Two current tribal government officials and one former tribal government official of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) were charged by criminal complaint unsealed today for their alleged acceptance of bribes and kickbacks from a contractor providing construction services on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (FBIR), which is the home of the MHA Nation.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian C. Rabbitt of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Drew H. Wrigley for the District of North Dakota, and Acting Special Agent in Charge Aubree M. Schwartz of the FBI’s Minneapolis Field Office made the announcement.
Randall Jude Phelan, 55, of Mandaree, North Dakota, and Delvin Reeves, 52, of Watford City, North Dakota, were charged in complaints supported by one affidavit, while Frank Charles Grady, 52, of Hardin, Montana, was charged in a complaint supported by a second affidavit. All three defendants were charged in the District of North Dakota with one count of conspiracy and one count of federal programs bribery. Phelan and Reeves made their initial appearances in the District of North Dakota before U.S. Magistrate Judge Alice R. Senechal today. Grady made his initial appearance in the District of Montana before U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Cavan today.
According to the affidavits in support of the complaints against them, Phelan has been a representative on the Tribal Business Council, the elected governing body of the MHA Nation, since approximately November 2012, and Reeves is a paid employee of the tribal government. Grady was a Tribal Business Council representative from approximately November 2014 until November 2018.
According to the affidavit in support of the complaints against them, Phelan and Reeves solicited and accepted bribes and kickbacks from the contractor in connection with his business’s operation on the FBIR beginning in approximately 2013 and continuing through 2020. The complaint alleges that, in exchange for the payments, Phelan and Reeves used their official positions to help the contractor’s business, including by awarding contracts, fabricating bids during purportedly competitive bidding processes, advocating for the contractor with other tribal officials, and facilitating the submission and payment of fraudulent invoices.
The complaint against Grady alleges that he solicited and accepted bribes and kickbacks beginning in approximately January 2016 and continuing through September 2017. The affidavit in support of the complaint alleges that Grady used his official position to help the contractor’s business, including by awarding contracts, pressuring other construction companies to award subcontracting work, advocating for the contractor with other tribal officials, and facilitating the submission and payment of fraudulent invoices. The complaints allege that the defendants each accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes and kickbacks.
A criminal complaint is merely an accusation, and all defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
The FBI investigated the case. Trial Attorney Jessee Alexander-Hoeppner of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section is prosecuting the case with the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of North Dakota.
The year 2020 marks the 150th anniversary of the Department of Justice. Learn more about the history of our agency at www.Justice.gov/Celebrating150Years.
- Kazakhstan Travel AdvisoryBy Sam NewsIn TravelSeptember 26, 2020Do not travel to [Read More…]
- Federal Employees’ Compensation Act: Comparisons of Benefits in Retirement and Actions Needed to Help Injured Workers Choose Best OptionBy Sam NewsAugust 21, 2020Factors such as the timing of an injury in a career affect how Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) total disability benefits compare to income security from typical federal retirement. The FECA program compensates federal employees for lost wages from work-related injuries, among other benefits. FECA recipients can receive this compensation for as long as their disability continues. At retirement age, they can remain on FECA or, instead, choose to receive their benefits from the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). Thus, FECA benefits represent a significant portion of retirement income for some injured federal employees. Through simulations, GAO found that factors such as the length of retirees' careers absent injury affected how similar their hypothetical FECA benefits packages were to their FERS packages in 2018. FERS benefits increase substantially the longer a federal employee works. As a result, median current and reduced FECA packages were greater than the FERS median for retirees with shorter careers absent injury. However, median FECA packages were similar to or less than FERS for retirees with longer careers (see figure). Median FECA Benefits as a Percentage of FERS Benefits by Career Length Absent an Injury For FECA recipients who choose to compare their FECA and FERS benefit options at retirement, estimates for most components of those benefits packages are available. However, the Department of Labor (DOL) does not routinely remind recipients to compare benefits, so they may be unaware of their options or how to consider them. In