pclj.orgpclj.org/.../2/files/2012/03/42f4b2e3c82038b8c3fd2e5a8… · web viewpclj.org
TRANSCRIPT
Perception is Reality or Is ItA Case Study The $435 Hammer amp $600 Toilet Seat Scandals
Does Media Coverage of Procurement Scandals Lead to Procurement Reform
Airon A Mothershed
Airon A Mothershed is a Major in the US Air Force JAG Corps holds an LLM in Government Procurement from The George Washington University Law School and is currently assigned as a Program Attorney at the Electronic Systems Center Hanscom AFB MA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION1II BACKGROUND3A What is a Scandal3B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories5
III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE7A How it Began7B The $435 Hammer Scandal91 Background Facts92 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal10
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal151 Background Facts152 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal16
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals18
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM25A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal271 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal272 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals31
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform391 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study392 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals41
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory431 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory432 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals45
V CONCLUSION47
I INTRODUCTION
Several recent crises related to government procurement
including the BAE Systems bribery scandal in the United Kingdom1
and the United Statesrsquo Department of Defense (DoD) logistics and
security contract scandals in Afghanistan2 have suggested that
prolonged negative media coverage of procurement scandals have
the potential to move a proposed change to procurement policy
from the ldquoback burner of some committee straight off the stove
and onto the tablerdquo as nothing else can3 These events further
imply that publicized procurement scandals can be instrumental
in promoting reform because ldquowhen subjected to public scrutiny
[they have the ability to] unify senior management and
politicians in a newly found and shared resolve to solve the
problems rdquo4 Nevertheless not all procurement crises and
problems rise to the level of ldquoscandalsrdquo Many deserving
procurement issues are never publicized and despite academic 1 See eg Christopher Drew and Nicola Clark BAE Settles Corruption Charges NY Times Feb 6 2010 at B1Needs cite2 See eg Needs citeJames Risen Blackwater Reaches Deal on US Export Violations NY Times Aug 21 2010 at A83 Michael Asner Address at the 14th Annual Florida Government Purchasing Conference and Trade Show Moving Away from Scandal-Driven Procurement Reform (September 14 2006) available at httpwwwrfpmentorcomcms_pdfsScandals20Promote20Procurement20Reformdochttpwwwrfpmentorcomcms_pdfsScandals20Promote20Procurement20Reformdoc see also THE LAW COMMISSION REFORMING BRIBERY (2008-09November 19 2008) HC 313 at 12-14 (UK) available at httpwwwlawcomgovukbriberyhtm [hereinafter Reforming Bribery] see also No Contracting with the Enemy Act of 2011 S 341 112th Cong sect 3 (2011)4 Asner supra note 3
1
authoritiesrsquo and procurement officialsrsquo tiring push for reform
are largely ignored unless and until a scandal comes into play
Further even when such problems are publicized the coverage may
not always lead to the reform of applicable processes laws or
regulations5
The purpose of this paper is to determine whether a
correlation exists between media coverage and procurement reform
In this endeavor the following presents a case study of the
correlation between the media coverage of two sub-scandals of the
ldquospare parts scandalrdquo6 that eventually helped lead to the passage
of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 19947 and
subsequent commercial item reform8 Specifically this paper
will review the facts circumstances and ensuing media coverage
surrounding the discovery in the early 1980s that the DoD had
paid $435 for a common claw hammer and $600 for a toilet seat
cover9 A brief definition and explanation of what a ldquoscandalrdquo
is follows below along with an explanation of the criteria 5 See generally Sandeep Kathuria Best Practices for Compliance With the New Government Contractor Compliance and Ethics Rules Under the Federal Acquisition Regulations 38 PUB CONT LJ 803 809-10 (2009)6 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL TO THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 47 (2007) available at httpswwwacquisitiongovcompaapfinalaapreporthtml (hereinafter ldquoACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT rdquo)7 Needs citePub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994)8 See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)Needs cite9 Acquisition Advisory Panel Report supra note 6Needs cite
2
procurement crises and scandals must meet to receive media
attention10 A case history of the hammer and toilet seat
scandals and a summary of each scandalrsquos media coverage will then
follow11 Finally three methodologies for analyzing the
correlation between media coverage scandals and reform will be
presented and applied to the facts of the hammer and toilet seat
scandals to assess the correlation between the media coverage and
subsequent reform that occurred in those cases12
II BACKGROUND
A What is a Scandal
In order to determine why some procurement crises become
scandals and others do not it is helpful to understand what a
ldquoscandalrdquo is and how a crisis may evolve into a public scandal 13
Although definitions of ldquoscandalrdquo vary somewhat between social
scientists and other authorities14 the common theme throughout 10 See infra Part II11 See infra Part III12 See infra Part IV13 James Lull amp Stephen Hinerman The Search for Scandal in MEDIA SCANDALS MORALITY AND DESIRE IN THE POPULAR CULTURE MARKETPLACE S 11 (James Lull amp Stephen Hinerman eds 1997)14 See Scandal definition MERRIAM-WEBSTERCOM httpwwwmerriam-webstercomdictionaryscandal (last visited May 5 2011) Likewise a common dictionary definition of ldquoscandalrdquo states in relevant part that a scandal includes the
loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it a person whose conduct offends propriety or morality (ie a scandal to the profession) andor malicious or defamatory gossip
Id
3
is that in its most simple form a scandal has three basic
characteristics (1) it is a transgression (2) it is publicized
and (3) the public is interested in it and its outcome15 Social
science data demonstrates a ldquotransgressionrdquo occurs when social
norms that reflect the public morality are broken16 A
transgression can be anything that brings about shame or that
will embarrass or provoke when made public17 For a
transgression to rise to the level of a genuine scandal it must
typically 1) demoralize or shame the public to whom the
transgression is communicated involving respected or publicly
