The White House
Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition Gao ID: GAO-02-360 June 7, 2002Damage, 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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-02-360, The White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-360
entitled 'The White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001
Presidential Transition' which was released on June 7, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the
printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact
electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback.
Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility
features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Report to the Honorable Bob Barr:
House of Representatives:
The White House:
Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition:
GAO-02-360:
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Scope and Methodology:
Results:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
White House Comments:
GSA Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and
Pranks and Comments from Former Clinton Administration Staff:
Missing Items:
Keyboards:
Furniture:
Telephones:
Fax Machines, Printers, and Copiers:
Trash and Related Observations:
Writing on Walls and Prank Signs:
Office Supplies:
Additional Observations Not on the June 2001 List:
Appendix II: Observations Concerning the White House Office Space
During Previous Presidential Transitions:
Observations of EOP, GSA, and NARA Staff During Previous Transitions:
Observations of Former Clinton Administration Staff Regarding the 1993
Transition:
News Report Regarding the Condition of White House Complex during
Previous Transitions:
Appendix III: Procedures for Vacating Office Space:
Appendix IV: Comments from the White House:
Appendix V: GAO's Response to the White House Comments:
Underreporting of Observations:
Underreporting of Costs:
Additional Details and Intentional Acts:
Statements Made by Former Clinton Administration Staff:
Past Transitions:
Other:
Changes Made to the Report:
Appendix VI: Comments from the General Services Administration:
Tables:
Table 1: Estimated Costs of Replacing Damaged Keyboards:
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:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
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),[Footnote 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 administration" 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 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
administration..." 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 0A.[Footnote 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 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.
To obtain information regarding observations of damage, vandalism, and
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.[Footnote 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,[Footnote 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 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 and Related Documentation:
Seventy-eight EOP staff who worked in the White House complex during
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.[Footnote 5]
Summarized below are observations made in specific locations[Footnote
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 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."[Footnote 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[Footnote 8] in the East and West Wings of the White House.
According to the 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. 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 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 Observations:
Cost data were not readily available regarding all of the
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;[Footnote 11]
* $2,040 to purchase 26 cellular telephones;
* $1,150 for professional cleaning services;
* $729 to purchase 2 cameras;
* $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;[Footnote 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 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 Transitions:
According to a limited number of EOP, GSA, and former Clinton
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 Future Transitions:
Former Clinton administration officials told us that departing EOP
staff 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 Executive Action:
Steps should be taken to help (1) prevent and document damage that
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 Our Evaluation:
In March and April 2002, we held exit conferences with White House
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 W 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 Comments:
The White House's general comments on the draft and our response
follow.
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 Reported:
The White House said that we materially understated the number of
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.[Footnote 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. § 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 not for others. We have, for example, consistently
viewed the Executive Residence as an agency in applying 31 U.S.C. 716.
[Footnote 14]
Reporting the Extent of Damage:
Finally, the White House said that we made a concerted effort to
downplay 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 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 Standards:
In its specific comments, the White House identified instances in
which it 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.
GSA Comments:
The White House did not provide any comments on our recommendations.
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
[hyperlink, 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,
Signed by:
Bernard L. Ungar:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: EOP and GSA Staff Observations of Damage, Vandalism, and
Pranks and Comments from 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.[Footnote 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 follow-up interviews with certain individuals for the
purposes of clarification, different accounts of their observations
were provided. In those instances, we generally noted both accounts.
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.[Footnote 16]
EOP staff[Footnote 17] cited about 100 rooms in the EEOB and 8 rooms
in the White House where incidents were observed.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 20] Observations that
were made in the White House are specifically noted in 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 GSA Staff and Related Documentation:
Six EOP staff told us they observed that a total of 5 to 11 office
signs, which are affixed with medallions (presidential seals about 2
inches in diameter) 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.
[Footnote 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 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.[Footnote 22] In addition, two EOP officials said that about
20 cellular telephones could not be located in 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;[Footnote 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.
Comments by Former Clinton Administration Staff:
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 8:00 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.[Footnote 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
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[Footnote 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 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 GSA Staff and Related Documentation:
Twenty-six EOP staff told us that they observed a total of 30 to 64
computer keyboards with missing or damaged (glued, whited-out, or
pushed down) "W" keys in specific rooms or offices.[Footnote 26] We
developed a range reflecting the 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;[Footnote 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 "keyboards are needed to support the transition." The
January 24, 2001, purchase request for another 31 keyboards indicated
"second 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.[Footnote 28]
Table 1: Estimated Costs of Replacing Damaged Keyboards:
Source of estimate regarding the number of damaged keyboards: Range of
30 to 64 keyboards that were observed by EOP staff with missing and
damaged keys in specific rooms or offices;
Total replacement cost: $2,250-$4,800.
Source of estimate regarding the number of damaged keyboards: Estimate
provided by the OA associate director for information systems and
technology in 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;
Total replacement cost: $2,475-$4,800.
Source of estimate regarding the number of damaged keyboards:
Statement by an OA financial manager in an April 2001 E-mail that the
62 keyboards purchased in January 2001 were approximately the number
of keyboards that were defective because 'W" keys were missing or
inoperable during the transition;
Total replacement cost: $4,850[A].
Source of estimate regarding the number of damaged keyboards: Estimate
by the branch chief for program management and strategic planning in
the information systems and technology division, who worked with
office equipment during the transition, that 150 damaged keyboards had
to be replaced;
Total replacement cost: $11,250.
[A] Includes a $200 expedite fee.
Source: EOP staff.
[End of table]
Comments by Former Clinton Administration Staff:
One former senior Clinton administration official said that he found
the 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.
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[Footnote 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 "furniture 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 and Related Documentation:
Ten EOP staff told us that they observed a total of 16 to 21 pieces of
broken furniture, including 5 to 7 chairs with broken legs or backs; 5
to 7 broken glass desk tops, including one on the floor;[Footnote 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;[Footnote 31] and a cabinet with its doors
hanging with only one hinge.
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.[Footnote 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.
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[Footnote 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.
* 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 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
furniture-related 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 Clinton Administration Staff:
A former Clinton administration employee who worked in an office where
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.[Footnote 36]
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
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[Footnote 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,[Footnote 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."
* "A stu3 phone[Footnote 41] in the First Lady's office was left open
with the key in it."
Observations of EOP Staff and Related Documentation:
Two EOP staff told us that they saw a total of 5 to 6 telephone lines
"ripped" (not simply disconnected) or pulled from the walls during the
early morning hours of January 20.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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
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.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 49]
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 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 from Former Clinton Administration Staff:
Regarding observations by EOP staff that telephone cords were "ripped"
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
Fax Machines, Printers, and Copiers:
The June 2001 list indicated that "six fax machines were moved to
areas other than the ones in which they had been installed, making
them inoperable."
