*************************************************** 
                         NOTICE
***************************************************

This document was converted from
Word97 to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page
numbers will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, itallic, underlining, etc. from 
the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the orginal document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Word97, or Adobe Acrobat versions, if available.

The path and name of the Word97, and Acrobat files
 will be the same as the ASCII Text file except that they  will 
end with the letters wp, doc, or pdf  respectively, 
instead of the letters txt.

****************************************************

 



OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

M E M O R A N D U M





DATE:	January 21, 2000

TO:		Chairman
		Chief, Enforcement Bureau

FROM:	Inspector General

SUBJECT:	FY 1999 Field Inspection Program


I have attached an Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report entitled "FY 1999 Field Inspection 
Program - Summary Inspection Report" summarizing the results of field office visits conducted 
during Fiscal Year (FY) 1999.  As part of the FY 1999 Field Inspection Program (FIP), OIG 
inspectors visited the following field offices:

? Office of Regional Director, Northeast Region
? Chicago Field Office
? New York Field Office
? Detroit Field Office
? Philadelphia Field Office

The scope of each field office inspection included an evaluation of internal controls over payroll, 
imprest funds, credit cards and other government assets.  Inspectors assessed compliance with 
FCC policy and directives and evaluated the professionalism and performance of field office 
personnel.  Employee feedback was obtained and each employee was afforded the opportunity to 
raise any topics of concern or interest with the Inspection Team.  Additionally, equipment and 
facilities were assessed and evaluated by the Inspection Team.  Inspectors also sought out "best 
practices" in individual offices that could be adopted on a Bureau-wide basis.  Following each 
inspection, inspectors prepared reports summarizing the detailed results of each visit.  Copies of 
the individual inspection reports are attached to the summary report.  

In general, OIG staff was impressed by the professionalism and demeanor exhibited by field office 
employees.  It has been our observation that field office personnel display an overriding pride and 
resolve to provide meaningful services to customers of the FCC.  However, field office employees 
cited the lack of training, travel funds, state of the art equipment and vehicles, and inaccurate 
information maintained in FCC information systems as impediments to successful mission 
completion.  Another issue raised by some employees focused upon concern over their personal 
safety when responding to interference complaints or unauthorized transmissions.  This issue was 
especially significant as relates to the Detroit District Office and their experience in dealing with 
militia entities.  Inspectors identified some minor payroll and inventory discrepancies that were 
either resolved on-site or were being resolved at the time this report was prepared.  As noted in 
prior FIP reports, the field clearly feels themselves to be on the Commissions' periphery.  In 
general, they are unaware as to major initiatives being undertaken by other Bureaus and Offices 
and how, or if, they can contribute to these programs.  Given the opportunity to work on high 
visibility and meaningful projects the staff reacts in an aggressive and highly motivated manner.  
For example, employees that had the opportunity to participate on "pirate" radio enforcement 
teams spoke favorably of their experience and the constructive nature of the work performed and 
the constructive liaison with other field personnel.   However, such work appears to be the 
exception rather then the rule for field personnel.

The attached summary report and four individual inspection reports do not contain specific 
recommendations that would typically be included in a formal audit report.  The summary report 
contains observations that cut across those field offices that were visited or issues that we 
determined warranted highlighting and individual field inspection reports contain the detailed 
results of each inspection visit.  We would like to thank those offices visited for their courtesy and 
enthusiastic support for this program.  We would be happy to meet with you to discuss the results 
of this FY 1999 Field Inspection Program. If you have any questions, please contact me at 418-
0476.




							H. Walker Feaster III

Attachment
 
cc: 	Chief of Staff
	Managing Director