See also MEDIA SCANDALS supra note 13 at 11 Social scientists have defined the term further yet determining that for a crisis or problem to meet the definition of a ldquoscandalrdquo it must meet ten criteria First (1) social norms reflecting the dominant morality must be transgressed According to Lull and Hinerman this criterion is fundamental because without it no story can be considered a scandal In addition crucial compound considerations are also required The ldquotransgressions must be performed by (2) specific persons who carry out (3) actions that reflect an exercise of their desires or interestsrdquo Further individuals must be ldquo(4) identified as perpetrators of the act(s) and must be shown to have acted (5) intentionally or recklessly and must be (6) held responsible for their actionsrdquo The transgressions must result in ldquo(7) differential consequences for those involvedrdquo And finally before an event may be considered ldquothe revelations must be (8) widely circulated via communications media where they are (9) effectively narrated into a story which (10) inspires widespread interest and discussionrdquo15 ARI ADUT ON SCANDAL MORAL DISTURBANCES IN SOCIETY POLITICS AND ART 12 (Mark Granovetter ed 2008)16 MEDIA SCANDALS supra note 13 at 11 See also ADUT supra note 15 at 13 ldquoScandalous transgressions are often willful wrongdoings that when made public make the transgressor look like a bad person Yet exceptional acts by those we trust (such as politicians or doctors) can also set off scandals ndash but usually when they are particularly harmful and when the opinion leaders loudly and successfully frame the matter in moral termsrdquo17 See also ADUT supra note 15 at 13
4
trusted individuals groups or institutions or 2) challenge the
public authorities or both18 Further a problem or crisis
cannot rise to the level of a scandal unless it is communicated
or publicized ldquoto an audience that is negatively oriented to
itrdquo19 Although scandals may be publicized in various ways20
because procurement crises of the past have only become full-
blown procurement scandals after receiving media attention21
this paper will focus specifically on media-publicized scandals
B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
Although it has been established that a procurement crisis
cannot become a full-blown procurement scandal until published by
the media22 the crisis will never be published unless a member
of the media (including a blogger) first believes the problem or
issue warrants the attention that may elevate it to the status of
a scandal23 Factors that determine potential newsworthiness of
a story include whether the event 1) is happening currently 2)
will have a major impact 3) involves many people 4) is novel or
unusual behavior 5) involves an elite or respected person or
agency 6) includes a human interest factor (versus abstract
social forces)
18 See id at 2219 See id at 1620 See id at 1421 See eg Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893Needs cite22 Needs cite23 Needs cite
5
7) involves some type of conflict 8) is unambiguous and easy to
understand and 9) references something negative24 The more of
these factors a procurement crisis includes the more likely it
will be published as a news story and the greater chance it has
of rising to the level of a procurement scandal25 Of the above
listed criteria the eighth ndash that the public be able to
understand the story ndash is essential for a government procurement
issue to become a bona fide scandal26 If the story meets the
criteria for news but is too complicated for anyone but experts
to understand the story rarely will become a scandal27 Stated
in another way ldquoA scandal is like any other melodrama It canrsquot
be a crowd pleaser unless the audience can follow the plotrdquo28
Further once the first set of criteria is met the story still
must meet with the organizationrsquos editorial policy and a
journalist must determine if the organizationrsquos readers or
listeners will be interested in following the topic29 24 Tony Harcup amp Deirdre OrsquoNeill What Is News Galtung and Ruge Revisited 2 JOURNALISM STUDIES 261 262-643 (2001)25 Id26 Id27 MADELAINE DROHANSHELDON CHUMIR FOUNDATION FOR ETHICS IN LEADERSHIP SCANDALS AND THEIR AFTERMATH WHY WE ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT OUR MISTAKES 4 (2005) available at httpwwwchumirethicsfoundationcafilespdfscandalsandtheiraftermathpdf NIEMAN REPORTS NIEMAN FOUNDATION FOR JOURNALISM AT HARVARD Winter 2005 httpwwwniemanharvardedureportsarticle100610Knowing-When-to-Stop-Reporting-About-a-Scandalaspx28 Frank Rich Get Tom DeLay to the Church On Time NY TIMES Apr 175 2005 httpwwwnytimescom20050417opinion17richhtml29 Drohan supra note 27 at 4
6
III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
The passage of the FASA30 along with the Clinger-Cohen Act
of 199631 ldquorepresented the culmination of Congressrsquos
efforts to eliminate or reduce the barriers commercial companies
faced in selling to the United States gGovernmentrdquo32 While
these Acts brought significant reform to the way in which the
US Government procures commercial items and services33 it took
a significant length of time several scandals and a great deal
of media coverage for the reform to come about34 As President
Bill Clinton prepared to sign the FASA on October 13 1994 he
remarked
I kind of hate to sign this bill today What will Jay Leno do There will be no more $500 hammers no more $600 toilet seats no more $10 ashtrays Al Gore will never get on David Letterman again Itrsquos sort of a sad moment ndash the passing of Government purchasing as the butt of all the jokes 35
30 Needs citeFASA supra note 731 See The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642Needs cite32 Carl L Vacketta Lessons From the Commercial Marketplace 2 PUB PROCUREMENT L REV 126 128 (2002)33 See US Govrsquot Accountability Office GAOT-OCG-00-7 Federal Acquisition Trends Reforms and Challenges 9 (2000)Needs cite34 See Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 2 PUB PAPERS 1737-1738 (Oct 13 1994) Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 discussion supra Part IIIB2 and Part IIIC2Needs cite35 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)
7
At that point in time the jokes regarding $500 hammers and $600
toilet seats had been ongoing for nearly ten years36
A How it Began
As a matter of background even prior to the 1980s the
acquisition of commercial items ldquowas perceived as being plagued
by cost overruns inefficiencies and burdensome government
specifications rdquo37 Procurement officials and others
believed ldquo[g]overnment-unique specifications [were] a major
impediment to the efficient procurement of otherwise suitable
commercially developed products and servicesrdquo38 Nevertheless
even though the Commission on Government Procurement urged
Congress as early as 1972 to ldquopromote the acquisition of
commercial products over lsquoGovernment-designed items to avoid the
high cost of developing unique productsrsquordquo significant reform did
not occur during that decade39 Reform only occurred after
several ldquospare partsrdquo procurement scandals emerged in the 1980s
36 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 available at httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906
37 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL TO THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 47 (2007) available at httpswwwacquisitiongovcompaapfinalaapreporthtml (hereinafter ldquoACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORTrdquo)38 See idId at 48 (quoting Stephen Barr lsquoReinventrsquo Government Cautiously Study Urges WASH POST July 28 1993 at A17) One such impediment reported was that ldquothe military specifications for fruitcake once ran eighteen pagesrdquo 39 See id at 48Id
8
and pressured Congress to make significant changes to the
commercial item acquisition process40
B The $435 Hammer Scandal
1 Background Facts
In 1981 the Navy issued a sole-source contract41 to Gould
Inc (Gould) an electronics company that manufactured the flight
