Archive

Archive for June 2, 2009

The Official Biography of Coast Guards Director, Office of Civil Rights – Questions

June 2, 2009 staff 9 comments

We published a teaser on this article earlier today, and this evening we bring you the report.  Coast Guard Report had long put the conflicting issues with the Official Biography of Coast Guards Director of Civil Rights behind us.  However, Ms. Dickerson herself  brought the issue back into pubic purview with the release of the Booz Allen Hamilton report in February of this year.

In Dickerson’s memo to the Department of Homeland Security Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in April 2008, paragraph 5, of the memo was devoted exclusively to this Blog [document is page 5 of the pdf of the complete report].  Coast Guard Report is mentioned or referred to in the Booz Allen Hamilton report more times than the Office of Civil Rights itself.  Booz Allen went on to say:

The Booz Allen team has also verified elements of the Director’s background. It is also noted that the Director was vetted through interviews by USCG and DHS, and, as with other members of the Senior Executive Service, a contract firm conducted a full background check.

But what the report doesn’t say is how they verified these elements, so Coast Guard Report took it one step further and filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the United States Commission on Civil Rights.  On April 20th, 2009 we fired off our FOIA to the Commission:

Pursuant to the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I request access to and copies of the job position descriptions for the agency head and that of the second in charge for the years 2000 to 2006. Specifically I request the positions descriptions for the permanent position held by Ms. Terri A. Dickerson SES, during the years 2000 to 2006. Additionally I request the document that appointed Terri A. Dickerson the acting or interim head of the Agency in 2005. As further clarification Ms. Dickerson’s official biography says this about her time at the USCCR “From 2000 to 2006, Ms. Dickerson was second in charge at the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights. Among duties, she examined federal agencies’ civil rights offices, and advised officials, Congress, and the White House on improved enforcement. In 2005, the White House installed her as the interim agency head after the outgoing chief departed, and until a new appointee could be confirmed.”

On April 27th the FOIA Officer at the Commission responded to our request

We examined our records and have located the following documents that are responsive to your request:

1. Position description for the Staff Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights;
2. Position description for the Assistant Staff Director for the Office of Civil Rights Evaluation; and
3. Administrative Instruction 1-18B-Order of Precedence

Back in February of 2008, Dickerson published a one-time newsletter called Our Space in which she rebutted much of what has been published here and in comments by readers regarding her Official Biography.  She address the issues raised concerning some of what’s in her Official Biography.  One of the issues raised in both the main body of the Booz Allen report as well as Appendix C is the issue of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports on issues with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in which the GAO referred to the Commission as being in “disarray,”

In the newsletter Our Space, Dickerson goes on to explain that she was not responsible for either of the two GAO reports and that they were directed at her boss not her.  But wait … Dickeson’s Official Biography says that:

From 2000 to 2006, Ms. Dickerson was second in charge at the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights.

As we said earlier, we obtained Ms. Dickerson position description (PD) from her time at the Commission.  Dickerson’s title according to the Commission was Assistant Staff Director for Civil Rights Evaluations.  No where in the PD does it identify the incumbent as the second in charge, or give the incumbent responsibility for anything outside the incumbents staff.  This aligns with Dickerson’s statements in Our Space and Appendix C to the Booz Allen report.  What it doesn’t align with is being “second in charge at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Second in charge means something to most readers, likely that if you are “second in charge” you’re the second top dog, the Vice President is second in charge, the Vice Commandant is second in charge, even Ms. Dickerson’s own Deputy Director is second in charge.  So the question at the end of the day is:  If you’re going to state you’re the second in charge at an agency in your Official Biography, shouldn’t you be responsible for something more than your own division?  Maybe not in this case.

Lastly on the issue of Dickerson being installed as the interim agency head by the White House her Official Biography says:

In 2005, the White House installed her as the interim agency head after the outgoing chief departed, and until a new appointee could be confirmed.