Observations of EOP Staff and Related Documentation:
One EOP official told us that he had seen 12 fax machines with the
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 Clinton Administration Staff:
The former director of an office where an EOP official told us that fax
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 Observations:
The June 2001 list indicated that "offices were left in a state of
general trashing," including contents of drawers dumped on the floor,
desk top glass smashed and on the floor,[Footnote 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 GSA Staff and Related Documentation:
Twenty-two EOP staff and 1 GSA employee told us that they observed
offices that were messy, disheveled, or dirty or contained trash or
personal items left behind in specific rooms or offices.[Footnote 57]
In addition, 6 EOP staff and 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,"
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.[Footnote 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.
[Footnote 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 T-shirt 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.[Footnote 60]
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[Footnote 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.[Footnote
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.[Footnote 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.
[Footnote 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 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 Clinton Administration Staff:
Former Clinton administration staff generally said the amount of trash
that 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
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,
[Footnote 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 Prank Signs:
The June 2001 list indicated that "writing on the walls (graffiti) in
six offices" was found.
Observations of EOP and GSA Staff:
Six EOP staff said that they observed 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 an office wall.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote
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 Clinton Administration Staff:
Thirteen former Clinton administration staff said they saw a total of
10 to 27 prank signs in the corridors of the EEOB.[Footnote 70] One of
those former 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 GSA Staff:
The OA associate director for the general services division, who is
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 14-foot trucks were needed to recover new and usable supplies
that had been thrown away generally was not corroborated.
Comments by Former Clinton Administration Staff:
The former deputy assistant to the president for management and
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 Observations Not on the June 2001 List:
The OA associate director for facilities management said that he found
a secure employee identification and two-way radios that were left in
an office and not turned into WHCA. Another EOP employee said that he
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.[Footnote 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 Clinton Administration Staff:
The former manager of the office where an EOP official told us he
observed two-way radios left and not turned into WHCA said it was
possible that they were not turned into that office.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Observations Concerning the White House Office Space
During Previous Presidential 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, GSA, and NARA Staff During Previous Transitions:
Five EOP staff told us they observed damage, vandalism, or pranks in
the White House complex when they worked there during past
transitions. Regarding the 1993 transition, an EOP employee said that
she observed five desks containing prank pictures of former Vice
President Gore with written 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.[Footnote
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.
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.)
NARNs 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 Former Clinton Administration Staff Regarding the 1993
Transition:
Regarding the 1993 transition, five former employees told us they
observed 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. One former employee (a different former
employee for each of the following observations) said he or she
observed each of the following: a 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.[Footnote 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.)[Footnote 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 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 Regarding the Condition of White House Complex during
Previous Transitions:
We searched major newspapers and selected magazines for any news
reports regarding the condition of the White House office space during
the 1981, 1989, or 1993 presidential transitions and found only one
such mention. The March 1981 issue of 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. 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.
[End of section]
Appendix III: 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 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.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the White House:
The White House:
Washington:
May 31, 2002:
The Honorable David M. Walker:
Comptroller General of the United States:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Walker:
On May 13, 2002, I provided you with my office's comments on the May
3, 2002 draft of the General Accounting Office's report on vandalism,
damage, and pranks that occurred in the White House complex during the
2001 presidential transition. Enclosed are a revised draft of those
comments in which the names of individuals who provided information
during the GAO's investigation have been removed, and certain
conforming changes made. Please use this draft in preparing the
comments for publication together with the final version of the GAO
report.
In addition, I wish to address a matter which has been discussed
between our respective staffs. We understand that you propose to
redact in the published version of our comments a specific reference
to a matter that GAO considers "inappropriate" for publication by the
GAO. Specifically, as I understand it, this redaction would cover
portions of a sign of a mock Time magazine cover (p. 9 of our May 13
comments and pp. 10 and 70 of our May 31 comments). For the following
reasons, I strongly disagree with GAO's proposal to redact some of
this material (or any other portion of our comments).
First, as we have repeatedly stated in our comments on the draft
report, we believe it is vital to include the substance of specific
graffiti, messages and signs observed in the White House complex if
the report is to achieve the objective set for the GAO by Congressman
Ban: to "fully document the reported examples of vandalism" during the
transition. While we agree that the statement itself is not
"appropriate", particularly when affixed to government property, and
while we certainly do not wish to propagate such statements, those
considerations are outweighed here by the clear relevance of the
content of the statement to the objectives of the GAO's inquiry.
Indeed, to the extent that this specific message is especially
offensive or vulgar, it may be more relevant to the inquiry because,
among other things,
* the content of a message can -and often does - indicate who wrote
the message, and when. We think it unlikely that a reader would
attribute the message in question to members of the incoming
Administration, for example.
* the content often provides an insight into the mindset or intention
of the person who wrote it. This is important because it allows the
reader to determine for himself whether some of the statements found
in the White House complex were "harmless jokes" or "goodwill
messages", as former Clinton Administration officials now claim. (See
May 3 Report at 10 and 17). [Now on pp. 8 and 14]
* 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 the May 3 draft report, the GAO describes a particular
message as "arguably derogatory to the President." That message reads,
"jail to the thief." Because the report does not reveal the content of
the message, readers have no way of knowing whether the GAO's
characterization of it as "arguably" derogatory is accurate.
We raised these (and other) considerations in our May 13 comments in
the hope the GAO would recognize the deficiencies in the current draft
and revise accordingly. While we have not seen the final report to be
published, we are disappointed to learn that apparently not only has
the GAO not revised the report as we suggested (at least with respect
to this comment), but in fact it proposes to redact our comments,
which will effectively prevent the reader from having the necessary
information about this particular matter to judge for themselves.
Second, we do not agree with the suggestion that by publishing our
comments, GAO as an institution will be tainted or associated in some
way with the offensive matters they report -- any more than the White
House itself has been tainted by the offensive material discovered
during the transition. Any such taint reflects only on the individuals
who created the material, not those who discover and report it.
Third, although the President and the Administration had no interest ”
and have no interest ” in dwelling upon what happened in the 2001
transition, we have cooperated fully in the GAO investigation and we
believe that if there is to be a report, it is incumbent upon us to
ensure through our published comments that the facts are accurately
and fully reported. Whatever changes the GAO may or may not choose to
make in the final report in light of our comments, those comments are
a separate document for which we are solely responsible and over which
we must exercise sole control.
Finally, I note that the suggestion made by your staff that the GAO
would provide the substance of the redacted material to persons who
make specific inquiry after reviewing the published comments, is not
sufficient in our view to address these concerns. The published
version of the report and accompanying published comments will be the
definitive public documents for current and historical purposes, and
will reach a much broader audience than any information made available
to those who specifically request it.
We also understand that GAO intends to publish a response to our
comments as an appendix to its final report. This is inconsistent with
all previous representations regarding the GAO process, and 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.