instruments for the T-34 aircraft42 Under the contract Gould
was responsible to provide over 400 different parts and tools
one of which was an ordinary claw hammer43 After negotiation of
the entire contract price Gould eventually offered the hammer to
the Government for a line item cost of $43544 In the
calculation of the line item cost of each part offered to the
Government including the hammer Gould included allocated
overhead45 The overhead cost built into the cost of each part
was distributed using the equal allocation method which meant
that the total indirect costs (such as indirect labor and
40 Needs citeId at 48-4941 Needs citeSee 48 CFR 63 (2012) 42 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906supra note 3643 See iId44 See iId45 See id
9
overhead) were divided by the total number of parts on the list
and then each part was assigned an equal amount of the support
costs basically rendering the line item prices meaningless46
Although the equal allocation method worked as ldquoa bookkeeping
procedure to create billing prices so that Gould could be paid as
it shipped line items at different times during the contractrdquo
very few non-procurement Agency employees and even fewer members
of the public knew and understood this47
This became apparent in 1983 when a Navy chief petty
officer saw the line item prices on the Gould contract and
noticed the hammerrsquos $435 unit price48 Questioning the $435
cost the chief petty officer made agency-level inquiries49
This led to several agency investigations and an audit conducted
by the Naval Audit Service50 which determined that the Gould 46 See iId47 See iId 48 Needs citeId 49 Needs citeId
50 Needs cite Id The Naval Audit Service (NAVAUDSVC) audits and assesses business risks within the Department of the Navy (DON) Internal audits give DON managers objective feedback on efficiency and effectiveness of DON programs systems functions and funds Audits have defined objectives and are done following generally accepted Government auditing standards (GAGAS) issued by the Comptroller General of the United States These are professional auditing standards that include those professional standards required of private sector public accounting firms Based on their work auditors certify or attest to the accuracy of data or to the assertions of management The work and opinion of auditors within the bounds of their profession carries recognized legal weight in court proceedings Each audit report presents conclusions on pre-established audit objectives and where appropriate summarizes a condition that needs managementrsquos
10
contract contained ldquoexcess costs of about $729000rdquo51 Secretary
of Defense Caspar Weinberger responded by issuing a public
announcement that Gould had overcharged the Navy and that not
only was the DoD seeking immediate repayment from Gould but the
DoD needed to make ldquomajor changesrdquo in the way it procured spare
parts52 Although Gould believed the Navyrsquos audit was flawed it
agreed to make a good faith repayment of $84000 in August 1983
to appease the DoD53
2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
Early on the media coverage of the hammer scandal was
neutral and even somewhat optimistic54 In early September of
1983 newspapers framed the root cause of spare parts problem as
one resulting from a combination of the equal allocation system
for distributing overhead and the DoDrsquos lack of oversight in
attention explains the root causes and effects of the condition and recommends potential solutions Audit reports are provided to the Department of the Navy commands and activities Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) Congress and via the Freedom of Information Act to the public A General Overview of the Audit Service available at httpsecnavportaldonhqnavymilportalserverptopen=512ampobjID=303ampampPageID=37387ampmode=2ampin_hi_userid=2ampcached=true (last visited Apr 2 2012)
51 See Fairhall supra note 42Id52 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 364253 See Fairhall supra note 364254 See eg James Barron High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sept 1 1983 at D1Needs cite
11
managing its inventory and procurement systems55 As additional
related facts were uncovered the portrayal of the issue
evolved56 Just a few weeks later newspapers reported the real
problem behind the high cost of hammers and other spare parts was
the lack of competitive bidding on commercial item contracts
while acknowledging the DoDrsquos efforts to remedy the system
through demanding (and receiving) repayment for the previous
overcharges and establishing incentives for increased
competition57 Surprisingly the early coverage of the scandal
appears to have been its most accurate
In October 1983 media framing of the issue began to change
dramatically58 Reports began suggesting the spare parts problem
55 See James Barron supra note 54 at D11 (High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sep 1 1983 at D1 As evidence that the equal allocation method had been to blame Barron reportedreporting that ldquoGould officials have told staff members of the House Armed Services Committee that the high markups resulted from the way the Defense Department requires contractors on some military projects to bill overheadrdquo)56 Needs citeSee eg William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983 at 2157 See See William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983id at 21 see also Brad Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 (ldquo [O]fficials admit that while other criminal probes are under way this only begins to scratch the surface [The] problem is a wasteful system that has grown without much control But the Pentagon is doing quite a bit these days to crack down on the exorbitant sums itrsquos been paying for spare partsrdquo)58 Needs citeSee Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 Capitalism for the Pentagon NY TIMES Nov 15 1983 at A1
12
was due to a ldquowasteful systemrdquo59 Nearly a month later the
presentation of the issue had again evolved and this time the
media blamed the high cost of spare parts on a combination of
greedy contractors and a lack of competition60 Congress quickly
responded to the negative publicity with those leading the
charge particularly Representative Berkley Bedell advocating
for ldquospare parts amendmentsrdquo61 Believing their high cost to be
the primary result of greedy contractors Bedell soon became a
ldquocrusaderrdquo in the movement to eliminate the overpricing of spare
parts62
Perhaps based partly on Bedellrsquos efforts media portrayal of
the hammer and spare parts scandal had again evolved by February
1984 with media coverage once again framing the scandal as one
of waste but this time also suggesting poor management was at
fault63 A few weeks later ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo shared 59 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 ( reporting This report stated that officials had admitted that proposed DoD remedies would only ldquobegin to scratch the surface in a $13-billion-a-year business involving millions of partsrdquo)60 See Capitalism for the Pentagon NY Times Nov 15 198supra note 583 at A1 (citing The article blamed the spare parts problem on a ldquolack of biddingrdquo and and on contractors who ldquoblame the Pentagon for ordering spares in small quantities and justify their fancy prices as including overhead that has been officially sanctionedldquo[the Pentagonrsquos] rdquoordering spares in small quantitiesrdquo for the spare parts problem)61 See Fairhall supra note 364262 See Steven V Roberts Congress the Provocative Saga of the $400 Hammer NY TIMES Jun 13 1984 at A2263 See Waste is Charged in Military Work NY TIMES Feb 22 1984 at A15 (reporting that Here the report charged ldquothe Defense Department has wasted millions of dollars in buying new weapons because of lax management and supervision of pricing