addition, DOL and the Social Security Administration (SSA) use a manual and highly complex process to calculate one key component of a FECA recipient's compensation in retirement related to Social Security benefits. As a result, estimates of FECA benefits in retirement that include this component are not readily available prior to retirement. These challenges hinder recipients' ability to accurately compare their options and may result in some recipients not choosing their best option at retirement. The President's budgets for fiscal years 2019-2021 have proposed several FECA reforms, including reducing disability compensation at retirement age. In a series of reports published in 2012, GAO analyzed the effects of similar proposed revisions to FECA compensation. GAO was asked to update its FECA and FERS benefit comparisons. This report examines (1) how FERS and total disability FECA benefits at retirement age compare under current and previously proposed reduced FECA compensation rates, and (2) the extent to which FECA recipients have access to information to compare their FECA and FERS benefits options. GAO compared the FERS benefits selected retirees received in 2018 with the hypothetical total disability FECA benefits they would have received from simulated injuries. GAO reviewed agency documents and interviewed officials from DOL, SSA, and other federal agencies. GAO is recommending that DOL remind FECA recipients as they approach retirement to obtain FERS benefit estimates for comparisons with FECA, and that DOL and SSA take steps to modernize and improve their process for calculating and providing information on certain FECA benefits in retirement that would enable recipients to make complete comparisons of retirement options. DOL and SSA concurred with all three recommendations. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or firstname.lastname@example.org.[Read More…]
- Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Yalda Hakim of “Impact with Yalda Hakim” on BBC World NewsBy Sam NewsFebruary 22, 2021Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
- New Jersey Man Indicted for Promoting Tax Fraud SchemeBy Sam NewsOctober 23, 2020A Pemberton, New Jersey, man appeared in court yesterday on a federal grand jury indictment charging him with conspiring to defraud the United States, assisting in the filing of false tax returns, obstructing the internal revenue laws, and failing to file a tax return, announced Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg of the Justice Department’s Tax Division. The Sept. 2, 2020 indictment was unsealed following the court appearance.[Read More…]
- Assistant Attorney General Beth A. Williams Delivers Opening Remarks at the Federalist Society, Colorado Lawyers Chapter Panel Discussion: “Reviewing the Supreme Court’s 2019/20 Term”By Sam NewsAugust 12, 2020Thank you for that kind introduction, Will, and for the invitation to join you today. Though I wish I could join you in person, even at this distance, it is a great pleasure to be here with you all.[Read More…]
- Information Management: Selected Agencies Need to Fully Address Federal Electronic Recordkeeping RequirementsBy Sam NewsAugust 24, 2021What GAO Found Seventeen agencies GAO selected for review varied in the extent to which their policies and procedures addressed the electronic recordkeeping requirements in the Managing Government Records Directive and the Federal Records Act ( FRA ) and its amendments. More specifically, 14 of the 17 agencies established records management programs, while three agencies did not. Of those 14 agencies with established records management programs, almost all addressed requirements related to incorporating electronic records into their existing programs, but many did not have policies and procedures to fully incorporate recordkeeping functionalities into electronic systems, establish controls and preservation considerations for systems, and issue instructions on email requirements (see table). Assessment of Selected Agencies' Policies and Procedures Addressing Key Electronic Records Requirements NARA provided guidance and assistance to the selected agencies, including guidance on electronic records management and training. All of the agencies stated that the assistance was generally helpful and that they relied on it to some extent for implementing the key requirements discussed in this report. Further, NARA oversaw the selected agencies' implementation of federal records management regulations through their self-assessment progam. However, NARA had not ensured that the selected small or micro agencies that self-assessed to be at high risk of improper records management in calendar year 2017 were taking appropriate actions to make improvements to their records management programs. NARA officials stated they conduct follow-up with the agencies that report poor scores, but they do not proactively require the agencies to address their weaknesses. Until NARA requires these agencies to develop plans to make necessary improvements, these agencies will likely miss important opportunities to improve their record management practices. Why GAO Did This Study The Federal Records Act , a subsequent directive, and NARA regulations establish requirements for agencies to ensure the transparency, efficiency, and accountability of federal records, including those