The GAO basically ignores the comments of the IS& T Branch Chief, by
relegating her observation to the passing phrase, ?[ a] fter later obtaining
an estimate from the branch chief . . . worked with computers during the
transition that 150 keyboards had to be replaced because of missing or
damaged ?W? keys . . . .? While the report dismisses her observations, this
employee may, in truth, have been the one person in the best position to
assess the total damage. This employee worked during the transition as the
person with the cart who continually moved equipment around. She moved the
broken and old items out of offices and made deliveries of replacement
39
equipment. She thus personally saw many of the damaged keyboards, which she
transported to a temporary workroom in the EEOB. She did this throughout the
Inaugural weekend and into the following week. She specifically recalls
that, on one of her last deliveries of broken items to the temporary
workroom, someone said that the count of damaged keyboards was up to 150.
Contrast the GAO?s treatment of the IS& T Branch Chief?s observations with
its discussion of another individual, the IS& T Associate Director. The
latter individual told the GAO (but the GAO fails to mention) that she was
?not focused on keyboards? during the transition and that she ?personally
saw? only about ?10
keyboards? with missing W keys and only heard about others. Her estimates of
the total number of keyboards damaged were based purely on inferences drawn
from what others may have said. The GAO nonetheless details the IS& T
Associate Director?s statements, but not those of the IS& T Branch Chief.
Even then, the GAO?s reporting of the IS& T Associate Director?s statements
is incomplete. The GAO fails to mention, for instance, that the IS& T
Associate Director said that she ?saw personally? a concentration of missing
W keys in the former First Lady?s Office and in the OVP; that there were
?some keyboards? where the space bar had been glued down; and that she was
?very upset at the condition? in which some of the keyboards were left. In
describing her second interview, the GAO fails to mention that it asked her
to estimate the number of keyboards with missing W keys, even though the GAO
had asked the same question during her first interview (seven months
earlier) and the GAO did not remind her about the earlier inquiry. Nor did
the GAO ask her whether she had any reason in February 2002 to question the
accuracy of what she had said in June 2001.
The GAO also fails to say that the IS& T Associate Director recounted what
the contractor who packed the damaged keyboards, had said - namely, that
there were ?6
boxes of 20 keyboards or more with ?W? problems or space- bar problems.? The
GAO pressed the IS& T Associate Director to give her own estimate of damaged
keyboards (again, even though she had told the GAO that she did not have
personal knowledge about the keyboards), and she said that she ?thinks
around 100 were damaged,? and ?if there were 100,? then roughly one- third
might have had a ?W?
missing ?or looked like something intentional.?
The GAO says that it ?met EOP personnel who worked with computers during the
transition.? The GAO actually did not ?meet? the IS& T Branch Chief; the GAO
interviewed her by telephone. So we would recommend rephrasing the report to
say that the GAO ?spoke to? computer personnel. Also, the IS& T Associate
Director and the IS& T Branch Chief are both former employees of the OA and
both served during the prior Administration. The contractor referred to in
the paragraph immediately above is employed by a contractor, Northrop
Grumman.
Finally, the GAO misquotes the IS& T Associate Director, when it states that
she
?also said that of those 100 keyboards, about one- third to one- half would
have been 40
replaced anyway because of their age.? The IS& T Associate Director told the
GAO that the keyboards would have been replaced ?if they had not been
changed out in 4 or 8 years.? It is not clear how many (if any) of the
damaged keyboards were four years old or older. Therefore, it is not fair to
say, and the IS& T Associate Director did not say, that ?about one- third to
one- half would have been replaced anyway; at most, they may have been.
Now on p. 47.
57. PAGE 43. The GAO says that ?12 boxes of keyboards, speakers, cords, and
soundcards were discarded,? and ?the contract employee who prepared that
[excess] report said that she did not know how many keyboards were
discarded, but that each box could have contained 10 to 20 keyboards,
depending on the size of the box.? We believe that the GAO should also
explain that the contractor personally packed some of the boxes; and for
those, she filled the box with keyboards and then used excessed speakers,
cords, and soundcards to fill in gaps and ensure that the keyboards would
not shift in the box.
58. PAGE 44. The GAO discusses the ?costs? associated with the damaged
keyboards:
Now on pp. 47- 48.
[W] e are providing cost estimates for each of the various totals provided
by EOP staff. In reviewing the costs, it must be recognized that according
to the OA associate director for information systems and technology,
onethird to one- half of the keyboards for EOP staff, including the ones
provided to EOP staff at the beginning of the Bush administration, may have
been replaced every 3 or 4 years because of their age. Therefore, some of
the damaged keyboards would have been replaced anyway.
Below is a table showing the different costs that could have been incurred
on the basis of different estimates that we were provided regarding the
number of damaged keyboards replaced. The cost estimates were calculated on
the basis of the per- unit cost of the 62 keyboards that the White House
purchased in late January 2001 for $4,850, or $75 per keyboard.
This paragraph is followed by a table entitled ?Estimated costs of replacing
damaged keyboards.? The table lists four estimates. The first estimate, for
$2,250-$ 4,800, is based on the GAO?s ?range of 30 to 64 keyboards that were
observed by EOP staff with missing or damaged keys.? The second estimate,
for $2475, is based on a statement that the IS& T Associate Director made
that she ?thinks around 100 were damaged,? and ?if
there were 100,? then roughly one- third might have had a W key missing ?or
looked like something intentional.?
The GAO?s first estimate is simply wrong, in our view, because there were a
total of 58 to 70 (not 30 to 64) keyboards with missing or damaged W keys
where the witness specified the room or office where the keyboard was
located. In addition, contrary to the GAO?s statement in the table, that
range does not represent ?keyboards that were observed by EOP staff with
missing and damaged keys.? It represents only those where a room or office
was specifically identified; it does not account for the
41
observations of other ?EOP staff? (including the IS& T Branch Chief) who
told the GAO about additional damaged keyboards.
It is remarkable to us that the GAO would include the second cost estimate
when the GAO itself acknowledges that the IS& T Associate Director?s
February 2002 estimate of missing and damaged keyboards was unreliable. See
Report at 42 (?[ the IS& T Associate Director] said that her memory
regarding this matter was not as good as when we interviewed her in June
2001.). It is all the more peculiar given that the GAO is unwilling to
engage in the same sort of cost estimation when it comes to estimating the
cost of missing telephone labels, the repair and replacement cost for
damaged furniture, and many of the other categories of reported damage.
Also, as stated earlier, it is not accurate to represent that the IS& T
Associate Director said ?one- third to one- half of the keyboards for EOP
staff, including the ones provided to EOP staff at the beginning of the Bush
administration, may have been replaced every 3 or 4 years because of their
age.? the IS& T Associate Director told the GAO that the keyboards would
have been replaced ?if they had not been changed out in 4 or 8 years.?
Again, it is not clear how many (if any) of the damaged keyboards were four
years old or older. Therefore, it is not fair to say, as the GAO does, that
?some of the damaged keyboards would have been replaced anyway?; at most,
they may have been.
Now on p. 49.
59. PAGES 46- 47. We believe that the GAO has underreported the extent of
the damaged furniture. As set forth in the table that appears above
(Specific Comment No. 14), 17 current staff members reported a minimum of 31
to 33 pieces of damaged furniture - not counting the furniture that was
defaced with writing and stickers.
60. PAGE 47. The GAO writes that ?[ s] ix EOP staff . . . said that the
locks on four desks or
Now on p. 50.
cabinet drawers were damaged or the keys were missing or broken of in the
locks.? We do not recall anyone complaining simply because ?keys were
missing? - which, in the ordinary case, would hardly be called damage,
vandalism, or a prank. Rather, current staff members observed situations
where it appeared that keys may have been purposefully broken- off in the
locks or drawers were left locked intentionally and keys taken or discarded.
For instance,
Four individuals told the GAO that a key was broken off inside the lock on a
file cabinet in Room 197B; the key was still there hanging in lock by metal
thread; and, when a locksmith opened the cabinet, a Gore bumper sticker with
the words ?Bush
Sucks? was displayed inside.
A different employee told the GAO that his desk drawers were locked and no
key was found; when the drawers were pried open, there were two pieces of
paper inside that had ?anti- Bush? statements.
This is another instance where the GAO?s lack of detail prevents the reader
from having a complete and accurate understanding of the damage that was
found.
42
Now on p. 50.
61. PAGE 47. The GAO is mistaken when it says that ?[ f] ive EOP staff . . .
said that they observed writing inside drawers in five desks. . . . We were
shown the writing in four of the five desks.? Again, the GAO has
underreported the number of observations. The GAO has told us the names of
the ?[ f] ive EOP staff? to whom it refers, each of whom, according to the
GAO, observed only one desk with writing inside drawers. The GAO omits,
however, that one of these employees showed the GAO a second desk in another
room with writing on the pull- out tray that reads ?W happens.? Thus, five
current staff members observed writing in or on six desks; not all the
writing was ?inside drawers?; and the GAO was shown the writing in five of
the six cases. We also believe that the content of the messages is important
because it indicates when and by whom the writings were made:
MESSAGES WRITTEN ON OR IN DESKS Location Observation 17
EEOB - 97 Writing in desk drawer reads ?Take care of this place. We will be
back in four (4) years! (1/ 93)?; shown to GAO EEOB - 191A Writing on a
pull- out tray on desk that reads ?W happens?; shown to
GAO EEOB - 191B Writing in top left drawer of desk that reads ?GET OUT?;
shown to
GAO EEOB - 196A Writing in top middle drawer of desk that reads ?Hail to the
Thief?;
shown to GAO EEOB - 125A Writing in middle drawer of desk that wishes all
?who work here?
?good luck?; shown to GAO EEOB - 1 st floor Writing in desk drawer
Now on p. 50.
62. PAGE 47. The GAO has underreported the number of pieces of furniture
that were observed overturned. Our notes show (notes that were provided to
the GAO and the GAO did not dispute) that five White House employees, one OA
employee, and one GSA employee reported seeing at least 14 to 19 pieces of
furniture that were on their sides or overturned, not the ?8 to 10 pieces?
that the GAO reports. The table detailing each observation of overturned
furniture is found above in Specific Comment No. 17.
Now on p. 50.
63. PAGE 47. The GAO writes that ?four EOP staff said they saw furniture
that appeared to have been moved from areas where they did not appear to
belong, such as desks moved up against doors.? There were actually five such
individuals - specifically, three WHO employees, one OVP employee and one
NSC employee.
64. PAGES 47- 48. We believe that the GAO is mistaken when it reports that
?[ t] he director
Now on p. 50.
of GSA?s White House service center said that furniture could have been
overturned for a variety of reasons other than vandalism, such as to reach
electrical or computer connections.? Indeed, according to our notes, just
the opposite is true: two GSA
17 The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 5 separate
individuals. Each line reports an observation by one person. The GAO has
been provided with the source of information for each observation.
43
managers told the GAO that cleaning staff would ?not move? large pieces of
furniture in this fashion, and none of these things would happen in the
normal course of ?moving? out of an office.
Now on p. 51.
65. PAGE 48. The GAO?s description of the ?four to five desks found with a
sticky substance on them? is incomplete.
First, it is unclear from the GAO?s description that the vandalized desks
were in the Vice President?s West Wing office area and included the Vice
President?s own desk.
Second, the ?sticky substance? was a thick layer of an oily glue- like
substance (which one observer described as something like a mixture of
Vaseline and glue).
Third, the substance was smeared on the bottom of the middle drawer of the
desks. Consequently, when someone sat at the desk the substance would get on
the person?s legs or, when you tried to open the drawer (which had no
handles) it would get on your hands. (In fact, one employee of the Office of
the Vice President told the GAO that the substance got on her pants.)
Fourth, this OVP employee also told the GAO that, on her desk, the substance
was smeared all over the top of the right pull- out tray of the desk, as
well as under her middle desk drawer. A second OVP employee likewise told
the GAO that the substance was on her desk?s pull- out tray, as well as
under her middle desk drawer.
Fifth, an OVP employee and two OA employees said that the desk- drawer
handle on at least one of the desks was missing, and one of the OA employees
said that the handle was found inside the drawer along with more of the glue
substance.
Finally, the substance on some of the desks was first discovered between
midnight on January 19 and noon on January 20, 2001.
We believe this additional information is relevant and should be included in
the GAO report in order to promote an adequate and correct understanding of
the matters reported.
See Government Auditing Standard 7.51.
Now on pp. 51- 52.
66. PAGE 48. The GAO?s list of ?[ d] ocumentation relating to the
observations? of damaged furniture is incomplete. A facility request form
states that one named employee ?[ n] eeds key to lateral file cabinet.
Cabinet is locked.? Facility Request No. 56695 (Jan. 29, 2001).
67. PAGE 49. The GAO states that ?[ d] efinitive information was not
available regarding
Now on p. 52.
when the furniture damage occurred; whether it was intentional and, if so,
who caused it.? While ?definitive? proof may be lacking in some cases, that
does not mean that the GAO (or the reader) must ignore both common sense and
the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that does, in fact, indicate when
the damage occurred, whether it was intentional, and who the likely
perpetrators are.
44
In some cases, the circumstances indicate that the damage was intentional,
occurred shortly before the Inauguration, and the most likely perpetrators
were members of the former Administration. For example,
With respect to the key broken off in a file cabinet in Room 197B, the key
was found still hanging in lock by a metal thread (suggesting that the
damage occurred not long before the transition) and, when the locksmith
opened the cabinet, a Gore bumper sticker with the words ?Bush Sucks? was
prominently displayed inside (suggesting that the damage was intentional and
done by a member of the former Administration).
Similarly, when the locked desk drawers were pried open in Room 103, two
pieces of paper with anti- Bush statements were found displayed inside.
Again, in our view, these facts indicate that the damage was intentional,
occurred shortly before the transition, and was done by a member of the
former Administration.
In other cases, the person who observed the damage firsthand told the GAO
that the nature of the damage itself, and the surrounding conditions,
suggested that the damage was intentional and/ or was done shortly before
the transition weekend. For example,
One person told the GAO that the drawers on her desk ?clearly? had been
kickedin intentionally and that it was ?not just wear and tear?;
A second person told the GAO that it was unlikely that the slit seats were
the result of wear and tear because ?the fabric otherwise looked new,? and
?it looked like someone had taken a knife or sharp object to the seat?; and,
A third person told the GAO that she saw damaged furniture in offices where
things had looked ?pretty good? weeks or months earlier.
In still other cases, the nature of the damage suggests that it occurred
shortly before the Inauguration because the offices? prior occupants and
cleaning staff would not have let the damage remain in the office for long.
For example, it is hard to believe that occupants would not fix or remove a
bookcase with broken glass (with shards of glass still in the cabinet) or
would allow chairs with broken legs and no backs to remain in an office
suite for very long.
68. PAGES 49- 50. The GAO includes in its report statements from two
employees - one
Now on p. 52.
who said that the damaged furniture that she observed was ?not something
intentional? and the second individual who said, according to GAO, that the
four chairs with broken legs in her office were ?not necessarily
intentional.?
45
First, the second employee told the GAO that, while it was possible that the
legs were broken through wear and tear, she thought it ?unlikely that you?d
keep a broken chair in your office? in that condition.
Second, and more important, it is remarkable to us that the GAO includes in
its reports the two statements by current employees who noted that
particular damage was ?not necessarily intentional,? when the GAO has
refused, despite our requests, to include statements from individuals (in
some cases, the same individuals) who stated that damage which they observed
appeared to be intentional. For instance,
One person told the GAO that the desk drawers were clearly damaged
intentionally and not just wear and tear.
A second person said that ?it was intentional, not accidental? with respect
to the damage he observed in dozens of rooms.
A third person said that the broken key in the file cabinet looked
?deliberate?
to him.
A fourth person said that the missing phone labels ?must have been
intentional.?
A fifth person said that the rooms he observed were ?deliberately made to
look like someone was communicating a message.?
A sixth person said that some of conditions he saw looked ?intentional.?
A Bush Administration official who has observed a prior transition said the
conditions of the offices was ?more than wear and tear.?
An employee who has observed five prior transitions said the offices looked
like a ?[ l] arge number of people . . . deliberately trashed the place.?
A seventh person told the GAO that the repairman who fixed the broken copy
machine found a pornographic or inappropriate message when he pulled out the
copier?s paper drawer and that the repairman thought the paper drawers had
been ?intentionally realigned? so that the paper supply would jam.
An OA manager who has worked at the White House since 1971 said that some of
the damage was the result of ?intentional trashing.?
An employee with over 30 years of service in the White House said it looked
like the prior occupants had ?purposely trashed the place.?
46
Now on p. 53.
69. PAGE 51. The GAO?s discussion of the ?costs? attributable to the damage
furniture fails to mention, or make any attempt to estimate, the costs
incurred in replacing the furniture that was discarded because it was beyond
repair. For instance, the GAO places no value on replacing the four chairs
that an employee said had broken legs or the conference room chair that two
other employees said had its back broken out. Likewise, the GAO made no
attempt to determine how much it costs to reupholster chairs like the three
that one employee told the GAO had slit seats. Nor did the GAO seek
estimates on the cost of new glass tops for desks or to replace or repair a
desk that had its drawers kicked in. The GAO has simply ignored these costs.
Similarly, the GAO has made no attempt to quantify the very real costs
incurred in, for example, having movers remove damaged furniture and return
with replacement furniture; having movers upright overturned furniture;
having personnel (like the employees who found it, or the cleaning staff)
clean the glue- like substance; or having personnel divert their time and
attention to removing or fixing furniture that should have been found in
working condition.
Now on p. 54.
70. PAGE 52. The GAO writes: The former manager of an office where two EOP
staff told us they observed one or two chairs with broken or missing arms
said that arms on two chairs in that suite of offices had become detached a
year or two before the transition, that carpenters had tried to glue them
back, but the glue did not hold.
We understand that the GAO is referring here to the former First Lady?s
offices - now the suite occupied by the Political Affairs office. At least
six pieces of furniture were found damaged in that suite - some under
circumstances that indicate the damage was intentional - in addition to the
two broken armchairs. These additional reports of damaged furniture as well
as other damage found in the same suite undermine the former manager?s
innocent explanation for the two chairs. And the former manager of the
office apparently provided no explanation for the additional damage.
However, because the GAO is unwilling to specify the locations where damage
was found, and has not included in its report the details that indicate that
the damage was intentional, reader are unable to assess for themselves the
credibility of the former manager?s explanation.
Now on p. 55.
71. PAGE 53. The GAO reports that ?[ t] hree former staff? of the Vice
President?s West Wing Office said they ?were not aware of glue being left on
desks? and that one of those employees ?said that her desk was missing
handles when she started working at that desk in 1998, and it was still
missing them at the end of the administration.?
First, this explanation is inconsistent with one employee?s observation that
a handle was found inside the desk with more of the oily glue- like
substance on top of it.
Second, the reader again is unable to evaluate the credibility of the
comments made by the former staff members because the report does not say
where these vandalized
47
desks were located and the various other damage and pranks that were found
in the same location. For example, it is hard to believe the former staff
members? claim of ignorance when one also knows that longtime OA employees
found, in the Vice President?s West Wing office, ?vulgar words? on a board;
signs comparing the President to a chimpanzee on the walls and interspersed
in the reams of paper in the printers, copy machines, and fax machines
(observed by three employees); empty champagne bottles; and a basketball
stuck on a lighted ledge (each observed by one employee).
Now on p. 55.
72. PAGES 53- 54 and n. 32. The GAO is just plain wrong when it says that ?[
d] uring [its] initial interview with [an] employee, she said that the desks
with burn marks and scratches were in a particular office? and [d] uring a
follow- up interview . . . she said her observations pertained to an office
suite, rather than a single office.? She said no such thing. During both
interviews, this employee explained, in no uncertain terms, that her
observations were with regard to a suite of offices. Indeed, there can be no
doubt because this employee personally took the two GAO investigators into
the two offices that she was referring to.
Thus this employee?s observations referred to multiple offices, and she did
not say that the desks (and there was more than one) that she observed with
scratch marks were in Room 160A, as the GAO apparently told the former
occupant. Consequently, the former occupant?s statement that ?he did not
recall seeing any scratches . . . in his office? is somewhat beside the
point because it does not address the condition of desks in the other
office. Unfortunately, the GAO?s report leaves the impression that the
former occupant?s statement has directly rebutted an allegation that was
made by a member of the current staff, when it does not.
73. PAGE 54. The GAO?s report details at length the testimonials of former
staff members
Now on p. 56.
who said that they observed no overturned furniture: Three former occupants
of a suite of three rooms where two EOP officials told us they observed a
table and two desks overturned in the afternoon of January 20 said that no
furniture was overturned in their offices when they left on January 20 and
that their desks would have been difficult or impossible to move because of
the weight of the desks. One of the three former occupants said that he was
in his office until 3: 30 a. m. or 4: 30 a. m. on January 20, the second
former employee said he was in his office until 10: 00 a. m. or 11: 00 a. m.
on January 20, and the third former employee said that she was in her office
until 11: 50 a. m. or 11: 55 a. m. on January 20.
Regarding another office where two EOP officials told us that they observed
overturned furniture, the former senior advisor for presidential transition
said that he was in that office after 11: 00 a. m. on January 20, and he did
not see any overturned furniture. Similarly, the former head of
48
that office, who said that he left the office around 1: 00 a. m. on January
20, said that he did not observe any overturned furniture.
If the GAO is willing to include this detailed response by members of the
former staff, we ask that the GAO also explain that two of individuals who
observed the overturned furniture have worked in the White House complex for
29 and 31 years, respectively (including during the Clinton Administration),
and that they both observed overturned furniture between approximately 1 a.
m. and 5 a. m. on January 20. Likewise, a GSA employee, who served during
the Clinton Administration, reported seeing overturned furniture. The GAO?s
report should also say that two other individuals observed overturned
furniture at approximately 12: 15 p. m. on January 20.
Now on p. 57.
74. PAGES 55- 56. We believe that the GAO?s data on cut and pulled cords is
not accurate. Our records show that 5 staff members (4 White House and 1 OA)
told the GAO that they saw a minimum total of 32 to 35 telephone lines or
other cords either cut or pulled from the wall, as follows:
TELEPHONE AND OTHER CORDS CUT OR PULLED FROM WALL Location Observation 18
Total no. of pieces
EEOB ?total of 2 or 3 cords ripped from the 2- 3
walls? so that the ?cables behind the jack were showing? 170 ?phone cable
ripped from wall? 182 suite (Scheduling) ?phone line pulled out - jack and
all? 100- 104 ?some plugs? damaged 2+ 1 st Floor EEOB ?1 or 2? pulled cables
or broken jacks
0- 2 that had been ?yanked? ** 2 nd Floor EEOB ?couple? pulled cables or
broken jacks
2 that had been ?yanked? ** WW or EEOB/ probably
Phone wire cut 1 in NEC offices 158/ 160A Wires torn out of the wall Approx.
25
TOTAL 5 observers At least 32- 35 ** OA employee, worked in the White House
complex during Clinton Administration
In addition, a facility request form shows that, on January 24, 2001, an
employee asked for ?electrical services? in her offices, and specifically
asked for someone to ?organize all loose wires.? Facility Request No. 56662.
Now on p. 58.
75. PAGE 56. We believe that the GAO has again underreported the
observations of phones with missing labels. Based on conservative estimates
and calculations, 5 (not 4) staff members (2 White House employees, 2 OA
employees, and 1 OVP employee) recalled observing in specific offices or
rooms at least 112- 133 telephones that had no labels
18 Each line reports an observation by one person. 49
identifying the telephone numbers (not ?99 to 108?). A table setting forth
our data appears above in Specific Comment No. 24.