13
the blame with ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo while
journalists lauded the efforts of ldquopeople like Joe Sherick a
highly respected civil servant [who] rov[e] like alligators
through a lsquoswamprsquo of mismanagement and abuse at the
Pentagonrdquo64
While journalists and perhaps the public lauded the efforts
of Sherick and Bedell65 unfortunately these individuals did not
understand the true nature of the problem66 Specifically
Bedell did not understand how the equal allocation formula
worked did not comprehend the complicated nature of the
commercial acquisition process and believed that greedy
contractors were mostly to blame for the high parts costs67
With journalists following and supporting Bedellrsquos lead Bedell
advocated for Gouldrsquos prosecution and spare parts legislation68
Bedellrsquos efforts led to the passage of legislation in the House
of Representatives to control the cost of spare parts69 His
efforts as covered by the media likely also fed the anger felt
by the American public70 By June of 1984 the American public
by subcontractorsrdquo)rdquo64 See Brad Knickerbocker Pentagon Steps Up Its War on Unscrupulous Defense Contractors CHRISTIAN SCI MONITOR Mar 15 1984 at 4 [hereinafter Pentagon Steps Up]65 See id Fairhall supra note 42Needs cite66 Needs citeSee Pentagon Steps Up supra note 64 Fairhall supra note 4267 See Fairhall supra note 364268 See id69 See Wayne Biddle House Approves Stiff Rules to Control Costs of Military Spare Parts NY TIMES May 31 1984 at B2470 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42
14
was ldquoterribly disturbed over the wasterdquo it believed had occurred
in the Government71 Media stories of that time frame compared
the DoD to a fiscally irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo who should receive
less money and more discipline72
This anger put pressure on elected officials to remedy the
underlying causes of the issue and small changes resulted73
The Government responded with lsquomore laws more rules more people
checking on the checkersrsquordquo74 DoD The Pentagon abolished the
equal allocation method in 198475 and Congress passed the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA)76 also in 1984 ldquoto
establish a statutory preference for the use of competitive
procedures and commercial products whenever practicablerdquo77
In addition Congress enacted the Defense Procurement Reform
Act78 as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act
71 See Roberts supra note 62 at A2272 See Mary McGrory SPOILED Pentagonrsquos Guardians Should Give Less Money More Discipline WASH POST June 26 1984 at A2 (ldquoItrsquos no wonder the Pentagon swaggers around the way it does and frightens some of the less privileged kids in the neighborhood like programs for the poor A few people try to keep the kid in line but itrsquos pretty hopelessrdquo)73 Needs cite74 See Fairhall supra note 3642 75 See idId76 Needs citeCompetition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) Pub L 98-369 98 Stat 1175 (codified as 31 USC sectsect 3551-56)(1994)77 S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 48-4978 Needs citeDefense Procurement Reform Act Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 259 1213 (1984)(amending 10 USC sect 2305)
15
for Fiscal Year 198579 in which Congress directed the DoD to use
ldquostandard or commercial parts whenever such use is
technically acceptable and cost effectiverdquo80
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
1 Background Facts
Just as these new changes were taking place an additional
spare parts scandal emerged In late January 1985 Senator
William Roth chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (the
same committee charged with investigating the suspected cost
overruns in the hammer case) received a letter from a contractor
in Washington State81 The contractor had been invited to bid
but had had difficulty entering the bidding process on a contract
for fifty-four (54) ldquolight weight corrosive -resistant thermo-
formed polycarbonate material seamless and sufficiently
durablerdquo plastic cases that fit over toilets used aboard the
Navyrsquos P-3C Orion antisubmarine planes82 The contractor
contacted Senator Roth when he learned that the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed Corp (Lockheed) and that under the
contract the unit price of each toilet seat cover to the
79 Needs citeDepartment of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 2492 80 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 484981 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15 see also Adjusting the Bottom Line TIME Feb 18 1985 available at httpwwwtimecomtimemagazinearticle0917196074800html82 See idBiddle supra note 81
16
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION1II BACKGROUND3A What is a Scandal3B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories5
III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE7A How it Began7B The $435 Hammer Scandal91 Background Facts92 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal10
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal151 Background Facts152 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal16
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals18
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM25A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal271 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal272 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals31
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform391 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study392 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals41
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory431 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory432 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals45
V CONCLUSION47
I INTRODUCTION
Several recent crises related to government procurement
including the BAE Systems bribery scandal in the United Kingdom1
and the United Statesrsquo Department of Defense (DoD) logistics and
security contract scandals in Afghanistan2 have suggested that
prolonged negative media coverage of procurement scandals have
the potential to move a proposed change to procurement policy
from the ldquoback burner of some committee straight off the stove
and onto the tablerdquo as nothing else can3 These events further
imply that publicized procurement scandals can be instrumental
in promoting reform because ldquowhen subjected to public scrutiny
[they have the ability to] unify senior management and
politicians in a newly found and shared resolve to solve the
problems rdquo4 Nevertheless not all procurement crises and
problems rise to the level of ldquoscandalsrdquo Many deserving
procurement issues are never publicized and despite academic 1 See eg Christopher Drew and Nicola Clark BAE Settles Corruption Charges NY Times Feb 6 2010 at B1Needs cite2 See eg Needs citeJames Risen Blackwater Reaches Deal on US Export Violations NY Times Aug 21 2010 at A83 Michael Asner Address at the 14th Annual Florida Government Purchasing Conference and Trade Show Moving Away from Scandal-Driven Procurement Reform (September 14 2006) available at httpwwwrfpmentorcomcms_pdfsScandals20Promote20Procurement20Reformdochttpwwwrfpmentorcomcms_pdfsScandals20Promote20Procurement20Reformdoc see also THE LAW COMMISSION REFORMING BRIBERY (2008-09November 19 2008) HC 313 at 12-14 (UK) available at httpwwwlawcomgovukbriberyhtm [hereinafter Reforming Bribery] see also No Contracting with the Enemy Act of 2011 S 341 112th Cong sect 3 (2011)4 Asner supra note 3