in electronic form. In addition, NARA plays an important role in overseeing and assisting agencies' records management efforts. GAO was asked to evaluate federal agencies' implementation of the aforementioned requirements related to electronic records. The objectives were to determine the extent to which (1) selected agencies' policies and procedures address the electronic recordkeeping requirements in the Managing Government Records Directive and the Presidential and FRA Amendments of 2014 and (2) NARA assisted selected agencies in managing their electronic records. To do so, GAO selected 17 agencies and reviewed their records management policies and procedures. GAO also reviewed laws and requirements pertaining to NARA's roles and responsibilities for assisting agencies in managing their electronic records. Further, GAO analyzed NARA guidance and other documents that discussed NARA's efforts in carrying out these responsibilities.[Read More…]
- K-12 Education: Challenges Locating and Securing Charter School Facilities and Government AssistanceBy Sam NewsOctober 4, 2021Why GAO Did This Study Charter schools are public schools established under charters, typically with state or local entities, and have more flexibility and autonomy. In exchange, charter schools must meet specific accountability standards. GAO was asked to examine the extent to which charter schools had access to public facilities and the costs associated with such access. This report examines (1) challenges faced by charter schools in locating and securing facilities and (2) select programs available to help charter schools address challenges when locating and securing facilities. To answer these questions, GAO conducted individual and group interviews with state, school district, and charter school officials in California and Colorado, which were selected based on the variety of their programs, among other factors. In addition, GAO interviewed Department of Education officials and other stakeholders. GAO also reviewed agency documents and relevant federal and state laws, regulations, and policies. What GAO Found From school year 2002-2003 to school year 2018-2019 (most recent national data available) the number of charter schools increased from about 2,700 to 7,400 and the number of enrolled students increased from about 700,000 to about 3.3 million. Consistent with prior GAO work in 2000 and 2003, charter schools continue to face challenges locating and securing facilities. GAO identified four key challenges based on interviews with state, school district, and charter school officials in California and Colorado, as well as representatives of nonprofit organizations that provide affordable loans to assist charter schools, and other stakeholders: Affordability. Limited access to state and local funding and affordable private loans as well as rising real estate costs and renovation expenses. Availability. Lack of amenities (e.g., a cafeteria or playground) or safe and secure building space and limited access to public or private buildings. Lack of consistent local support. Inconsistent assistance by local governments and school districts for charter school facilities' needs. Capacity to manage facilities. Limited expertise in facilities management. Various state and federal programs may assist charter schools with challenges locating and securing facilities. In the two states GAO reviewed, California and Colorado, programs that assist charter schools with facilities funding or building space include per-pupil allowances, grant programs, local bond measures, and use of school district facilities. In addition, federal agencies, such as the Department of Education and the Department of Agriculture, provide grants and loans to help charter schools acquire facilities. For example, Education has two facilities-focused competitive grant programs, including one that allows funds to be used for a state's per-pupil facility allowance. Education's National Charter School Resource Center assists charter schools by providing information and other resources related to facilities. For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at (617) 788-0580 or email@example.com.[Read More…]
- Briefing with Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services Rachel Arndt, Bureau of Consular Affairs On the State Department’s Passport ServicesBy Sam NewsJuly 14, 2021Rachel Arndt, Deputy [Read More…]
- Defense Infrastructure: Documentation Lacking to Fully Support How DOD Determined Specifications for the Landstuhl Replacement Medical CenterBy Sam NewsAugust 24, 2021What GAO FoundDepartment of Defense (DOD) officials considered current beneficiary population data, contingency operations, and most of the expected changes in troop strength when planning for the replacement medical center. However, recently announced posture changes in January 2012 have yet to be assessed for their impact on the facility. DOD estimates that the replacement medical center will provide health care for nearly 250,000 beneficiaries. A majority of those who are expected to receive health care from the center come from within a 55-mile radius of the facility. DOD officials told us that because the replacement medical center was designed for peacetime operationswith the capacity to expand to meet the needs of contingency operationsreductions in ongoing contingency