Oddly, in calculating the number of missing labels in the OVP?s second floor
offices, the GAO states (at fn. 36) that it ?included a range of 62 to 82,?
even though the GAO concedes that the ?EOP indicated that there were 82
telephones in that office suite in January 2001.? Why then would the GAO use
a range of 62 to 82, particularly since we provided the GAO with an OA
document that shows, as a conservative estimate, 82 telephones were in that
suite?
In addition to the 112- 133 missing labels where the observers identified
specific rooms or offices, an employee with over 30 years of service in the
White House told the GAO that he personally saw ?more than 20? phones with
missing labels; an OA manager who has worked at the White House since 1971
said that there were ?many instances of missing labels on the phones?; and a
third person (a new employee who coordinated telephone services during the
first month of the Administration) said that the labels on the ?majority
of the phones? - or ?roughly 85 percent? of the phones - in the EEOB and the
White House had been removed or contained incorrect numbers. If the GAO is
willing to include the OA telephone services coordinator?s personal
observation that ?she . . . observed 18 telephones that were missing number
labels,? we believe the observations of these other telephone and facility
officials should also be included, and described accurately, in the report.
The GAO says that the new employee who coordinated telephone services during
the first month of the Administration ?estimated that 85 percent of the
telephones in the EEOB and the White House [or approximately 594 telephones]
were missing identifying templates or did not ring at the correct numbers.?
She actually said that she found that labels on the ?majority of the phones?
- or ?roughly 85 percent? of the phones - in the EEOB and the White House
had been removed or contained incorrect numbers.
The GAO also downplays a critical fact about the missing phone labels. An
employee who worked as White House Director of Telephone Services for 29
years told the GAO that ?[ c] ertain [telephone] labels were replaced early
on Jan. 20 - before noon,? but the labels were found ?missing again later
that day.? In our view, this fact shows that no innocent explanation exists
for at least some of the missing labels; their removal was an intentional
act, apparently by members of the former Administration.
76. PAGE 57. We believe that the GAO has underreported the number of
telephones that
Now on p. 58.
were forwarded and reforwarded to ring at different telephones throughout
and between the EEOB and West Wing. As set forth in the table ( see Specific
Comment No. 26), seven White House staff reported that roughly 100
telephones were forwarded to ring at other numbers.
We do not understand why the GAO treats the observations of the employee who
coordinated telephone services during the first month of the Administration
differently from the other observers. As the GAO concedes, this employee?s
sole responsibility
50
during the first month of the administration was to address
telecommunications problems and, in particular, to work as the ?middleman?
between the incoming staff who reported the problems and the telephone
contractors and personnel who repaired them. This employee told the GAO that
she ?tried to go into every physical space? in the West Wing and the EEOB
?to survey phones.? Thus, her observations are as competent, if not more
competent, than the other observations are. See Government Auditing Standard
6.54( f) (? Testimonial evidence obtained from an individual who . . . has
complete knowledge about the area is more competent than testimonial
evidence obtained from an individual who . . . has only partial knowledge
about an area.?).
Finally, the GAO fails to mention that this employee told the GAO that the
Chief of Staff?s phone was forwarded to ring in a closet. This is, in our
view, another important (but omitted) fact because it shows that the phones
were not forwarded for legitimate business purposes.
77. PAGE 57. In reporting on telephones that were unplugged and/ or piled
up, the GAO
Now on p. 59.
fails to state 25 or more offices in the EEOB had phones piled up or
unplugged. Nor does the GAO explain that one of the observers was an
employee who has supervised White House telephone services for more than 30
years. Given his more than 30 years of experience managing telephone
services in the White House complex, this individual?s observation is
particularly noteworthy. In addition, since this individual identified the
unplugged phones as an example of the vandalism, damage, or pranks that he
observed while surveying the EEOB on January 19 and the early morning of
January 20, it is clear that the phones were not unplugged by the telephone
services personnel or by the cleaning staff, who had not yet entered these
rooms. We believe that this information is important and, in its absence,
the report is incomplete. See Government Auditing Standard 7.51 (? Being
complete requires that the report contain all information needed to satisfy
the audit objectives, promote an adequate and correct understanding of the
matters reported, and meet the report content requirement.?).
The information is particularly important because the GAO states on page 63
that ?[ t] he former manager of an office where an EOP employee told us he
observed telephones that were unplugged said that no one in that office
unplugged them? and ?[ a] former Clinton administration employee in another
office where EOP staff told us they observed telephones that were piled up
said that there were extra telephones in that office that did not work and
had never been discarded.? Since the GAO never mentions that there were
observations of unplugged and piled phones in 25 or more offices, the reader
does not know that the comments of the former Clinton administration
employees, even if true, explain what happened in only 2 of 25 (or more)
offices. Thus, the reader has no basis for placing the comments of the
former employees in context, nor for understanding that the former employees
apparently have no explanation for the remaining observations.
78. PAGE 57. In one of its more dramatic understatements, the GAO writes:
?Two EOP
Now on p. 59.
staff said that they found telephones that were not working.? Again, because
of the GAO?s failure to include important details, it has dramatically
downplayed the extent of the problems observed. For instance, an individual
who is employed by the OA and
51
worked here during the Clinton Administration told the GAO that there was
?no working phone on south side of building.? Since there are a minimum of
26 offices on the south side of the first floor of the EEOB, each of which
would contain at least one phone - and likely many more than that - the
problem with non- working phones was extensive.
Now on pp. 61- 62.
79. PAGE 58. The GAO writes: ?The EOP provided documentation summarizing
telephone service orders closed from January 20, 2001, through February 20,
2001, containing 29 service orders that mention labels; 6 of the 29 service
orders were for work in offices where telephone labels were observed
missing. All of the 29 service orders mentioning labels were part of orders
for other telephone services. In discussing these documents, the OA
telephone service coordinator said that the requests for labels did not
necessarily mean that the telephones had been missing labels with telephone
numbers. She said that a new label might have been needed for a new service,
such as having two lines ring at one telephone.? With all due respect, that
statement is false.
First, the GAO never ?discuss[ ed]? the closed order list with the OA
telephone services coordinator. The GAO never showed her the document, nor
expressly discussed its contents with her. While the GAO did ask her whether
a request to label a telephone always meant that the label was missing (and
she rightly said that it did not), the GAO did not ask her about the
document, any particular order on that list, or the labeling that occurred
during the first few days of the Administration.
Second, the GAO?s suggestion that something other than missing labels
precipitated the request for new labels might be plausible if the GAO has
nothing to consider except the closed order list. But that is not the case.
Here, the GAO concedes that there were observations of more than 100 missing
labels during the first days of the Administration. Under those undisputed
circumstances, it is beyond doubt that the requests to ?PLACE BUTTON LABEL[
S] ON SET? were to replace the missing labels.
Third, the closed order list does more than ?mention labels.? If the GAO
provided adequate detail in its report, the reader would learn that the
document shows, for example:
On Monday, January 22, 2001, a telephone tech was asked by the OVP because
the phones ?NEED BTN [button] LABELS, TECH TO LABEL SETS.? The tech billed
?4HRS? (4 hours) on this order. TSR No. 01010195.
On January 31, 2001, a tech was called to Room 273 of the OVP because, among
other things, the phones ?NEED BTN [button] LABELS TYPED, PLACED.? The tech
billed ?2HRS? on this order.
On February 5, 2001, a tech was called to Room 200 because the phones ?NEED
LABELS PLACED ON SETS.? The tech billed ?2HRS? on this order. 52
On February 9, 2001, a tech was asked to ?REPROGRAM [phone] IN ROOM 276
EEOB, [and] PLACE BUTTON LABEL ON SET.? The tech billed ?1HR?
on this order.
Also on February 9, a tech was asked to ?REPRGRM [phone] in RM 279 EEOB, . .
. [and] PLACE LABEL ON SET.? The tech billed ?30MINS? to this order.
On January 29, 2001, a tech was called to Room 18 to, among other things,
?REPLACE LABEL.? The tech billed ?1HR? to this order.
On February 8, 2001, a tech was asked to ?REPRGM RM 148 . . . NEED LABEL
PLACE.? The tech billed ?30MINS? to this order.
On January 30, 2001, a tech was called to Room 113 because the occupants
?NEED LABEL PLACED ON SET BY TECH.? The tech billed ?1HR.?
On February 3, 2001, a tech was called to Room 100 to ?PLACE BTN [button]
LABEL.? The tech billed ?1HR.?
In six separate service orders on February 3, 2001, a tech was asked to
?REPROGRAM? phones in the Room 100 suite and ?TO PLACE LABEL ON SET.? TSR
No. 1020330; see also TSR Nos. 1020325 (? NEED LABELS PLACED ON SET?),
1020328 (? NEED BTN LABELS?), 1020329 (? NEED LABELS?), 1020331 (? NEED
LABELS PLACED ON SET?), 1020340 (? NEED LABELS PLACED ON SET?). The tech
billed ?1HR? on each service order.
On February 5, 2001, a tech was told that the occupants of Room 135 ?NEED
LABEL PLACED ON SET.? The tech billed ?1HR? for this order.
Also on February 5, 2001, a tech was asked to ?REPROGRAM SET [in] ROOM 137?
and ?PLACE LABEL ON SET.? The tech billed ?2HRS.?
On February 3, 2001, someone in Room 131 asked a tech to ?PLACE LABEL ON
SET.? The tech billed ?1HR.?
In a separate service request on February 3, 2001, a tech was asked to
?REPROGRAM IN ROOM 137 EEOB? and ?PLACE LABELS ON SET.? The tech billed
?1HR.?
On February 3, 2001, a tech was told that the occupants of Room 154 ?NEED
BUTTON LABEL,? among other things. The tech billed ?1HR? to this order.
On February 5, 2001, a tech was told that ?LABELS ALSO NEEDED? in a
Presidential Personnel Office. The tech billed ?1HR? for this order.
53
On February 3, 2001, a tech was asked to ?REPROGRAM [a phone] IN RM 131? and
?PLACE LABEL ON SET.? The tech billed ?1HR.?
On February 2, 2001, a tech was asked to ?REPROGRAM IN ROOM 184 EEOB? and
?PLACE LABEL ON SET.? The tech billed ?1HR.?
On February 8, 2001, a tech was told that the occupants of Room 87 ?NEED
LABELS PLACED ON SET.? The tech billed ?1HR? on this order.
Fourth, the GAO was provided - but ignores - many of the individual work
orders (so- called Telecommunications Service Requests (TSRs)) that are
summarized on the closed order list. The TSRs are important because they
provide additional information about the need to label the telephones and
because, in some cases, they identify additional requests to place labels on
telephones that are not referenced on the closed order list. A sampling
shows:
TSR No. 01010183: ?NEED Button labels typed. Tech to label sets.?
TSR No. 01010184: ?Room[ s] 274, 272, 284, & 286. Program phones . . . NEED
Button labels typed. Need tech to place labels on sets.?
TSR No. 01010185: ?Room[ s] 272 & 276. Program phones . . . NEED Button
labels typed & placed on sets.?
TSR No. 01010195: ?Reprogram sets in Room 263, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269 and
271. NEED labels placed on each set.?
TSR No. 01010206: Among other things, ?NEED TECH TO PLACE BUTTON LABELS? on
sets in Room 270.
TSR No. 01010306: Among other things, ?Replace labels on all phones that
removed? in Room 18.
TSR No. 01020463: ?Need label placed on set? in Room 148.
TSR No. 01010342: ?NEED Label placed on set? in Room 100.
Similarly the TSRs indicate, in some cases, where a staff member has
reported a phone that is not ringing when the number on the phone is dialed
- that is, it has been forwarded. TSR No. 01020225, for example, says line
?does not ring on set 6- 7453.?
Finally, TSRs exist for work - ?including . . . relabeling? - performed on
January 20 and 21, where individual work orders were often not completed.
TSR No. 01010382 shows that, on Saturday, January 20, 2001, the techs worked
114 hours, at $113.88 per hour (time and a half), for a total of $12,982.32.
On Sunday,
54
January 21, 2001, the techs worked 78.5 hours, at $151.84 (double time), for
a total $11,919.44. Now on p. 60.
80. PAGES 58- 59. The GAO has failed in its discussion of obscene and
inappropriate voicemail greetings to include important information -
information needed to promote
?an adequate and correct understanding of the matters reported.? Government
Auditing Standard 7.51. The GAO fails to explain, for example, that the ?[
t] wo EOP employees? who heard the obscene voicemail messages were the White
House Director of Telephone Services and the OA?s Associate Director for
Facilities Management, who together began touring offices and checking
phones in the EEOB at approximately 1 a. m. on January 20. The first of
these individuals estimated that he listened to ?roughly 30 greetings,?
approximately 10 of which (or one- third) were ?inappropriate.? Of the 10
inappropriate messages, ?approximately 5 or 6? (or roughly half) ?were
vulgar.? (He also said that the White House telephone operators notified him
that there were ?obscene messages? on some of the voice- mail greetings.)
This employee told the GAO that, after encountering this high ratio of
inappropriate and vulgar messages, and because of these messages, a decision
was made to take the entire system down. He also explained that he erased
some messages around 1 a. m. on January 20, and they were re- recorded later
that day.
These are, in our view, important facts regarding the extent of the problem
and the consequences thereof - namely, no one had voice- mail service for
the first days and weeks of the Administration.
Now on pp. 61- 62.
81. PAGES 60- 61. The GAO?s section on the ?costs? associated with telephone
problems is both inaccurate and incomplete. Based on extremely conservative
estimates and straightforward documentation, the government incurred at
least $6020 just replacing removed labels and rerouting the forwarded
telephones. The evidence shows:
First, the GAO received, but fails to mention, a blanket work order and bill
for work
- including ?relabeling? work - performed on Saturday, January 20, 2001. The
techs billed 114 hours at a rate of $113.88 per hour for each hour or
fraction of an hour spent on a particular job. Consequently, if technicians
spent only ten percent of their time relabeling phones and correcting
forwarded telephones on Saturday (a conservative estimate given that there
were between 112 and 133 specifically identified missing labels and roughly
100 forwarded phones), that means it cost the taxpayer $1,298 for one day?s
work replacing the removed labels and fixing the forwarded phones.
Second, and similarly, the GAO acknowledges that it received a work order
and bill for work - including ?replacing labels on telephones? - performed
on Sunday, January 21, 2001. But the GAO fails to estimate any costs
associated with that work. The bill shows that the techs worked 78.5 hours
that day at a rate of $151.84 per hour for each hour or fraction of an hour
spent on a particular job. That means that, if technicians again spent only
ten percent of their time relabeling phones and correcting forwarded
telephones, the taxpayer incurred an additional cost of $1,192 for that
day?s work replacing the removed labels and fixing the forwarded phones.
55
Third, the GAO fails to estimate the costs associated with replacing labels
even where it was provided both individual work orders and a summary of
orders that specifically identify the relabeling work performed and the
amount of time spent on the job. Specifically, we provided the GAO with a
document entitled ?Orders Closed 1/ 20/ 01 Thru 2/ 20/ 01? that lists many
orders (some of which are highlighted above) where a tech was asked to place
one or more labels on telephone sets. For each of those orders, a ?T& M?
charge (time and materials) is identified in terms of hours and minutes.
Those charges can be computed in dollars by multiplying the total number of
hours of T& M charged times $75.92. 19 We do not understand why the GAO
failed to perform this simple exercise, particularly given its willingness
to provide cost estimates in the context of missing and damaged W keys. Had
the GAO done the calculation, the reader would know that approximately
$2201.68 was spent to replace labels on telephone sets, as set forth below:
On Monday, January 22, 2001, a telephone tech was asked by the OVP to
?PROGRM PHNS PER MATT, NEED BTN [button] LABELS, TECH TO LABEL SETS.? The
tech billed ?4HRS? (4 hours) on this order, for an estimated total cost of
$303.68. TSR No. 01010183.
On January 31, 2001, a tech was called to Room 273 of the OVP because, among
other things, the phones ?NEED BTN [button] LABELS TYPED, PLACED.? The tech
billed ?2HRS? on this order, for an estimated total cost of $151.84. TSR No.
01010386.
On February 5, 2001, a tech was called to Room 200 because the phones ?NEED
LABELS PLACED ON SETS.? The tech billed ?2HRS? on this order, for an
estimated total cost of $151.84. TSR No. 01020071.
On February 9, 2001, a tech was asked to ?REPROGRAM [phone] IN ROOM 276
EEOB, [and] PLACE BUTTON LABEL ON SET.? The tech billed ?1HR?
on this order, for an estimated total cost of $75.92. TSR No. 01020225
On January 29, 2001, a tech was called to Room 18 to, among other things,
?REPLACE LABEL.? The tech billed ?1HR? to this order, for an estimated total
cost of $75.92. TSR No. 01010306.
19 The White House Director of Telephone Services, and the on- site manager
for AT& T, told the GAO that ?the
government pays only for the techs? ?chargeable time. ?? If there is no work
to do, the government incurs no cost. The White House Director of Telephone
Services explained further that therefore costs would have been incurred in
repairing labels because of incremental increases in the ?work time? - i.
e., chargeable time. The AT& T manager also added that there is a minimum of
one hour for each call (at a cost of $75.92 during normal hours), even if
the work takes only 10 minutes to perform. Were there any doubt, it would
have been eliminated by the documents the GAO received on closed telephone
service orders and trouble tickets. Both documents clearly show that AT& T
charges for time and materials (T& M) ?AT REG. AND OT RATES,? and each
service order shows the amount of
?T& M? attributed to that order. 56
On January 30, 2001, a tech was called to Room 113 because the occupants
?NEED LABEL PLACED ON SET BY TECH.? The tech billed ?1HR? to this order, for
an estimated total cost of $75.92. TSR No. 01010342.
On February 3, 2001, a tech was called to Room 100 to ?PLACE BTN [button]
LABEL.? The tech billed ?1HR,? for an estimated total cost of $75.92. TSR
No. 01020154.
Also on February 3, 2001, a tech was called to Room 100 because the
occupants
?NEED BTN LABELS FOR SET.? The tech billed ?1 HR,? for an estimated total
cost of $75.92. TSR No. 01020156.
In six additional and separate service orders on February 3, 2001, a tech
was asked to ?REPROGRAM? phones in the Room 100 suite and ?TO PLACE LABEL ON
SET.? TSR No. 1020330; see also TSR Nos. 1020325 (? NEED LABELS PLACED ON
SET?), 1020328 (? NEED BTN LABELS?), 1020329 (? NEED LABELS?), 1020331 (?
NEED LABELS PLACED ON SET?), 1020340 (? NEED LABELS PLACED ON SET?). The
tech billed ?1HR? on each of the six service orders, for an estimated total
cost of $455.52.
On February 5, 2001, a tech was told that the occupants of Room 135 ?NEED
LABEL PLACED ON SET.? The tech billed ?1HR? for this order,? for an
estimated total cost of $75.92. TSR No. 01020075.
On February 3, 2001, a tech was asked to ?REPROGRAM SET [in] ROOM 137? and
?PLACE LABEL ON SET.? The tech billed ?2HRS,? for an estimated total cost of
$151.84. TSR No. 01020099.
On February 3, 2001, someone in Room 131 asked a tech to ?PLACE LABEL ON
SET.? The tech billed ?1HR,? for an estimated total cost of $75.92. TSR No.
01020055.
In a separate service request on February 3, 2001, a tech was asked to
?REPROGRAM IN ROOM 137 EEOB? and ?PLACE LABELS ON SET.? The tech billed
?1HR,? for an estimated total cost of $75.92. TSR No. 01020168.
On February 3, 2001, a tech was told that the occupants of Room 154 ?NEED
BUTTON LABEL,? among other things. The tech billed ?1HR? to this order,? for
an estimated total cost of $75.92. TSR No. 01020327.
On February 5, 2001, a tech was told that ?LABELS ALSO NEEDED? in a
Presidential Personnel Office. The tech billed ?1HR? for this order,? for an
estimated total cost of $75.92. TSR No. 01020360.
57
On February 3, 2001, a tech was asked to ?REPROGRAM [a phone] IN RM 131? and
?PLACE LABEL ON SET.? The tech billed ?1HR,? for an estimated total cost of
$75.92. TSR No. 01020363.
On February 2, 2001, a tech was asked to ?REPROGRAM IN ROOM 184 EEOB? and
?PLACE LABEL ON SET.? The tech billed ?1HR,? for an estimated total cost of
$75.92. TSR No. 01020132.
On February 8, 2001, a tech was told that the occupants of Room 87 ?NEED
LABELS PLACED ON SET.? The tech billed ?1HR? on this order, for an estimated
total cost of $75.92. TSR No. 01020160.
Fourth, and even more perplexing, the GAO ignores the AT& T invoices (?
Activity Reports?) and individual works orders (TSRS) that we provided that
show the actual
charges incurred on particular orders. We have not attempted in preparing
these comments to review all such invoices, but a sampling shows $1,328.60
in charges in addition to those listed above:
TSR No. 01010184 (request to ?program phones? and ?place labels on sets? in
Rooms 272, 274, 284, and 286): $341.64.
TSR No. 01010185 (request to program phones and place labels on sets in
Rooms 272 and 276): $341.64.
TSR No. 01010195 (request for, among other things, labels for sets in Rooms
263, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, and 271): $341.64.
TSR No. 01010206 (request for, among other things, ?tech to place button
labels?): $303.68.
Fifth, the GAO also can and should estimate, based on this data, how much it
would cost to replace labels on 112- 133 telephones (or, at least, on the 99
to 108 that the GAO concedes were observed missing) by estimating how much
was charged per telephone and extrapolating that amount to account for the
total number of missing labels.
Sixth, the GAO suggests that it is unable to provide any estimate on the
costs to repair the damaged phones because ?the extent to which the service
order that mentioned labels involved missing labels was not clear and all of
the service order involving labels were part of order for other service.?
That is incorrect.
As we explained to the GAO, when a System Analyst (SA) performs work that
does not require a technician to be dispatched to the office (e. g.,
reprogramming a phone), there is no separate charge. If work requires a tech
dispatch (e. g.,
replacing a label), then there is a minimum charge of $75.92 for each hour
or portion of an hour ($ 113.88 on Saturdays and $151.84 on Sundays), even
if it
58
takes only minutes to perform the work. Therefore, for service orders that
requested, for example, both a telephone to be reprogrammed and its label to
be replaced, the entire charge is attributable to replacing the label. This
is clear from the AT& T billing invoices (or ?Activity Reports?) that show
that the cost associated with the work orders is for ?LABOR CHARGES FOR
EQUIP. MOVES/ CHGS,? and not for reprogramming expenses.
In addition, for the service orders where the minimum charge of $75.92 was
assessed, it is immaterial whether work in addition to replacing the label
was performed; a charge of $75.92 would have been incurred for replacing the
label( s) regardless of whether other work was performed within that first
hour.
Finally, the closed order list and the service orders do far more than
?mention[]
labels.? See Specific Comment No. 79. 82. PAGE 62 n. 42. A footnote reads:
?The director of GSA?s White House service center
Now on p. 63.
said that there were ?any number? of reasons why problems could have been
observed with telephone and computer wires besides having people cut them
deliberately. He said, for example, that the cleaning staff could have hit
the wires with the vacuum cleaners or computer staff could have been working
with the wires.? This statement would be relevant only if the cut and pulled
wires were observed after the cleaning staff and the computer staff had
entered the offices. But, in this case, the two staff members who reported
the cords pulled from the walls observed the damage during the early morning
hours of January 20, before any cleaning staff had entered the rooms and
before the computer staff entered the rooms to archive computer data.
Unfortunately, the readers of the GAO?s report would not know this important
fact - and therefore may have been misled by the GAO?s footnote - because
the GAO fails to include that detail in its report.
