EPA's Inspector General Agrees to Review Samantha Dravis' Employment Record

In this April 9 letter, Environmental Protection Agency Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins Jr. agrees to look into whether Office of Policy Associate Administrator Samantha Dravis collected full time pay four nearly two months while not regularly showing up for work. Dravis denies the charges, which were first made by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.).

?5 q-
):rr?lt Patti?s"f 3
The Honorable Tom Carper
Ranking Member

Committee on Enviromnent and Public Works
United States Senate
Washington, DC. 20510

Dear Ranking Member Carper:

You wrote to us on March 28, 2018, to request that the US. Environmental Protection Agency?s
Of?ce of Inspector General (016) conduct an immediate review of the oversight of its employee
time and attendance practices. You speci?cally noted allegations that Ms. Samantha Dravis, Associate
Administrator of the Of?ce of Policy, did not work for much of November 2017 through

January 2018 but was still compensated as a full-time employee. You asked that we review the allegations
and any related systematic problems to ensure that the EPA has adhered to the corrective actions
implemented subsequent to the criminal fraud committed by John Beale to ensure that it did not happen
again. While Ms. Dravis has subsequently announced that she is leaving the EPA, the issues you raise
would not be answered by her departure. After analyzing your request, we have decided to conduct the
requested review.

As I have noted in previous letters to Congress, in determining whether the OIG can undertake requested
work, initially we have to find that the matter is within our jurisdiction. But, beyond that threshold
question, we have to determine whether we have suf?cient resources?people, time and funds?to do a
project in a timely fashion and whether it would preclude our doing other crucial work. The 01G has
been funded at less than the levels we deem adequate to do all of the work that should be done, and we
therefore have to make dif?cult decisions about whether to accept any given potential undertaking.
Many of our projects are statutorily mandated work, with Congress adding new mandates each session.
Further, our annual work plan, which is also statutorily mandated, uses a risk-based analysis that
identi?es dozens of additional hi gh-impact projects. All of this means that for every discretionary

review the OIG decides to undertake there will be others we cannot.

However, despite these constraints, we have determined that the issues raised in your letter are within
the authority of the OIG to review and we will do so. We will inform you and your staff when we
complete the review.

Thank you for your interest in the work of the 01G. If you have any questions about this or any other
matter, please contact Alan Larsen, Counsel to the Inspector General, at (202) 566-2391.


demojj? A

Arthur A. Elkins Jr.