Antideficiency Act Violations at USDA Could Have Far-Reaching Impact
Every year, federal employees across a number of agencies face potential discipline for violations of the Antideficiency Act (ADA). For example, in a recent high-profile decision the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) did not meet its obligation to notify Congress about the appropriation of funds to support the relocation of the Economic Research Service (ERS) and, in failing to do so, violated the ADA.
In 2019, USDA paid a federal contractor to consult on and help execute the move of the National Institute of Feed and Agriculture (NIFA) and ERS from Washington, D.C., to Kansas City, MO. While GAO found that USDA did meet its obligations to notify Congress about the transferring of funds to support NIFA’s relocation, the same requirements were not met for ERS’ relocation.
GAO reported that USDA did not account for staff attrition when considering the costs of relocating, straying from the department’s own criteria. Shortly afterward, both agencies lost more than half their staff due to the relocation, which spurred an overall decrease in productivity. Although USDA largely recovered its staff numbers by late 2021, a GAO report published earlier this year found that the new employees were less experienced than previous employees.
Because of this ADA violation and the apparent consequences to USDA staffing and productivity, three lawmakers are pushing Congress to pass the Conducting Oversight to Secure Transparency (COST) of Relocations Act that will require any agency that plans to relocate to conduct and publish a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the proposed move prior to execution.
The Antideficiency Act intends to prevent agencies from spending money either in excess of, or in advance of, Congress’ appropriations. It also imposes criminal penalties on any federal employee, officer or executive who violates the ADA. USDA employees involved with the relocation of ERS may be subject to investigations into actions taken in the scope of their federal position. Because this issue has received attention from lawmakers, Congress, and GAO, calls for accountability and consequences are likely to follow. Additionally, USDA managers may struggle to increase productivity while working with inexperienced employees. Because USDA is already being monitored closely, agency officials may look to managers to place blame for workplace issues.
Allegations against federal managers can lead to agency investigations. If an allegation is made against you, it is a necessity, not luxury, to have knowledgeable and effective counsel advocating on your behalf. Your agency attorney is not your attorney. It is the job of the agency attorney to defend the agency – not you. As a federal employee, you need to have counsel that has specific experience representing employees with your professional vulnerabilities.
FEDS Protection offers federal employee policies with $1 million, $2 million, or $3 million in civil liability protection for attorney’s fees and indemnity costs in the event you are sued in your civil capacity. The FEDS policy also includes $200,000 of legal representation coverage per incident for administrative actions and $100,000 of coverage for criminal defense costs. Annual premiums for FEDS Protection PLI start at $290 and federal managers and law enforcement officers are eligible for a reimbursement of up to 50% the cost of their PLI policy through their agency. To learn more about how a FEDS PLI policy can protect you and your career, visit www.fedsprotection.com or call (866) 955-FEDS, M-F 8:30am-6pm to speak directly to a representative.
*This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.