83. PAGE 64. The GAO reports that ?[ the former senior advisor for
presidential transition]
Now on p. 65.
also said that it would have been technically possible to erase voice mail
greetings for most departing EOP staff without also deleting greetings for
staff who did not leave at the end of the administration.? We believe that,
to present a fair and balanced report, the GAO must explain here that two
current OA staff members - both of whom served during the Clinton
Administration - disagree with the former senior adviser. One of the OA
staff members, who has worked at the White House since 1971 and who worked
closely with the former senior adviser and the transition team, told the GAO
that a proposal to delete all voicemail greetings at the end of the Clinton
Administration ?was
discussed,? but they had decided not to do it ?because it would have erased
the greetings of all staff members,? including the roughly 1,700 staff
members who were not vacating the building. This OA employee further
explained that it was his ?? call? not to go ahead with the proposal,?
although the staff which included the former senior adviser was
?aware of the decision.? OA?s Telephone Service Coordinator, likewise told
the GAO that, until November 2001, the EOP?s phone system did not have the
capability to erase voicemails en masse; she explained that it was not until
November 2001 that the EOP both had purchased the software and had performed
upgrades to the switch that were necessary to allow voicemails to be deleted
on other than a manual basis.
59
Now on p. 65.
84. PAGE 64. The GAO continues with the former senior adviser?s comments:
?This
former official also said that some telephones were forwarded to other
numbers for business purposes at the end of the Clinton administration. He
said, for example, that some of the remaining staff forwarded their calls to
locations where they could be reached when no one was available to handle
their calls at the former offices.? This explanation may sound plausible
until you learn how and where the phones were forwarded. The Chief of
Staff?s telephone, for example, was forwarded to a closet.
There could hardly be a legitimate ?business purpose? for that. Yet, because
the GAO has not provided the reader with details, like this one, about the
current staff?s observations, the reader does not have the facts to judge
for herself the credibility of the former staffs? explanations. These
omissions, in our view, result in a report that is woefully incomplete, and,
as a consequence, a report that is arguably misleading and lacking in
objectivity. See Government Auditing Standard 7.57 (? Objectivity requires
that the presentation of the entire report be balanced in content and tone.
A report?s credibility is significantly enhanced when it presents evidence
in an unbiased manner so that readers can be persuaded by the facts.?).
Now on p. 66.
85. PAGE 65. The heading of the next section of the report reads ?Fax
Machines,? even though the GAO discusses in that section damaged and
tampered with fax machines, printers, and copiers. We believe that the
heading should be revised to accurately reflect the content of the section.
86. PAGE 65. The GAO is mistaken when it reports ?one EOP official told us
that he had
Now on p. 66.
seen 12 fax machines with the telephone lines switched and another fax
machine that was disconnected.? Our notes shows that two employees told the
GAO that they had observed fax machines that were ?switched.? An employee of
the OA with over 30 years? service in the White House told the GAO that he
saw ?at least a dozen switched fax lines,? and a different employee (who has
almost 30 years? service) said that he too saw ?faxes switched between
offices.? Thus, the GAO?s sentence should read: ?One OA employee and one
White House employee told us that, during the night of January 19, they saw
at least 12 to 14 switched fax lines.?
87. PAGE 65. The GAO reports on observations that ?5 copy machines,
printers, and
Now on p. 66.
copiers . . . did not work.? But the GAO fails to include the details that
show that it was not simply a case of an innocently broken machine. For
instance, one individual told the GAO that the repairman who fixed the
broken copy machine found a pornographic or inappropriate message when he
pulled out the copier?s paper drawer and that the repairman told the
individual that he thought the paper drawers had been ?intentionally
realigned? so that the paper supply would jam. 88. PAGES 65 and 66. The GAO
states that ?[ t] wo EOP staff said they observed fax
Now on p. 66.
machines moved to areas where they did not appear to belong.? This is
another example where we think that the GAO should simply report what the
staff member said - and not recharacterize it. One employee said that she
saw some fax machines sitting in the middle of the floor, unplugged. In our
opinion, unplugged fax machines do not ?belong?
60
in the middle of the floor and thus the GAO?s characterization that the fax
machines were moved to areas ?where they did not appear to belong? is overly
charitable. Moreover, even if the GAO disagrees and believe that a fax
machine could belong in the middle of the floor, that is a judgment that the
reader should be allowed to make.
More important, by recharacterizing the observation, the GAO deprives the
reader of the facts that he or she needs to judge the relevance and
credibility of the comments made by former staff members. On page 66, the
GAO reports that ?[ t] he former director of an office where fax machines
were moved to areas other than where they had been installed said that a fax
machine may have been pulled around a corner, but it was not done as a
prank.? But this explanation does not answer the charge: that multiple fax
machines were placed in the middle of the floor, unplugged. Unfortunately,
the reader would not know that because the GAO fails to provide the details
needed to have a complete and accurate understanding of the matters
reported.
Now on p. 66.
89. PAGE 65. The GAO fails to mention in its discussion of fax machines than
an employee told the GAO that all printers and fax machines that she
observed had been emptied of paper.
90. PAGE 67. The heading of the next section is ?trash,? which the GAO
apparently equates with the statement on the June 2001 that the ?offices
were left in a state of general trashing.? As noted above, in today?s
parlance, saying an office was ?generally trashed? is not the same as saying
it had ?trash? in it. See General Comment No. 3. The existence of trash in
offices was not, in our view, the problem; the problem was that many offices
were trashed - and, as the observers told the GAO, it appeared that it was
deliberately left in that condition. The GAO therefore should, in our view,
revise its heading to read
?Trashing of Offices.? 91. PAGE 67. The GAO reports that ?[ t] wenty- two
EOP staff and 1 GSA employee told us
that they saw offices that were messy, disheveled, or dirty or contained
trash and personal belongings left behind in specific offices or rooms.?
With all due respect, it is a gross understatement to say that the GAO was
told that the ?offices . . . were messy, disheveled, or dirty.? We asked the
GAO to accurately report what it was told, and not to recharacterize it. Had
the GAO done so in this case, the reader would have learned about the
following observations, among others:
61
?TRASHED? OFFICES (not including observations of damaged and overturned
furniture or signs) Location Observation 20
91 Plant dumped in the middle of the floor * 100 and 102 Two pencil
sharpeners thrown against wall: in Room 100, mark on
wall where hit, shavings on floor, and broken sharpener lay on ground; in
Room 102, shavings on floor and broken sharpener lay on ground (observed by
two persons) 100- 104
files and papers everywhere on the floor - not just overflowing trash cans
?trash everywhere? 128B, 128C, 128D, and
file drawers and desk drawers pulled out and the contents dumped on 128E
floor 128C office was ?trashed? and had a ?malodorous stench?; all furniture
piled in the corner 158 and 160A ?extremely trashed?; ?out of the ordinary?;
because of smell, all of
the curtains and the carpeting had to be immediately replaced 160, 162, 164
Office was ?filthy?; had to replace all furniture except one table and
desk 170 or 172 Very dirty; ?more than wear and tear? 173 ?lots of trash?;
small pieces of office equipment stacked one on top
of another 177- 189
?lots? of beer bottles and beer cans Offices ?trashed out,? even after GSA
had been through once;
?sizeable? holes in the walls 183
Beer cans thrown on top of 10- foot high filing cabinets and stuffed animal
and a shoe lodged in the rafters Contents of large file cabinet units
(measuring approx. 10? x 6? x 10?) appeared to have been dumped on floor 1
st floor EEOB ?extremely filthy?** OVP Lots of trash on the floors, food in
desk drawers, pizza boxes in
corner office, desks moved against doors
?trashed?; supplies dumped on floor; ?looked like people threw everything?
286 Soil spread across carpet
20 The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 23 separate
individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an observation by
one person.
62
330 Looked like office was ?deliberately made to look like someone was
communicating a message?; things in the desk dumped on top of desks; lamps
were on chairs; pictures stacked on floor so you could not enter the room;
etc.; ?looked like when someone trashes a dorm room? **** 330 and 380
?clutter and mess over and beyond what you?d expect?; ?would not
have expected this under ordinary circumstances? **** NSC offices in 25% of
the spaces vacated in NSC (30- 40 rooms), saw ?something
that [he] didn?t expect.? E. g., someone had spread holes from a hole punch
all over the floor; a desk lamp was placed on a chair in the middle of the
office; ?papers strewn everywhere? ***** NSC offices Trash was ?dumped
everywhere?; pictures were pulled off the walls,
leaving holes* Not identified
?most of the rooms were trashed? and ?filthy? �
Binders thrown everywhere and piles of paper
?very unclean; trash strewn about; refrigerators full of mold.? �� ?tons and
tons of trash?; binders piled over a copier; old food boxes
?trash was everywhere?; ?filth?; food and trash in desks - pizza,
sandwiches, tuna fish, chips Offices were ?trashed?; supplies and garbage
all over; drawers open and on the floors ���
Lots of beer and wine bottles *** Looked like there were a ?large number of
people who deliberately trashed the place?
?amount of trash was beyond the norm? for transitions ����
Empty wine and beer bottles *Employee of the President?s Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board; worked here during the Clinton Administration
** GSA employee; worked here during the Clinton Administration *** GSA
employee; worked here during the Clinton Administration **** NSC employee;
worked here during the Clinton Administration ***** NSC employee; worked
here during the Clinton Administration
�OA employee; worked here during the Clinton Administration
�� OA employee; worked here during the Clinton Administration
��� OA employee; worked here during the Clinton Administration
���� OA employee; worked here during the Clinton Administration 92. PAGES
67- 68. The GAO?s list of facility request forms that document the condition
of
the offices is incomplete. The documents that were provided include:
A January 30, 2001, facility request form shows that Cabinet Affairs asked
for someone to clean the carpet, furniture, and drapes in Rooms 160, 162,
and 164. GSA charged $2,905.70 for that service. Facility Request No. 56713.
A January 30, 2001, facility request form shows that an employee asked for
the following services in the Advance suite reads: ?Walls/ moldings need
patching and paint. . . . 1 - Need carpet vacuumed - is awful! 2 - Furniture
cleaned and drawers
63
need vacuuming out. 3 - Drapery needs cleaning or replacement.? Facility
Request No. 56990.
A January 25, 2001, facility request form shows that an employee asked that
GSA clean the carpet, furniture, and drapes in Room 160A. Facility Request
No. 56662.
A February 17, 2001, facility request form shows that an employee asked for
a
?prof[ essional] cleaning? in Rooms 154, 156, 157, 159, 160� (or 160A). For
that service, GSA charged $1,150.00. Facility Request No. 58355.
A February 21, 2001, facility request form shows a request to clean the
carpet in the former First Lady?s suite (Rooms 100- 104). Facility Request
No. 58369.
93. PAGE 70. Although the GAO reports that ?[ t] he OA director said that
the offices were
Now on pp. 69- 70.
in ?pretty good shape? by the evening of January 22,? the GAO has refused,
despite our request, to include others? observations on how long it took to
get the offices in shape. Had the GAO done so, the reader would learn:
The GAO asked the Director of White House Telephone Services when things
were corrected, and was told that most things were cleaned up within 2
weeks, but ?all the mess? was ?not squared away until February.?
In response to the GAO?s question regarding how long it took to get problems
fixed, the on- site manager for AT& T explained that the problems ?lasted at
least a month.?
When the GAO asked an OA staff member with over 30 years? experience at the
White House when the place was ?cleaned up,? he responded that ?just the
cleaning? was done ?3 to 5 days? after January 20 th .
When the GAO asked an employee how long did it take to get the phones
operational, she answered ?[ a] bout a week and a half. Three or 4 days to
get people a working phone. To get people phone numbers took a week and a
half.?
An employee told the GAO it took approximately ?3 weeks? before things were
?back to standard.? 94. PAGE 70. The GAO states that ?The OA associate
director for facilities management
said that about 20 offices were vacant before January 20. He said that it
took 3 to 4 days after January 20 to complete the cleaning.? That is not
what this individual said.
He said that there was ?some list of offices that could have been cleaned
before the 20 th ,? and the list was given to a GSA manager. He further
explained that there were
?not a lot of offices on the list? - ?maybe 20.?
He also said that it took ?3 to 5 days? to complete ?just the cleaning.? 64
95. PAGE 70. The GAO also misquotes the same individual when it writes:
?This official said that he saw some a limited amount of trash that appeared
to have been left intentionally.? The GAO asked this individual, ?Was there
intentional trashing?? And he responded yes, a ?limited amount.? Therefore
again the GAO has mistakenly equated
?trash? that was left behind with the ?trashing? of offices. 96. PAGE 70. We
believe that the GAO has again misquoted this individual when it reports
that ?[ h] e also said that it would have taken an ?astronomical? amount of
resources to have cleaned all of the offices by Monday, January 22.? Rather,
he said that they ?could
not have had enough people to clean it by the 22 nd because [the offices
were] dirtier than past transitions.? Indeed, when the GAO asked him
expressly, ?Is it legitimate to think people could start working on Sunday,?
January 21, he replied, ?yes, in my opinion, people should leave their
offices in an orderly fashion.? He explained that it was
?realistic? to expect offices to be cleaned by Monday night, January 21.
Now on p. 70.
97. PAGES 70- 71. Again the GAO improperly redefines the observations to
simply a discussion of excessive ?trash.? But the observations were not so
limited. The GAO reports that ?[ a White House management office employee]
said that what he observed was probably a combination of some trash having
been dumped intentionally and an accumulation built up over the years.? We
believe this employee?s statement was far more direct and covered more than
just ?trash.? The GAO asked whether the condition of the offices - which
included, among other things, ?filth? and trash, was ?intentional or
neglect,? and the employee responded, ?a combination.?
98. PAGES 71 and 72. In addition, the GAO should add similar statements by
an employee
Now on p. 70.
who has worked at the White House since 1998, a second employee who has
observed five prior transitions, a third employee (a Bush Administration
official), and others who likewise told the GAO that it appeared that the
offices were ?intentionally? or
?deliberately? trashed. The first of these individuals said that the NSC
office was
?deliberately made to look like someone was communicating a message.? The
second said that it looked like there were a ?large number of people who
deliberately trashed the place.? And the Bush Administration official said
the conditions he observed were ?more
than wear and tear.? The fact that many observers concluded that the acts
were intentional is important, because, if many people reached the same
conclusion, it is more likely that the conclusion was correct and a reader
will perceive the conclusion to be correct. In addition, since the GAO
reports on page 72 that, ?none of the 67 former Clinton Administration staff
we interviewed who worked in the White House complex at end of the
administration said that trash was left behind intentionally as a prank or
act of vandalism,? it is only appropriate that the GAO also report that many
current staff members - including staff who worked for the Clinton
Administration - believe otherwise.
99. PAGE 71. The GAO?s discussion of the costs associated with cleaning the
?trashed?
offices is incomplete. 65
The GAO fails to mention the January 30, 2001, facility request form (No.
56713) which shows that Cabinet Affairs asked for someone to clean the
carpet, furniture, and drapes in Rooms 160, 162, and 164. GSA charged
$2,905.70 for that service. As the GAO acknowledged earlier in its report
(at page 12), this request involved an office that a White House Office
?employee said was ?filthy? and worn and dirty furniture.? That same
employee, as well as others from her office, also told the GAO about
significant damage to furniture in those offices, including a desk drawer
with its drawer- fronts removed, chairs without legs, and a chair with its
entire back broken off.
The GAO could - but did not - determine how much time and money was actually
spent paying the cleaning staff and how much time and money should
reasonably have been spent (based on the amounts spent during past
transitions or estimates provided by administrative staff). The difference
in those amounts would provide a rough estimate of the costs attributable to
the poor condition of the offices. We already know that the costs exceeded
what was expected because the OA manager responsible for facilities
management told the GAO that there was ?lots of money that was spent that
shouldn?t have to be spent.?
Nor did the GAO include in its estimate of costs all of the facility request
forms that show that the new staff had to request that carpets, furniture,
and draperies be cleaned. While in some cases, the GSA pays for the costs
associated with such cleaning (and hence no dollar amount appears on the
form), actual costs exist and presumably could be estimated.
If the GAO is unwilling to estimate these costs, we believe that it should
at least say that additional costs exist, and that the GAO did not attempt
to quantify them. And again, the problem was far more than simply ?excessive
trash that needed to be discarded,? as the GAO reports.
100. PAGE 72. Although the GAO is willing to report that [f] ormer Clinton
administration
Now on p. 71.
staff generally said the amount of trash that was observed during the
transition was what could be expected when staff move out of office space
after 8 years,? the GAO fails to mention that one employee, who also served
during the Clinton Administration, told the GAO that what she observed ?was
way beyond what you?d expect to see in a large move?; she was ?surprised?
and ?embarrassed? by the condition of the offices on Inaugural weekend; and
she knew that the same offices were in pretty good shape during the weeks
and months before the transition.
101. PAGE 72. The GAO states that ?[ o] ne former employee who worked in an
Now on p. 71.
administrative office said that she did not observe much cleaning of offices
before January 20, and she believed that GSA did not have enough supervisors
and decision makers to oversee the cleaning.? We previously told GAO that,
if the report was going to include this comment, it should also state
(either here or elsewhere in the report) how many cleaning staff were on
duty and the hours they worked. Without that information,
66
we believe the reader has no basis for evaluating the comments made by the
former staff. The GAO apparently refuses to provide this important
information.
Now on p. 71.
102. PAGE 72. The report states that ?[ t] he administrative head of another
office said that he asked 25 professional staff to help clean the office
before he left.? The GAO told us that this former employee is referring to a
specific office within the Office of Management and Budget (? OMB?). No one
alleged that this particular office - or any office in OMB -
was left dirty. Therefore this comment is irrelevant, and we believe the GAO
misleads the reader by including it in its report since the GAO does explain
that the comment does not rebut or relate to any observation of a current
staff member. The GAO has again failed to include the facts needed for the
reader to have a complete and accurate understanding of the matters
reported.
Now on pp. 71- 72.
103. PAGES 72- 73. The GAO writes: In a letter sent to us in January 2002,
the former director of the Office of Management and Administration and the
former senior advisor for presidential transition said that, for months
before the transition, they had been assured that additional cleaning crews
would be detailed to the White House complex to assist GSA cleaning crews
during the final week of the administration. However, the former officials
said that they did not observe any cleaning crews during the evening of
January 19 or the morning of January 20.
Again, we believe that if the GAO is going to include this criticism of the
cleaning staff, it must also provide the reader with an estimate - based on
the GAO?s review of the GSA?s work and payroll records (records that the GAO
already has) - of the number of cleaning staff and contractors who worked
that weekend and the numbers of hours worked. Otherwise, the reader has no
means of evaluating the comment -
either its credibility or its relevance.
Now on p. 72.
104. PAGE 73. The GAO reports that ?[ t] he office manager for the office
where an EOP employee told us that it appeared that a pencil sharpener was
thrown against the wall and that pencil shavings were on the floor said the
sharpener in that office did not work and may have been placed on the floor
with other items to be removed.?
The employee told the GAO that two pencil sharpeners were found broken and
on the floor along with shavings. In addition, with respect to one of the
two sharpeners, there was a distinct mark where the pencil sharpener struck
the wall. The comment of the former office manager thus does not rebut the
employee?s observations.
Now on p. 73.
105. PAGE 75. The GAO writes: Six EOP staff reported observing writing on
the wall of a stall in a men?s restroom that was derogatory to President
Bush. In addition, two EOP staff and one GSA employee said that they
observed messages written on
67
an office wall. Two of those three employees said that the writing was on a
writing board that could be erased. Two other White House employees said
that they saw pen and pencil marks on walls, but no written words.
A few comments:
The graffiti in the men?s restroom was vulgar, in addition to being
derogatory to the President. It said, ?What W did to democracy, you are
about to do in here.? It was an act that was plainly intentional and, given
its content, the GAO could reasonably conclude that it was written shortly
before the transition.
The writing on the wall in the Scheduling Office, while not profane in
nature, said something like ?Republicans, don?t get comfortable, we?ll be
back,? thus again indicating that it was written shortly before the
transition and by a member of the outgoing staff. One of the three observers
who saw the room shortly after noon on January 20, told the GAO that he was
certain that the writing was directly on the wall.
The GAO?s final sentence - that ?[ t] wo other White House employees said
that they saw pen and pencil marks on walls, but no written words? - does
not, in our view, adequately describe what the GAO was told. These were not
observations of a stray pen mark, as the sentence suggests. Rather, one
White House employee said that an entire wall in one office was covered in
lines that appeared at a distance to be cracks. That observation was
confirmed by an OA employee, who said that she too had heard that someone
had etched a wall like marble. A second White House employee said that a
wall in or near Room 158 was covered in pencil and pen marks, which she
described as
?slasher marks? and ?beyond normal? wear and tear.
Now on p. 74.
106. PAGES 75- 76. We believe that the GAO has downplayed the number of the
signs, the number of locations where they were observed, and their content.
While in some cases such signs are easily removed and, in a few cases, were
probably meant as a joke, we believe the GAO should describe the signs more
fully and with greater detail for at least three reasons. First, the number,
tone, and location of the signs may indicate the mindset of certain former
staff members in offices where other damage was found. Second, these details
allow the reader to compare the 2001 transition and prior transitions.
Notably, the GAO has included considerable detail about the number and
content of signs found by former members of the Clinton Administration
during the 1993 transition. Yet the same level of detail is lacking when the
GAO discusses the 2001 transition. Third, and similarly, if the report is
going to include a former staff member?s comment that the signs were
?harmless? (Report at 76) or not ?obscene? (Report at 75), we believe that
the GAO should provide the signs? contents, or how the observer described
the signs ( e. g. ?vulgar?), so that the reader can decide whether the
characterizations are accurate.
68
We also believe that stickers that were permanently affixed to government
property (copiers and cabinets) are not the same as prank signs or messages
that were simply taped on a wall or placed in copy machines and printers.
Yet the GAO treats these things as equivalent.
The tables below detail the number, location, and content of some of the
signs that were observed:
SIGNS AFFIXED TO FURNITURE AND OTHER GOVERNMENT PROPERTY Location
Observation 21
191 Sticker affixed to filing cabinet that reads ?jail to the thief?; shown
to GAO 197 Key broken off in file cabinet with Gore bumper sticker with the
words ?Bush Sucks? stuck to the inside of the cabinet (observed by two
persons) West Wing - outside
Gore bumper sticker stuck to the bottom of paper tray in the copier COS and
VP offices
SIGNS AND MESSAGES (not including signs affixed to property) Location
Observation 22
West Wing - Vice
?Vulgar words? on white board** President?s Office West Wing Sign comparing
President Bush to a chimpanzee found ?in a number
of printers?; ?laced? throughout the reams of paper *** West Wing - Vice
Three copies of the same sign taped to wall (observed by two President?s
Reception
persons)**, **** Area 15- 20 copies of the same sign laced throughout ream
of paper in fax
machine and copier (observed by two persons) West Wing - First
Same sign shuffled throughout the paper tray in copy machine Floor
outside the Chief of Staff?s office West Wing 20- 30 copies of same sign
interspersed throughout ream of paper in
printer in office that is adjacent to the Oval Office East Wing 8? x 10?
color piece of paper that said ?see you in four, Al Gore? in
drawer of the copy machine EEOB - room not
Same President Bush/ chimpanzee sign found in a printer** identified
21 The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 4 separate
individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an observation by
one person. 22 The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 28
separate individuals. Unless otherwise indicated,
each line reports an observation by one person. 69
EEOB - basement In location where people ?dumped? supplies, a sign read
?Gifts for the New President? (Head Telephone Operator*****) EEOB - 87 Sign
taped to a desk of a mock MasterCard ad that includes a picture
of President Bush and reads, ?NEW BONG: $50, COCAINE HABIT: $300, FINDING
OUT THAT THE GOOD- OLD- BOY NETWORK CAN STILL RIG AN ELECTION IN THE DEEP
SOUTH: PRICELESS. For the rest of us there?s honesty.? The GAO was provided
with a copy of this sign. EEOB - 100- 104 T- shirt with tongue sticking out
draped over chair ** EEOB - 128
Sign that read ?just laugh? taped to the wall Signs EEOB - 160- 164
?Inappropriate? message in printer or fax tray ?Quite a few signs? EEOB -
160 Picture of former First Lady taped to cabinet EEOB - 162 Photo in safe
that had the word ?chad? spelled out in paper punch
holes (observed by two persons) EEOB - 177- 189
Signs Notes in the desk drawers
Obscenity deleted by EEOB - 192 Sign addressed to and disparaging of ?Bush
staffer? on wall GAO.