If you have any questions about the enclosed comments, or wish to
discuss these matters further, please do not hesitate to contact me or
Associate Counsel Jennifer Newstead at 202-456-1984.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Alberto R. Gonzales:
Counsel to the President:
cc: Bernard L. Ungar:
[End of letter]
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 "it'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
doing 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.[Footnote 77] 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.
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).
[Now on pp. 8 and 14]
* 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.
* 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:
the 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 "it listed ... offices with a
lot of trash." In fact, the list states that offices 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. 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
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: 185 1/2;
No. observed[Footnote 78]:
3-4;
3-4;
No. for report (reason): 2-8 (used range for different recollections).
Room no. or floor: Adv. (174, 185, 185 1/2);
No. observed[Footnote 78]:
2;
7-8;
No. for report (reason): 2-8 (used range for different recollections).
Room no. or floor: 192-198[Footnote 79];
No. observed[Footnote 78]:
1-2;
No. for report (reason): 1-7 (used range for different recollections).
Room no. or floor: 197;
No. observed[Footnote 78]:
4 (observed by three persons); 1;
No. for report (reason): 1-7 (used range for different recollections).
Room no. or floor: 198;
No. observed[Footnote 78]:
1;
No. for report (reason): 1-7 (used range for different recollections).
[End of table]
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.
A simplified and hypothetical example may further clarify the point.
Room no. or floor: Office Suite A;
No. observed (observer):
1 (Washington);
25 (Adams);
100 (Jefferson);
No. for report (reason): [Empty].
Room no. or floor: Office Suite B;
No. observed (observer):
1 (Madison);
50 (Monroe);
No. for report (reason): [Empty].
[End of table]
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 (OW), 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 under-
inclusive because not all offices in the complex fall within the EOP
umbrella. And it is over-inclusive 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." Report at 3 n.2, 4. They are not. [Now on p. 4]
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:
* 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:
1. Pages 2-3. [Now on p. 2] 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 "offices were left in a state of general
trashing," and then provides examples that the GAO omits ” "contents
of drawers dumped on the floor," "desk top glass smashed and on the
floor," and "refrigerators unplugged (spoiled food)."
* The GAO says that the list "listed ... cut telephone lines." In
fact, the list says "ten phone lines cut in the EEOB ”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."
2. Page 3. [Now on p. 2] 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. [Now on pp. 6 and 19] The GAO concludes that
"damage, theft, and pranks did occur in 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?
4. Page 8. [Now on p. 6] The GAO writes that "multiple 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. [Now on p. 6] The GAO reports that some former Clinton
Administration staff said that "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. [Now on p. 7] The GAO writes: "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." 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";
* 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.
7. Page 9. [Now on p. 7] The GAO writes that "seventy-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.
8. Page 10. [Now on p. 8] 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: EEOB ” 191;
Observation[A]: Sticker affixed to filing cabinet that reads "jail to
the thief"; shown to GAO.
Location: EEOB - 191A;
Observation[A]: Writing on a pull-out tray on desk that reads "W
happens"; shown to GAO.
Location: EEOB - 191B;
Observation[A]: Writing in top left drawer of desk that reads "GET
OUT"; shown to GAO.
Location: EEOB - 196A;
Observation[A]: Writing in middle drawer of desk that reads "Flail to
the Thief"; shown to GAO.
Location: EEOB ” 197:
Observation[A]: 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).
Location: EEOB - 125A;
Observation[A]: Writing in middle drawer of desk that wishes all "who
work here" "good luck"; shown to GAO.
Location: EEOB ” 1st floor;
Observation[A]: Writing in desk drawer.
Location: West Wing ” outside COS and VP offices;
Observation[A]: Gore bumper sticker stuck to the bottom of paper tray
in the copier.
[A] The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 7
separate individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an
observation by one person.
[End of table]
Signs And Messages (not including messages and signs written on or
permanently affixed to property):
Location: West Wing ” Vice President's Office;
Observation[A]: "Vulgar words" on white board[B].
Location: West Wing;
Observation[A]: Sign comparing President Bush to a chimpanzee found
"in a number of printers"; "laced" throughout the reams of paper[C].
Location: West Wing ” Vice President's Reception Area;
Observation[A]: Three copies of the same sign taped to wall (observed
by two persons)[B, D]
Location: West Wing ” Vice President's Reception Area;
Observation[A]: 15-20 copies of the same sign laced throughout ream of
paper in fax machine and copier (observed by two persons).
Location: West Wing ” First Floor;
Observation[A]: Same sign shuffled throughout the paper tray in copy
machine outside the Chief of Staff's office.
Location: West Wing;
Observation[A]: 20-30 copies of same sign interspersed throughout ream
of paper in printer in office that is adjacent to the Oval Office.
Location: East Wing;
Observation[A]: 8" x 10" color piece of paper that said "see you in
four, Al Gore" in drawer of the copy machine.
Location: EEOB ” room not identified;
Observation[A]: Same President Bush/chimpanzee sign found in a
printer[B].
Location: EEOB ” basement;
Observation[A]: In location where people "dumped" supplies, a sign
read "Gifts for the New President" (Head Telephone Operator)[E].
Location: EEOB ” 87;
Observation[A]: 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.
Location: EEOB ” 100-104;
Observation[A]: T-shirt with tongue sticking out draped over chair[B].
Location: EEOB ” 128;
Observation[A]: Sign that read "just laugh" taped to the wall; Signs.
Location: EEOB ” 160-164;
Observation[A]: "Inappropriate" message in printer or fax tray; "Quite
a few signs."
Location: EEOB ” 160;
Observation[A]: Picture of former First Lady taped to the inside of
cabinet.
Location: EEOB ” 162;
Observation[A]: Photo in safe that had the word "chad" spelled out in
paper punch holes (observed by two persons).
Location: EEOB-177-189;
Observation[A]: Signs; Notes in the desk drawers.
Location: EEOB ” 192;
Observation[A]: Sign addressed to and disparaging of "Bush staffer" on
wall; Sign of a mock Time magazine cover that read "We're ******" on
wall (observed by five persons).
Location: EEOB ” 197B;
Observation[A]: Desk drawer had 2 Gore/Leiberman stickers displayed
inside.
Location: EEOB ” 2d floor;
Observation[A]: Picture of Bush with something drawn on it on the 2d
floor[H].
Location: EEOB ” 3d floor library;
Observation[A]: Sign reading "VP's cardiac unit" (observed by two
persons)[F,G]; The GAO was shown a copy of this sign.
Location: EEOB ” 4th floor;
Observation[A]: Pictures of President Clinton and notes about
President Bush "were everywhere."[I]
Location: EEOB;
Observation[A]: 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)
[A] The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 28
separate individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an
observation by one person.
[B] OA employee who worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[C] OA employee who worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[D] OA employee who worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[E] OA employee who worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[F] OA employee who worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[G] OA employee who worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[H] GSA employee who worked in the White House complex during the
Clinton Administration.