1
authoritiesrsquo and procurement officialsrsquo tiring push for reform
are largely ignored unless and until a scandal comes into play
Further even when such problems are publicized the coverage may
not always lead to the reform of applicable processes laws or
regulations5
The purpose of this paper is to determine whether a
correlation exists between media coverage and procurement reform
In this endeavor the following presents a case study of the
correlation between the media coverage of two sub-scandals of the
ldquospare parts scandalrdquo6 that eventually helped lead to the passage
of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 19947 and
subsequent commercial item reform8 Specifically this paper
will review the facts circumstances and ensuing media coverage
surrounding the discovery in the early 1980s that the DoD had
paid $435 for a common claw hammer and $600 for a toilet seat
cover9 A brief definition and explanation of what a ldquoscandalrdquo
is follows below along with an explanation of the criteria 5 See generally Sandeep Kathuria Best Practices for Compliance With the New Government Contractor Compliance and Ethics Rules Under the Federal Acquisition Regulations 38 PUB CONT LJ 803 809-10 (2009)6 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL TO THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 47 (2007) available at httpswwwacquisitiongovcompaapfinalaapreporthtml (hereinafter ldquoACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT rdquo)7 Needs citePub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994)8 See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)Needs cite9 Acquisition Advisory Panel Report supra note 6Needs cite
2
procurement crises and scandals must meet to receive media
attention10 A case history of the hammer and toilet seat
scandals and a summary of each scandalrsquos media coverage will then
follow11 Finally three methodologies for analyzing the
correlation between media coverage scandals and reform will be
presented and applied to the facts of the hammer and toilet seat
scandals to assess the correlation between the media coverage and
subsequent reform that occurred in those cases12
II BACKGROUND
A What is a Scandal
In order to determine why some procurement crises become
scandals and others do not it is helpful to understand what a
ldquoscandalrdquo is and how a crisis may evolve into a public scandal 13
Although definitions of ldquoscandalrdquo vary somewhat between social
scientists and other authorities14 the common theme throughout 10 See infra Part II11 See infra Part III12 See infra Part IV13 James Lull amp Stephen Hinerman The Search for Scandal in MEDIA SCANDALS MORALITY AND DESIRE IN THE POPULAR CULTURE MARKETPLACE S 11 (James Lull amp Stephen Hinerman eds 1997)14 See Scandal definition MERRIAM-WEBSTERCOM httpwwwmerriam-webstercomdictionaryscandal (last visited May 5 2011) Likewise a common dictionary definition of ldquoscandalrdquo states in relevant part that a scandal includes the
loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it a person whose conduct offends propriety or morality (ie a scandal to the profession) andor malicious or defamatory gossip
Id
3
is that in its most simple form a scandal has three basic
characteristics (1) it is a transgression (2) it is publicized
and (3) the public is interested in it and its outcome15 Social
science data demonstrates a ldquotransgressionrdquo occurs when social
norms that reflect the public morality are broken16 A
transgression can be anything that brings about shame or that
will embarrass or provoke when made public17 For a
transgression to rise to the level of a genuine scandal it must
typically 1) demoralize or shame the public to whom the
transgression is communicated involving respected or publicly
See also MEDIA SCANDALS supra note 13 at 11 Social scientists have defined the term further yet determining that for a crisis or problem to meet the definition of a ldquoscandalrdquo it must meet ten criteria First (1) social norms reflecting the dominant morality must be transgressed According to Lull and Hinerman this criterion is fundamental because without it no story can be considered a scandal In addition crucial compound considerations are also required The ldquotransgressions must be performed by (2) specific persons who carry out (3) actions that reflect an exercise of their desires or interestsrdquo Further individuals must be ldquo(4) identified as perpetrators of the act(s) and must be shown to have acted (5) intentionally or recklessly and must be (6) held responsible for their actionsrdquo The transgressions must result in ldquo(7) differential consequences for those involvedrdquo And finally before an event may be considered ldquothe revelations must be (8) widely circulated via communications media where they are (9) effectively narrated into a story which (10) inspires widespread interest and discussionrdquo15 ARI ADUT ON SCANDAL MORAL DISTURBANCES IN SOCIETY POLITICS AND ART 12 (Mark Granovetter ed 2008)16 MEDIA SCANDALS supra note 13 at 11 See also ADUT supra note 15 at 13 ldquoScandalous transgressions are often willful wrongdoings that when made public make the transgressor look like a bad person Yet exceptional acts by those we trust (such as politicians or doctors) can also set off scandals ndash but usually when they are particularly harmful and when the opinion leaders loudly and successfully frame the matter in moral termsrdquo17 See also ADUT supra note 15 at 13
4
trusted individuals groups or institutions or 2) challenge the
public authorities or both18 Further a problem or crisis
cannot rise to the level of a scandal unless it is communicated
or publicized ldquoto an audience that is negatively oriented to
itrdquo19 Although scandals may be publicized in various ways20
because procurement crises of the past have only become full-
blown procurement scandals after receiving media attention21
this paper will focus specifically on media-publicized scandals
B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
Although it has been established that a procurement crisis
cannot become a full-blown procurement scandal until published by
the media22 the crisis will never be published unless a member
of the media (including a blogger) first believes the problem or
issue warrants the attention that may elevate it to the status of
a scandal23 Factors that determine potential newsworthiness of
a story include whether the event 1) is happening currently 2)
will have a major impact 3) involves many people 4) is novel or
unusual behavior 5) involves an elite or respected person or
agency 6) includes a human interest factor (versus abstract
social forces)
18 See id at 2219 See id at 1620 See id at 1421 See eg Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893Needs cite22 Needs cite23 Needs cite
5
7) involves some type of conflict 8) is unambiguous and easy to
understand and 9) references something negative24 The more of
these factors a procurement crisis includes the more likely it
will be published as a news story and the greater chance it has
of rising to the level of a procurement scandal25 Of the above
listed criteria the eighth ndash that the public be able to
understand the story ndash is essential for a government procurement
issue to become a bona fide scandal26 If the story meets the
criteria for news but is too complicated for anyone but experts