Sign of a mock Time magazine cover that read ?WE?RE ******? on wall
(observed by five persons) EEOB - 197B Desk drawer had 2 Gore/ Leiberman
stickers displayed inside EEOB - 2d floor Picture of Bush with something
drawn on it on the 2d floor* EEOB - 3d floor
Sign reading ?VP?s cardiac unit? (observed by two persons) �,��
library EEOB - 4 th floor Pictures of President Clinton and notes about
President Bush ?were
everywhere?+ EEOB Signs inserted into office nameplates, including signs
outside of the
former First Lady?s Office (Room 100- 104), the OMB, and the Office of
Faith- Based and Community Initiatives (observed by four persons) ��, ���,
++) *GSA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration ** OA employee, worked in the White House complex during
Clinton Administration *** OA employee, worked in the White House complex
during Clinton Administration **** OA employee, worked in the White House
complex during Clinton Administration ***** OA employee, worked in the White
House complex during Clinton Administration
� OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration
�� OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration
��� OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration +GSA employee, worked in the White House complex during
Clinton Administration ++ GSA employee, worked in the White House complex
during Clinton Administration
107. PAGE 77. It is not accurate, in our view, for the GAO to say that the
statement that
Now on p. 75.
trucks were needed to recover new and usable supplies ?generally was not
corroborated.? OA?s Associate Director for the General Services Division
told the GAO that, because the excess supplies had been ?dumped? in the
basement hall and were piling up down there - leaving ?much of it unusable?
- he instructed his staff to take the supplies to the
70
off- site warehouse where the staff could re- sort the supplies and salvage
what was still reusable. As the GAO itself reports, eight truckloads were
needed to recover these new and usable supplies from the basement. Had these
trucks not been dispatched, all of the supplies (instead of just of portion)
would have been rendered unusable. Thus the statement in the June 2001 list
was ?corroborated.?
Now on p. 76.
108. PAGE 78. Two employees (not one) told the GAO that they had found
classified materials left unsecured in multiple locations. An employee with
more than 30 years of service in the White House complex told the GAO that
he found classified materials in an unlocked safe during the night of
January 19, when he toured the offices. In addition, a GSA employee said she
found ?classified information? in ?quite a few rooms.? It is understandable
if the Director of Records Management did not find these documents himself,
since he toured offices looking for documents for less than two- and- one-
half hours before his attention was diverted to the West Wing at
approximately 2: 30 a. m. on January 20.
Also, as the GAO notes, a White House employee reported that he found a
selection of sensitive documents, including some pardon- related materials
and some fundraising materials, in the Counsel?s Office in the EEOB. It is
not surprising that the Director of Records Management did not find these
documents since the occupants of the Counsel?s Office did not depart their
offices until long after he stopped checking rooms in the EEOB at
approximately 2: 30 a. m.
109. PAGE 80. Appendix II addresses the condition of the White House complex
during
Now on p. 77.
previous presidential transitions and compares that to the 2001 transition,
where the GAO states that an ?EOP employee showed us writing inside a desk
that was dated January 1993.? The writing in the desk is neither profane nor
disparaging of the incoming President or his administration. It reads: ?Take
care of this place. We will be back in four (4) years! (1/ 93).?
110. PAGE 81. The GAO has included only some of the statements made by
current staff
Now on pp. 77- 78.
members about past transitions. The GAO, for instance, fails to mention that
several employees, including longtime staff members, said that the 2001
transition was ?worse?
(and not only with respect to the amount of trash) than what they had seen
during past transitions. Omitted statements include the following:
After an individual employed at the White House since 1973 described
problems found with the phones, the GAO asked, ?Is this sort of thing
unusual?? This employee responded yes, ?this was unusual?; ?every
administration has pranks,? but this was ?worse.?
When the GAO asked the same individual whether it looked like the prior
occupants had ?purposely trashed the place,? he replied that it was ?not
sloppiness, it looked like one big party? had been there and that he ?never
remembers seeing anything like this before.? 71
The same employee told the GAO explicitly that the offices ?shined? during
the Reagan Administration and that, when President George H. W. Bush left
office,
?[ he] never encountered any problems with telephones?; perhaps ?unplugging
of phones, but that was it.?
An individual who observed the transitions from Nixon to Ford, Ford to
Carter, Reagan to Bush, Bush to Clinton, and Clinton to Bush, said that he
had ?never
seen anything like it? and had ?never seen this building [the EEOB] in such
bad condition.?
Another individual, an OA employee for roughly 17 years, said that the trash
was worse this time than in prior transitions; in addition, he told the GAO
that the condition in which the building was left ?was a bit juvenile? and
suggested the prior occupants were ?not cognizant of responsibilities of
people coming behind [them].?
A GSA manager told the GAO that there were ?far more? personal belongings
left behind during the 2001 transition than during the 1989 transition.
In addition to telling the GAO that the offices were ?dirtier than past
transitions,? an OA employee with more than 30 years of service said that
the amount of trash
?was beyond the norm.?
A Bush Administration official, who was in charge of the transition out of
government in 1992, told the GAO that he personally took a tour of four
floors of the OEOB and West Wing on January 20, 1993, and he saw ?nothing
comparable? to what he saw during this transition. He twice told the GAO
that the damage during this transition was ?more than [he] ?d seen in other
transitions.?
An OA employee who has worked in the complex for 23 years and observed
seeing problems during the 2001 transition, told the GAO that she ?didn?t
notice anything at all? during Bush- to- Clinton transition; nor did she
recall anything when the Carter Administration left office.
111. PAGE 82. The GAO continues:
Now on p. 78.
The OA associate director for facilities management said that every
transition had had a problem with missing historic doorknobs. Similarly, the
director of GSA?s White House service center said that doorknobs are
favorite souvenirs of departing staff. The telephone service director said
that telephone cords were unplugged and office signs were missing in
previous transitions and that unplugging telephones is a ?standard prank.?
The GAO fails to mention that the GSA director has observed only two
transitions -
the 2001 transition and the 1989 transition. He said that he had only heard
that 72
doorknobs went missing during the 1989 transition; he did not observe
anything himself.
The Director of White House Telephone Services did not say that office signs
were missing in previous transitions. He recalled that occurring in one
prior transition. He recalled that, when the Carter Administration left
office, ?door signs were missing and cords unplugged.?
Now on p. 78.
112. PAGE 82. The GAO states that ?[ t] he director of GSA?s White House
service center during the 2001 transition said that the condition of the
office space during the 2001 transition was the same as what he observed
during the 1989 transition.? But the GSA employee observed little in the way
of pranks, damage, or vandalism during the 2001 transition; saying that he
?saw much the same thing? during the 1989 transition means that he claims
not to have observed much in either transition.
Now on pp. 78- 79.
113. PAGE 82. The GAO?s reference to what the GSA Acting Administrator said
in his March 2, 2001, letter may be misleading to the reader. The GSA?s
letter references only
?the condition of the real property? - and not the telephones, the
computers, the furniture, the office signs, etc., which were the focus of
the damage, vandalism, and pranks that occurred during the 2001 transition.
114. PAGE 83. The GAO reports that ?[ s] even former employees . . . said
that computers
Now on p. 79.
were not operational or were missing hard drives at the beginning of the
Clinton administration. Two of those employees said it took 1 to 2 weeks for
the computers to work.? The GAO was told that computers were not working and
hard drives were missing because the prior Bush Administration was required
to remove the hard drives in connection with a case captioned Armstrong v.
Bush. The GAO obliquely refers to the case in footnote 64, but a reader will
not understand the relevance without further explanation.
115. PAGE 83. The GAO reports that ?[ t] wo former employees said that
telephones were
Now on p. 79.
piled on the floors or were disconnected. (One of those former employees
said she was told that staff would receive new telephones.)? An employee
with over 30 years of service told the GAO that, when the Clinton
Administration came into office, he was instructed to ?get[] rid of [the]
Republican phone system.? This would explain why the former employees found
phones disconnected and were ?told that staff would receive new telephones.?
116. PAGE 83. We again note the GAO?s willingness to include a
characterization by a
Now on p. 79.
former staff member who says that damage ?appeared to have been . . .
intentional[],? but the GAO omitted from its report similar statements made
by members of the current staff. For example,
The White House telephone services coordinator told the GAO that the missing
phone labels ?must have been intentional.?
73
An employee who has worked at the White House since 1998 told the GAO that
the rooms he observed were ?deliberately made to look like someone was
communicating a message.?
A former White House manager told the GAO that some of conditions he saw
looked ?intentional.?
An individual who has observed five prior transitions said the offices
looked like a ?[ l] arge number of people . . . deliberately trashed the
place.?
A current employee told the GAO that the desk drawers were clearly damaged
intentionally and not just wear and tear.
An employee who worked at the White House from 1999- 2001 told the GAO that
?it was intentional, not accidental? with respect to the damage he observed
in dozens of rooms.
A Bush Administration official who has participated in a prior transition
told the GAO that the conditions he observed were ?more than wear and tear.?
A current employee said that the broken key in the file cabinet looked
?deliberate? to him.
An OA employee responsible for facilities management said that some of the
damage was the result of ?intentional trashing.?
An employee with over 30 years of service in the White House said it looked
like the prior occupants had ?purposely trashed the place.?
Now on pp. 79- 80.
117. PAGE 84. The GAO writes: One former employee who started working at the
White House in January 1993 and left in January 2001 said that the officers
were messier in January 1993 compared with January 2001. Another former
employee said that on January 20, 1993, his office contained leftover food
and that the walls needed repainting. A third former employee said the
offices were still not cleaned by the afternoon of January 21, 1993. Another
former employee said that there were ?dusty and dirty? typewriters on desks.
Three former staff said they saw a total of at least six Bush bumper
stickers in different offices, on cubicle walls, in a desk, on a telephone.
One former employee said she saw one to two photocopies of political
cartoons left in a copy machine, a bottle of aspirin with a prank note
inside a desk, a large banner on the balcony of the EEOB, and a tarp for a
tent left behind.
74
Again, we note that the same level of detail - for precisely the same sort
of allegations - is lacking when GAO describes observations made during the
2001 transition. By not including this information for the 2001 transition,
the GAO has failed, in our view, to include all information needed to
satisfy the audit objective to compare the 2001 transition with past
transitions. See Government Auditing Standard 7.50 and 7.51 (? The report
should be complete. . . . Being complete requires that the report contain
all information to satisfy the audit objectives, promote an adequate and
correct understanding of the matters reported, and meet the report content
requirements. It also means including appropriate background information.?).
Now on p. 80.
118. PAGES 84- 85. The GAO was able to find only one news report that
mentions the condition of the White House complex during previous
transitions. The GAO claims that
?the Washingtonian magazine indicated that incoming Reagan administration
staff had some complaints about the condition of the EEOB that were similar
to observations made by EOP staff in 2001.? The Reagan administration staff
complaints were, according to the article, finding memoranda taped to the
walls; lampshades torn by paperclips hung on them to hold messages; a
refrigerator with thick mold; and a large coffee stain on a sofa outside the
vice president?s office. These allegations are hardly ?similar,? as the GAO
maintains, to what was found in 2001 transition. By analogizing the
circumstances, the GAO trivializes what was observed in 2001.
Part III: Comments on Recommendations
Now on pp. 81- 82.
119. PAGES 86- 87. Although Appendix III is entitled ?Steps to Help Prevent
Damage to Government Property during Future Presidential Transitions,? the
draft report does not actually contain any ?steps? or recommendations in
this section. It simply discusses the check- out process used during the
Clinton Administration and the procedures followed on Capitol Hill when
offices are vacated.
120. The GAO fails to include anywhere in its report two of the factors that
OA officials, who have been through many transitions, identified as
contributing to the problems found in the January 2001 transition.
First, an employee who has worked at the White House for over 30 years told
the GAO that he felt ?hampered? in doing his job because he was ?not allowed
to have any contact with the incoming Administration.? He indicated that, in
the past, he was allowed to confer with incoming staff regarding their
telephone needs and expectations; but this was not permitted during the 2001
transition. Likewise, an employee who has observed five prior transitions
told the GAO that this transition was unusual because, for other
transitions, there was a transition team from the new Administration on-
site in the complex. This time, the person said, the incoming administration
did not get access to the space until three days before the Inauguration and
did not get ?legacy books? - books that explain how things work within the
complex and within particular offices - until after the Inauguration.
75
Second, a number of longtime employees told the GAO that problems could have
been averted or remedied sooner if members of the Clinton Administration had
vacated their offices earlier. By way of example, one OA manager recalled
seeing a woman simply watching television in her office; precisely at noon,
she turned her TV off and left. Documents that we provided the GAO show that
325 passes of White House Office employees were terminated on January 19 and
January 20, 2001.
We believe that the points made by these employees are valid ones, and
deserve to be addressed in the GAO report.
76
GAO?s Response to the White House
Appendi x V
Comments GAO?s response to the White House?s specific comments follow. We
have grouped the comments in the categories listed below. Underreporting of
The White House said that we had underreported the number of Observations
observations in various categories, including the signs and messages,
computer keyboards, missing items, furniture, offices with trash,
telephones, writing on walls, and classified documents.
Signs and Messages In comment 8, the White House said it believed that we
had substantially underreported the number of signs and messages observed in
the letter portion of the report. However, as indicated in the results
section, the letter portion of the report only contains observations made in
specific locations, and additional observations that staff identified by
floor or building, but not by room or office, are provided in appendix I.
Moreover, we reported some observations of signs and messages differently
from the White House. For example, we reported observations of writing in
desks in the section regarding furniture- related problems. In addition, we
reported two observations that the White House included in the category of
signs
and messages (observations of paper hole punches arranged on a floor to
spell a word and a T- shi rt draped over a chair with a picture of a tongue
sticking out) in a different category relating to observations of trash and
personal items left behind. We also added to our count two Gore stickers
that staff told us were found in a file cabinet, which we had not included
in our draft report.
The White House also said in comments 9 and 106 that we should have reported
the specific content of all of the signs and messages. We addressed these
comments in the White House?s general comments about the amount of detail
provided.
In comment 23, the White House said that writing was found on the walls of
four rooms, rather than two rooms, as the report indicated. The statement
concerning writing on the walls in the letter portion of our report
summarized additional details provided in appendix I. Further, by
?writing,? the report referred to observations of actual words written on
walls. As explained in appendix I, other staff observed pen and pencil marks
on the walls of two other rooms, but no words. For the purposes of
clarification, we revised the statement to indicate that staff observed
writing ?( words)? on the walls of two offices.
The White House said in comments 68 and 87 that we failed to include the
statement of an EOP employee who told us about statements made by a
repairman, who while fixing a broken copy machine, said that he found a
pornographic or inappropriate message when he pulled out the copier?s paper
drawer. We did not include the repairman?s statement because we did not
include information people relayed to us from third parties, which is
generally not regarded as competent evidence.
Keyboards The White House disagreed with the range of keyboards that were
observed with missing or damaged ?W? keys in comments 10 and 51. We
previously explained how we calculated the range of observations in response
to the White House?s general comment regarding the number of observations
reported.
In comment 54, the White House also said that we did not report that the
Office of Administration (OA) associate director for information systems and
technology saw some glued- down space bars. Although we modified
our report, we note that this official first told us that the problem was
inoperable space bars and subsequently said it was glued down space bars.
In comment 55, the White House said that we underreported the number of
?W? keys taped or glued to walls; that we failed to mention that other staff
reported that they found ?W? keys sitting next to keyboards and computers;
and that an additional employee saw piles of keyboards or computers or a
computer monitor overturned that we did not report. Our range of ?W? keys
taped or glued to walls differed from what the White House had
indicated in its comments. Further, the White House counted a least two keys
when people said they saw ?some? keys taped or glued to walls, but did not
specify a number. However, we did not estimate numbers in those cases and
disclosed that in the report. We did not report the observations of ?W? keys
sitting next to keyboards or on computers because we believed
that reporting the number of keys glued or taped to walls provided
sufficient detail to support the observation of keyboards with missing or
damaged keys. We revised the report to indicate that five, rather than four,
employees observed piles of keyboards or computers or a computer monitor
overturned. In comment 56, the White House said that we did not consider the
statement of the OA branch chief for program management and strategic
planning in the information systems and technology division. The White House
pointed out that, on one of the branch chief?s last deliveries of
broken items to the temporary workroom, someone had told her that the count
of damaged keyboards was up to 150. We did consider her statement. Our
report contained a statement attributed to the branch chief that 150
keyboards had to be replaced.
The White House also said that, by contrast, we provided more details
regarding the observations made by the OA associate director for information
systems and technology, but had omitted the fact that this official said
that she was not focused on the keyboards during the transition, but that
she personally saw only about 10 keyboards with missing ?W? keys, a
concentration of keyboards with missing ?W? keys in
certain offices, and some keyboards with glued- down space bars, and that
she was very upset at the condition in which some of the keyboards were
left. In addition, the White House said that during our second interview
with the OA associate director for information systems and technology, we
had asked this official to estimate the number of keyboards with missing
?W? keys without reminding her that we had asked her the same question
during our first interview with her. To address the White House?s comments,
we added to the report
statements contained in our interview record with the OA associate director
for information systems and technology indicating that she said that she was
not focused on the keyboards during the transition, but that she saw about
10 keyboards with missing ?W? keys, some with glued- down
space bars, and a lot of keyboards that were ?filthy.? We also added, on the
basis of our interview record, that she believed that more of the keyboards
with problems were found in the offices of the first lady and vice president
than in other offices. However, contrary to the White House?s assertion, our
record regarding the follow- up interview with this official indicated that
we did remind her about her earlier statement about the number of keyboards
with missing ?W? keys when we asked her that question again.
As indicated in the report, we asked to conduct a follow- up interview with
this official after obtaining an estimate from the branch chief for program
management and strategic planning in the information and technology
section that about 150 keyboards had to be replaced because of missing or
damaged ?W? keys.
Also in comment 56, the White House said that we did not report what the OA
associate director for information systems and technology said the contract
employee who packed the keyboards told her regarding the
number of damaged keyboards. However, we did not include observations people
relayed to us from third parties. Further, the contract employee?s
statements that she provided to us during an interview were provided in the
report. The White House also noted that we did not meet with the branch
chief, but interviewed her by telephone; we made the appropriate change.
Finally, the White House said that we had misquoted the OA associate
director for information systems and technology when we indicated that she
said that of the 100 keyboards that had to be replaced, about one- third
to one- half would have been replaced anyway because of their age. The White
House said that this official told us that one- third to one- half of the
keyboards would have been replaced if they had not been changed out in 4
to 8 years. Although our interview records indicated that this official said
that one- third to one- half of the keyboards would have been replaced
anyway, they did not indicate that she also said ?if they had not been
changed out in 4 to 8 years? as the White House indicated, so we did not
change the report.
In comment 57, the White House said that, regarding the 12 boxes of computer
equipment that were discarded, we should have explained that the contract
employee personally packed some of the boxes; and that for those, she filled
the boxes with keyboards and then used excessed speakers, cords, and
soundcards to fill in gaps and ensure that the keyboards would not shift in
the box. We did not believe these details to be relevant.
Missing Items The White House said in comments 19 and 44 that 11 to 13
doorknobs were observed missing, compared to the 10 to 11 contained in the
report. Our total differed from the White House?s because (1) the White
House counted 0 to 2 missing doorknobs in its range when an Executive Office
of the President (EOP) employee said a doorknob was missing in the
Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) but did not specify any location
(room, office, or floor); however, we did not include it to prevent possible
double counting of missing doorknobs where specific locations were
identified;
and (2) the White House counted two missing doorknobs when an EOP employee
said that a doorknob was missing on a certain floor of the EEOB, but did not
identify the room. However, because we did not know whether a doorknob was
missing on both sides of the door in that case, we used a
range of one to two. (Although this employee did not specify the room or
office where the doorknob was observed missing, we counted this because it
was on a floor of the EEOB where no other doorknobs were observed missing.)
In comment 41, the White House noted that four of the six EOP staff who told
us that they observed a total of 5 to 11 missing office signs were OA
employees and worked in the White House complex during the Clinton
administration, and that the fifth employee who worked for the White House
Office also served during the Clinton administration. We did not believe
these details were needed and did not revise the report in response to this
comment because we generally did not differentiate among staff who had
worked in the White House complex before or after January 20,
2001, in reporting the observations. Also in comment 41, the White House
said that one of the employees told us that a former Clinton administration
employee told her that he also observed two missing brackets on the morning
of January 20. However, we did not report this statement because
we did not include observations people relayed to us from a third party.
Nonetheless, we also interviewed that former Clinton administration
employee, who said that he noticed that some office name signs were missing,
but could not recall how many. He also said that he did not see any metal
frames for the signs that were missing. In comment 22, the White House asked
that we quote from a facility request form that asked GSA to ?put doorknob
on? an interoffice door. In addition, in comment 45, the White House said
that we should state that the recollection of a General Services
Administration (GSA) planner/ estimator regarding this repair is
inconsistent with the request form and the
recollections of at least three current staff members. The statement
contained in the letter portion of the report summarized information
provided in more detail in appendix I, where the facility request form was
quoted directly. However, we revised the statement contained in the letter
portion of the report to quote from the form. Regarding the White House?s
request that we state that a GSA employee?s recollection is inconsistent
with the facility request form and the recollections of at least three
current
staff members, the report indicated an EOP employee told us that he had
observed two pairs of missing doorknobs in this office. Because no other EOP
staff told us that they observed missing doorknobs in this office, including
the employee who prepared the request, (who did not request to be
interviewed by us) we did not include the statements contained in the
White House?s comments. Further, in the White House?s table of missing
doorknobs provided in comment 19, the White House only provided the account
of one person who observed missing doorknobs in that office.
The White House also said in comments 22 and 45 that, if we include a
statement by a GSA planner/ estimator that he received no written facility
requests made to GSA for replacing office signs, medallions, or doorknobs
during the transition, we should cite facility requests to ?put? on? a
doorknob and for ?replacement of frames & medallions,? dated February 7 and
April 19, 2001. The February 7 request was contained in the report. In
response to the White House?s comments 22, 43, and 45, we added the April 19
request, even though it was prepared 3 months after the transition. The
White House also said we should report statements made by two OA officials
and a White House Office employee about missing building fixtures. However,
we did not believe these additional comments were essential, and one of the
statements was information that was relayed to us from a third party, so we
did not include them.
The White House also said in comments 20 and 46 that the report should have
included an additional television remote control that was observed missing.
Our interview notes indicated that one employee initially told us that five
or six remotes were missing in a certain office, but later in the
interview said that five were missing, which we had used in our draft report
in reporting the total number of remote controls observed missing by all EOP
staff. However, in response to the White House?s comments, we changed the
number that she observed to five or six.
The White House also said in comment 46 that we should note that one of the
observers had worked in that office during the Clinton administration, which
we added because we believed it could be relevant to the observation.
However, we did not discuss the two observations of missing television
remotes separately, as the White House suggested, because we did not believe
the additional detail would add any essential information.