However, our research with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the documents they provided in response to our Freedom of Information Act request suggest something slightly if not completely different with regards to being “installed by the White House as interim agency head.”   An online search of White House documents for 2005 resulted in a find of zero documents related to Dickerson or the Commission by name.  So again, we turned to the Commission itself with our FOIA request for answers.  The Commission was able to locate one document related to Ms. Dickerson’s time as interim agency head.  That document is page 6 of the pdf below.  The document is titled “Administrative Manual, Administrative Instruction 1-18B, Order of Precedence and dated February 5th 2002.  The order is signed by the Staff Director at the time, and states that the when the Staff Director and Deputy Staff Director are both absent, that the Assistant Staff Director for Civil Rights Evaluations becomes acting Staff Director.

If this all sounds like an incredible amount of information, it is.  But we’re not done yet.  Turns out that there is more on this topic to be  found in the Code of Federal Regulations.

45 C.F.R. PART 701—ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION

The Commission staff organization and function are as follows:

(a) Office of the Staff Director. Under the direction of the Staff Director, this Office defines and disseminates to staff the policies established by the Commissioners; develops program plans for presentation to the Commissioners; evaluates program results; supervises and coordinates the work of other agency offices; manages the administrative affairs of the agency; appoints an Equal Employment Opportunity Officer for the agency’s in-house Equal Employment Opportunity Program; and conducts agency liaison with the Executive Office of the President, the Congress, and other Federal agencies.

(b) Office of the Deputy Staff Director. Under the direction of the Deputy Staff Director, this Office is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the agency; evaluation of quantity and quality of program efforts; personnel administration; and the supervision of Office Directors who do not report directly to the Staff Director.

What does all this mean, we’re not sure but you can draw your own conclusions.  We feel pretty confident we’ve given you plenty to consider.  We do want to be clear that there are still some unknowns here.  We contacted both Ms. Dickerson and Coast Guard Headquarters for comment on this story several weeks ago.  Note that this means we gave them more than ample opportunity to comment in keeping with ALCOAST 458/08.  Next, we have no way of knowing if Dickerson was filling in as Acting Deputy Staff Director for some, part or all over her time at the Commission. One thing is certain, the description of duties outlined in 45 C.F.R. Part 701  for the Deputy Staff Director clearly describes that person as being what most would consider to be the “second in charge.”

Categories: Uncategorized

Mainstream Media Picks up on DeKort False Claims Act Lawsuit against Integrated Coast Guard Systems

June 2, 2009 staff 1 comment

Alice Lipowicz with Washington Technology picked up on the Michael DeKort False Claims Act story today.

Former Lockheed Martin Corp. engineer Michael J. DeKort has filed a False Claims Act lawsuit against the prime contractors of the Coast Guard’s $24 billion Deepwater acquisition program.

DeKort filed the complaint against Integrated Coast Guard Systems — which is a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman Corp. — claiming a series of deficiencies by the contractors has led to major safety, security and national security problems with the acquisition program, according to a copy of the 60-page complaint distributed on the Web on June 1.

Read her entire story here.

Categories: Uncategorized

Coast Guard Civil Rights: A Decade of Inefficiently Discharging Responsibilities

June 2, 2009 staff 6 comments

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, Chairman
Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Hearing on
“Civil Rights Services and Diversity Initiatives in the Coast Guard”
April 1, 2009

“A review conducted by PriceWaterhouseCoopers more than a decade ago concluded that the Coast Guard’s ‘current civil rights program is relatively ineffective at preventing civil rights complaints and the current program office at headquarters is inefficient in discharging their responsibilities.’”

Categories: Uncategorized

MICHAEL J. DEKORT vs. INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS (Part 2)

June 2, 2009 staff Comments off

In Part 2 of this series: Michael Dekort’s employment. We suggest reading part 1 and any associated comments prior to reading part 2.

Helpful Definition - Relator: a private person at whose prompting or complaint a public action is begun to bring in question the exercise of an office, franchise, etc.

Relator’s Employment

5. Relator is aware, and has reported to several governmental authorities, that the government has been cheated, to the extent of millions of dollars, which he learned after being assigned in July 2003 as the Deepwater Lead Systems Engineer for the 123 foot patrol boat operation of the Deepwater Information Technology Systems program. Relator is concerned about (1) national security breaches; and (2) the financial losses to the government as a result of the defendant’s dishonesty in the performance of its obligations to the government for the 123 foot patrol boat modifications as part of the overall U.S. Coast Guard’s Integrated Deepwater System program.

