Government Accountability Office

  • |

    OPM Cut 35% of Its Staff and Kept Adding Responsibilities

    ByHugh Jass

    The federal government has apparently labeled OPM’s 35 percent workforce reduction “efficiency,” a word that entered the records room, looked around, and refused to identify the remaining personnel. According to a July 20 Government Accountability Office report, the Office of Personnel Management eliminated 10 offices while cutting its headcount. The package was delivered to the agency responsible for human resources after many of the humans had been removed from the premises.

    GAO also found that 57 percent of departing OPM employees had at least 11 years of service. That is not merely a staffing change; that is institutional memory wheeling its suitcase toward the exit. These were the people who knew which form was obsolete, which process had three hidden steps, and which drawer contained the original drawer map.

    Meanwhile, the report describes OPM contemplating additional responsibilities, including handling more employee appeals and expanding work involving artificial intelligence and information-technology modernization. The contradiction is not that modernization exists. Modernization is useful. The contradiction is asking a smaller workforce to carry a larger filing cabinet while describing the missing hands as a strategic improvement.

    As Hugh Jass, I examined the paperwork under a lamp normally reserved for suspicious procurement documents. Exhibit A had a pulse: fewer employees, fewer offices, and a greater menu of assignments. No one should claim the report proves that these cuts directly caused a particular service failure. But it does document a capacity problem hiding in plain bureaucratic language. “Do more with less” is often just a management memo discovering arithmetic for the first time.

    The missing personnel have now been filed under “strategic efficiency,” a classification broad enough to contain an empty desk, a delayed appeal, and an entire generation of procedural knowledge. Ordinary federal workers and the people waiting on those systems deserve better than a government that treats experience as clutter and responsibility as an expandable field. Somewhere in OPM, a form is still looking for the staff member who knows where to send it.

  • |

    GAO’s DOGE Audit Hits a Bureaucratic Wall: Agencies Refuse to Hand Over Screenshots

    ByHugh Jass

    The Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent audit of DOGE’s access to sensitive federal databases has hit a peculiarly bureaucratic snag. Imagine the disappointment, not to mention the comedy, of a diligent watchdog smacking headfirst into a wall of ‘no screenshots allowed’ signs. The Washington Post reported today on just such an absurdity, with various agencies, led by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), stonewalling GAO’s requests for basic walkthroughs and screenshots. It’s almost as if someone thought a simple screenshot had the heft of a state secret.

    The GAO’s intent appears straightforward enough: to understand how DOGE, a protocol known for its humor-infused origin, accessed certain sensitive information. The audit was meant to ensure proper oversight, yet this undertaking has found its pace slowed by missing pixels. Who would have thought the picture would be so hard to capture?

    According to emails obtained in the probe, HHS has explicitly refused to turn over the requested materials, positioning them as mundane yet mysteriously off-limits. Some of these documents might feel lighter than air but have somehow acquired the gravity of classified missives nobody intended to read by human eyes.

    The GAO, unfazed and possibly rolling its eyes, has reaffirmed its dedication to pursuing thorough audits. Yet one can almost hear the filing cabinet clearing its throat as it firmly declines the request for a digital peek behind the curtains. Meanwhile, Representative Bobby Scott has raised the alarm about potential chasms in oversight, as the refusal starkly contrasts with the GAO’s intended litigation match-up.

    Here lies the larger quandary: if an oversight body can’t lay eyes on something as pedestrian as a screenshot, what hope does the public have in gleaning any understanding of data handling within federal bounds? The stakes, though comedic, reflect a serious underlying issue of transparency and accountability.

    In the end, this tale of a watchdog rendered toothless by red tape illustrates the absurd fineries of bureaucratic rigor. The GAO wants to take a look, but it seems the sheer weight of a bureaucratic eyelid remains closed. One can only hope this opener to oversight tomfoolery gets a page refresh soon.

    Sources

End of content

End of content