Furniture The White House said in comments 14 and 59 that we underreported
the number of reports of damaged furniture and the number of observers. We
did not underreport this information. Our lists of furniture- related
problems that were observed were substantially the same as the list that the
White House provided in its comments. However, we broke out observations of
furniture- related problems into various subcategories, such as broken
furniture, furniture with damaged locks, chairs with torn fabric,
and desks with burns and scratches. In comments 16 and 66, the White House
said that the report failed to include a January 29, 2001, facility request
form that documented a request to obtain a key to a file cabinet that was
locked in an office where an EOP
employee said he had observed damaged furniture. The report had cited a
January 25, 2001, facility request made by the same employee to gain
access to a locked file cabinet in the same room that was cited in the
January 29 request. However, in response to the White House?s request, we
added the January 29 request to the report, even though it did not indicate
any additional problems were reported.
The White House said in comments 17 and 62 that we underreported the number
of pieces of furniture that were observed overturned. We compared our
interview records to the information provided by the White House and found
that our records of the interviews differed from the White House?s account
of the interviews in some cases. In one case, when we interviewed an
official, he mentioned various pieces of furniture that he had observed
overturned, but when he provided a tour of that office to show what he had
seen, he did not mention all of the pieces of furniture.
We added three additional pieces of furniture to reflect the statement he
made during the interview. However, we did not add, as the White House did,
observations of furniture in locations that staff could not recall
because they could have duplicated ones reported observed in specific
locations.
In comment 64, the White House disputed a GSA official?s statement that
furniture could be overturned for a variety of reasons, such as to reach
electrical or computer connections. We obtained this comment directly from
GSA on April 30, 2002, and GSA did not raise any objection to it in its
comments on our draft report. It is important to note, however, that this
statement was a generic possible explanation that did not relate to a
specific observation. The White House said in comments 18 and 65 that our
description of observations of a sticky substance that was found on desks
was inaccurate and incomplete, and it also provided further details. We
believe that the report generally provided a sufficient level of detail
regarding these
observations. However, to address the White House?s comments, we added more
information about these observations in appendix I.
In comment 29, the White House disagreed that the observations of damaged
furniture differed from the June 2001 list in terms of total numbers and
extent of damage. In our discussion of furniture- related observations in
the letter portion of the report, we summarized the extent of damage that
staff said they observed regarding broken furniture and
stated that no information was provided that identified which offices some
of the broken furniture came from or exactly when the damage occurred.
Further, no one reported actually observing furniture being intentionally
damaged, and no definitive evidence was provided regarding whether the
damage was intentional. Consequently, we were unable to conclude whether the
furniture in six offices was intentionally damaged severely enough to
require complete refurbishment or destruction, as indicated in the June 2001
list.
In comment 61, the White House said that we mistakenly reported that five
staff said they observed writing inside drawers of five desks and that we
were shown writing in four of those five desks. Instead, the White House
said, five staff observed writing in or on six desks, that not all of the
writing
was inside drawers, and that we observed writing in five of the six desks.
However, the White House included a sticker on a desk that we had counted in
another category of observations (signs and written messages). The report
indicated that we had observed that sticker.
Finally, the White House said in comment 72 that we were wrong in saying
that, during the first of two interviews we held with an EOP employee, she
said that her observations, which included desks with burn marks and
scratches, pertained to a particular office, rather than a suite of offices.
The White House also pointed out that we were taken into the two offices
that she was referring to. However, our record of this interview indicated
that her observations pertained to a particular office and that she
repeatedly referred to the previous occupant of that specific office.
Further, when we toured the office suite in question, she did not stop to
discuss furniture in an adjacent reception area as well. In any event, we
reported that in a follow- up interview with this employee, she said that
her observations pertained to two rooms in an office suite.
Offices with Trash In comment 4, the White House said that the statement ?[
m] ultiple people said that ?they observed (1) many offices that were messy,
disheveled, or contained excessive trash or personal items? was an
understatement and provided other observations that were made in the office
space, such as ?W? keys glued to the walls and overturned furniture. This
statement was a part of a summary paragraph of certain observations
regarding trash and personal items that were left behind; other types of
observations that the White House mentioned are contained elsewhere in the
report. In comment 12, the White House said that the report?s description of
the seven photographs that were taken of offices in the EEOB on January 21,
2001, was incomplete. The description of the photographs provided in the
letter portion of the report summarized a more detailed description of the
photographs that is provided in appendix I.
In comments 13 and 92, the White House said that our list of facility
request forms in appendix II that document the condition of the offices was
incomplete. It cited two facility request forms dated January 30 and others
dated January 25, February 17, and February 21. One of the January 30
request forms was already cited in the report, and we added the other one.
We also added the January 25 request form to the report, which requested
cleaning services in the same room as the February 17 request and was in the
report. We did not include the February 21 facility request form because it
was unclear whether the request for carpet cleaning necessarily corroborated
reports of pencil shavings, paper, and files on the floor, which
were made during the first days of the administration. The request was made
a month after the observations were made and we did not know whether
cleaning was needed as a result of the observations that were made during
the first days of the administration or some other reason.
In comment 13, the White House said that, in describing one of the January
30 facility request forms, our description of the condition of the office
where work was requested was incomplete. The White House noted that staff
also told us about significant damage to furniture in that office suite,
including a desk drawer with its drawer fronts removed, chairs without legs,
and a chair with its entire back broken off. However, we did not mention
those additional observations with respect to the facility request form
because the form did not corroborate them. With respect to furniture, the
January 30 request form that the White House cited in comment 13 only
requested furniture cleaning. The additional observations that the White
House referred to actually pertain to a different office for which another
January 30 facility request was made. However, that January 30 request form
also did not corroborate observations of broken furniture. With
respect to furniture, that form only indicated that furniture cleaning was
requested. In comment 90, with regard to the section heading ?trash,? the
White House
said that we apparently equated a statement in the June 2001 list that
offices were left in a state of general trashing, which is not the same as
saying that they had trash in them. The White House said that we should
revise our ?trash? section heading to ?trashing of offices.? Although some
portion of the observations reported in this section could have been
?trashing,? i. e., vandalism, many of them were only observations of trash
and personal items left behind. Further, although the White House
included in the June 2001 list ?glass top smashed and on the floor? under
the category of ?offices were left in a state of general trashing,? we
reported observations of broken glass desk tops in the section of appendix I
regarding furniture. Therefore, we did not change the section heading to
?Trashing of Offices,? but to ?Trash and Related Observations.? In comment
91, the White House said that we had made a gross understatement by
indicating staff had observed offices that were messy, dirty, and
disheveled. The White House asked that we accurately report
what we were told, rather than recharacterize it, and provided a table
providing statements that staff had made regarding ?trashed? offices. We
believe that we already reported a sufficient amount of information about
these types of observations. First, we reported the total number of people
who observed offices that were messy, disheveled, dirty, or containing trash
or personal items left behind (a broader category that the White House
indicated in its comments) in specific rooms or offices, on certain floors,
or in locations they could not recall. Second, we provided several examples
of how offices were described. Third, we reported related observations in
several related categories, such as food left in refrigerators; furniture,
carpet, or drapes that were dirty; contents of desk drawers or
filing cabinets dumped on floors; pencil sharpener shavings and paper hole
punches on the floor, as well as several singular observations. Fourth, we
reported detailed observations about trash made by the OA associate director
for facilities management and a White House management office employee.
Fifth, we described photographs of messy offices that the White
House provided. As in several other comments, the counsel to the president
asked that we expand our reporting of certain problems by providing selected
additional details. However, our goal was to be
objective and not only provide additional details that supported a single
perspective. In comment 97, the White House said that we improperly
redefined the observations to simply a discussion of excessive trash, when
the observations were not limited to such. The White House cited a statement
contained in the report made by a White House management office
employee who told us what he observed was probably a combination of some
trash having been dumped intentionally and an accumulation built up over the
years. However, the White House said that this employee?s statement was far
more direct and covered more than just trash. According to the White House,
when we asked this employee whether the condition of the offices, which
included, among other things, filth and trash, was intentional or a result
of neglect, he responded that it was a combination.
Our interview record indicated that this employee said that he saw trash
everywhere, but did not know whether the amount of trash left was
intentional or was due to a lack of maintenance. He said the ?filth? that he
found was probably an accumulation from over the years and that some
looked like it had been dumped intentionally. He also mentioned that he had
found trash in desks and food left behind. We believe that these
observations were sufficiently reported and that no additional information
needed to be added.
In comment 100, the White House said that we failed to report a statement
made by an employee who also served during the Clinton administration who
told us that what she observed was way beyond what you would expect to see
in a large move, that she was surprised and embarrassed by the condition of
the offices during the inaugural weekend, and that she knew that the same
offices were in pretty good shape during the weeks and month before the
transition. We did not add the statement that the White House suggested
because the report already included in appendix II the views of several
staff who said that more cleaning was required during the 2001 transition
than during previous ones.
Telephones The White House said in comments 24, 75, and 79 that we
underreported the number of telephones observed with missing labels and the
number of observers. The report contained a different number of missing
telephone labels observed than the White House indicated for several
reasons. First, our records of observations differed from the table that the
White House provided in its comments in some cases. For example, the White
House included the observations of 3 to 5 missing labels by two employees
that we did not have in our interview records. One of those two employees
did not request to be interviewed by us, and we have no record of obtaining
comments from that individual. Our record of interview with the other
employee (the telephone service director) did not indicate that he observed
any labels missing from that room. The interview record also indicated that
he said the telephones with missing labels that he observed were all on the
first floor of the EEOB; however, the room that the White House cited was on
another floor. Because we were informed that this individual had retired
from the EOP since we interviewed him, we were not in a position to resolve
this. Second, the White House double counted the number of telephones with
missing labels in a certain office, which increased the high end of its
total range of missing labels, which we did not do.
Third, when we interviewed the telephone service director, he provided some
different information during his interview than he did during a tour he
provided to show us where he observed telephones with missing labels. We
used the information that he provided during the tour when he provided more
specific numbers and locations than he had during the interview. By
contrast, the White House appeared to have counted the information that he
provided both during the interview and the tour.
Fourth, in its tally, the White House counted at least two missing labels
when an individual did not provide a specific number, but said ?labels? or
?some? were missing, which we did not do in our final count. The total
number of missing telephone labels contained in our draft report had
included our assignment of one missing label to reflect an instance where
the specific number observed was not provided. However, for consistency in
reporting all observations when people did not cite the specific number of
incidents, we did not estimate the number of telephones with missing
labels in this instance and revised our total count by reducing it by one.
We also added a footnote explaining that the total range of missing
telephone labels does not reflect a number that the telephone service
director said he observed in a room, but did not specify how many.
In comment 25, the White House said we did not report how many telephones
were unplugged or piled up or how many offices were affected. According to
the White House, telephones were piled up or unplugged in 25 or more offices
in the EEOB. We do not know how the White House determined this number.
According to our records, many of the
observations were not precise regarding the locations. In appendix I, we
reported that staff observed telephones unplugged or piled up on two floors
of the EEOB and in four specific rooms on those floors, but that was the
extent to which we could quantify the number of locations. Further, our
records indicated that although one official said that he observed seven or
eight telephones piled outside an office, the other six employees who said
they observed telephones that were unplugged or piled up did not indicate
how many they saw.
The White House said in comment 26 that the report failed to mention the
telephones that were forwarded and reforwarded throughout the complex during
the transition. The White House said that, according to its records, roughly
100 telephones were forwarded to ring at other numbers. These
observations were not reported in the letter portion of the report, but they
are discussed in appendix I. As indicated in the results section, the
observations contained in the letter portion of the report were those made
in specific locations in the main categories, and the employee who said that
about 100 telephones had been forwarded to ring at different numbers, with
one exception, did not cite the specific locations of those telephones. The
White House said in comments 27 and 74 that the report did not adequately
and correctly disclose information about telephone lines that were observed
ripped from walls. In comment 27, the White House said that, if we had
reported that the people who made the observations did so
early in the morning on January 20, the comments made by a former Clinton
administration employee who said the cords were probably torn by moving
staff would be less credible because the moving staff did not begin work
until later in the day. In response to the White House?s comments, we added
additional information to appendix I about when EOP staff observed cords
pulled out of walls. We also revised a statement made by a former Clinton
administration employee who said that (1) the cords were probably pulled
from walls by moving staff to clarify that the cords she had seen pulled out
of walls were not observed around the time of the transition, and (2) she
intended to provide a possible explanation on the basis of a previous
observation. In comment 74, the White House said that our data on the number
of cut and pulled cords is not accurate. Our total number of observations
and observers in this category were substantially the same,
but reported differently. We reported observations separately of telephone
lines ripped or pulled from walls; other types of cords pulled from walls;
damaged plugs; and a telephone cord that appeared to have been cut with
scissors. In addition, it appeared that the White House counted an
observation of a ripped cord that was not made in a specific location, which
we did not count.
In comment 75, the White House questioned why a footnote contained in the
draft report reported a range of telephones in a certain office. We could
not determine the exact number of telephones in that office from the
documentation that the White House provided. Accordingly, we changed
the number to reflect an estimate provided by the White House. The White
House also said that a total of five, not four, staff observed missing
labels, which we revised in the report. Also in comment 75, the White House
said that our report did not include an observation that telephone labels in
one room were replaced ?before noon? on January 20 and were missing again
later that day. We added that to the report.
The White House also said in comment 75 that, in addition to the number of
missing labels that were reported in specific rooms and offices, we should
have reported the observations of missing labels by the telephone service
director, who said that he personally saw more than 20 telephones with
missing labels; the OA associate director for facilities management, who
said that there were many instances of missing labels on telephones; and
another employee who said she was the ?middleman? between EOP staff and
contractors regarding the telephones during the first month of the
administration and said that the majority of telephones in the EEOB and the
White House (roughly 85 percent) had removed labels or contained incorrect
numbers. The telephone service director?s recollections regarding the number
of telephones he observed with missing labels in specific rooms or offices
were included in the total number observed by all
staff, and we did not believe it was necessary to break out the number he
personally observed missing. Although the OA associate director for
facilities management did not indicate how many telephones he observed with
missing labels, his observations were made in two offices where others
observed specific numbers of missing labels, and the other people?s
observations are reported in the total. Finally, the observation of the
employee who was the ?middleman? between EOP staff and contractors regarding
the telephones during the first month of the administration was already
contained in the report. According to the White House, this employee said
that a majority of labels on telephones, or about 85 percent, had been
removed ?or contained incorrect numbers.? Our record of this
interview indicated that she said that about 85 percent of the telephones
were missing labels ?or did not ring at the correct number,? so we did not
revise the report.
In comment 76, the White House said that we underreported the number of
telephones that were forwarded and reforwarded to ring at different numbers
throughout and between the EEOB and the West Wing, and
indicated that seven White House staff reported that roughly 100 telephones
were forwarded to ring at other numbers. Further, the White House said that
it did not know why we treated the observations of the employee who
coordinated telephones during the first month of the administration
differently from the other observers. The White House also questioned why we
did not report that this employee told us that the chief of staff?s
telephone was forwarded to a closet. We did not underreport the number of
reports of telephones that were
forwarded and reforwarded. Our count of the number of forwarded telephones
was substantially the same as what the White House indicated in its
comments. However, we reported the observations made in specific locations
separate from the observation made by the employee who coordinated
telephones during the first month of the administration. As
explained in our response to comment 26, that employee said that about 100
telephones had been forwarded to ring at different numbers, and with one
exception, she did not cite the specific locations of those telephones.
Further, according to its comments, the White House counted the observation
of an employee who said that the telephone number did not ring if the number
on the telephone was dialed. Our record of interview with that employee was
different and indicated that his telephone had a number for an extension
that was different from his actual telephone number. We did not count that
statement as an instance of a forwarded telephone. In addition, as indicated
in the report, we had included the observation made by the employee who
coordinated telephones during the first month of the administration of a
forwarded telephone in a specific location among the 100 telephones that she
said were forwarded to other numbers. With respect to the one specific
telephone that she cited, our interview records indicated that she told us
that the chief of staff?s
telephone had been forwarded, but did not indicate that it was forwarded to
a closet. The White House said in comment 78 that we had dramatically
understated the number of telephones that were not working by failing to
report that one EOP employee said that no telephones were working on the
south side
of the EEOB. Our record of the interview indicated that she told us that,
because many telephones were not working in a section of a floor of the
EEOB, the switchboard forwarded calls from that area to other offices where
telephones were working, and that she walked from office to office
delivering telephone messages; we added that to the report to address the
White House?s comment. However, we did not estimate the number of telephones
that were not working in that part of the building and did not know whether
they were not working because of an intentional, malicious
act. In comment 80, the White House said that we failed to provide important
information regarding the extent of the problem with voice mail messages and
the consequences of this problem- that no one had voice mail service for the
first days and weeks of the administration. The White House said
those facts concerned the reports of obscene voice mail messages that were
heard by the telephone service director and the OA associate director for
facility management. The White House also said that we should have reported
that when these two officials began touring offices and checking telephones
in the EEOB at approximately 1: 00 a. m. on January 20, the
telephone service director listened to about 30 greetings, approximately 10
of which were inappropriate. Further, of those 10 inappropriate messages,
the telephone service director said 5 or 6 were vulgar. In addition, the
White House noted that the telephone service director said that White House
telephone operators notified him that there were obscene messages on some of
the voice mail greetings. The White House said that after encountering the
high ratio of inappropriate and vulgar messages, and because of these
messages, a decision was made around 1: 00 a. m. to take the entire system
down. Further, the White House said that the telephone service director
explained that he erased some messages around 1: 00 a. m.
on January 20, and they were rerecorded later that day. Our interview
records indicated the OA associate director for facilities management heard
an inappropriate voice mail message, but he did not tell us about hearing
obscene voice mail messages. The report had indicated that two EOP employees
who helped establish telephone service for new staff, including the
telephone service director, said they heard a total of six to seven obscene
voice mail messages that were left on telephones in vacated offices. In
addition, we had reported that the telephone service director said that
inappropriate and vulgar voice mail messages were initially erased on an
individual basis, but it was eventually decided to erase all of them.
Further, we reported that the OA associate director for facilities
management said that so many complaints were received about
voice mail that voice mail service was discontinued for a while to clear out
the system, and that no one had access to voice mail for at least 5 days and
possibly up to 2 weeks. To provide additional detail about when the
inappropriate and vulgar voice mail messages were heard, in response to the
White House?s comments, we added that the telephone service director said
that he heard inappropriate and vulgar voice mail messages during the early
morning hours of January 20.
We did not report what the telephone service director said he was told by
telephone operators about hearing obscene voice mail messages because it was
information that was relayed to us from a third party. Further,
according to our record of interview with the chief telephone operator, she
told us that operators received some calls from staff complaining about not
getting their voice mail and that their telephones were not working
correctly, but she did not mention complaints about obscene voice mail
messages. Finally, regarding the messages that the telephone service
director said he erased during the early morning hours of January 20 and
were rerecorded later that day, he said that those messages were not
inappropriate in nature. Because they were not inappropriate in nature and
could have been left for business reasons, we did not believe that this
additional information needed to be reported.
Writing on Walls In comment 105, the White House said that the report?s
description of two observations of pen and pencil marks on walls, but no
words, did not adequately describe what we were told. The White House noted
that these were not observations of a stray pen mark, as it said the report
suggested. Rather, the White House said, one observation was that an entire
wall in an office was covered in lines that at a distance appeared to be
cracks. Further, the White House said this observation was confirmed by an
OA
employee who said that she too had heard that someone had etched a wall like
marble. However, the report already indicated, regarding the observation,
that the employee who observed it said that there were cracks in the paint,
but because the marks washed off, he thought it looked like someone had used
a pencil on a wall. Further, because it was information relayed to us from a
third party, we did not report what someone had told the OA employee about a
wall etched like marble. Regarding the other
observation, the White House noted that an employee said that a wall was
covered in pen and pencil marks, which she described as slasher marks and
beyond normal wear and tear. According to our interview record, this
employee said she requested that the walls be repainted in one room
because there were pen and pencil marks on them, but no words were written.
We did not believe that these additional details were essential and needed
to be added to the report.
Classified and Sensitive The White House said in comment 108 that we failed
to include the
Documents telephone service director?s statement that he found classified
documents in a safe during the night of January 19. We added that
observation. The
White House also noted that it was not surprising that the director of
records management did not find sensitive documents in the counsel?s office
because the occupants of those offices did not depart their offices until
after he had checked for documents there. However, his statement related to
classified, and not sensitive, documents.
Underreporting of The White House said that we had underreported or failed
to report the Costs
costs of various items, including those associated with cleaning,
telephones, missing items, keyboards, furniture, and other costs.
Cleaning In comments 30 and 99, the White House said the report omitted the
costs associated with a January 30, 2001, facility request form asking for
cleaning
services. GSA provided two copies of this form, both with the same document
number. On one copy, cleaning services were requested. No costs were
provided on that copy of the form, which indicated that the services were
completed on January 31, 2001. The second copy said ?making new drapes,? and
that the work was completed on March 2, 2001,
at a cost of $2, 906. We attributed the $2, 906 cost to the making of new
drapes and not cleaning. During our interviews with staff working in this
office, no one mentioned observing problems with the drapes in this office.
Also in comment 99, the White House said that we could have, but did not,
determine how much time and money was spent paying the cleaning staff and
how much should have reasonably been spent on the basis of the amounts spent
during past transitions or estimates provided by administrative staff.
Further, the White House said that we already knew that the costs exceeded
what was expected because the OA associate director for facilities
management told us there was ?lots of money that was spent that shouldn?t
have to be spent.? Our record of the interview with the OA associate
director for facilities management did not indicate
that he told us this. He did say that during the last couple of years,
Clinton administration staff kept some rooms in a ?much less desirable
fashion,? and the space did not look much different during the transition.
He also said more people were working the EEOB during the Clinton
administration than during previous administrations. The director of GSA?s
White House service center similarly said that he did not see any difference
in the condition of the rooms during the transition than when he saw them 2
to 3 years before. He said that he did not think the departing Clinton
administration staff were being intentionally messy on January 20 and that
they had been like that all of the time. He also said that he observed more
personal belongings left behind during the 2001 transition than during the
1989 transition, but that the condition of the offices during the 2001
transition was the same as that during the 1989 transition. Accordingly, we
did not estimate or include incremental cleaning costs, as the White House
suggested.
Telephones In comments 30 and 81, the White House said that our report was
inaccurate and incomplete with regard to the cost of replacing removed
labels and rerouting forwarded telephones. It is unclear why the White House
said that our report was inaccurate regarding these costs. We did not report
any aggregate costs for replacing labels or rerouting forwarded telephones,
but cited hourly rates for telephone service work that are the same as those
contained in the White House?s comments. We also cited the
cost of removing a telephone from an office, which the White House did not
dispute.
With respect to the completeness of cost data, we did not report a total
cost figure for replacing missing labels or correcting forwarded telephones
because we did not believe the documentation provided by the White House was
clear and descriptive enough for us to do so. For correcting forwarded
telephones, the White House provided one telephone service request that said
a telephone line did not ring on a particular set. However, it did not state
the cause of the problem, so we did not know whether the
cause was forwarding or something else. Most of the White House?s points in
comments 30, 79, and 81 addressed the costs associated with replacing
missing labels. It said that (1) we should estimate how much it would cost
to replace the number of missing labels reported to us as missing, (2) our
statement that orders included other
services is incorrect and that placing button labels on telephones means
replacing missing labels beyond a doubt, (3) we never discussed the closed
orders log with OA?s telephone services coordinator, and (4) the closed
orders log does more than mention labels.
The White House estimated that $6, 020 was incurred to replace missing
labels and correct forwarded telephones, and said that we had ignored the
information it had provided on this issue. As its basis for the $6, 020
estimate, the White House cited two blanket work orders and related bills
for work that included relabeling telephones on January 20 and 21, 2001.