[I] GSA employee who worked in the White House complex during the
Clinton Administration.
[End of table]
9. Page 10. [Now on p. 8] While, in some cases, the signs listed above
were 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 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
stickers affixed to a file cabinet and desk containing arguably
derogatory statements about the President." 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. [Now on p. 8] The GAO reports that "twenty-six EOP staff
said that they observed a total 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: Former 1a Lady's Office, 100-104;
No. observed[A]: Approx. 10 (observer "A")[B]; 7+ ("at least one in
each of the 7 offices in suite") (observer "B") Approx. 18 (observer
"C");
No. for report (reason): Approx. 18 (C's observation likely included
the same damaged keyboards seen by A, B, D, and E).
Room no. or office: 102;
No. observed[A]: 2 (observer "D");
No. for report (reason): Approx. 18 (C's observation likely included
the same damaged keyboards seen by A, B, D, and E).
Room no. or office: 104;
No. observed[A]: 1 (observer "E");
No. for report (reason): Approx. 18 (C's observation likely included
the same damaged keyboards seen by A, B, D, and E).
Room no. or office: 106;
No. observed[A]: Approx. 2;
No. for report (reason): Approx. 2.
Room no. or office: 158/160A;
No. observed[A]: 2;
No. for report (reason): 2.
Room no. or office: 160;
No. observed[A]: 1;
No. for report (reason): 1.
Room no. or office: 172;
No. observed[A]: 1;
No. for report (reason): 1.
Room no. or office: 173;
No. observed[A]: 1;
No. for report (reason): 1.
Room no. or office: 176;
No. observed[A]: 1;
No. for report (reason): 1.
Room no. or office: Advance Office (177-189);
No. observed[A]: 3-4; 3-4; 15-16; "at least" 7-8;
No. for report (reason): 15-16.
Room no. or office: 196, 197, 197A, 197 and/or 199;
No. observed[A]: 1-2 (observer "V");
No. for report (reason): 5-7 (W's observation likely included the same
keyboards seen by V, X, Y and Z).
Room no. or office: 197, 197A, 197B, and/or 199;
No. observed[A]: 5 (observer "W") (4 missing, 1 defaced);
No. for report (reason): 5-7 (W's observation likely included the same
keyboards seen by V, X, Y and Z).
Room no. or office: 197B;
No. observed[A]: 1 (observers "X" and "Y");
No. for report (reason): 5-7 (W's observation likely included the same
keyboards seen by V, X, Y and Z).
Room no. or office: 199;
No. observed[A]: 1 (observers "Y" and "Z");
No. for report (reason): 5-7 (W's observation likely included the same
keyboards seen by V, X, Y and Z).
Room no. or office: 198;
No. observed[A]: 1;
No. for report (reason): 1.
Room no. or office: OW;
No. observed[A]: 4-5; "heavy concentration" [D]; "some" [E];
No. for report (reason): 5-10.
Room no. or office: 286;
No. observed[A]: 1;
No. for report (reason): 5-10.
Room no. or office: 288;
No. observed[A]: 4;
No. for report (reason): 5-10.
Room no. or office: West Wing[C];
No. observed[A]: 6-10[F];
No. for report (reason): 6-10.
Room no. or office: Total;
No. for report (reason): Approx. 58-70.
[A] The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 26
separate individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an
observation by one person.
[B] Letter designations are for purposes of this table only.
[C] 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.
[D] OA employee, worked in the White House complex during the Clinton
Administration.
[E] OA employee, worked in the White House complex during the Clinton
Administration.
[F] 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: EEOB and WW;
No. observed[A]: 150[B];
No. for report (reason): 150.
Location: EEOB ” no specific location;
No. observed[A]: 1[C];
No. for report (reason): 0-1 (observation likely counted above).
Location: First Floor, East Hall ” EEOB;
No. observed[A]: 2;
No. for report (reason): 0-2 (observation likely counted above).
Location: Total;
No. for report (reason): 150.
[A] The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 3
separate individuals. Each line reports an observation by one person.
[B] OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration
[C] OA employee, worked in the White House complex during the Clinton
Administration.
[End of table]
11. Page 11. [Now on p. 9] The GAO repeats its statement (found on
page 8 of the Report) that staff "told us that they saw offices that
were messy, disheveled, dirty or contained excessive trash or personal
items left behind" and that "former 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. [Now on p. 9] The report states that the "EOP
provided seven pictures that ... showed 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.
13. Page 12. [Now on p. 10] 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. Page 12. [Now on p. 11] The GAO underreports the number of reports
of damaged furniture and the 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:
Damaged Furniture:
Location: 100-104 (Former First Lady's office);
Observation[A]: 4 chairs with broken legs.
Location: 102;
Observation[A]: Desk drawers kicked in ” "clearly" intentional; "not
just wear and tear."
Location: 103;
Observation[A]: Desk drawers locked; pried open the drawers and found
2 pieces of paper that had anti-Bush statements.
Location: 104;
Observation[A]: 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.)
Location: 158-160A;
Observation[A]: "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.
Location: 160A;
Observation[A]: Desk covered with 5-6 black, circular burn marks;
appeared to be cigar burns.
Location: 160-164 (Cabinet Aff.);
Observation[A]: 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.
Location: 162;
Observation[A]: Desk with 2 or 3 of the drawer fronts removed
(observed by four persons, and witnessed by GAO).
Location: 177-189 (Advance);
Observation[A]: Glass top shattered on floor; appeared that someone
stomped on it.
Location: 179;
Observation[A]: Lock to the cabinet in desk had been jammed inward so
that it would not function.
Location: 185-189;
Observation[A]: Desk had a key broken off in the lock.
Location: 197B;
Observation[A]: Key broken off in file cabinet; key hanging in lock by
metal thread, and Gore bumper sticker found inside (observed by four
persons).
Location: 199;
Observation[A]: Glass in glass-fronted bookcase was broken with glass
still sitting in cabinet.
Location: EEOB ” Southwest;
Observation[A]: Cabinet with two doors hanging from hinges[B]
corner of first floor.
Location: First floor EEOB ” in hall;
Observation[A]: Chairs with slit seats.
Location: No specific room identified;
Observation[A]: Sofa with broken legs and other broken furniture ”
probably in Counsel's office, the Scheduling office, and in the
Advance offices.
Location: No specific room identified;
Observation[A]: Some broken pieces of furniture; upholstered pieces of
furniture were "filthy" and had spills on them in same offices, where
months and weeks earlier, things looked "pretty good"[B].
Location: No specific room identified;
Observation[A]: Broken glass tops in 5 or 6 offices.
Location: No specific room identified;
Observation[A]: Broken mirror.
[A] The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 17
separate individuals. Unless otherwise noted, each line reports an
observation by one person.