to understand the story rarely will become a scandal27 Stated
in another way ldquoA scandal is like any other melodrama It canrsquot
be a crowd pleaser unless the audience can follow the plotrdquo28
Further once the first set of criteria is met the story still
must meet with the organizationrsquos editorial policy and a
journalist must determine if the organizationrsquos readers or
listeners will be interested in following the topic29 24 Tony Harcup amp Deirdre OrsquoNeill What Is News Galtung and Ruge Revisited 2 JOURNALISM STUDIES 261 262-643 (2001)25 Id26 Id27 MADELAINE DROHANSHELDON CHUMIR FOUNDATION FOR ETHICS IN LEADERSHIP SCANDALS AND THEIR AFTERMATH WHY WE ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT OUR MISTAKES 4 (2005) available at httpwwwchumirethicsfoundationcafilespdfscandalsandtheiraftermathpdf NIEMAN REPORTS NIEMAN FOUNDATION FOR JOURNALISM AT HARVARD Winter 2005 httpwwwniemanharvardedureportsarticle100610Knowing-When-to-Stop-Reporting-About-a-Scandalaspx28 Frank Rich Get Tom DeLay to the Church On Time NY TIMES Apr 175 2005 httpwwwnytimescom20050417opinion17richhtml29 Drohan supra note 27 at 4
6
III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
The passage of the FASA30 along with the Clinger-Cohen Act
of 199631 ldquorepresented the culmination of Congressrsquos
efforts to eliminate or reduce the barriers commercial companies
faced in selling to the United States gGovernmentrdquo32 While
these Acts brought significant reform to the way in which the
US Government procures commercial items and services33 it took
a significant length of time several scandals and a great deal
of media coverage for the reform to come about34 As President
Bill Clinton prepared to sign the FASA on October 13 1994 he
remarked
I kind of hate to sign this bill today What will Jay Leno do There will be no more $500 hammers no more $600 toilet seats no more $10 ashtrays Al Gore will never get on David Letterman again Itrsquos sort of a sad moment ndash the passing of Government purchasing as the butt of all the jokes 35
30 Needs citeFASA supra note 731 See The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642Needs cite32 Carl L Vacketta Lessons From the Commercial Marketplace 2 PUB PROCUREMENT L REV 126 128 (2002)33 See US Govrsquot Accountability Office GAOT-OCG-00-7 Federal Acquisition Trends Reforms and Challenges 9 (2000)Needs cite34 See Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 2 PUB PAPERS 1737-1738 (Oct 13 1994) Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 discussion supra Part IIIB2 and Part IIIC2Needs cite35 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)
7
At that point in time the jokes regarding $500 hammers and $600
toilet seats had been ongoing for nearly ten years36
A How it Began
As a matter of background even prior to the 1980s the
acquisition of commercial items ldquowas perceived as being plagued
by cost overruns inefficiencies and burdensome government
specifications rdquo37 Procurement officials and others
believed ldquo[g]overnment-unique specifications [were] a major
impediment to the efficient procurement of otherwise suitable
commercially developed products and servicesrdquo38 Nevertheless
even though the Commission on Government Procurement urged
Congress as early as 1972 to ldquopromote the acquisition of
commercial products over lsquoGovernment-designed items to avoid the
high cost of developing unique productsrsquordquo significant reform did
not occur during that decade39 Reform only occurred after
several ldquospare partsrdquo procurement scandals emerged in the 1980s
36 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 available at httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906
37 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL TO THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 47 (2007) available at httpswwwacquisitiongovcompaapfinalaapreporthtml (hereinafter ldquoACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORTrdquo)38 See idId at 48 (quoting Stephen Barr lsquoReinventrsquo Government Cautiously Study Urges WASH POST July 28 1993 at A17) One such impediment reported was that ldquothe military specifications for fruitcake once ran eighteen pagesrdquo 39 See id at 48Id
8
and pressured Congress to make significant changes to the
commercial item acquisition process40
B The $435 Hammer Scandal
1 Background Facts
In 1981 the Navy issued a sole-source contract41 to Gould
Inc (Gould) an electronics company that manufactured the flight
instruments for the T-34 aircraft42 Under the contract Gould
was responsible to provide over 400 different parts and tools
one of which was an ordinary claw hammer43 After negotiation of
the entire contract price Gould eventually offered the hammer to
the Government for a line item cost of $43544 In the
calculation of the line item cost of each part offered to the
Government including the hammer Gould included allocated
overhead45 The overhead cost built into the cost of each part
was distributed using the equal allocation method which meant
that the total indirect costs (such as indirect labor and
40 Needs citeId at 48-4941 Needs citeSee 48 CFR 63 (2012) 42 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906supra note 3643 See iId44 See iId45 See id
9
overhead) were divided by the total number of parts on the list
and then each part was assigned an equal amount of the support
costs basically rendering the line item prices meaningless46
Although the equal allocation method worked as ldquoa bookkeeping
procedure to create billing prices so that Gould could be paid as
it shipped line items at different times during the contractrdquo
very few non-procurement Agency employees and even fewer members
of the public knew and understood this47
This became apparent in 1983 when a Navy chief petty
officer saw the line item prices on the Gould contract and
noticed the hammerrsquos $435 unit price48 Questioning the $435
cost the chief petty officer made agency-level inquiries49
This led to several agency investigations and an audit conducted
by the Naval Audit Service50 which determined that the Gould 46 See iId47 See iId 48 Needs citeId 49 Needs citeId
50 Needs cite Id The Naval Audit Service (NAVAUDSVC) audits and assesses business risks within the Department of the Navy (DON) Internal audits give DON managers objective feedback on efficiency and effectiveness of DON programs systems functions and funds Audits have defined objectives and are done following generally accepted Government auditing standards (GAGAS) issued by the Comptroller General of the United States These are professional auditing standards that include those professional standards required of private sector public accounting firms Based on their work auditors certify or attest to the accuracy of data or to the assertions of management The work and opinion of auditors within the bounds of their profession carries recognized legal weight in court proceedings Each audit report presents conclusions on pre-established audit objectives and where appropriate summarizes a condition that needs managementrsquos
10
contract contained ldquoexcess costs of about $729000rdquo51 Secretary
of Defense Caspar Weinberger responded by issuing a public
announcement that Gould had overcharged the Navy and that not
only was the DoD seeking immediate repayment from Gould but the
DoD needed to make ldquomajor changesrdquo in the way it procured spare
parts52 Although Gould believed the Navyrsquos audit was flawed it
agreed to make a good faith repayment of $84000 in August 1983
to appease the DoD53
2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
Early on the media coverage of the hammer scandal was