The costs attributed by the White House to replacing labels and correcting
forwarded telephones for both of these orders was $2,490. The White House
arrived at its $2, 490 estimate for relabeling telephones and correcting
forwarded numbers, which it considered conservative given the
number of missing labels and forwarded telephones, by assuming that
technicians spent 10 percent of their time on these two days fixing these
two problems. While we do not question that labels were missing or that
telephones were forwarded and that the government incurred costs for
replacing missing labels or correcting forwarded telephone calls, we have no
information on the extent to which technicians spent their time fixing these
problems on January 20 or 21, 2001, nor any basis to develop an
estimate for this. Furthermore, if technicians replaced the labels reported
missing under the blanket work orders as the White House suggests, then it
is unclear why there would also be individual work orders to replace those
same missing labels.
The White House?s support for the remaining $3,530 (of the $6,020 estimate)
consisted of items shown on the closed orders log for the period January 20,
2001, through February 20, 2001; individual service requests provided that
cite placing labels on telephones; and AT& T invoices. We reviewed this
information. In fact, we reviewed it carefully, and our record
of interview indicated that we did discuss the closed orders log with the OA
telephone services coordinator. We did not believe the closed orders log,
the individual service requests, or invoices that the White House provided
had enough information for us to definitively conclude that the costs shown
were solely for replacing missing labels or provided a sufficient basis to
compute an estimate of those costs.
With one exception, neither the closed orders log nor the individual service
requests the White House provided specifically cited replacing missing
labels that had been removed, and in every case for which we have a
telephone repair document, another service was cited along with placing
labels on telephones, including the service requests for the one exception
referred to above. For example: For one service request cited in the White
House?s comment letter as needing a label placed on a telephone by a
technician, the actual service
request said: ?need line 65240 to ring on my phone 66522. On 66522 add 65240
on button 7 and 8. Need label placed on set by a technician.? According to
the White House, the charge for this service was $75.92.
Another service request the White House included in its $6,020 estimate
was for, it says, placing labels on sets. The White House said the estimated
cost of this work order was $151.84 based on being billed for 2 hours of
work. The corresponding entry for this service request on the closed orders
log says, ?INSTALL (2) 8520 SETS IN RM- 200, NEED LABELS PLACED ON SETS.?
The White House did not provide the individual service order for this
repair. The one service request cited above as an exception, which was dated
January 29, 2001, read: ?Replace labels on all phones that [sic] removed?
along with other services in a room for which the White House said the bill
was $75.92. The corresponding entry in the closed orders log for this order
was ?INSTL NEW# 62926, 65961 / REPLACE LABEL.? We do not have any additional
information to explain the difference between the individual service request
and the log.
A number of service requests that involved placement of labels also involved
programming or reprogramming of telephones. For example, the White House
cited a work order indicating that labels were needed, among other things,
in several rooms at a cost of $341. 64, which read: ?Disconnect
6- 9008 in Room 271 OEOB. Reprogram sets in Rooms 263, 265, 266, 267, 268,
269 and 271. Need labels placed on each set.? The requirements portion of
the work order indicated ?change? and ?disconnect.? Thus, it is unclear from
the information provided, whether labels were needed
because (1) they were missing, (2) there was a change in telephone service
or functions as a result of the reprogramming that could have affected the
labels, or (3) both conditions existed. It is also unclear to us from the
information provided by the White House why telephones had to be programmed
or reprogrammed if the only problem was a missing label and why 4 hours of
work were required solely to place labels on telephones for each of four
service requests. In cases where labels were missing, it appears that a new
label could have been needed in some cases due to
changes in telephone service or functions desired by new occupants, such as
adding a new number to a telephone. Regarding the White House?s statement
that placing button labels on a set means replacing missing labels, in
addition to the above examples, we note our discussion with the OA telephone
services coordinator during which she said that service orders mentioning
labels listed on the closed orders log do not necessarily mean that
telephones were missing labels. We did
not discuss each entry with her on the closed orders log that cited labels
because it did not appear necessary at the time of our interviews with her,
and it was clear that we were discussing the closed orders log. An associate
counsel to the president attended our meetings and raised no objection or
concern about this issue at the time of the meetings.
Further, although the OA telephone services coordinator told us that she had
records from which she could estimate the total number of telephones with
missing labels and the associated costs to replace them, we did not receive
this information. While there could have been a misunderstanding between us
and the telephone services coordinator on the meaning of the
terms on the closed orders log, we believe she clearly understood that we
were seeking information about the number of missing labels and the
associated costs, and because she said she would provide this information
to us, we saw no need to request additional documentation on this issue at
that time.
As a related issue, the White House said in comment 81 that it explained to
us that there is no separate charge when a system analyst performs work,
such as reprogramming a telephone, that does not require a technician to be
dispatched to an office. According to the White House, if a technician must
go to the office to replace a label, there is a minimum charge for each hour
or portion of an hour even if it is only a few minutes to perform the work.
The White House did not document this until after we had sent our draft
report. While we do not question that situations may have existed in which
the only service provided for which a cost was incurred was to replace a
missing label, we cannot determine to our satisfaction the extent to which
these situations occurred from the documentation provided to us. Given the
examples we cited above in which other services besides placing labels on
telephones were provided, the extent to which costs were incurred just for
replacing missing labels is unclear. The extent to which new labels would
have been needed anyway due to changes desired by new office occupants is
also unclear.
Further, given the OA telephone services coordinator?s statement about the
little time needed to replace telephone labels, it is unclear why
technicians would have spent 4 hours just placing labels on telephones in
some cases where the service order shows the only other service besides
placing labels on sets as programming telephones. It is also unclear why a
generic or blanket service request to replace missing labels was not
prepared if this was the only service needed. It would appear that such an
order would
have been less costly to the government than preparing individual service
orders for individual telephones or offices given that it only takes a short
time to place a label on a telephone. Given all of the questions we have
related to the information the White House provided on costs associated with
replacing labels, we are not making any estimates of such costs. To do so
would require additional details on the work that was done in response to
requests for telephone service involving placing labels on telephones.
Obtaining this information could have required discussions with the
technicians who performed the work, which could have involved additional
costs to the government.
Given this and the time and effort that would be required by us and White
House staff, we did not believe further exploration by us of the costs
involved with replacing labels would have been cost beneficial to the
taxpayers. Finally, we modified our report to reflect the White House?s
comments 79 and 81 that the closed orders log does more than mention labels,
as well as
to address comment 30 regarding replacing labels, as we deemed appropriate.
Missing Items In comment 31, the White House objected to our deducting the
value of one doorknob to reflect the statement of a GSA employee who said
that a
facility request form regarding work in an office where two pairs of
doorknobs were observed missing was not done to replace a missing doorknob,
but to perform maintenance on a worn- out part. The White House pointed out
that the GSA employee?s statement is inconsistent with the facility request
form and the recollections of at least three current staff
members. We discussed the observations regarding these doorknobs in our
response to comment 22. Regarding the related cost issue, we recognized the
GSA employee?s statement in this case because he said that he was
responsible for repairing and replacing building fixtures in the EEOB,
including doorknobs. The report still included the cost of replacing three
of the four doorknobs that were observed missing in this office, totaling
$700. The difference in deducting the cost of one doorknob in this case was
$100.
In comment 47, the White House said it was untrue when we reported that we
did not obtain any information about the possible historic value of the seal
that was stolen. The White House pointed out that we were told in writing
that the $350 purchase price would not purchase an exact replica of the
brass seal that was stolen; that the seal was purchased in the mid- 1970s,
and is no longer available; and that the $350 would purchase a plastic- type
casting. The statement that was included in the report about this historic
value was intended to convey that we did not obtain a dollar value
associated with the historic value of the seal; we clarified that statement
accordingly. In addition, to address the White House?s comment, we added the
additional details provided.
Keyboards In comment 58, the White House disagreed with our reporting of
costs associated with replacing damaged keyboards for three reasons. First,
it said that our estimate of 30 to 64 keyboards that were observed missing
was incorrect and should be 58 to 70, using a different counting
methodology. It also said that the numbers only represented observations
made in specific rooms or offices and do not account for the observations of
other EOP staff who told us about additional damaged keyboards, such as the
branch chief for program management and strategic planning in the
information systems and technology division, who said that 150 keyboards
had to be replaced. We addressed this point in our response to the White
House?s general comment about the number of observations reported and in our
response to comments 10 and 51. We also revised the table in the report to
clarify that the range of keyboards pertained to observations made in
specific rooms or offices. The statement by the branch chief for program
management and strategic planning in the information systems
and technology division, who said that 150 keyboards had to be replaced, was
already included in the table and apparently overlooked by the White House.
Second, the White House noted that we included an estimate that the OA
associate director for information systems and technology provided in
February 2002, even though she said that her memory regarding that matter
was not as good as when we interviewed her in June 2001. However, this
official?s statement in June 2001 that 64 damaged keyboards had to be
replaced was also included in the table. Because we did not know which
figure was correct, we included both statements made during the two
interviews. Third, the White House said that it was not accurate to
represent that the
OA associate director for information systems and technology said that one-
third to one- half of the keyboards may have been replaced every 3 or 4
years because of their age. We addressed this point in comment 56.
Furniture In comment 69, the White House said that we failed to mention
costs attributable to damaged furniture and did not attempt to estimate the
costs of replacing furniture that was discarded because it was beyond
repair.
However, as indicated in the letter portion of the report and appendix I,
the OA director told us that no record existed indicating that furniture was
deliberately damaged and that no inventory of furniture of the EEOB exists.
Further, although in April 2002, an associate counsel to the president
provided us with photographs of four pieces of furniture that she indicated
were moved to an EOP remote storage facility, no information
was provided regarding from which offices these pieces had been taken or
when or how the damage occurred. In comment 69, the White House also said
that we had failed to quantify very real costs incurred, such as in having
movers remove damaged furniture and return with replacement furniture,
having movers make overturned furniture upright, and removing the glue- like
substance from desks. We did not believe it would have been cost- effective
for us to
attempt to estimate these costs, and our report clearly indicated that we
did not attempt to obtain cost information related to all observations
reported to us.
Other Costs In comment 32, the White House said that we failed to quantify
certain additional costs that were incurred as a result of damage, such as
the time expended by computer staff and contractors to replace damaged
keyboards; the time spent on removing ?W? keys and prank signs affixed to
the walls; and the time spent to clean up trash and dirt that exceeded
reasonable amounts or amounts seen in prior transitions. The White House
said that it would have been possible for us to have generated a range of
estimates, but that we chose not to, resulting in a substantial
underreporting of the very real costs associated with the damage,
vandalism, and pranks that occurred during the transition. Although it is
possible that we could have estimated some additional costs potentially
attributable to intentional acts, we did not believe it would have been
cost- effective for us to have done so. For example, we did not believe that
our time and resources should have been expended on estimating any possible
incremental costs to remove ?W? keys and prank signs that were placed on
walls, or that any such estimates would likely have been
material. Further, we did not have a sufficient basis to conclude that all
of the damage that the White House cited, such as broken furniture and copy
machines, was caused by intentional acts. Accordingly, we did not provide
such costs in our report. Additional Details and
The White House said additional details should have been reported about
Intentional Acts certain observations, such as those relating to telephones,
furniture, keyboards, a missing office sign, a copy machine, and writing on
walls that would have allowed readers to determine whether incidents were
done intentionally and, in some cases, that they were likely done by former
Clinton administration staff. In comment 28, the White House said that, in
many cases, the undisputed
facts indicated when incidents occurred and who the likely perpetrators were
and cited several examples. In particular, the White House took issue with a
statement in the report that we were generally unable to determine who was
responsible for the incidents that were observed, and said we simply failed
to determine who was responsible. For example, the White
House said we did not try to contact the former occupants of offices where
messages other than those of ?goodwill? were left. Examples that the White
House cited regarding telephone labels and furniture are discussed
in comments 6 and 15 below. The White House also cited examples regarding
the placing of glue on desks; the leaving of prank, inappropriate, and
obscene voice mail messages; and the removal of keys from keyboards, which
are discussed below. We agree that the likely perpetrators could be
identified from the observations and available information with regard to a
few of the
observations that were made. For example, because the telephone service
director said that a passcode was needed to record voice mail greetings, it
was fair to conclude that the previous occupants left the voice mail
greetings that were heard. Moreover, we had concluded in the report that the
leaving of certain voice mail messages, the placing glue on desks, and the
removal of keys from keyboards were done intentionally. However, the White
House is incorrect in asserting that we did not try to contact the former
occupants of offices where messages other than those of goodwill were left.
As explained in our scope and methodology section, we
contacted 72 former Clinton administration staff, most of whom had worked in
offices where observations were made, including numerous staff who worked in
offices where signs and messages were observed and heard, and not only those
that were of goodwill. When we contacted them, we described or showed lists
of the observations that were made in their former offices and asked for any
comments or explanations. However, former Clinton administration staff we
contacted did not provide explanations regarding every observation, and we
did not contact all former Clinton administration staff because we did not
know where they
were and because of the level of resources that would have been required. In
addition, regarding the reports of obscene or vulgar voice mail messages
that were left, specific information was not provided about which telephones
those messages were left on, so we could not ask any particular former staff
about them. Moreover, it is speculative to suggest that, had we contacted
additional former Clinton administration staff, we would have obtained
undisputed facts regarding when the incidents occurred and the
likely perpetrators. The White House also said in comment 28 that our report
suggested that contract movers and cleaners were responsible for vandalism,
damage, and pranks, which it believed to be an insult to the contract
personnel. Our report did not state that these contract personnel
intentionally caused any damage. However, they were among other individuals
in the complex
during the transition besides former Clinton administration staff, which
made it more difficult to narrow down people who were possibly responsible,
either intentionally or unintentionally, for the problems reported observed.
We made a written request to the White House for a list of the number of
visitors cleared into the EEOB during the weekend of
January 20 and 21, 2001, and their respective organizational affiliations.
However, the White House declined to provide that information, indicating
that it was available from the individuals responsible for hiring and
supervising contractors who may have already provided us with estimates
regarding the number of contractors. We were provided with information
regarding a certain number of GSA contractors who were in the complex that
weekend, but not about other contractor staff, such as those working with
computers, or any other visitors to the complex. In comment 28, the White
House cited observations made in the vice
president?s West Wing office, including an oily glue- like substance smeared
on desks; prank signs that were on walls and interspersed in reams of paper
in printer trays and copy machines, and vulgar words that were on a
white board that were all discovered between midnight on January 19 and noon
on January 20. The White House said that it could be reasonably concluded
from these observations that the damage occurred shortly
before the inauguration and that former Clinton administration staff were
the likely perpetrators because it can be presumed that the former office
staff did not work under those conditions. However, in certain respects, our
interview records differed from what the White House indicated in its
comments regarding these observations. Although all three staff told us they
observed the glue- like substance and prank signs, none of them said they
saw vulgar words written on a white board. One of the employees said
that her staff told her that they had seen vulgar words written on a white
board there, but we did not interview anyone who personally saw that, and we
did not include information people relayed to us from third parties. We
would agree that, on the basis of the timing of these observations, they
were likely carried out shortly before the inauguration, but in the absence
of witnesses or other evidence we are not in a position to conclude who was
responsible.
In comment 35, the White House said that our list of incidents that were
done intentionally was incomplete and provided several additional cases that
it said appeared to have been done deliberately by former Clinton
administration staff. Our conclusion that the leaving of signs and written
messages was intentional was meant to encompass certain observations that
the White House cited in comment 38, including a Gore bumper sticker
stuck to the inside of a copy machine, writing on and in desks, and a
sticker in a filing cabinet. Further, our conclusions were not meant to be
comprehensive in the same level of detail that the White House indicated,
but did include damage to ?W? keys, in addition to ?W? keys removed from
keyboards; ?W? keys glued to walls and placed in drawers; the removal of an
office sign that was witnessed by an EOP employee; and desk drawers turned
over. Finally, we could not conclude, as the White House did, that certain
incidents, such as a lamp placed on a chair and pictures and other objects
placed in front of doors, were done deliberately by former Clinton
administration staff. It seemed equally as likely that they could have been
done as part of the moving out process. Further, the White House?s statement
that most, if not all, printers and fax machines were emptied of paper in
vacated offices was not contained in our interview records, and it was not
clear whether that would have been done intentionally. Other incidents that
the White House listed relating to telephone and furniture are
discussed below. In comments 38 and 68, the White House said that we should
report the views of many staff who said that, on the basis of their first-
hand observations, damage appeared to have been done intentionally. In our
report, we included examples of statements made by some individuals who told
us they believed the incidents they observed were done intentionally and
some individuals who told us they did not believe what they observed
was done intentionally. However, we did not include all statements made by
all individuals about views on whether incidents were done intentionally. In
any event, without having observed the incidents being
carried out, people?s views on whether incidents were intentional were
speculative in many cases.
Telephones In comment 6, the White House said that it did not understand why
the report indicated that the documentation provided indicated that much
telephone service work was done during the transition, but did not directly
corroborate allegations of vandalism and pranks regarding the telephones
when several staff members reported observing telephones with missing
labels. However, the documentation provided did not show what caused the
needed work or that the labels were intentionally removed from offices as
acts of vandalism. Further, our conclusion is consistent with the OA
director?s April 18, 2001, statement that ?? repair records do not contain
information that would allow someone to determine the cause of damage
that is being repaired.? As noted in the report, some former Clinton
administration staff said that telephones were missing labels during the
Clinton administration, primarily because those telephones were only used
for outgoing calls. Although the OA telephone services coordinator said she
believed that telephone labels were removed intentionally, she said the
documentation regarding telephone service requests that mentioned labels did
not necessarily mean that the telephones had been missing labels and that
new labels might have been needed for variety of reasons. In comment 28 and
36, the White House noted that, according to the telephone service director,
some of the missing telephone labels that were replaced before
noon on January 20 were found missing again later that day, which indicated
that the removal of at least some of the labels was an intentional act,
occurred before January 20, and that outgoing staff were almost certainly
responsible. We would agree that, on the basis of the telephone
service director?s observation on January 20, some telephone labels were
intentionally removed. Although these circumstances may suggest that some
telephone labels were removed by departing Clinton administration staff, in
the absence of any witnesses we were not in a position to conclude
who was responsible. No documentation was provided relating specifically to
these observations. The White House also said in comment 6 that staff noted
that telephones were left on the floor and that the documentation showed a
request for a technician to retrieve a telephone found on the floor of an
office. Although this telephone service request corroborated a request to
retrieve a telephone in an office where an EOP official observed telephones
piled on
a floor, we did not conclude that this corroborated an act of vandalism
because the request did not indicate why the telephone was left on the
floor.
In comment 36, the White House said that we should report the views of many
staff who said that, on the basis of their first- hand observations, damage
appeared to have been done intentionally, including the OA telephone
services coordinator, who said that missing telephone labels must have been
intentional. The OA telephone service coordinator?s
comment was included in the report. In comment 82, the White House objected
to a statement attributed to the director of GSA?s White House service
center, who said that there were any number of reasons why problems could
have been observed with telephone and computer wires besides people having
cut them deliberately because, for example, the cleaning staff could have
hit the wires with the vacuum
cleaners or computer staff could have been working with the wires. According
to the White House, this statement would be relevant only if the cut and
pulled wires were observed after the cleaning and computer staff had entered
the offices. The White House noted that the two employees
who reported the cords pulled from the walls observed the damage in the
early morning hours of January 20 before any cleaning staff had entered the
rooms and before the computer staff entered the rooms to archive
computer data. However, although the cleaning crew for the transition began
on January 20 and the archiving of data from computers was taking place in
the morning of January 20, other cleaning and computer work undoubtedly was
done in offices at some point before January 20. Further,
even though the staff made these observations on January 20, we did not know
when and how the wires became separated from the walls. In addition, the
employee who observed at least 25 cords pulled out of walls, who the White
House did not mention in this comment, said that she made her observation on
January 22. In addition, the January 24, 2001, GSA facility request that
this employee requested did not state that cords were separated from the
walls; the request was to ?organize all loose wires and make them not so
visible.?
Furniture In comments 15 and 36, the White House objected to a statement
attributed to former Clinton administration staff who said that some
furniture was broken before the transition and could have been the result of
wear and tear, and little money was spent on repairs and upkeep during the
administration. According to the White House, the statement could not be
squared with the circumstances surrounding the reported damage. It also
noted in comment 36 that it would be odd behavior for office occupants to
have broken chairs through normal wear and tear and leave them unrepaired
for some time. Further, the White House provided examples of additional
details regarding observations made by EOP staff regarding
furniture problems, which it said suggested that the damage was
intentionally done by former Clinton administration staff or was done
shortly before the inauguration.
As previously explained, we did not obtain comments from former Clinton
administration regarding every observation, including all furniture- related
problems. Therefore, we agree that the above statement made by former
Clinton administration staff does not necessarily apply to all observations
of furniture- related problems. With respect to the White House?s assertion
that it is difficult to believe that office occupants would not remove
certain broken furniture, as indicated in the report, the former director of
one
office where EOP staff told us they observed pieces of broken furniture said
that the office furniture had been in poor shape for some time, but the
staff tolerated it. The former director added that they did not want to send
the furniture away to be repaired because it was uncertain how long it would
take or whether the furniture would be returned. We also note that, in
August 2001, we observed a desk in the EEOB with detached drawer fronts that
had not been repaired, and the staff in that office said the desk had been
in that condition since they arrived in January 2001. Further, although the
White House said in comment 15 that the details regarding certain
observations suggested that furniture was intentionally damaged by former
Clinton administration staff or occurred shortly before the
inauguration, we could not make any definitive conclusions about how the
damage occurred and who may have been responsible for it on the basis of
those details or the statements of some EOP staff who said that it appeared
that certain damage had been caused intentionally.
In comments 28 and 36, the White House cited several cases in which it said
the undisputed facts indicated when furniture was damaged and the likely
perpetrators. Also, in comment 67, the White House said that the
overwhelming circumstantial evidence indicates when the damage occurred,
whether it was intentional, and who the likely perpetrators were.
In comments 15, 28, 36, 60, and 67, the White House described a case
involving a key that was observed broken off in a file cabinet, still
hanging in the lock by a metal thread, and when the locksmith opened it, a
Gore bumper sticker with an anti- Bush statement was prominently displayed
inside. According to the White House, the circumstances in this case
suggested that the damage occurred not long before the inauguration, was
intentional, and was done by a former Clinton administration employee. Our
interview records regarding this incident differed in certain respects from
what the White House indicated in its comments. Although the staff said they
saw a broken key in the cabinet and one employee said that he found two Gore
stickers inside, none of them said they observed an antiBush statement
prominently displayed inside. One of the employees said that another person
told him he saw a Gore sticker with a message that was derogatory about the
president written on it. We did not report what the
other person had told him because it was information relayed to us from a
third party. Further, when we interviewed the person who reportedly observed
the anti- Bush statement written on a sticker, he told us about seeing two
Gore- Lieberman stickers inside the cabinet, but he did not mention any
writing on them. Although we believe that it is likely that political
stickers were left in a cabinet around the time of the election, it is
speculative to conclude that the individual who left the sticker inside the
cabinet was the same person who broke the key off in the lock, and that the
key was intentionally broken off in the lock. Also in comments 28, 36, 60,
and 67, the White House cited a similar case about locked desk drawers that,
when pried open, contained two pieces of paper with anti- Bush
statements. We had already concluded in the report that these written
messages were done intentionally.