6. Relator has been pursuing complaints up the chain of command in Lockheed’s organization and government. Recently, subsequent to Relator’s complaints, the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security issued a stinging public report which criticized Lockheed’s performance of the modernization of the 123 foot patrol boats. See Exhibit A (Report, Office of Inspector General). An active investigation continues on Relator’s other complaints.

7. Finally, to Relator’s knowledge, he is the Original Source as that term is defined under the False Claims Act, and his Complaint, and his claims are not based upon any public disclosure prior to the date of his filing. Relator has extended cooperation to the government in order to prosecute those responsible for defrauding the government, and he continues, as well, to offer his time and knowledge in order to expedite: (1) the remedial repairs to the 123 foot patrol boats; (2) the securitization of law enforcement and intelligence agencies communications; and (3) the collection of statutory damages and penalties from the defendant.

8. As ICGS is a Joint Venture, the acts of Lockheed and Northrop are deemed the acts of the other on matters pertaining to the venture. Each of the Defendants have violated the FCA, on some occasions, and have agreed to or acquiesced in violations by the other Defendant, on other occasions. Therefore, the defendants herein shall be referenced herein, cumulatively, as ICGS. ICGS has placed profits before contractual compliance in divers and sundry manners in connection with the Integrated Deepwater System (“Deepwater”) contract. The shoddy and fraudulent performance of ICGS has materially undermined the viability of the project and has resulted in extensive waste and has jeopardized the security of the United States and its citizens.

Categories: Uncategorized

Coast Guard Civil Rights Continues to Placate Congress

June 2, 2009 staff 2 comments

At the hearings on Coast Guard Civil Rights and Diversity held on 1 April 2009, Congressman Elijah Cummings asked Ms. Terri Dickerson, Director of Coast Guard Civil Rights about a finding in the Booz Allen Hamilton report that said

Only a small number of interviewees indicated that they understand the vision, business goals and key success indicators of OCR.

Ms. Dickerson replied (in summary) that she had instituted weekly staff meeting to assist her articulation of the vision, business goals.  Additionally Dickerson noted that she used her month newsletter Civil Rights on Deck and a newly created newsletter Civil Rights Space to assist her with keeping staff and the field informed.

As previously reported, on the date of the hearing and at the time of that statement, Ms. Dickerson’s website content related to both newsletters was already far out of date.  The last issue of Civil Rights Space was published in February, two months prior to the hearing.  The newsletter Civil Rights on Deck runs a month behind with the May issue only making its way to the site last week.

Additionally, since  the April 1st hearing nothing has been published on the vision, business goals or key indicators of success … Nothing.  The May edition of Civil Rights on Deck has only article of educational value on changes to the ADA.  Is Coast Guard living up to its statements before Congress on 1  April 2009?  You decide.

AND… coming later today, more on the Directors Official Coast Guard Biography.  Ms. Dickerson’s Biography on the Coast Guards website says:

Among duties, (at the U.S. Civil Rights Commission) she examined federal agencies’ civil rights offices, and advised officials, Congress, and the White House on improved enforcement. In 2005, the White House installed her as the interim agency head after the outgoing chief departed, and until a new appointee could be confirmed.

However, our research with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the documents they provided in response to our Freedom of Information Act request suggest something slightly if not completely different with regards to being “installed by the White House as interim agency head.”  What the USCCR had to say about that statement, coming later today exclusively at Coast Guard Report.

Categories: Uncategorized

ALCOAST 318/08 Makes Changes in Servicewide Exam’s Official

June 2, 2009 staff Comments off

ALCOAST 318/09 announced the new changes Coast Guards Sea Duty and Awards Point Policy.

SUBJ: SWE SEA/SURF DUTY AND AWARDS POINT POLICY CHANGE

A. PERSONNEL MANUAL, COMDTINST M1000.6 (SERIES)

1. THIS MESSAGE ANNOUNCES A POLICY CHANGE TO THE PROCEDURE FOR CREDITING POINTS FOR SEA TIME, SURF TIME, AND AWARDS IN THE FINAL MULTIPLE ON THE SERVICEWIDE EXAMINATION. EFFECTIVE 1 JANUARY 2010, PARA 5.C.16 AND PARA 5.C.3.B.OF REF A ARE CHANGED TO AUTHORIZE FINAL MULTIPLE CREDIT FOR ONLY THAT SEA TIME, SURF TIME, AND THOSE AWARDS EARNED AT A MEMBER’S CURRENT PAY GRADE WHEN THEIR DATE OF RANK IN THAT PAY GRADE IS 1 JANUARY 2010 OR LATER. THIS CHANGE WILL BE IMPLEMENTED WITH THE FOLLOWING RULE.