[B] OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[End of table]
15. Page 12. [Now on p. 11] The GAO reports that "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." 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 kicked-in 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. [Now on p. 10] The GAO lists four facility request
forms that show that staff requested 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 member on January 29, 2001, to obtain "a key to lateral file
cabinet," which was "locked."
17. Page 13. [Now on p. 11] We believe that the GAO has underreported
the 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, as follows.
Table: Overturned Furniture:
Location: 128;
Observation[A]: In each of the three offices and the secretary's
space, almost every desk was overturned ” at least one desk or table
in each room;
No. of pieces: 4+.
Location: 177-189 (Advance Off.);
Observation[A]: At least 2 "desks turned over";
No. of pieces: 2+.
Location: 177-189 (Advance Off.);
Observation[A]: Coffee table standing on end;
No. of pieces: 1.
Location: 177-189 (Advance Off.);
Observation[A]: Sofa upside down;
No. of pieces: 1.
Location: 177-189 (Advance Off.);
Observation[A]: Tables upturned;
No. of pieces: 2+.
Location: OW;
Observation[A]: Chair overturned;
No. of pieces: 1.
Location: 1st floor EEOB;
Observation[A]: 3-4 pieces of furniture turned over; "couple desks on
side," "couple of chairs"[B];
No. of pieces: 1-3.
Location: Not identified;
Observation[A]: Desks and credenzas turned on their sides[C];
No. of pieces: 2.
Location: Not identified;
Observation[A]: Overturned sofa;
No. of pieces: 0-1 (may or may not be same one seen by a different
person).
Location: Not identified;
Observation[A]: Desks turned on sides;
No. of pieces: 0-2 (may or may not be same ones that others observed).
Total:
No. of pieces: At least 14-19.
[A] The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 7
separate individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an
observation by one person.
[B] OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[C] GSA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[End of table]
18. Page 13. [Now on p. 11] 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.
19. Page 13. [Now on p. 11] 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:
Table: Missing Doorknobs:
Location: EEOB - 128D;
Observation[A]: 2 pairs of doorknobs missing on pair of exterior doors;
No. of doorknobs: 4.
Location: EEOB ” 1st floor, closet at top of Navy steps;
Observation[A]: 1 doorknob missing[B];
No. of doorknobs: 1.
Location: EEOB ” interior door between Rooms 286 and 288;
Observation[A]: 1 pair missing;
No. of doorknobs: 2.
Location: EEOB ” Room 288, exterior door to hall;
Observation[A]: 1 pair missing;
No. of doorknobs: 2.
Location: EEOB ” 4th floor;
Observation[A]: 1 pair missing[B];
No. of doorknobs: 2.
Location: EEOB ” location not identified;
Observation[A]: Missing doorknob[C];
No. of doorknobs: 0-2 (may or may not be accounted for in the above
observations.
Total;
No. of doorknobs: 11-13.
[A] The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 4
separate individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an
observation by one person.
[B] OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[C] OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[End of table]
20. Page 13. [Now on p. 11] The GAO is incorrect when its states that
"two EOP staff said they observed a total of 9 to 10 missing
television remote controls." An employee of the OW 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.
21. Page 13. [Now on p. 11] 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 OW, and should so state.
* The second clause suggests that the GAO interviewed all former
employees of the OVP, and all former OW employees said they did not
take them. But that is not true.
22. Page 14. [Now on p. 11] 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.
23. Page 15. [Now on p. 8] The report states that "six 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:
Table: Writing On Walls:
Location: EEOB ” 191M;
Observation[A]: Graffiti in the men's restroom read, "What W did to
democracy, you are about to do in here" (observed by five persons);
No. for report: 1.
Location: EEOB ” Scheduling Office;
Observation[A]: Writing on the wall that said something like
"Republicans, don't get comfortable, we'll be back";
No. for report: 1.
Location: EEOB ” wall on or near Room 158;
Observation[A]: a wall was covered in pencil and pen marks, which was
described as "slasher marks" and "beyond normal" wear and tear;
No. for report: 1.
Location: EEOB ” 2d floor;
Observation[A]: Entire wall in one office was covered in lines that
appeared at a distance to be cracks;
No. for report: 1.
Total:
No. for report: 4.
[A]The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 8
separate individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an
observation by one person.
[End of table]
24. Page 15. [Now on p. 12] The GAO underreports the number of
telephones found with missing labels and the number of observers when
it states that "[flour 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 House employees, 2 OA employees, and 1 OW
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:
Table: Missing Phone Labels In Identified Offices Or Rooms:
Location: 18;
Observation[A]: "at least 3 missing labels, possibly 5" (observed by
two individuals);
No. of pieces for calculating total: 3-5.
Location: 100-114 ("south corridor");
Observation[A]: "additional labels missing in rooms on the South
corridor";
No. of pieces for calculating total: 2+.
Location: 115;
Observation[A]: 1 phone missing label;
No. of pieces for calculating total: 1.
Location: 118;
Observation[A]: "at least 3 phones" were missing labels;
No. of pieces for calculating total: 3+.
Location: 119;
Observation[A]: 8 phones; "all phones were missing their 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;
No. of pieces for calculating total: 8.
Location: 121;
Observation[A]: "phones were missing labels";
No. of pieces for calculating total: 2+.
Location: 122;
Observation[A]: 1 phone was missing label;
No. of pieces for calculating total: 1.
Location: 118-122;
Observation[A]: "lot missing" in Public Liaison space[B];
No. of pieces for calculating total: 0.
Location: 118-122;
Observation[A]: "all stations" in the Public Liaison offices were
missing labels; personally saw roughly 18 phones without labels;
No. of pieces for calculating total: 0-18.
Location: 123;
Observation[A]: "phones were missing labels";
No. of pieces for calculating total: 2+.
Location: 156/158;
Observation[A]: 2 or 3 phones were missing labels;
No. of pieces for calculating total: 2-3.
Location: 168/170;
Observation[A]: "couple missing phone labels";
No. of pieces for calculating total: 2.
Location: 177-189 (Advance);
Observation[A]: "couple missing phone labels";
No. of pieces for calculating total: 2.
Location: 177-189 (Advance);
Observation[A]: "some missing in Advance"[B];
No. of pieces for calculating total: 0.
Location: 190-199 ("center corridor");
Observation[A]: "some missing in center corridor" on 1st floor[B];
No. of pieces for calculating total: 2+.
Location: OW;
Observation[A]: "labels on phones were all gone" in all OW offices;
No. of pieces for calculating total: 82.
Location: Total;
No. of pieces for calculating total: At Least 112-133.
[A] The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 5
separate individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an
observation by one person.
[B] OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[End of table]
25. Page 15. [Now on p. 12] 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.
26. Page 16. [Now on p. 58] 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:
Table: Forwarded Phones:
Location: 129;
Observation[A]: "couldn't answer phone because, as soon as 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";
Total no. of pieces: 1.