The White House also cited cases in comments 28 and 67 that it said
suggested the damage occurred shortly before the inauguration. In one case,
the White House cited the statement of an employee who said that she saw
damaged furniture in offices where things looked pretty good
weeks or months earlier, which the White House said suggested that damage
was done shortly before the inauguration weekend. According to our interview
record with this individual, the only observations that she made regarding
furniture were of doors on a wall cabinet hanging on only one hinge and
upholstered furniture that was filthy, which she attributed to dirt that had
built up over time. Although the cabinet doors could have
been damaged around the time of the transition, the upholstered furniture
probably did not become dirty then. In the other case, the White House said
the nature of damage suggests that it occurred shortly before the
inauguration because the offices? prior occupants and cleaning staff would
not have let the damage remain in the office for long. For example, the
White House said that it would be hard to believe that occupants would not
fix or remove a bookcase with shards of broken glass inside. While we
would agree that we would not expect shards of glass inside a bookcase to
remain for long, we did not have any information indicating when the damage
occurred, or whether it was done accidentally or intentionally.
In comment 36, the White House said that, with respect to our statement that
we did not know whether furniture was broken intentionally, and when and how
it occurred, it was not plausible to think the cleaning staff completely
broke off the backs and legs of multiple chairs within the same office and
then left that furniture in the offices for the new occupants. We did not
suggest that the cleaning staff broke furniture. However, we note, as
discussed above, that some former Clinton administration staff said that
certain pieces of furniture were already broken prior to the inauguration
and had not been repaired.
The White House also said in comments 38 and 67 that the nature of some of
the damage and the surrounding conditions suggested that it was done
intentionally and/ or was done shortly before the transition weekend. For
example, the White House cited the observation of an EOP employee who said
that her desk drawers clearly had been kicked in and this damage was not
just wear and tear. Our interview record with this individual indicated that
she observed a desk where the locks on a drawer had been damaged and the
drawers could not be opened, but did not indicate that she said the drawers
had been kicked in.
In another case cited in comments 36 and 67, the White House cited an
observation of two seat cushions slit in an identical manner on apparently
new upholstery, indicating that this was not done accidentally. Although it
is possible that this observation was of vandalism, it was unknown when
and how it occurred and who may have been responsible. No information was
available about from which offices these chairs were taken (they were
observed in a hallway on January 21), and we did not observe these chairs
ourselves to inspect the damage. Also in comment 36, the White House said
that it was not reasonable to conclude that furniture was not overturned
unintentionally because most of the witnesses observed overturned furniture
before the cleaning staff or new occupants entered the rooms, and it was not
plausible to think that cleaning staff would have upended extremely heavy
furniture in the manner described. Further, the White House pointed out that
two GSA officials said that cleaning staff would not move large pieces of
furniture, and none of these things would happen in the normal course of
moving out of an office. According to our interview records with these
individuals, one
GSA official said that while cleaning staff do not normally move furniture
to clean offices, furniture could be overturned for a variety of reasons,
such as to reach electrical outlets or computer connections. The other GSA
official said that he did not see any damage or pranks during the transition
and did not mention overturned furniture, according to our interview record.
Although we would agree that furniture would be overturned intentionally and
that it was unlikely that cleaning staff would have upended extremely heavy
furniture in the manner described, some former Clinton administration staff
who occupied the former offices where overturned furniture was observed said
that it would have been difficult or impossible for them to move certain
pieces of furniture. Moreover, the cleaning staff did not enter these
offices for the first time on January 20; according to GSA, cleaning is done
continuously.
Although we would agree with the White House that it is reasonable to
conclude that furniture was overturned intentionally, we do not believe that
a sufficient basis existed to conclude, as the White House did in comment
36, that most of the people who observed overturned furniture made their
observations before the cleaning staff or new occupants entered the rooms.
According to our interview records with the seven staff who observed
overturned furniture, none of whom were new occupants of those rooms, two
said that they made these observations in the early morning hours of
January 20 before the transition cleaning crews arrived; three said that
they made those observations during the afternoon of January 20; and the
other two did not tell us the time they observed the overturned furniture.
Although the descriptions provided by the observers suggested that the
offices where overturned furniture was observed had not yet been cleaned, we
do not know when particular offices were cleaned on January 20; the time
that new occupants entered these offices, or who else may have been
in these offices on January 19 and 20. The cleaning crew leader for the EEOB
floor where overturned furniture was observed said that the cleaning began
at 6: 45 a. m. on January 20.
In comment 60, the White House said that it did not recall anyone
complaining about missing keys, which would not be considered damage,
vandalism, or pranks. Rather, the White House said, the observations
pertained to keys that may have been purposefully broken off in the locks
or drawers locked intentionally and keys taken or discarded. However, an
employee told us that, when he started working in the EEOB on January 20,
his desk drawers were locked with no keys available to unlock them and
that the movers helped him open the drawers. Other EOP staff told us about
broken off or damaged keys in cabinets.
In comment 68, the White House took issue with how we had characterized two
employees? statements about whether they believed the damaged furniture they
observed was intentionally damaged. In the first instance, the White House
said that an employee said that while it was possible that legs on a chair
were broken through wear and tear, she thought it was
unlikely that a broken chair would be kept in an office in that condition.
Our interview record regarding this employee indicated she said that the
chair legs could have been broken because of wear and tear and were not
necessarily done intentionally in January 2001. In addition, the White
House said that we had not included additional statements made by EOP staff
who said that the damage, previously discussed in this section, appeared
intentional. The White House said an employee told us that her desk drawers
were clearly damaged intentionally, and not just by wear and tear, and
another employee said that the a broken key in the file cabinet looked
deliberate. In the first example, according to our interview record, this
employee did not say how the desk drawers were damaged. In the
second example, the employee said the key looked like it had been broken
intentionally, but he did not know if it was.
We also note that other people, whom the White House did not cite, said they
did not believe that broken furniture was intentionally damaged. For
example, the management office director told us that during the first 2
weeks of the Bush administration, she saw a building (the EEOB) filled with
furniture that had exceeded its useful life and that a lot of furniture had
to be taken out of offices. She said the problems with furniture that she
saw, such as broken pieces, were the result of wear and tear and
neglect, and not the result of something that she thought was intentional.
Keyboards In comment 28, the White House said that it is unlikely that
Clinton
administration staff worked for long without having ?W? keys on their
keyboards, which suggested that the vandalism occurred shortly before the
inauguration. We agree.
Missing Office Sign In comments 42 and 48, the White House said that we
failed to report sufficient detail about an EOP employee who observed a
volunteer remove an office sign from a wall in the EEOB. According to the
White House, when we reported that an employee said she saw a volunteer
remove an office sign outside an office, that the person who removed the
sign said that
he planned to take a photograph with it, and that the volunteer tried to put
the sign back on the wall, it implied that the person intended all along to
put the sign back. The White House believes that only when the volunteer
was confronted by the EOP employee, did he claim that he planned to take a
photograph with it, that he tried to put the sign back, and ultimately did
not take it. Further, the White House said that the employee did not believe
that the volunteer intended all along to return the sign as our statement
suggested. However, our record of interview did not indicate that this
employee told us what she believed the volunteer intended to do with the
sign. We also did not know whether this individual planned to take the
office sign. We were not provided with the volunteer?s name and thus were
unable to contact him. Further, we did not speculate, as the White House
did, about whether it was only after having been confronted by an employee
that he
claimed that he wanted to take a photograph with the sign and tried to put
it back on the wall.
In comment 48, the White House also said that we failed to mention that an
EOP employee said that a former Clinton administration employee told her
that he saw that the office sign was missing at some point during the night
of January 19. We did not report this statement because it was information
relayed to us from a third party. Further, when we interviewed this former
Clinton administration employee, he did not say that he observed a sign
missing from outside this office. Copy Machine In comments 68 and 87, the
White House said that we had failed to report a
statement made by an employee who said that the repairman who fixed the copy
machine found a pornographic or inappropriate message when he pulled out the
copier?s paper drawer, and that the repairman thought the paper drawers had
been intentionally realigned so that the paper supply would jam. We did not
include the repairman?s statement because it was information relayed to us
from a third party.
Writing on Walls The White House said in comment 105 that graffiti observed
in a men?s restroom was vulgar, in addition to being derogatory to the
president, which was plainly intentional. Given its content, the White House
said that we could conclude that it was written shortly before the
transition. We agree. Similarly, the White House said that writing observed
on an office
wall that said something like ?Republicans, don?t get comfortable, we?ll be
back,? while not profane in nature, also would indicate that it was written
shortly before the transition and by a former Clinton administration
employee. We agree. As previously mentioned, the report already concluded
that written messages were done intentionally.
Statements Made by In comments 4 and 11, the White House also said that if
the report included
Former Clinton a statement by former Clinton administration staff that the
amount of trash was ?what could be expected,? it should also include the
statements of Administration Staff
longtime staff members who said the opposite. This statement was also part
of a summary paragraph, and additional comments regarding trash that was
observed and comments made by other staff with different views were provided
in appendix I.
In comment 5, the White House said that, when we reported that some former
Clinton administration staff said that some of the observations were false,
it was disappointed that they would make such a reckless statement.
According to the White House, the statement is neither based on nor
supported by a single shred of evidence. Further, the White House said that
such self- serving accusations like this illustrate why it was important for
us to provide the reader with many of the details that we had omitted. For
example, the White House said, if the reader is told that a particular
observation was made by a staff member who worked in the complex for many
years, including the Clinton administration, or that the damage was found in
a location where others observed a lot of other damage, then the reader can
determine for himself the credibility of the observation.
The statement referenced above was included in part of a summary paragraph,
and many additional details regarding the observations are provided
throughout the report. Further, we did not make judgments about the
credibility of the observations when current and former EOP staff had
different explanations and recollections. Regarding the White House?s
request that we indicate when observations were made by EOP staff who had
worked in the White House complex for many years because it would help the
reader determine the credibility of the observation, we did not do this
because we generally did not have a basis to conclude that EOP staff we
interviewed who had worked in the White House complex for many years were
more credible than staff who arrived with the Bush
administration. On the one hand, one would not necessarily expect Bush
administration staff to have positive views of the Clinton administration.
On the other hand, EOP staff could have strong views on various
administrations. Many of them work at the pleasure of the president, and
the associate counsel to the president participated in all of the interviews
with EOP staff. We did not speculate about what influence these factors may
have had on the people we interviewed. For example, one individual we
interviewed who had worked for the EOP under several administrations
expressed considerable disagreement during our interview with the Clinton
administration?s handling of a matter related to his area of responsibility.
Although we do not know the extent to which, if any, the individual?s views
regarding the Clinton administration influenced his conveyance of
observations to us, we reported his observations in the same manner as
those of incoming Bush administration staff we interviewed. In comment 49,
the White House questioned a comment made by the former director of an
office where two pairs of doorknobs were observed missing, that the office
had several doors to the hallway that at some time had been made inoperable,
and he was not sure whether the interior sides of those doors had doorknobs.
According to the White House, even if it were true that the doorknob in the
interior side of the door was missing,
that fact would not explain the observation that the door was missing both
an interior and exterior doorknob. We only reported what the former director
told us and were not suggesting that his comment fully explained the
observation.
In comment 70, the White House noted that, regarding the statement by the
former manager of an office where at least six pieces of furniture were
observed, he provided comments on only two broken chairs (that the arms
had become detached a year or two before the transition, that carpenters
tried to glue them back, but the glue did not hold). According to the White
House, the additional reports of damaged furniture as well as other damage
found in the office suite undermine the former manager?s innocent
explanation for the two chairs. In addition, the White House said that
because we were unwilling to specify the locations where damage was found
and have not reported more details, readers are unable to assess for
themselves the credibility of the former manager?s explanation.
The former manager?s explanation regarding these two chairs appeared to be
plausible because, as we reported, we found two GSA facility requests made
by him in 1999 requesting that chairs in that office be repaired. We only
reported the comments and explanations that former Clinton administration
staff provided on observations made in their respective offices, and did not
note, for example, that this former office manager did not comment on the
other pieces of broken furniture. Similarly, throughout the report, when we
cited an observation made by an EOP employee, we did not point out what that
person did not see, even in cases where other people made additional
observations in that same location. Further, our record of this interview
indicates that the employee who observed the other pieces of broken
furniture told us she saw four chairs that had been placed in the hall and
that she believed the damage could have occurred due to normal wear and tear
and that the chairs were not necessarily broken in January 2001.
In comment 71, the White House questioned the comments of three former staff
who had worked in an office where staff told us they found glue or a sticky
substance on desks that they were not aware of glue being left on desks. One
of those former employees also said that her desk was missing handles when
she started working at that desk in 1998, and it was still
missing them at them at the end of the administration. The White House said
that these statements are inconsistent with the statement of an employee who
said that a handle was found inside the desk with more of the oily- glue-
like substance on top of it. The White House also said that the
reader is unable to evaluate the credibility of the comments made by the
former staff because the report does not say where these desks were located
and that various other damage and pranks were found in the same location. We
do not believe the additional details that the White House cited about these
observations, which we did not report, would have allowed readers to more
fully evaluate the credibility of the statements made by the former Clinton
administration staff. For one reason, incidents could have taken place in
this location after the former Clinton administration staff we interviewed
had left, which they said was between midnight on January 19 and 4: 30 a. m.
on January 20. Our record of the interview with the employee whom the White
House indicated observed a desk handle inside a desk with more of the glue-
like substance on top of it did not contain the level of detail that the
White House provided in its comments. Our interview record indicated that
she observed a desk drawer that had a handle
removed and glue that was placed on the bottom of a drawer. Further, as
indicated in our discussion regarding comment 28, although all three staff
told us they observed the glue- like substance and prank signs in this area,
none of them said they saw vulgar words written on a white board. One of the
employees said that her staff told her that they had seen vulgar words
written on a white board there, but we did not interview anyone who
personally saw that, and we did not report information relayed to us from a
third party.
In comment 73, the White House said that if we included detailed comments
made by former Clinton administration staff about overturned furniture, we
should explain that two of the individuals who observed the overturned
furniture have worked in the White House complex for 30 and 32 years,
respectively, and that they both observed overturned furniture between
approximately 1: 00 a. m. and 5: 00 a. m. on January 20. Likewise, the White
House noted, the director of GSA?s White House service center, who served
during the Clinton administration, reported seeing overturned furniture. In
addition, the White House said that we should report that two
other staff said they observed overturned furniture at approximately 12: 15
p. m. on January 20.
To address the White House?s comment 73 and 36, we added a range of time
during which these officials said they observed overturned furniture.
However, we did not add, as the White House suggested, that two of the
people who observed overturned furniture had worked in the White House for
more than 30 years because, except in appendix II, when we discussed
observations regarding past transitions, we did not report how long other
people who made observations had worked in the White House complex.
In comment 77, the White House said that we did not report the number of
offices in which telephones were observed unplugged or piled up. In
addition, the White House said we did not report that the telephone service
director was one of the staff who observed telephones that were unplugged or
piled up. According to the White House, his observation is particularly
noteworthy because he had more than 30 years of experience managing
telephone services in the White House complex. Further, the White House said
that because the telephone service director observed the unplugged
telephones on January 19 and during the early morning of January 20, it is
clear that the telephones were not unplugged by the telephone service
personnel or by the cleaning staff, who had not yet entered these rooms.
Moreover, the White House said that this information is particularly
important because of comments provided by former Clinton administration
staff who worked in offices where telephones were observed unplugged or
piled up. (One of those former staff said that no one in that office
unplugged them, and another employee said that there were extra
telephones in that office that did not work and had never been discarded.)
The White House said that because we had not mentioned that there were
observations of unplugged and piled telephones in 25 or more offices, the
reader does not know that the comments of the former Clinton
administration staff, even if true, explain what happened in only 2 of 25 or
more offices. Thus, according to the White House, the reader has no basis
for placing the comments of the former staff in context, nor for
understanding that the former staff apparently have no explanation for the
remaining observations. We addressed the issue regarding the number of
offices in which telephones were observed unplugged or piled up in our
response to comment 25 in the section of this appendix pertaining to
reporting the
number of observations. Regarding the White House?s comment about the
noteworthiness of the telephone service director?s observations, we added to
the report that he was one of the staff who made these observations.
However, we do not agree that because he made these observations on January
19 and the early morning of January 20, it is clear that the
telephones were not unplugged by telephone services personnel or by cleaning
staff who had not yet entered these rooms. Although the cleaning crew for
the transition started on January 20, according to GSA, cleaning in these
offices is continuous. Further, we did not have information regarding
when telephone service or other personnel had been in these offices before
the transition. Regarding the White House?s assertion that we had deprived
readers of information that would place the comments of former Clinton
administration staff in context, or help readers understand that the former
staff apparently had no explanation for the remaining observations, as
previously noted, we did not obtain comments from former Clinton
administration staff regarding every observation. Moreover, the fact that
certain former Clinton administration staff had no explanations for certain
observations does not necessarily mean that they were responsible. In
comment 83, the White House said that we should have reported additional
statements made by EOP staff that would counter a statement made by the
former senior advisor for presidential transition who said that
it would have been technically possible to erase voice mail greetings for
most departing staff without also deleting greetings for staff who did not
leave at the end of the administration. The White House said that, to
present a fair and balanced report, we should have explained that two OA
staff, who served during the Clinton administration, disagree with the
former senior advisor?s statement. According to the White House, they
included the OA associate director for facilities management, who worked
closely with the former senior advisor and told us that a proposal to delete
all voice mail greetings at the end of the Clinton administration was
discussed, but they decided not to do it because it would have erased the
greetings of all staff, including the 1,700 staff who were not vacating the
building. In addition, the White House noted that the OA associate director
for facilities management said that it was his decision not to proceed with
the proposal, although the former Office of Management and
Administration staff, including the former senior advisor, were aware of the
decision. Further, the White House said, the OA telephone services
coordinator told us that, until November 2001, the EOP?s telephone system
did not have the capability to erase voice mails all at once. According to
the White House, she explained that it was not until November 2001 that the
EOP had purchased the software and had performed upgrades to the switch that
were necessary to allow voice mails to be deleted on other than a manual
basis. We believe that we provided a sufficient amount of information to
reflect the views on this issue that differed with the former senior
advisor?s statement. Indeed, many of the details that the White House
provided in its comments were already reported. In addition to reporting
statements made by the telephone service director about erasing voice mail,
we reported that the OA associate director for facilities management said
that he made the decision not to erase all voice mail messages and greetings
at
the end of the administration because doing so would have deleted voice mail
for all EOP staff, including staff who did not leave at the end of the
administration, and not just for the departing staff. We also reported that
the OA telephone services coordinator said that voice mail greetings and
messages were not removed on a systemwide basis at the end of the Clinton
administration because the EOP had not yet done an equipment upgrade, which
was done later. Further, we footnoted the senior advisor?s
statement to indicate that contrary views on this matter were provided
earlier in the report. In comment 84, the White House questioned a comment
made by the
former senior advisor for presidential transition who said that regarding
reports of telephones that had been forwarded, some telephones were
forwarded to other numbers for business purposes at the end of the Clinton
administration. He said that some of the remaining staff forwarded their
calls to locations where they could be reached when no one was available
to handle their calls at their former offices. The White House said that
this explanation may sound plausible until one learns how and where the
telephones were forwarded and cited, for example, that the chief of staff?s
telephone was forwarded to a closet. Further, the White House said that,
because we have not provided details such as this, the reader does not have
the facts to judge the credibility of the statements made by former Clinton
administration staff. As noted in our discussion regarding comments 26 and
76, our interview record with the employee who told us that the chief of
staff?s telephone had been forwarded did not indicate that we were told the
telephone was forwarded to a closet. Even if our interview did indicate
this, because we did not obtain a comment from former Clinton administration
staff on every observation, the former senior advisor?s statement did not
necessarily address all instances of forwarded calls.
In comment 93, the White House said that, although we reported that the OA
director said that the offices were in pretty good shape by the evening of
January 22, we had failed to include other people?s observations on how long
it took to get the offices in shape and provided five examples. However, two
of the five additional statements related to telephone service, not trash,
and the report had included a statement by the OA associate director for
facilities management regarding how long it took to complete the cleaning.
We believed that reporting his statement was sufficient.
In comment 98, the White House said that we should have included more
statements by EOP staff who said they believed that offices were
intentionally or deliberately trashed because we had reported that none of
the 67 former Clinton administration staff we interviewed who worked in the
White House complex at the end of the administration said that trash was
left intentionally as a prank or act of vandalism. The White House said, for
example, that we should have reported an observation by a National Security
Council (NSC) employee who said the NSC office was deliberately made to look
like someone was communicating a message; the OA director, who said that it
looked like there were a large number of
people who deliberately trashed the place; and the chief of staff to the
president, who said the conditions he observed were more than wear and tear.
The White House said that if we had included these statements, it is more
likely that the conclusion that these people reached--- that what they
observed was intentional- is correct. We had already reported the views
of the OA associate director for facilities management and a management
office employee who said they observed some trash that appeared to have been
left intentionally, as well as the observations of other EOP staff who used
words such as ?extremely filthy? or ?trashed out? to describe the conditions
they had observed, and that office space contained a
?malodorous stench? or looked liked there had been a party. We had also
reported observations such as the contents of desk drawers or filing
cabinets having been dumped on floors, which were likely to have been done
intentionally, but we did not know by whom. However, to address the White
House?s comments, we added the statements of two other staff cited in its
comments.
In comments 101 and 103, the White House said that we should have reported
how many cleaning staff were on duty and the number of hours they worked.
According to the White House, without that information, the reader has no
basis for evaluating (1) comments made by a former Clinton administration
employee who worked in an administrative office who said that she did not
observe much cleaning of offices before January 20, and
that she believed GSA did not have enough supervisors and decision makers to
oversee the cleaning; and (2) a statement contained in a letter to us from
the former senior advisor for presidential transition and the former
deputy assistant to the president for management and administration who said
they did not observe any cleaning crews during the evening of January 19 or
the morning of January 20. However, we did report the number of GSA and
contract staff who cleaned the EEOB during the weekend of January 20 and 21,
2001; when the cleaning began on January 20; the observations of the crew
leaders; and the number of hours that the cleaning
crew leaders worked on January 20. We believe that this was a sufficient
amount of information to report about the cleaning effort. We also reported
that, according to the OA associate director for facilities
management, maybe 20 offices were vacant before January 20, and that it took
3 or 4 days after January 20 to complete the cleaning. We attempted to
evaluate how many former Clinton administration staff left on January 19 and
20, 2001, which would have helped to determine when the cleaning could have
begun. We were provided data indicating when building passes were terminated
for EOP staff at the end of the administration, but the White House also
informed us that the data were unreliable. We asked the White House to
arrange a meeting with an appropriate official to discuss the pass data, but
this was not done.
In comment 102, the White House questioned why we included a comment made by
the former administrative head of an office who said that he asked 25
professional staff to help clean the office before he left. The White House
said this comment was irrelevant because no one alleged that this particular
office was left dirty, and that we had misled the reader by
including it in the report because we did not explain that it does not rebut
or relate to any observation. In contacting former Clinton administration
staff, we not only sought any explanations they had regarding the
observations, but also asked for their observations regarding the condition
of the White House complex during the transition. In this case, although it
did not rebut a specific observation about his former office, the former
official explained the condition of his office at the end of the
administration. (He also said that the EEOB and the West Wing were ?filthy?
at the end of the administration, but that he did not believe that trash was
left as an act of vandalism.) However, for the purposes of clarification, we
added to the report that no one told us that this office was dirty. In
comment 104, the White House said that a statement by a former office
manager in which an EOP employee said it appeared that a pencil sharpener
was thrown against the wall and that pencil shavings were on the
floor did not rebut this observation. The former office manager said that a
pencil sharpener in that office did not work and may have been placed on the
floor with other items to be removed. The White House noted that an employee
told us that two pencil sharpeners were found broken and on the floor with
shavings. In addition, the White House noted, with respect to one of the two
pencil sharpeners, there was a distinct mark on the wall where the pencil
sharpener had struck. We recognize that the former manager?s comments did
not address both pencil sharpeners and the mark
on the wall, but they could explain why a pencil sharpener was found on the
floor. We only reported what he told us in response to the observation.