operations in Afghanistan would not have an impact on facility requirements. At the time of this review, DOD officials said they were in the process of assessing proposed changes in posture to better understand their possible impact on the sizing of the replacement medical center.DOD officials incorporated patient quality of care standards as well as environmentally friendly design elements in determining facility requirements for the replacement medical center. DOD also determined the size of the facility based on its projected patient workload. Internal control standards require the creation and maintenance of adequate documentation, which should be clear and readily available for examination to inform decision making. However, GAOs review of the documentation DOD provided in support of its facility requirements showed (1) inconsistencies in how DOD applied projected patient workload data and planning criteria to determine the appropriate size for individual medical departments, (2) some areas where the documentation did not clearly demonstrate how planners applied criteria to generate requirements, and (3) calculation errors throughout. Without clear documentation of key analysesincluding information on how adjustments to facility requirements were madeand without correct calculations, stakeholders and decision makers lack reasonable assurances that the replacement medical center will be appropriately sized to meet the needs of the expected beneficiary population in Europe.DODs process for developing the approximately $1.2 billion cost estimate for the replacement medical center was substantially consistent with many cost estimating best practices, such as cross-checking major cost elements to confirm similar results. However, DOD minimally documented the data sources, calculations, and estimating methodologies it used in developing the cost estimate. Additionally, DOD anticipates that the new facility will become the hub of a larger medical-services-related campus, for which neither cost estimates nor time frames have yet been developed. Without a cost estimate for the facility that includes detailed documentation, DOD cannot fully demonstrate that the proposed replacement medical center will provide adequate health care capacity at the current estimated cost. Further, DOD and Congress may not have the information they need to make fully informed decisions about the facility.Why GAO Did This StudyLandstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC) is DODs only tertiary medical center in Europe that provides specialized care for servicemembers, retirees, and their dependents. Wounded servicemembers requiring critical care are medically evacuated from overseas operations to the 86th Medical Group clinic at Ramstein Air Base to receive stabilization care before being transported to LRMC for intensive care. According to DOD, both facilities were constructed in the 1950s and are undersized to meet current and projected workload requirements. DOD plans to consolidate both facilities into a single medical center at an estimated cost of $1.2 billion. In this report, GAO (1) describes how DOD considered changes in posture and the beneficiary population when developing facility requirements, (2) assesses DODs process for determining facility requirements, and (3) reviews DODs process to develop the facilitys cost estimate. GAO examined posture planning documentation, beneficiary demographic data, plans for the replacement medical center, and relevant DOD guidance, as well as interviewed relevant DOD officials.[Read More…]
- North Carolina Man Charged with Fraudulently Seeking Over $6 Million in COVID Relief FundsBy Sam NewsSeptember 29, 2020A North Carolina man was charged with fraudulently seeking over $6 million in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans, announced Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian C. Rabbitt of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Robert J. Higdon Jr. of the Eastern District of North Carolina.[Read More…]
- Joint Statement on Serbia’s National ReferendumBy Sam NewsJanuary 14, 2022
- Farmworkers: Additional Information Needed to Better Protect Workers from Pesticide ExposureBy Sam NewsJanuary 15, 2021The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states ensure compliance with the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS) primarily through inspections of farms. The states collect some information—such as the number of inspections they conduct—and provide that information to EPA as part of cooperative agreements between EPA and the states. The extent of use of the designated representative provision of the WPS, and its effect on the availability of pesticide information, are not known because EPA does not collect information on the use of the provision and does not coordinate with states to do so. EPA's guidance to states for conducting inspections encourages, but does not require, state inspectors to ask farmers and farmworkers about whether a designated representative has been used. EPA officials said that the agency has not asked states to collect information on the provision because the agency has focused on compliance with other aspects of the WPS. By coordinating with states, through the cooperative agreements or some another mechanism, to collect information on the use of the designated