VA watchdog agrees to brief relatives on vet's death. Is this appropriate?

2015-06-18T09:38:17-04:00

On Tuesday, after complaints from the family, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Oshkosh, and Rep. Ron Kind, D-La Crosse, and inquiries from USA TODAY, the VA inspector general relented and agreed to share findings with family members of 74-year-old Thomas Patrick Baer, who died after treatment at the Tomah facility in January.

.....

For the Baer family, that frustration boiled into anger earlier this month when they learned the inspector general had reached out to members of Congress from Wisconsin offering to brief them on findings before they are publicly released but refusing to allow the Baers to attend.

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/2015/06/16/va-watchdog-agrees-brief-relatives-vets-death/28823899/

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Jun 18 at 2015 9:43 AM

2015-06-18T09:43:36-04:00

The family has the right to know no matter who tells them.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 18 at 2015 10:14 AM

2015-06-18T10:14:27-04:00

Really? "We can't tell you because we haven't made the findings public yet, but we've got no problem briefing politicians who could care less why veterans are dying..."

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 18 at 2015 10:19 AM

2015-06-18T10:19:49-04:00

Wow.

This is the part that struck me:

"It appears that the VA OIG is placing the legal interests of the VA – the department that the VA OIG is charged with overseeing – ahead of the interests of the grieving families of deceased veterans,"

It mentions that the OIG is the oversight for the VA, and that Congress is their oversight. Theoretically they shouldn't be "protecting" the VA. Whatever the issue is, it is. Whatever the findings are, so be it.

Going to Congress first, without the family triggered Privacy concerns in the back of my brain, but I don't know how the legalities work when it gets that far up the food chain.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jun 18 at 2015 11:13 AM

2015-06-18T11:13:45-04:00

I have mixed feelings about this whole affair. I am saddened by the fact that the VA IG felt it necessary to brief Congress without notifying the family. I am not sure how independent they are and who they consider they need to report back to - probably the VA and the Government and probably not the constituents - veterans and their families.
The idea of trying to "privately" brief Congress about the death of "Thomas Patrick Baer, who died after treatment at the Tomah facility in January" is amazingly naive. In the days of internet communications, twitter, etc. when information is leaked or shared around the world in seconds and the US Congress is notorious for "leaking" information sometime for the benefits of constituents and other times for the news outlets primarily.
In the aftermath of WWII and Korean War and probably the Vietnam War this type of activity may have gone on but nobody would have known about it in real time and I* expect the Congressmen who were going top be briefed would have had their offices contact the relatives involved.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 11:17 AM

2015-06-18T11:17:43-04:00

The family should always find out details related to death before it is made public, that is just common decency. From a legal standpoint (assuming the VA feels their actions or inactions will bring a lawsuit), they can brief they families and then go public...an hour or two is not going to hamper their defense.

Response by Sgt Spencer Sikder made Jun 18 at 2015 12:55 PM

2015-06-18T12:55:25-04:00

In my years with the agency, I had interacted with OIG on various audits. I also knew criminal investigator OIGs and their mission was completely different. I agree with SPC Jan Allbright with the notion OIG is ensuring the government's interests are protected above and beyond the interest of the veteran's family. Some of the OIG auditors had their degrees in subjects unrelated to the topic they were auditing. They had a little check list and followed the check list. If someone from the Agency can explain the matter clearly and show the policy/regulation to support it, then all was good. If not, then they would cite the failure as a failure to follow policy/regulation. I recall one audit where the investigator could not find one thing wrong on my program. He told me he couldn't turn in a report without a finding. So I reached into my records and showed him an issue I had resolved months before when I caught it, and he used it as a negative finding on the audit, but as it was he who discovered the failure. SOB couldn't even give me credit for the finding and props for doing a great job.