Another shoe dropped last month on the ASY episode. You remember the case (or maybe you don’t): A probe was launched last year into allegations that funds were shifted improperly through Stars and Stripes for the benefit of a Department of Defense undertaking called America Supports You. More precisely, the undertaking was that of American Forces Information Service (AFIS), until recently the parent organization of Stripes. ASY’s original mission was to make it known to the troops fighting in the Middle East that America was behind them.
It was first reported in May 2007, by The New York Times, that the DOD inspector general’s office was performing an audit of the activities of ASY.
Subsequent reports revealed that there was also an audit into the possibility that “appropriated” (Congress-approved) funds from AFIS were channeled through Stripes’ “nonappropriated” (commercially raised) fund structure to ASY. You aren’t supposed to mix the funds in that way.
The news caused a furor in Stripes’ editorial ranks. Staffers were upset that the paper, which enjoys First Amendment rights and jealously guards its independence, was somehow mixed up with what many saw as an enterprise, however well-meaning, that should be left to public affairs offices. As the audit dragged on, I wrote a column in November 2007 saying I saw no encroachment on Stripes’ independent stature. At the same time I deplored an essentially bureaucratic maneuver (the money-shifting) that could lead people to surmise otherwise.
Last month the IG audit was released. Its authors made clear they deplored the maneuver as well. As Stripes reported Dec. 14, the report said AFIS inappropriately transferred $9.2 million to Stripes for eventual funding of public relations assistance to ASY. Moreover, it said, Stripes had evidently “lost visibility” of about $4.1 million of appropriated funds transferred for ASY requirements. And it had “subsidized” ASY expenses by about $1.9 million of its own (nonappropriated) funds.
The report was extraordinarily tough, saying Stripes officials “failed to perform their fiduciary responsibilities” to ensure proper money management. It said DOD officials should look into what it termed mismanagement and advocated a request for a preliminary investigation into any violations of law.
The audit indicated — and one of its authors, Joseph P. Bucsko, confirmed to me — that such an investigation by the Washington Headquarters Service would be of both Stripes and AFIS officials. And the report also mentioned, without elaboration, that both the Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) chief financial officer and the publisher of Stripes executed at least part of the transactions “with the approval” of the director of administration and management in the parent organization of both.
Regardless where you try to place the blame, the facts as determined by the IG are that these money transfers did not fit Stripes’ mission and could be construed as a “misuse or waste of soldier’s dollars.” The report stated — along the lines of my own complaint — that the program’s use of moneys in this way “does not appear to meet the ‘public scrutiny’ test.” It cited the articles that appeared in Stripes, The New York Times and the Columbia Journalism Review. That’s where the danger of a misperception of Stripes’ claim to independence may come in.
I call it a misperception because that is what it would be. Robert Hastings, principal deputy assistant secretary of Defense for public affairs, told a Stripes reporter he saw no evidence that the paper’s mission had been compromised “whatsoever.” That agreed with my own reading, looking back to the time — during the questionable money transferring — when I was editorial director.
I did want to find out whether the IG team had uncovered information to indicate there was any planned or actual encroachment on the editorial side. Bucsko, the IG team member, said, “We did not come across any editorial angle.” And the leader of the investigators, Richard B. Jolliffe, confirmed that, saying, “We heard no talk of editorial integrity being involved. Just financial procedures.” (There was also, incidentally, no finding that anybody personally and financially profited from the bureaucratic actions. The sole motivation here, the audit found, was “simply a matter of convenience that allowed more control of the entire process” by the deputy assistant secretary for public affairs, the position held by Allison Barber before she left the DOD last year.)
Any investigations that are still to come out of all this will run their course. Hastings says reforms have been started and will go forward. As will the unencumbered delivery of the news to armed services communities worldwide.