representative provision, EPA would be better positioned to determine whether the provision is serving its intended purpose. Some stakeholders have raised concerns about potential misuse of pesticide information, such as other farmers using the information obtained by a designated representative to gain a competitive advantage. However, EPA officials, state officials, and stakeholders told us they did not know of any instance in which a person serving as a designated representative misused the pesticide information obtained from farmers. Neither EPA's guidance nor its website explain the agency's expectations for appropriate use or describe how such information could be misused. EPA officials said that the agency has not explained what constitutes misuse. By explaining, in the agency's guidance, on its website, or through another mechanism, EPA's expectations about appropriate use of pesticide information obtained by designated representatives, including the misuse of such information, the agency could ensure designated representatives understand the importance of the information in reducing the consequences of pesticide exposure. Farmworkers Picking Strawberries at a Farm The use of pesticides contributes to U.S. agricultural productivity by protecting crops against pests or weeds, but this use may pose risks to human health. To reduce the consequences of pesticide exposure to farmworkers' health, EPA revised the WPS in 2015 to include a provision that allows a farmworker to identify a person who can request, for their benefit, certain pesticide information from their employer—this is called the designated representative provision. This report examines (1) what is known about the extent of use and effect of the designated representative provision on the availability of pesticide information and (2) what is known about any misuse of information obtained through the provision. GAO reviewed laws, regulations, and guidance, and interviewed officials from EPA and 13 selected states about how they implement and oversee compliance with the standard. GAO also interviewed stakeholders, such as farmer groups and farmworker advocacy groups. GAO is making two recommendations to EPA to (1) coordinate with states to collect information on the use of the designated representative provision and (2) take steps to explain, in guidance, on its website, or through another mechanism, the agency's expectations about appropriate use of pesticide information obtained by a designated representative and describe potential misuse of such information. EPA agreed, in part, to both recommendations. For more information, contact Steve D. Morris at (202) 512-3841 or firstname.lastname@example.org.[Read More…]
- United Arab Emirates Foreign Affairs Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin ZayedBy Sam NewsNovember 2, 2021
- Navy Maintenance: Navy Report Did Not Fully Address Causes of Delays or Results-Oriented ElementsBy Sam NewsOctober 29, 2020The Navy's July 2020 report identified two key causes and several contributing factors regarding maintenance delays for aircraft carriers, surface ships, and submarines, but did not identify other causes. For public shipyards, the Navy's report identified the key cause of maintenance delays as insufficient capacity relative to growing maintenance requirements. For private shipyards, the Navy's report identified the key cause as the addition of work requirements after a contract is awarded. These causes and other identified factors generally align with factors that GAO has previously identified as originating during the maintenance process. However, the Navy's report did not consider causes and factors originating in the acquisition process or as a result of operational decisions, as shown below. GAO-Identified Factors Contributing to Maintenance Delays That the Navy Identified in Its July 2020 Report The report identified stakeholders needed to implement action plans, but did not fully incorporate other elements of results-oriented management, including achievable goals, metrics to measure progress, and resources and risks. Some examples from the report: Stakeholders: Identified Naval Sea Systems Command as the primary implementer of most initiatives related to maintenance at shipyards. Goals: Included a goal of reducing days of maintenance delay by 80 percent during fiscal year 2020.The Navy did not achieve this goal based on GAO's analysis of Navy data. Metrics: Included some metrics. The Navy is still identifying and developing other key metrics. Resources: Did not identify costs of the actions in the report. Risks: Identified as risks the coronavirus pandemic, unstable funding, and limited material availability. However, the report did not assess additional risks that GAO previously identified. The Navy generally has been unable to complete ship and submarine maintenance on time, resulting in reduced time for training and operations, and additional costs. The Navy's ability to successfully maintain its ships is affected by numerous factors throughout a ship's life cycle, such as decisions made during acquisition, which occurs years before a ship arrives at a shipyard for maintenance. Others manifest during operational use of the ship or during the maintenance process. The conference report accompanying a bill for the Fiscal Year 2020 Consolidated Appropriations