neutral and even somewhat optimistic54 In early September of
1983 newspapers framed the root cause of spare parts problem as
one resulting from a combination of the equal allocation system
for distributing overhead and the DoDrsquos lack of oversight in
attention explains the root causes and effects of the condition and recommends potential solutions Audit reports are provided to the Department of the Navy commands and activities Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) Congress and via the Freedom of Information Act to the public A General Overview of the Audit Service available at httpsecnavportaldonhqnavymilportalserverptopen=512ampobjID=303ampampPageID=37387ampmode=2ampin_hi_userid=2ampcached=true (last visited Apr 2 2012)
51 See Fairhall supra note 42Id52 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 364253 See Fairhall supra note 364254 See eg James Barron High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sept 1 1983 at D1Needs cite
11
managing its inventory and procurement systems55 As additional
related facts were uncovered the portrayal of the issue
evolved56 Just a few weeks later newspapers reported the real
problem behind the high cost of hammers and other spare parts was
the lack of competitive bidding on commercial item contracts
while acknowledging the DoDrsquos efforts to remedy the system
through demanding (and receiving) repayment for the previous
overcharges and establishing incentives for increased
competition57 Surprisingly the early coverage of the scandal
appears to have been its most accurate
In October 1983 media framing of the issue began to change
dramatically58 Reports began suggesting the spare parts problem
55 See James Barron supra note 54 at D11 (High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sep 1 1983 at D1 As evidence that the equal allocation method had been to blame Barron reportedreporting that ldquoGould officials have told staff members of the House Armed Services Committee that the high markups resulted from the way the Defense Department requires contractors on some military projects to bill overheadrdquo)56 Needs citeSee eg William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983 at 2157 See See William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983id at 21 see also Brad Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 (ldquo [O]fficials admit that while other criminal probes are under way this only begins to scratch the surface [The] problem is a wasteful system that has grown without much control But the Pentagon is doing quite a bit these days to crack down on the exorbitant sums itrsquos been paying for spare partsrdquo)58 Needs citeSee Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 Capitalism for the Pentagon NY TIMES Nov 15 1983 at A1
12
was due to a ldquowasteful systemrdquo59 Nearly a month later the
presentation of the issue had again evolved and this time the
media blamed the high cost of spare parts on a combination of
greedy contractors and a lack of competition60 Congress quickly
responded to the negative publicity with those leading the
charge particularly Representative Berkley Bedell advocating
for ldquospare parts amendmentsrdquo61 Believing their high cost to be
the primary result of greedy contractors Bedell soon became a
ldquocrusaderrdquo in the movement to eliminate the overpricing of spare
parts62
Perhaps based partly on Bedellrsquos efforts media portrayal of
the hammer and spare parts scandal had again evolved by February
1984 with media coverage once again framing the scandal as one
of waste but this time also suggesting poor management was at
fault63 A few weeks later ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo shared 59 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 ( reporting This report stated that officials had admitted that proposed DoD remedies would only ldquobegin to scratch the surface in a $13-billion-a-year business involving millions of partsrdquo)60 See Capitalism for the Pentagon NY Times Nov 15 198supra note 583 at A1 (citing The article blamed the spare parts problem on a ldquolack of biddingrdquo and and on contractors who ldquoblame the Pentagon for ordering spares in small quantities and justify their fancy prices as including overhead that has been officially sanctionedldquo[the Pentagonrsquos] rdquoordering spares in small quantitiesrdquo for the spare parts problem)61 See Fairhall supra note 364262 See Steven V Roberts Congress the Provocative Saga of the $400 Hammer NY TIMES Jun 13 1984 at A2263 See Waste is Charged in Military Work NY TIMES Feb 22 1984 at A15 (reporting that Here the report charged ldquothe Defense Department has wasted millions of dollars in buying new weapons because of lax management and supervision of pricing
13
the blame with ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo while
journalists lauded the efforts of ldquopeople like Joe Sherick a
highly respected civil servant [who] rov[e] like alligators
through a lsquoswamprsquo of mismanagement and abuse at the
Pentagonrdquo64
While journalists and perhaps the public lauded the efforts
of Sherick and Bedell65 unfortunately these individuals did not
understand the true nature of the problem66 Specifically
Bedell did not understand how the equal allocation formula
worked did not comprehend the complicated nature of the
commercial acquisition process and believed that greedy
contractors were mostly to blame for the high parts costs67
With journalists following and supporting Bedellrsquos lead Bedell
advocated for Gouldrsquos prosecution and spare parts legislation68
Bedellrsquos efforts led to the passage of legislation in the House
of Representatives to control the cost of spare parts69 His
efforts as covered by the media likely also fed the anger felt
by the American public70 By June of 1984 the American public
by subcontractorsrdquo)rdquo64 See Brad Knickerbocker Pentagon Steps Up Its War on Unscrupulous Defense Contractors CHRISTIAN SCI MONITOR Mar 15 1984 at 4 [hereinafter Pentagon Steps Up]65 See id Fairhall supra note 42Needs cite66 Needs citeSee Pentagon Steps Up supra note 64 Fairhall supra note 4267 See Fairhall supra note 364268 See id69 See Wayne Biddle House Approves Stiff Rules to Control Costs of Military Spare Parts NY TIMES May 31 1984 at B2470 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42
14
was ldquoterribly disturbed over the wasterdquo it believed had occurred
in the Government71 Media stories of that time frame compared
the DoD to a fiscally irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo who should receive
less money and more discipline72
This anger put pressure on elected officials to remedy the
underlying causes of the issue and small changes resulted73
The Government responded with lsquomore laws more rules more people
checking on the checkersrsquordquo74 DoD The Pentagon abolished the
equal allocation method in 198475 and Congress passed the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA)76 also in 1984 ldquoto
establish a statutory preference for the use of competitive
procedures and commercial products whenever practicablerdquo77
In addition Congress enacted the Defense Procurement Reform
Act78 as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act
71 See Roberts supra note 62 at A2272 See Mary McGrory SPOILED Pentagonrsquos Guardians Should Give Less Money More Discipline WASH POST June 26 1984 at A2 (ldquoItrsquos no wonder the Pentagon swaggers around the way it does and frightens some of the less privileged kids in the neighborhood like programs for the poor A few people try to keep the kid in line but itrsquos pretty hopelessrdquo)73 Needs cite74 See Fairhall supra note 3642 75 See idId76 Needs citeCompetition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) Pub L 98-369 98 Stat 1175 (codified as 31 USC sectsect 3551-56)(1994)77 S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 48-4978 Needs citeDefense Procurement Reform Act Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 259 1213 (1984)(amending 10 USC sect 2305)