Location: 156 and other Presidential Personnel offices;
Observation[A]: "phones were forwarded and then reforwarded so we
could not figure out what number would ring the phone" on desk;
Total no. of pieces: 2+.
Location: 187 1/2;
Observation[A]: Phone number in office (187Y2) did not ring if dialed
the number on the phone;
Total no. of pieces: 1.
Location: West Wing”NEC;
Observation[A]: Phones forwarded;
Total no. of pieces: 2-5.
Location: West Wing;
Observation[A]: "called someone and reached a different and unrelated
person";
Total no. of pieces: 1.
Location: West Wing ” Chief of Staff's Office;
Observation[A]: "the Chief of Staff's phone had been forwarded to ring
at a phone in a closet";
Total no. of pieces: 1.
Location: West Wing and EEOB;
Observation[A]: "majority of the phones did not ring" at the 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";
Total no. of pieces: Roughly 100.
Location: EEOB ” not identified;
Observation[A]: Found at least 7-10 forwarded phones;
Total no. of pieces: 7-10.
Location: Total:
Total no. of pieces: Roughly 100.
[A] The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 7
separate individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an
observation by one person.
[End of table]
27. Page 16. [Now on p. 13] 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 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
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. [Now on p. 14] The GAO writes that, "with three
exceptions," "[the GAO] was 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." 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 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 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. [Now on p. 14] The GAO writes that, for certain
categories of damage, "the observations of EOP staff differed from the
[June 2001] list in terms of total numbers of incidents or [the]
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.
30. Pages 19-20. [Now on p. 15-17] 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 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 OW
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.
-- 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 "MRS," 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.
-- 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 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.
31. Page 20 n.9. [Now on p. 16] 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.
32. Page 21. [Now on p. 17] 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.
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.
33. Pages 21-22. [Now on p. 17-18] 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
"never 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.
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 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. [Now on p. 18] The GAO says that "former Clinton
administration officials told [the GAO] 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. [Now on p. 19] The GAO writes, "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." 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;
* 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).
36. Page 23. [Now on p. 19] 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.
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."
37. Page 28. [Now on p. 36] 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. [Now on p. 36] The GAO repeats a statement made on page
23 that, although "incidents 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] 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," "purposeful," 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,"[Footnote
80] the GAO would also then be treating statements made by current and
former staff alike. As drafted, the report contains the views of
"former 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 ("Former
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.
39. Page 29. [Now on p. 37] 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 "several 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. [Now on p. 37] The GAO states that, "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 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 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.
41. Page 31. [Now on p. 38] The GAO writes: "Six EOP staff told us
that they observed a total of 5 to 11 missing office signs...."
* Four of the "six 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. [Now on p. 38] The GAO continues:
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. [Now on p. 39] The GAO fails to mention in its discussion
of missing office signs that a facility request form, dated April 19,
2001, requests the "replacement of frames & medallions" on four rooms.
44. Page 31. [Now on p. 38] We disagree with the GAO's statement that
"[flour 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. [Now on p. 38] The GAO writes:
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. [Now on p. 39] GAO states that "two EOP staff told us
that 9 to 10 television remote control devices were missing from two
offices."
* Here, the GAO conflates two separate reports ” one the disappearance
of five or six television remote controls from the OW; 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. [Now on p. 41] The GAO says that "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.... 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.
48. Pages 35-36. [Now on p. 42] 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. [Now on p. 42] The GAO writes: "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." 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.
50. Page 38. [Now on p. 44] It is noteworthy that the GAO describes
one individual as "another 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.
51. Page 40. [Now on p. 45] 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. [Now on p. 49] The GAO states that "one EOP employee said
that she observed 18 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. [Now on p. 45] In calculating its range of missing
or damaged W keys where the 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. [Now on p. 45] The GAO continues its discussion of
damaged keyboards on page 41: "Five 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."
* 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."
55. Page 41. [Now on p. 45] 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:
Table: W Keys Taped Or Glued On Walls:
Location: EEOB ” 128;
Observation[A]: W key "stuck over doorway";
No. for report: 1.
Location: EEOB ” 197, 197A, 197B, 199, 199A, 199B;
Observation[A]: Saw on the walls "most" of the four keys that he
observed missing from the keyboards;
No. for report: 3.
Location: EEOB ” 199;
Observation[A]: W key taped above door;
No. for report: 1.
Location: EEOB ” OW 2nd floor;
Observation[A]: "some" W keys on walls[C];
No. for report: 2+.
Location: EEOB ” 4th floor;
Observation[A]: 10-12 Ws glued on the wall, over the doors and beside
doors[B];
No. for report: 10-12.
Location: WW ” including upper press secretary's office;
Observation[A]: "some keys" were taped above doorways" ” for example,
key was taped above door to press secretary's office suite[D];
No. for report: 2+.
Location: TOTAL:
No. for report: At least 19-21.
[A] The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 6
separate individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an
observation by one person.
[B] GSA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Admin strewn.
[C] OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[D] OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[End of table]
* 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.
56. Pages 41-42. [Now on pp. 45-46] 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 "keyboards are needed to support the transition." The
January 24, 2001, purchase order for another 31 keyboards indicated
"second 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, "after 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 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 OW; 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 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.
57. Page 43. [Now on p. 47] 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. [Now on p. 47-48] The GAO discusses the "costs"
associated with the damaged keyboards:
We 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, 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. 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 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 Oar 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.
59. Pages 46-47. [Now on p. 49] 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. [Now on p. 50] The GAO writes that "six EOP staff... said
that the locks on four desks or 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.
61. Page 47. [Now on p. 50] The GAO is mistaken when it says that
"five 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 "five 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:
Table: Messages Written On Or In Desks:
Location: EEOB ” 97;
Observation[A]: Writing in desk drawer reads "Take care of this place.
We will be back in four (4) years! (1/93)"; shown to GAO.
Location: EEOB - 191A;
Observation[A]: Writing on a pull-out tray on desk that reads "W
happens"; shown to GAO.
Location: EEOB ” 191B;
Observation[A]: Writing in top left drawer of desk that reads "GET
OUT"; shown to GAO.
Location: EEOB ” 196A;
Observation[A]: Writing in top middle drawer of desk that reads "Hail
to the Thief"; shown to GAO.
Location: EEOB ” 125A;
Observation[A]: Writing in middle drawer of desk that wishes all "who
work here" "good luck"; shown to GAO.
Location: EEOB ” 1st floor;
Observation[A]: Writing in desk drawer.
[A] 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.
[End of table]
62. Page 47. [Now on p. 50] 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.
63. Page 47. [Now on p. 50] 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 OW employee and one NSC employee.
64. Pages 47-48. [Now on p. 50] We believe that the GAO is mistaken
when it reports that "the director 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 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.
65. Page 48. [Now on p. 51] 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 OW 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 OW
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 OW 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.