In comment 109, the White House noted that the content of the message
written inside a desk that was dated January 1993 was neither profane nor
disparaging of the incoming president or his administration. The report did
not indicate that it was, and we did not describe the specific content of
similar messages that were found during the 2001 transition, so we did not
revise the report.
In comment 117, the White House said that the descriptions provided by
former Clinton administration staff regarding the condition of the White
House office space during the 1993 transition in the report contain more
detail than the descriptions provided regarding the 2001 transition. We do
not believe that the descriptions provided regarding the 1993 transition are
more detailed than were provided regarding the 2001 transition. Further, in
addressing comment 98, we added the statements of two additional staff
who had provided detailed descriptions of the condition of the office space
during the 2001 transition.
Past Transitions In comments 33 and 110, the White House said we failed to
report the statements of several staff members who said that the damage was
worse
in 2001 than during previous transitions. Comment 33 pertained to the letter
portion of the report, where we summarized the information provided in
appendix II. To address the White House?s comments, we added in appendix II
the statement of another official who said that the condition of the White
House complex was worse in 2001 than previous transitions. We also note that
our records of many of those interviews, as well as the quotes the White
House provided in its comments, do not necessarily indicate that they were
referring to damage observed, but to trash. The White House also said in
comment 118 that, while pranks and damage may have been observed in prior
administrations, the reported observations are not the same in number or
kind as those observed during
the 2001 transition, and we failed to mention this in the report, which
hampers the reader from drawing his or her own conclusion. In addition, the
White House also said that we seem to overstate the extent of damage
reported during previous transitions and did not quantify the number of
incidents observed. However, we clearly indicated that only a limited number
of people were available to comment on previous transitions. Further, we
lacked definitive data that would allow us to compare the extent of damage,
vandalism, and pranks during the 2001 transition to past ones, such as
records of office inspections. Moreover, although fewer in
number, many of the observations that were made regarding previous
transitions were of the same kind that were observed during the 2001
transition, such as missing office signs and doorknobs, a message written
inside a desk, prank signs and messages, piles of furniture and equipment,
and excessive trash. In addition, observations regarding the 1993 transition
included messages carved into desks, which were not observed during the 2001
transition. One significant difference between the 2001 and earlier
transitions is that no one reported observing keyboards with missing or
damaged keys during previous transitions. In comment 33, the White House
said that, when we reported that piles of equipment were observed (by only
one person), we failed to explain that the telephone service director said
that he never encountered any problems
with the telephones during the 1993 transition, that perhaps some telephones
were unplugged, but ?that would be it.? According to our interview record,
this official also said that every transition has some pranks and said that
unplugging telephones is a ?standard prank.? Further,
in comment 115, the White House attributed observations of piles of
telephones during the 1993 transition to a statement made by the telephone
service director who said that he was instructed to get rid of the
?Republican phone system,? which the White House said apparently resulted in
the replacement of all telephones. However, our scope of work did not
include reviewing the installation of a new telephone system in the White
House complex around the time of the 1993 transition to determine if it
could relate to the piles of telephones that were observed at that time.
Also in comment 33, the White House said, with respect to a statement in the
draft report that observations regarding previous transitions included
missing building fixtures such as office signs and doorknobs, that no other
building fixtures besides office signs and doorknobs were observed.
Accordingly, we revised the report to indicate that office signs and
doorknobs were the only building fixtures reported being observed missing
during previous transitions.
The White House also said, regarding a statement that messages were carved
into desks, that it is aware of only one observation of a message written
inside a desk, which the White House noted, for some reason, we repeated in
the sentence in the report that followed. Further, the White
House said, there were only three observations of carvings in desks used by
staff who served only during the Clinton administration. The observations of
three messages carved into desks were made by former Clinton administration
staff, as reported in appendix II. The discussion regarding
previous transitions contained in the letter portion of the report combined
the observations by current EOP staff and former Clinton administration
staff. We mentioned the writing that was seen inside of a desk because we
observed it, and it contained a date indicating when it was written.
Further, we do not understand why the White House noted that there were only
three observations of carvings in desks by people who served ?only? during
the Clinton administration. Many of the observations that were reported
regarding the 2001 transition were by staff who served only during the Bush
administration.
In comment 111, the White House said that we failed to mention that the
director of GSA?s White House service center had observed only two
transitions (1989 and 2001), and that he only heard that doorknobs were
missing during the 1989 transition, but did not observe them himself.
Accordingly, we deleted his statement that doorknobs are favorite souvenirs
of departing staff. Also in comment 111, the White House said that the
telephone service director did not say that office signs were missing in
previous transitions, but only during one prior transition. According to the
White House, he said that when the Carter administration left office, door
signs were missing and
cords were unplugged. According to our interview record, this official told
us that, during previous transitions, telephone cords were unplugged and
some door signs were missing. He told us that some problems were found when
Carter administration staff left, although he could not recall any specific
examples.
In comment 112, the White House noted that the director of GSA?s White House
service center said that he observed little in the way of damage, vandalism,
or pranks during the 2001 transition, so when he said the
condition of the office space during the 2001 transition was the same as
what he observed during the 1989 transition, this means that he claims not
to have observed much in either transition. For the purposes of
clarification, we added that he said that he observed little during the 2001
transition in terms of damage, vandalism, or pranks.
In comment 113, the White House said that what the GSA acting administrator
said in his March 2, 2001, letter may be misleading because he referred only
to real property and not to the telephones, computers, furniture, office
signs, etc., that were the focus of the damage, vandalism, and pranks that
occurred during the 2001 transition. Some of the observations made by EOP
staff, such as holes in walls and missing paint
on walls, did relate to real property. To address the White House?s comment,
we added a definition of real property.
In comment 116, the White House noted that we included a statement by a
former Clinton administration employee who said that the damage that was
observed in the 1993 transition was intentional, but did not include similar
statements made by EOP staff about the 2001 transition. As noted in our
discussion regarding comment 68, we included the statements of some
individuals who told us they believed the incidents they observed were done
intentionally and some individuals who told us they did not believe what
they observed was done intentionally. However, we did not include
all statements made by all individuals about views on whether things were
done intentionally. In any event, without having observed the incidents
being carried out, people?s views on whether incidents were intentional or
not were speculative. In comment 118, the White House objected to a
statement in the report that, according to the March 1981 issue of the
Washingtonian magazine, incoming Reagan administration staff had some
complaints about the condition of the EEOB that were similar to observations
made by EOP staff in 2001. The White House said that the allegations are
?hardly? similar to what was found in the 2001 transition and, by
analogizing the circumstances, we trivialized what was observed in 2001.
Although the
Washingtonian certainly did not cite as many observations regarding the 1981
transition, the types of observations were indeed similar, such as memoranda
taped to walls, pieces of damaged and dirty furniture, and a dirty
refrigerator. Further, according to the Washingtonian, a visitor to the EEOB
in 1981 described the building as being ?trashed,? which is the same word
used by some EOP staff to describe its condition during the 2001
transition. Other In comment 2, the White House said that we misidentified
the units that comprise the EOP and incorrectly referred to EOP units as
agencies. We addressed this comment in the White House?s general comment
regarding use of the term ?EOP.?
In comment 21, the White House said that the report should have identified
the name of the office where the cellular telephones could not be located
and that the report suggested that we had interviewed all of the former
employees of the Office of the Vice President, which it said was not true.
We did not identify the names of offices in the report unless they were
relevant to the observation or comment. We had no reason to identify the
name of this office, nor did the White House explain why we should have.
Also in comment 21, the White House said the report suggested that we had
interviewed all former employees of the office of the vice president, and
that all former staff from that office said they did not take them, which is
not true. Accordingly, we clarified the report to indicate that the former
occupants of offices during the Clinton administration whom ?we
interviewed? where items were observed missing said that they did not take
them.
In comment 34, the White House said that it had repeatedly told us that some
current EOP staff who also worked during the Clinton administration believe
that check- out procedures were often not followed at the end of the
administration, and that building passes in particular were not turned in.
However, as indicated in appendix III, we did not review whether these
check- out procedures were followed because it was not within the scope of
our review. Further, this information was provided to us orally by an
associate counsel to the president, not directly by any EOP staff with
responsibilities in this area. Moreover, we referred to a check- out
procedure in appendix III as a means of indicating that it did not include
an
office inspection. In comment 39, the White House disagreed with the
statement that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, one person said that
he or she observed an incident in a particular location. According to the
White House, in many, if not most, cases, more than one person reported the
same incident in the same location. We concluded from a careful review of
all of the observations that, although generally more than one person
observed the same types of incidents, in the overwhelming majority of cases,
only one person said that he or she observed an incident in a particular
location.
In comment 40, the White House disagreed with a statement in the report
that, in some cases, people said that they observed damage, vandalism, and
pranks in the same areas where others said they observed none. The White
House said that, without a specific description of the instances where one
current staff member recalled seeing something and another expressly
disavowed seeing the same thing, it was impossible to know whether the
apparent conflict in testimony could be reconciled or whether our statement
is factually accurate. The White House also said that the vague statement
provided no indication of how many conflicts existed or what types of
incidents were involved. Further, the White House cited two examples that it
said we had indicated the sentence referred to, and said
the observations and circumstances indicated in those examples were not
instances of a direct conflict where one person said he or she observed
damage in a location where others observed none. In the examples the White
House said we had referred to, the White House
excluded the statements made by former Clinton administration staff and a
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) official who were
working in the EEOB in the late morning of January 20. In those
comments, people said they did not observe damage, vandalism, and pranks in
the late morning of January 20 in the same rooms where others said they had
observed them later that afternoon. For example, two former occupants of an
office where furniture was observed overturned in the afternoon of January
20 said they left between 10: 00 a. m. 11: 55 a. m. that
day and did not observe any overturned furniture. In another situation, the
former senior advisor for presidential transition said that when he was in a
certain office after 11: 00 a. m. on January 20, he did not see a broken
glass top smashed on a floor or files dumped on a floor, which were observed
there during the afternoon of January 20. Further, as noted in the report, a
NARA official said that, although she did not remember the specific rooms
she went to during the morning of January 20, she went to various offices in
the EEOB with the former senior advisor for presidential transition around
11: 00 a. m. that day and did not see any evidence of damage, vandalism, or
pranks. In reporting the comments of former Clinton administration staff
regarding these situations, we clarified when the EOP staff made the
observations.
In comment 94, the White House said that we did not accurately quote what
the OA associate director for facilities management told us about cleaning.
We had reported that he said that ?about 20? offices were vacant before
January 20 and that it took 3 or 4 days after January 20 to complete the
cleaning. However, the White House said that this official actually said
that there was ?some list of offices that could have been cleaned before the
20th,? and that the list was given to the director of GSA?s White House
service center, and that there were ?not a lot of offices on the list?-?
maybe
20.? Although we were not directly quoting this official when we reported
that he said ?about 20? offices were on the list, our interview record
agreed with the White House?s comments that he said there were ?not a lot?
of offices on the list and that ?maybe 20? were on it, and we revised the
report accordingly. The White House also indicated that this official said
that it took ?3 to 5 days? to complete ?just the cleaning.? However, our
record indicated that he said that it took 3 or 4 days after January 20 to
complete
the cleaning, and we did not revise the report in that regard.
In comment 96, the White House said that it believed we had misquoted the OA
associate director for facilities management when we indicated he said that
it would have taken an ?astronomical? amount of resources to have
cleaned all of the offices by Monday, January 22. Rather, the White House
indicated that he said that they could not have had enough people to clean
it by January 22 because the offices were dirtier than in past transitions.
The White House also noted that the official said that, in response to a
question about whether it was legitimate to think people could start working
in the complex on Sunday, January 21, he replied that, yes, in his opinion,
people should leave their offices in an orderly fashion. We checked our
record of interview with this official and believe that we accurately
reported his comments, and we also believe that they are substantially the
same as what the White House indicated in this comment. For example, we had
reported that this official said that there was more to clean during the
2001 transition than during previous ones and provided the reasons why; he
said that, in his opinion, departing staff should have left their offices in
a condition so that only vacuuming and dusting would have been needed. Thus,
we did not believe that any revisions were needed to
the report regarding this comment. In comment 107, the White House said that
it was not accurate for us to indicate that the statement that trucks were
needed to recover new and usable supplies generally was not corroborated.
According to the White House, the associate director for the general
services division told us that because the excess supplies had been dumped
in the basement hall and were piling up down there, leaving much of it
unusable, he instructed his
staff to take the supplies to the off- site warehouse where the staff could
resort the supplies and salvage what was reusable. The White House also
noted that eight truckloads were needed to recover these new and usable
supplies from the basement, and had these trucks not been dispatched, all of
the supplies, instead of just a portion, would have been rendered unusable;
therefore, the statement was corroborated. However, when we interviewed this
official, he said that the statement contained in the June 2001 list that
six to eight 14- foot trucks were needed to recover new and
usable supplies that had been thrown away ?bothered? him. He said that
nothing usable was thrown away intentionally. Further, although trucks were
reportedly used to transport supplies from the EEOB to the warehouse so that
they could be sorted and to salvage what could be used, as indicated in the
report, the former senior advisor for presidential transition said that the
supplies were brought to the basement of the EEOB so that staff could obtain
them from there, rather than obtaining them from
the supply center. Therefore, we could not corroborate the portion of the
statement in the June 2001 list that supplies had been ?thrown away.? In
comment 120, the White House said that we failed to report two of the
factors that OA officials, who have been through many transitions,
identified as contributing to the problems found in the 2001 transition.
First, the telephone service director said that he felt hampered in doing
his job because he was not allowed to have any contact with the incoming
administration. According to the White House, he indicated that, in the
past, he was allowed to confer with incoming staff regarding their telephone
needs and expectations; but this was not permitted during the 2001
transition. Likewise, the White House said, the OA director said that this
transition was unusual because, for other transitions, there was a
transition team from the new administration on- site in the complex but,
during the 2001 transition, the incoming administration did not get access
to the space until 3 days before the inauguration and did not get ?legacy
books,? (books that explain how things work within the complex and within
particular offices) until after the inauguration.
We did not evaluate the transition coordination issues that the White House
raised in this comment because they were outside the scope of our review.
However, former Clinton administration staff did provide some related
information. The former senior advisor for presidential transition said that
some Bush administration staff were given walk- through of offices in the
weeks before January 20, that officials from the president- elect?s staff
attended several meetings before January 20, and that each office was
instructed to prepare briefing books for the incoming Bush staff. Further,
the deputy assistant to the president for management and administration said
the president- elect?s staff were involved in planning the transition and
had an unprecedented level of access. Because we did not evaluate these
issues, we are not in a position to comment on them. Also in comment 120,
the White House said that a number of longtime employees, such as the OA
associate director for facilities management, told us that problems could
have been averted or remedied if former Clinton administration staff had
vacated their offices earlier. The White House noted that this official said
he observed a woman watching
television in her office on January 20 and turning it off and leaving
precisely at noon. Further, the White House said that 325 passes of White
House Office employees were terminated on January 19 and 20, 2001. As
indicated in our discussion regarding comments 101 and 103, we attempted to
evaluate how many former Clinton administration staff left on January
19 and 20, 2001, which would have helped to determine when the cleaning
could have begun. As previously noted, we were provided data indicating when
building passes were terminated for EOP staff at the end of the
administration, but the White House also informed us that the data were
unreliable. We had asked the White House to arrange a meeting with an
appropriate official to discuss the pass data, but this was not done.
Changes Made to the We revised the report, as appropriate, to address the
White House?s
Report comments 1, 3, 7, 37, 50, 52, 53, 63, 85, 86, 88, 89, 95, 114, and
119.
Comments from the General Services
Appendi x VI Administration
(543002)
GAO?s Mission The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to
help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO?s
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost is through the Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov)
contains abstracts and fulltext GAO Reports and
files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
Testimony
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their
entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and
select ?Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products? under
the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to
the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:
U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061
To Report Fraud, Contact: Waste, and Abuse in
Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512-
7470
Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202)
512- 4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D. C. 20548
a
GAO United States General Accounting Office
Page i GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Contents
Contents
Page ii GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 1 GAO- 02- 360 The White House United States General Accounting Office
Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 1 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
A
Page 2 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 3 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 4 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 5 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 6 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 7 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 8 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 9 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 10 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 11 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 12 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 13 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 14 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 15 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 16 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 17 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 18 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 19 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 20 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 21 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 22 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 23 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 24 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 25 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 26 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 27 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 28 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 29 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 30 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 31 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 32 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 33 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 34 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 35 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 36 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 37 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 38 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 39 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 40 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 41 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 42 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 43 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 44 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 45 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 46 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 47 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 48 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 49 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 50 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 51 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 52 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 53 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 54 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 55 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 56 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 57 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 58 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 59 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 60 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 61 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 62 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 63 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 64 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 65 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 66 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 67 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 68 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 69 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 70 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 71 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 72 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 73 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 74 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 75 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix I EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and Pranks
and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff
Page 76 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 77 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix II
Appendix II Observations Concerning the White House Office Space During
Previous Presidential Transi t i ons
Page 78 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix II Observations Concerning the White House Office Space During
Previous Presidential Transi t i ons
Page 79 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix II Observations Concerning the White House Office Space During
Previous Presidential Transi t i ons
Page 80 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 81 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix III
Appendix III Procedures for Vacating Office Space
Page 82 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 83 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 84 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 85 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
COMMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT ON THE GAO?S DRAFT
REPORT: ?ALLEGATIONS OF DAMAGE DURING THE 2001 PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION?
(DATED MAY 3, 2002)
The President and his Administration had no interest - and have no interest
- in dwelling upon what happened during the 2001 transition. In early 2001,
when the press first asked about damage found in the complex, the President
said that ?[ i] t?s time now to move forward.? Members of this
Administration went to great lengths to dampen public interest in the issue,
hoping - as Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said at the time - ?to put it all
behind us? and to ?focus [on] . . . just do[ ing] the job that the American
people elected President Bush to do.? We certainly did not instigate an
investigation by the General Accounting Office (GAO), nor revel at the
prospect of such an inquiry. However, once the GAO agreed to undertake the
investigation, we agreed to cooperate fully. We have done so. And we now
believe that, if there is to be a report, it is incumbent upon us to ensure
that the facts are accurately and fully reported.
With that goal in mind, and as a matter of comity between the legislative
and executive branches, we provide the GAO with the following comments. We
have now provided the GAO with two rounds of extensive comments on their
draft. Our first round of comments were provided on April 26, 2002.
Unfortunately, the GAO?s revised draft, which we received on May 3, failed
to address many of the concerns we had raised. Accordingly, we have now
provided a second set of detailed comments on the May 3rd draft. We now
understand that GAO intends to publish a response to our comments as an
appendix to its final report. We are disappointed that we will not have an
opportunity to consider or reply to GAO?s responses to our comments prior to
publication of the final report.
Part I of the comments describes some general concerns about the overall
structure, content, and use of terminology in the draft report. 1 Part II
offers more specific comments. And Part III addresses the GAO?s proposed
recommendations. In preparing these comments, we have consulted with
representatives of the Office of the Vice President, the Office of
Administration, the United States Secret Service, and others, on issues
involving those entities or their personnel. We have also identified to the
GAO the source of all factual information and statements cited herein.
Part I: General Comments 1. Failure To Report Material Facts. The GAO has
not included in its draft report many facts
that a reader needs, in our view, to have a complete and accurate
understanding of what happened during the 2001 transition. In calling for
this investigation, Congressman Barr asked the GAO to ?to fully document the
reported examples of vandalism.? And section 7.51 of the Government Auditing
Standards ?requires that [a] report contain all information
needed to satisfy the audit objectives [and] promote an adequate and correct
understanding of the matters reported.? In our view, neither Congressman
Barr?s directive nor the Government Auditing Standard has been met.
1 As used in these comments, and unless otherwise noted, ?draft report? or
?report? refers to both the 27- page letter to Congressman Barr summarizing
the GAO?s findings and the report?s three appendices.
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 86 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
2 For example, the GAO does not specifically identify anywhere in its
report, including the
appendices, each reported instance of vandalism, damage, or a prank. The
GAO?s omission is troubling not only because it ignores the explicit request
of the sole Member of Congress who requested the investigation (? to fully
document?), but also because the GAO seems willing to detail each comment
made by a former staff member. Thus in many cases, the GAO has included a
former staff member?s comment in response to a particular observation
without ever having discussed the observation itself. We believe that the
GAO should treat observations by current staff members in the same manner it
treats comments by former staff members. We also believe that the report
should refer to each observation of damage individually.
The GAO also omits from its report details about when, where, and by whom an
observation was made. When an incident was observed is often relevant to
determining the likely perpetrator. For example, the damage, vandalism, and
pranks were often observed during the night of January 19 - before the
cleaning staff began cleaning offices and before members of the Bush
Administration entered the complex - and thus eliminating those individuals
as the possible culprits. Where damage was found is relevant, for example,
because often more than one incident and type of damage was observed in the
same location; a concentration of damage (such as that found in the Vice
President?s West Wing and EEOB offices) makes it less likely, in our view,
that an innocent explanation exists. Finally, who made the observation can
bear on issues of credibility; if staff who served in the White House
complex during many Administrations observed the damage, as was often the
case, then a reader may find the observation more credible than if a member
of the incoming Bush Administration reported the same observation.
The report also does not contain the content of the graffiti, messages, and
signs. We were told that the GAO thinks it is ?not appropriate? to include
such vulgar and disparaging statements about the President of the United
States. While we agree that the statements themselves are ?not appropriate,?
particularly when affixed to government property, and while we certainly do
not wish to propagate such maledictions, we believe that including the
content in the report is important for at least five reasons.
First, the content of the message can - and often does - indicate who wrote
the message and when.
Second, the content often provides an insight into the mindset or intention
of the person who wrote the message. This is important because it allows the
reader to determine for himself whether the statements were ?harmless jokes?
or ?goodwill? messages, as former Clinton Administration officials now claim
( see Report at 10 and 17).
Third, the content also allows the reader to infer that, if departing staff
left a vulgar or derogatory message, those same individuals may also be
responsible for other incidents that were observed near the location of the
message.
Fourth, the content of the messages and other details equip the reader to
compare the 2001 transition and prior transitions.
Now on pp. 8 and 14.
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 87 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 88 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 89 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 90 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 91 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 92 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 93 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 94 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 95 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 96 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 97 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 98 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 99 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 100 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 101 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 102 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 103 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 104 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 105 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 106 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 107 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 108 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 109 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 110 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 111 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 112 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 113 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 114 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 115 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 116 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 117 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 118 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 119 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 120 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 121 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 122 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 123 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 124 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 125 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 126 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 127 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 128 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 129 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 130 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 131 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 132 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 133 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 134 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 135 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 136 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 137 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 138 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 139 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 140 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 141 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 142 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 143 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 144 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 145 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 146 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 147 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 148 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 149 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 150 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 151 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 152 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 153 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 154 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 155 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 156 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 157 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 158 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 159 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix IV Comments from the White House
Page 160 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 161 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 162 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 163 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 164 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 165 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 166 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 167 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 168 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 169 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 170 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 171 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 172 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 173 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 174 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 175 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 176 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 177 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 178 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 179 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 180 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 181 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 182 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 183 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 184 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 185 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 186 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 187 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 188 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 189 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 190 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 191 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 192 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 193 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 194 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 195 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 196 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 197 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 198 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 199 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 200 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 201 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 202 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 203 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 204 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 205 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 206 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 207 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 208 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 209 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 210 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 211 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 212 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix V GAO?s Response to the White House Comments
Page 213 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Page 214 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
Appendix VI
Appendix VI Comments from the General Services Administration
Page 215 GAO- 02- 360 The White House
United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Service Requested Presorted Standard
Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***