Act directed the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report identifying the underlying causes of maintenance delays for aircraft carriers, surface ships, and submarines and to include elements of results-oriented management. The conference report also included a provision for GAO to review the Navy's report that was released in July 2020. This report evaluates the extent to which the Navy's report (1) identifies the underlying causes of maintenance delays and (2) incorporates elements of results-oriented management. GAO reviewed the Navy's report and interviewed Navy officials. Since 2015, GAO has made 39 unclassified recommendations related to Navy maintenance delays. The Navy or the Department of Defense concurred or partially concurred with 37 recommendations, and had implemented six of them as of September 2020. For more information, contact Diana Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or MaurerD@gao.gov.[Read More…]
- United States Files Complaint to Forfeit Iranian Missiles and Sells Previously-Transferred Iranian PetroleumBy Sam NewsOctober 29, 2020The Justice Department today announced the filing of a complaint to forfeit two shipments of Iranian missiles that the U.S. Navy seized in transit from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to militant groups in Yemen, as well as the sale of approximately 1.1 million barrels of Iranian petroleum that the United States previously obtained from four foreign-flagged oil tankers bound for Venezuela.[Read More…]
- Secretary Pompeo Approves New Cyberspace Security and Emerging Technologies BureauBy Sam NewsJanuary 7, 2021
- Fair Lending: CFPB Needs to Assess the Impact of Recent Changes to Its Fair Lending ActivitiesBy Sam NewsMay 15, 2021What GAO Found In January 2018, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced a reorganization of its fair lending activities that moved its Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity (Fair Lending Office) from the Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending Division to the Office of the Director and reallocated certain of its responsibilities (see figure). As CFPB planned and implemented the reorganization, it did not substantially incorporate key practices for agency reform efforts GAO identified in prior work—such as using employee input for planning or monitoring implementation progress and outcomes. GAO identified challenges related to the reorganization (including loss of fair lending expertise and specialized data analysts) that may have contributed to a decline in enforcement activity in 2018. However, CFPB has not assessed how well the reorganization met its goals or how it affected fair lending supervision and enforcement efforts. Collecting and analyzing information on reorganization outcomes would help CFPB determine the impact of the changes and identify actions needed to address any related challenges or unintended consequences. Key Changes in Fair Lending Responsibilities under CFPB's 2018 Reorganization As of February 2019, CFPB stopped reporting on performance goals and measures specific to fair lending supervision and enforcement—such as the number of completed examinations and the percentage of enforcement cases successfully resolved. Without these goals and measures, CFPB is limited in its ability to assess and communicate progress on its fair lending supervision and enforcement efforts, key components of CFPB's mission. CFPB has used additional Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data that some lenders have had to report since 2018 to support supervisory and enforcement activities and fair lending analyses. CFPB incorporated these new loan-level data into efforts to identify and prioritize fair lending risks and support fair lending examinations. For example, the new data points improve CFPB's ability to compare how different institutions price loans, which helps its staff identify potentially discriminatory lending practices. Why GAO Did This Study Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, CFPB is responsible for two federal fair lending laws that protect consumers from discrimination: the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. In January 2019, CFPB completed a reorganization of its fair lending activities. GAO was asked to review issues related to CFPB's oversight and enforcement of fair lending laws. This report examines how CFPB has (1) managed the reorganization of its fair lending activities, (2) monitored and reported on its fair lending performance, and (3) used Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data to support its fair lending activities. GAO reviewed CFPB documents related to its fair lending activities (such as strategic and performance reports, policies and procedures) and to the reorganization of its Fair Lending Office. GAO evaluated implementation of this reorganization against relevant key practices identified in GAO-18-427. GAO also interviewed CFPB staff.[Read More…]
- Indian Independence DayBy Sam NewsSeptember 26, 2020Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
- The Life and Legacy of Archbishop Desmond TutuBy Sam NewsDecember 26, 2021Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
- California Nebula Stars in Final Mosaic by NASA’s SpitzerBy Sam NewsIn SpaceSeptember 26, 2020The image composite is [Read More…]