66. Page 48. [Now on p. 51-52] The GAO's list of "documentation
relating to the observations" of damaged furniture is incomplete. A
facility request form states that one named employee "needs key to
lateral file cabinet. Cabinet is locked." Facility Request No. 56695
(Jan. 29, 2001).
67. Page 49. [Now on p. 52] The GAO states that "definitive
information was not available regarding 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.
* 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 kicked-in 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. [Now on p. 52] The GAO includes in its report
statements from two employees ” one 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."
* 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 "Marge 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."
69. Page 51. [Now on p. 53] 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.
70. Page 52. [Now on p. 53] 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.
71. Page 53. [Now on p. 55] The GAO reports that "three 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 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).
72. Pages 53-54 and n. 32. [Now on p. 55] The GAO is just plain wrong
when it says that "during [its] initial interview with [an] employee,
she said that the desks with burn marks and scratches were in a
particular office" and during 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. [Now on p. 56] The GAO's report details at length the
testimonials of former staff members 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 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.
74. Pages 55-56. [Now on p. 57] 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:
Table: Telephone And Other Cords Cut Or Pulled From Wall:
Location: EEOB;
Observation[A]: "total of 2 or 3 cords ripped from the walls" so that
the "cables behind the jack were showing";
Total no. of pieces: 2-3.
Location: 170;
Observation[A]: "phone cable ripped from wall".
Location: 182 suite (Scheduling);
Observation[A]: "phone line pulled out ” jack and all".
Location: 100-104;
Observation[A]: "some plugs" damaged;
Total no. of pieces: 2+.
Location: 1st Floor EEOB;
Observation[A]: "1 or 2" pulled cables or broken jacks that had been
"yanked"[B];
Total no. of pieces: 0-2.
Location: 2nd Floor EEOB;
Observation[A]: "couple" pulled cables or broken jacks that had been
"yanked"[B];
Total no. of pieces: 2.
Location: WW or EEOB/probably in NEC offices;
Observation[A]: Phone wire cut;
Total no. of pieces: 1.
Location: 158/160A;
Observation[A]: Wires torn out of the wall;
Total no. of pieces: Approx. 25.
Location: Total;
Observation[A]: 5 observers;
Total no. of pieces: At least 32-35.
[A] Each line reports an observation by one person.
[B] OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[End of table]
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.
75. Page 56. [Now on p. 58] 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 OW employee) recalled
observing in specific offices or rooms at least 112-133 telephones
that had no labels 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 OUP'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 "certain [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. [Now on p. 58] We believe that the GAO has underreported
the number of telephones that 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 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. [Now on p. 58] In reporting on telephones that were
unplugged and/or piled up, the GAO 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. [Now on p. 59] In one of its more dramatic
understatements, the GAO writes: "Two EOP 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 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.
79. Page 58. [Now on p. 61-62] 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 "discussed" 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 OW
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 OW
because, among other things, the phones `WEED 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.
- 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 "2FIRS."
- 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.
- 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, January 21, 2001, the
techs worked 78.5 hours, at $151.84 (double time), for a total
$11,919.44.
80. Pages 58-59. [Now on p. 60] 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 "two 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.
81. Pages 60-61. [Now on p. 61-62] 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.
* 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.[Footnote 80] 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 OW
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.
- 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.
- 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 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. [Now on p. 63] A footnote reads: "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 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. [Now on p. 63] The GAO reports that "[the former senior
advisor for presidential transition] 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.
84. Page 64. [Now on p. 65] 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.").
85. Page 65. [Now on p. 66] 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. [Now on p. 66] The GAO is mistaken when it reports `%one
EOP official told us that he had seen 12far 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. [Now on p. 66] The GAO reports on observations that "5
copy machines, printers, and 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. [Now on p. 66] The GAO states that "two EOP staff
said they observed fax 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" 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.
89. Page 65. [Now on p. 66] 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 "twenty-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:
Table: "Trashed" Offices (not including observations of damaged and
overturned furniture or signs):
Location: 91;
Observation[A]: Plant dumped in the middle of the floor[B];
Location: 100 and 102;
Observation[A]: 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).
Location: 100-104;
Observation[A]: files and papers everywhere on the floor ” not just
overflowing trash cans "trash everywhere".
Location: 128B, 128C, 128D, and 128E;
Observation[A]: file drawers and desk drawers pulled out and the
contents dumped on floor.
Location: 128C;
Observation[A]: office was "trashed" and had a "malodorous stench";
all furniture piled in the corner.
Location: 158 and 160A;
Observation[A]: "extremely trashed"; "out of the ordinary"; because of
smell, all of the curtains and the carpeting had to be immediately
replaced.
Location: 160, 162, 164;
Observation[A]: Office was "filthy"; had to replace all furniture
except one table and desk.
Location: 170 or 172;
Observation[A]: Very dirty; "more than wear and tear".
Location: 173;
Observation[A]: "lots of trash"; small pieces of office equipment
stacked one on top of another.
Location: 177-189;
Observation[A]: "lots" of beer bottles and beer cans.
Location: 177-189;
Observation[A]: Offices "trashed out," even after GSA had been through
once; "sizeable" holes in the walls.
Location: 183;
Observation[A]: Beer cans thrown on top of 10-foot high filing
cabinets and stuffed animal and a shoe lodged in the rafters.
Location: 183;
Observation[A]: Contents of large file cabinet units (measuring
approx. 10' x 6' x 10') appeared to have been dumped on floor.
Location: 1st floor EEOB;
Observation[A]: "extremely filthy"[C].
Location: OW;
Observation[A]: Lots of trash on the floors, food in desk drawers,
pizza boxes in corner office, desks moved against doors.
Location: OW;
Observation[A]: "trashed"; supplies dumped on floor; "looked like
people threw everything".
Location: 286;
Observation[A]: Soil spread across carpet.
Location: 330;
Observation[A]: 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"[D].
Location: 330 and 380;
Observation[A]: "clutter and mess over and beyond what you'd expect";
"would not have expected this under ordinary circumstances"[E].
Location: NSC offices;
Observation[A]: 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"[F].
Location: NSC offices;
Observation[A]: Trash was "dumped everywhere"; pictures were pulled
off the walls, leaving holes[B].
Location: Not identified;
Observation[A]: "most of the rooms were trashed" and "filthy"[G];
Binders thrown everywhere and piles of paper; "very unclean; trash
strewn about; refrigerators full of mold[H]; "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[I]; Lots of beer and wine bottles[D]; Looked
like there were a "large number of people who deliberately trashed the
place"; "amount of trash was beyond the norm" for transitions[J];
Empty wine and beer bottles.
[A] The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 23
separate individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an
observation by one person.
[B] Employee of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board;
worked here during the Clinton Administration.
[C] GSA employee; worked here during the Clinton Administration.
[D] GSA employee; worked here during the Clinton Administration.
[E] NSC employee; worked here during the Clinton Administration.
