Applying critical thinking to a high-visibility allegation

  • Published
  • By Lt. Col. John Hartsell
  • 48th Fighter Wing Legal Office
ROYAL AIR FORCE LAKENHEATH, England --  On Nov. 18, 2009, three reporters from USA Today published what appeared to be an expose on the military's senior mentoring program.

The article reported that at least 158 retired generals and admirals were serving as paid mentors for the military while also maintaining a financial interest with military contractors. The alleged conflict of interest provoked both public outcry and a notable change in policy by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The unspoken question that any critical thinker might want to ask is, "why the expose? Don't we have thousands of retirees working as contractors for the defense industry?"

The USA Today article did a colorful job of sprinkling a variety of touchstone issues throughout the piece. The recognizable names of retired generals and admirals were placed alongside dollar figures, defense corporations, and ethics rules. The casual reader is left with the suggested chore of linking them all together and concluding that financial "hanky panky" is afoot. A number of political columnists certainly wove the names and issues together to draft nefarious conclusions, but we need to ensure we do not tread the same path of lazy innuendo. An Airman is a critical thinker and such critical analysis is certainly necessary here in order to understand both the issue and the Secretary's response.

Many Department of Defense personnel have attended the retirement of co-workers and wondered, "what do we do now? All that expertise and knowledge is leaving." The military mentor program appears to have responded to that question with a simple answer, "I still need your expertise, so I may call you from time to time."

The hot-button issue surrounding that answer concerns compensation. Military mentors are paid when they provide their expertise. Moreover, they do not surrender their pensions when they provide that expertise. But where's the controversy? Officers and enlisted retire and serve as contractors every day. That's nothing new. The controversy in this case concerns the applicability of ethics rules.

There are a wide range of ethical rules surrounding post-government employment. Those rules help prevent both actual conflicts of interest and perceived conflicts of interest. Active-duty personnel are prohibited from engaging in certain activities and so are civilian and special government employees. Contractors are a different story. The rules are different for contractors and this is the reason why the USA Today reporters do have a fair - but not necessarily well-articulated - concern.

The reporters point out that almost all government consultants are appointed as special government employees which requires them to assume public service constraints. The reporters found that none of their reported military mentors were special government employees; instead, the mentors were hired as contractors. As contractors, their pay was higher, they did not have to file public financial disclosure reports, and they were not subjected to restrictive lobbying rules.

Critical analysis requires us to examine the "expose" for evidence of contractor wrongdoing. Did anyone lie, cheat or steal simply because they were a contractor and also received a pension? No, there is no indication any of the retired officers engaged in such misconduct. Regrettably, in a world where tabloid news prevails, stating that senior officers have not engaged in misconduct doesn't sell copy. Instead, we witness news articles that infer wrongdoing where none exists and we suddenly have dedicated professionals who sacrificed and selflessly served wrestling with the perception of conflicts of interest. Fortunately, the Secretary of Defense is an advanced critical thinker. He recognized the problem of hyperbole reporting and public perceptions and instituted new rules.

In early April 2010, Secretary Gates issued a new policy on senior mentors. He noted that while we need the specialized expertise of mentors, it is "imperative that the experts we hire be subject to certain ethics laws and regulations that apply to Federal employees to avoid any perception of impropriety." Under the new policy, senior mentors will comply with applicable personnel and ethics laws, file a financial disclosure report and will not divulge nonpublic information or participate in official matters that raise a financial conflict of interest.

By issuing a short and concise policy memo, Secretary Gates effectively allayed fears of perceived wrongdoing. He identified the issue, shaped the battlefield, and issued a response that should prevent actual and perceived problems in the future. He used critical thinking and in so doing, served as a senior mentor for all of us. The best part is the Secretary's mentoring was free.