The OIG investigated an allegation that a tribal official stole Federal funds by using a tribal charge card for personal expenses. We found that the official embezzled more than $98,000 by charging personal expenses to tribal government charge cards assigned to him from December 2009 until July 2015, when the tribe canceled all tribal government charge cards. The theft included charges for restaurants, airfare, retail purchases, food, and utility and telephone services. The charges were billed to the tribe and paid using a combination of Federal and tribal funds. The U.S.

The OIG investigated allegations that an official at a tribally controlled college bribed members of the college board of trustees, submitted false mileage claims for work-related travel, retaliated against employees who disagreed with his policies, and failed to report the theft of college funds by a former employee. We did not substantiate the allegations of bribery, false claims, or retaliation. We also found the official ensured the theft was properly reported to law enforcement and that the stolen funds had been repaid in full. The U.S.

The OIG investigated allegations that a retired Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) employee represented his current employer in matters in which he participated personally and substantially while he was employed at the USBR, violating post-employment conflict-of-interest laws. We confirmed that the retired employee represented his current employer in four matters which were substantially the same as those he engaged in while employed with the USBR.

The OIG investigated allegations that a former Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) official had targeted, bullied, and physically threatened U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) employees while at the DOI and that the official spoke in an unprofessional or threatening manner to senior DOI staff.

The OIG investigated allegations that a former Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) manager influenced the award of a $21 million environmental consulting contract to a firm that employed him after he left the USBR. The allegations further stated that a USBR supervisory contract specialist had a conflict of interest with managing the contract process because of her romantic relationship with the USBR manager. We found no evidence that the manager personally or substantially participated in the contract or that he influenced the award while he was employed by the USBR.