[F] NSC employee; worked here during the Clinton Administration.
[G] OA employee; worked here during the Clinton Administration.
[H] OA employee; worked here during the Clinton Administration.
[I] OA employee; worked here during the Clinton Administration.
[J] OA employee; worked here during the Clinton Administration.
[End of table]
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 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 "professional] cleaning" in Rooms 154, 156, 157, 159,
160Y2 (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. [Now on pp. 69-70] Although the GAO reports that "[t]he
OA director said that the offices were 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 20th.
* 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 20th," 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."
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' 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.
97. Pages 70-71. [Now on p. 70] 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. [Now on p. 70] In addition, the GAO should add
similar statements by an employee 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.
* 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 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. [Now on p. 71] Although the GAO is willing to report
that former Clinton administration 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. [Now on p. 71] The GAO states that "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." 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, 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.
102. Page 72. [Now on p. 71] The report states that "the
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.
103. Pages 72-73. [Now on p. 71-72] 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.
104. Page 73. [Now on p. 72] The GAO reports that "the 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.
105. Page 75. [Now on p. 73] 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 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 "two 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.
106. Pages 75-76. [Now on p. 74] 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.
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:
Table: Signs Affixed To Furniture And Other Government Property:
Location: 191;
Observation[A]: Sticker affixed to filing cabinet that reads "jail to
the thief"; shown to GAO.
Location: 197;
Observation[A]: 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).
Location: West Wing ” outside COS and VP offices;
Observation[A]: Gore bumper sticker stuck to the bottom of paper tray
in the copier.
[A] The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 4
separate individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an
observation by one person.
[End of table]
Table: Signs And Messages (not including signs affixed to property):
Location:
Observation[A];
West Wing ” Vice President's Office;
"Vulgar words" on white board[C].
West Wing;
Sign comparing President Bush to a chimpanzee found "in a number of
printers"; "laced" throughout the reams of paper[D].
West Wing ” Vice President's Reception Area;
Three copies of the same sign taped to wall (observed by two
persons)[B,E].
West Wing ” Vice President's Reception 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 Floor;
Same sign shuffled throughout the paper tray in copy machine 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 identified;
Same President Bush/chimpanzee sign found in a printer[B].
EEOB ” basement:
In location where people "dumped" supplies, a sign read "Gifts for the
New President" (Head Telephone Operator[F]).
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[B].
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.
EEOB ”192;
Sign addressed to and disparaging of "Bush staffer" on wall; 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[B].
EEOB ” 3d floor library;
Sign reading "VP's cardiac unit" (observed by two persons)[G,H].
EEOB ” 4th floor;
Pictures of President Clinton and notes about President Bush "were
everywhere"[J].
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)[H,I,K].
[A] The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 28
separate individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an
observation by one person.
[B] GSA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[C] OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[D] OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[E] OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[F] OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[G] OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[H] 0A employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[I] OA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[J] GSA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[K] GSA employee, worked in the White House complex during Clinton
Administration.
[End of table]
107. Page 77. [Now on p. 75] It is not accurate, in our view, for the
GAO to say that the statement that 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 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."
108. Page 78. [Now on p. 76] 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. [Now on p. 77] Appendix II addresses the condition of
the White House complex during 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. [Now on pp. 77-78] The GAO has included only some of the
statements made by current staff 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."
* 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. [Now on p. 78] The GAO continues:
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 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."
112. Page 82. [Now on p. 78] The GAO states that "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." 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.
113. Page 82. [Now on pp. 78-79] 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. [Now on p. 79] The GAO reports that "[s]even former
employees ... said that computers 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. [Now on p. 79] The GAO reports that "[t]wo 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.)" 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 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."
* 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 "Marge 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."
117. Page 84. [Now on pp. 79-80] 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.
* 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.").
118. Pages 84-85. [Now on p. 80] 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:
119. Pages 86-87. [Now on pp. 81-82] 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.
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.
[End of Appendix IV]
Appendix V: GAO's Response to the White House: Comments:
GAO's response to the White House's specific comments follow. We have
grouped the comments in the categories listed below.
Underreporting of Observations:
The White House said that we had underreported the number of
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-shirt 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.
Office with Trash:
In comment 4, the White House said that the statement "multiple 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 Documents:
The White House said in comment 108 that we failed to include the
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 Costs:
The White House said that we had underreported or failed to report the
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.
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 Intentional Acts:
The White House said additional details should have been reported
about 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 anti-Bush 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 Former Clinton Administration Staff:
In comments 4 and 11, the White House also said that if the report
included a 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. 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 H. 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 DT,
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 Report:
We revised the report, as appropriate, to address the White House's
comments 1, 3, 7, 37, 50, 52, 53, 63, 85, 86, 88, 89, 95, 114, and 119.
[End of Appendix V]
Appendix VI: Comments from the General Services Administration:
GSA Public Buildings Service:
U.S. General Services Administration:
1800 F Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20405-0002:
[hyperlink, http://www.osa.gov]
May 13, 2002:
Mr. Bernard L. Ungar:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Ungar:
Thank you for the opportunity to review draft report GAO-02-360, "The
White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential
Transition." We have carefully reviewed the draft report.
The General Services Administration (GSA) agrees with the two
recommendations the General Accounting Office (GAO) has made with
respect to the logistics of future transitions. GSA, as you have
indicated in your report, is responsible for the physical structure of
the office space in the White House complex, and further, is
responsible for operations and maintenance in the office space
including, but not limited to, cleaning. During Presidential
transitions, we make every effort to meet the very considerable
demands that are place on us by virtue of several hundred staff moving
out while several hundred are moving in. For this reason, we believe
that our ability to carry out our responsibilities in future
Presidential transitions will be strengthened by working with the
Office of Management and Administration for the White House office to
develop procedures for office space inspection and cleaning and office
space preparations. Improved communication and scheduling strategies
will be an integral part of these procedures, as reflected in your
recommendations.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review the draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Paul Chistolini:
Deputy Commissioner:
[End of Appendix VI]
Footnotes:
[1] This official's title is also special assistant to the president.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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 per-unit price.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.)
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[28] The EOP also paid a $200 expedite fee in January 2001, which we
excluded in calculating the per-unit cost.
[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.
[32] The writing in one of the desks was dated January 1993.
[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.
[34] 0ne 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.
[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.
[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 am. 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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[48] None of the service orders mentioning labels were for work in the
East or West Wings of the White House.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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 am. on January 20. Another former
crew leader said that she began cleaning offices at 6:45 am. 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.
[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 am. 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 am. 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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[77] 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.
[78 The comments in this table were, collectively, reported by 10
separate individuals. Unless otherwise indicated, each line reports an
observation by one person.
[79] 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.
[80] 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.
[End of section]
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 GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and full text files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 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
[hyperlink, http://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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact: Web
site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: E-mail:
fraudnet@gao.gov:
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:
