Porn viewing, other cases of employee misconduct rise at National Science Foundation

By AP
Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Worker misconduct cases rise at science foundation

ARLINGTON, Va. — A watchdog responsible for stopping fraud involving taxpayer-funded science grants said it has been forced to divert its attention to government employee misconduct, much of it involving pornography.

The National Science Foundation’s inspector general told Congress in a recent budget request that a sharp increase in employee misconduct investigations had forced it to cut back its investigations of grant fraud.

According to records obtained by The Washington Times through a Freedom of Information Act request, the inspector general closed 10 employee misconduct investigations last year, up from three in 2006. Of the 10 cases, seven involved employees watching porn online.

One senior executive spent at least 331 days looking at pornography on his government computer and chatting online with nude or partially clad women, according to the records. The official retired when caught. Among other explanations, he said he frequented the sites to help provide a living to the “young women” from “poor countries.” Investigators estimated that the official’s porn surfing cost taxpayers $13,800 to $58,000.

The NSF, an independent foundation funded by taxpayers, hands out scientific grants to colleges, universities and research institutions. It has 1,200 employees.

A spokeswoman for the foundation, Dana Topousis, says that since the investigations it has tightened controls on computers to block inappropriate Internet addresses. Topousis said that employees who were investigated were “disciplined in one way or another” but that she could not comment on individual disciplinary actions.

At least one employee received a 10-day suspension and paid an unspecified amount after investigators found that during a 3-week period he looked at hundreds of pornographic Web sites during work. Some employees were fired.

Information from: The Washington Times, www.washtimes.com

YOUR VIEW POINT
NAME : (REQUIRED)
MAIL : (REQUIRED)
will not be displayed
WEBSITE : (OPTIONAL)
YOUR
COMMENT :