2. ALL MEMBERS WILL RECEIVE FULL CREDIT FOR ALL EARNED COAST GUARD SEA TIME, SURF TIME, AND ALL AWARDS CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED FINAL MULTIPLE POINTS FOR THEIR FIRST ADVANCEMENT ON OR AFTER 1 JANUARY 2010. FOR EXAMPLE, A MEMBER WHO IS NOT ADVANCED IN 2010 BUT AT A LATER DATE WILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE ALL EARNED COAST GUARD CREDIT FOR SEA TIME, SURF TIME, AND ALL AWARDS CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED. ALL SUBSEQUENT ADVANCEMENTS WILL BE BASED ON THE NEW POLICY.

3. THIS CHANGE WILL TAKE EFFECT FOR THE RESERVE COMPONENT WITH THE OCTOBER 2010 SERVICEWIDE EXAMINATION AND APPLY TO ALL DATES OF RANK OF 1 JANUARY 2010 AND LATER.

4. MEMBERS ARE DIRECTED TO THE MCPOCG BLOG AT HTTP://COASTGUARDALLHANDS.BLOGSPOT.COM/2009/05/SEASURFAWARD-POINT-ADVANCEMENT-RESET.HTML TO POST QUESTIONS. PLEASE REVIEW THE POSTS AND OFFICIAL ANSWERS BEFORE ADDING NEW QUESTIONS.

5. RADM JODY A. BRECKENRIDGE, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT FOR HUMAN RESOURCES, SENDS.

6. INTERNET RELEASE AUTHORIZED.

Categories: Uncategorized

MICHAEL J. DEKORT, individually, Plaintiff, vs. INTEGRATED COAST GUARD SYSTEMS (Part 1)

June 2, 2009 staff 1 comment

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Coast Guard Report has obtained the court documents related to Michael DeKort’s Federal False Claims Act suit against Integrated Coast Guard Systems, (join partners) Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.  There is allot of information in these documents so we’ll break this down into parts and allow comments as we go.

Helpful Definition Relator: a private person at whose prompting or complaint a public action is begun to bring in question the exercise of an office, franchise, etc.

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO

31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3732, FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT

The United States of America, by and through qui tam Relator, Michael J. De Kort, brings this action under 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3732 (the “False Claims Act”) to recover from Integrated Coast Guard Systems (“ICGS”), a Joint Venture Partner, Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Lockheed”), a Joint Venture Partner, and Northrop Grumman (“Northrop”), a Joint Venture Partner, all damages, penalties and other remedies established by the False Claims Act on behalf of the United States and himself and would show the following:

PARTIES

1. Relator, Michael J. De Kort (“De Kort”), is an individual citizen of the United States .  He is a former lead engineer for defendant Lockheed on the relevant Deepwater 123s program at issue herein.

2. Defendant ICGS is a Joint Venture owned by Lockheed and Northrop, the latter of which are referred to in the ICGS literature as Joint Venture Partners. ICGS is headquartered in Rosslyn, Virginia. Service may be obtained by service upon either Joint Venture Partner, Lockheed or Northrop.

3 Defendant Lockheed (“Lockheed”) is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business at 6801 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817. Lockheed Martin Corporation has offices located at 1 Lockheed Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76108 and does business in the State of Texas. The Texas agent for service of process is Corporation Service Company D/B/A+, 701 Brazos Street, Suite 1050, Austin, Texas 78701.

4. Defendant Northrop Grumman (“Northrop”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1840 Century Park East Los Angeles, California 90067-2199. Northrop can be served with process by serving its agent for service of process, CT Corporation Systems, 350 N. St. Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201.

Part 2 of this series will be available at noon today (EST).

Categories: Uncategorized