15
for Fiscal Year 198579 in which Congress directed the DoD to use
ldquostandard or commercial parts whenever such use is
technically acceptable and cost effectiverdquo80
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
1 Background Facts
Just as these new changes were taking place an additional
spare parts scandal emerged In late January 1985 Senator
William Roth chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (the
same committee charged with investigating the suspected cost
overruns in the hammer case) received a letter from a contractor
in Washington State81 The contractor had been invited to bid
but had had difficulty entering the bidding process on a contract
for fifty-four (54) ldquolight weight corrosive -resistant thermo-
formed polycarbonate material seamless and sufficiently
durablerdquo plastic cases that fit over toilets used aboard the
Navyrsquos P-3C Orion antisubmarine planes82 The contractor
contacted Senator Roth when he learned that the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed Corp (Lockheed) and that under the
contract the unit price of each toilet seat cover to the
79 Needs citeDepartment of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 2492 80 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 484981 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15 see also Adjusting the Bottom Line TIME Feb 18 1985 available at httpwwwtimecomtimemagazinearticle0917196074800html82 See idBiddle supra note 81
16
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
I INTRODUCTION
Several recent crises related to government procurement
including the BAE Systems bribery scandal in the United Kingdom1
and the United Statesrsquo Department of Defense (DoD) logistics and
security contract scandals in Afghanistan2 have suggested that
prolonged negative media coverage of procurement scandals have
the potential to move a proposed change to procurement policy
from the ldquoback burner of some committee straight off the stove
and onto the tablerdquo as nothing else can3 These events further
imply that publicized procurement scandals can be instrumental
in promoting reform because ldquowhen subjected to public scrutiny
[they have the ability to] unify senior management and
politicians in a newly found and shared resolve to solve the
problems rdquo4 Nevertheless not all procurement crises and
problems rise to the level of ldquoscandalsrdquo Many deserving
procurement issues are never publicized and despite academic 1 See eg Christopher Drew and Nicola Clark BAE Settles Corruption Charges NY Times Feb 6 2010 at B1Needs cite2 See eg Needs citeJames Risen Blackwater Reaches Deal on US Export Violations NY Times Aug 21 2010 at A83 Michael Asner Address at the 14th Annual Florida Government Purchasing Conference and Trade Show Moving Away from Scandal-Driven Procurement Reform (September 14 2006) available at httpwwwrfpmentorcomcms_pdfsScandals20Promote20Procurement20Reformdochttpwwwrfpmentorcomcms_pdfsScandals20Promote20Procurement20Reformdoc see also THE LAW COMMISSION REFORMING BRIBERY (2008-09November 19 2008) HC 313 at 12-14 (UK) available at httpwwwlawcomgovukbriberyhtm [hereinafter Reforming Bribery] see also No Contracting with the Enemy Act of 2011 S 341 112th Cong sect 3 (2011)4 Asner supra note 3
1
authoritiesrsquo and procurement officialsrsquo tiring push for reform
are largely ignored unless and until a scandal comes into play
Further even when such problems are publicized the coverage may
not always lead to the reform of applicable processes laws or
regulations5
The purpose of this paper is to determine whether a
correlation exists between media coverage and procurement reform
In this endeavor the following presents a case study of the
correlation between the media coverage of two sub-scandals of the
ldquospare parts scandalrdquo6 that eventually helped lead to the passage
of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 19947 and
subsequent commercial item reform8 Specifically this paper
will review the facts circumstances and ensuing media coverage
surrounding the discovery in the early 1980s that the DoD had
paid $435 for a common claw hammer and $600 for a toilet seat
cover9 A brief definition and explanation of what a ldquoscandalrdquo
is follows below along with an explanation of the criteria 5 See generally Sandeep Kathuria Best Practices for Compliance With the New Government Contractor Compliance and Ethics Rules Under the Federal Acquisition Regulations 38 PUB CONT LJ 803 809-10 (2009)6 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL TO THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 47 (2007) available at httpswwwacquisitiongovcompaapfinalaapreporthtml (hereinafter ldquoACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT rdquo)7 Needs citePub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994)8 See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)Needs cite9 Acquisition Advisory Panel Report supra note 6Needs cite
2
procurement crises and scandals must meet to receive media
attention10 A case history of the hammer and toilet seat
scandals and a summary of each scandalrsquos media coverage will then
follow11 Finally three methodologies for analyzing the
correlation between media coverage scandals and reform will be
presented and applied to the facts of the hammer and toilet seat
scandals to assess the correlation between the media coverage and
subsequent reform that occurred in those cases12
II BACKGROUND
A What is a Scandal
In order to determine why some procurement crises become
scandals and others do not it is helpful to understand what a
ldquoscandalrdquo is and how a crisis may evolve into a public scandal 13
Although definitions of ldquoscandalrdquo vary somewhat between social
scientists and other authorities14 the common theme throughout 10 See infra Part II11 See infra Part III12 See infra Part IV13 James Lull amp Stephen Hinerman The Search for Scandal in MEDIA SCANDALS MORALITY AND DESIRE IN THE POPULAR CULTURE MARKETPLACE S 11 (James Lull amp Stephen Hinerman eds 1997)14 See Scandal definition MERRIAM-WEBSTERCOM httpwwwmerriam-webstercomdictionaryscandal (last visited May 5 2011) Likewise a common dictionary definition of ldquoscandalrdquo states in relevant part that a scandal includes the
loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it a person whose conduct offends propriety or morality (ie a scandal to the profession) andor malicious or defamatory gossip
Id
3
is that in its most simple form a scandal has three basic
characteristics (1) it is a transgression (2) it is publicized
and (3) the public is interested in it and its outcome15 Social
science data demonstrates a ldquotransgressionrdquo occurs when social
norms that reflect the public morality are broken16 A
transgression can be anything that brings about shame or that
will embarrass or provoke when made public17 For a
transgression to rise to the level of a genuine scandal it must
typically 1) demoralize or shame the public to whom the
transgression is communicated involving respected or publicly
See also MEDIA SCANDALS supra note 13 at 11 Social scientists have defined the term further yet determining that for a crisis or problem to meet the definition of a ldquoscandalrdquo it must meet ten criteria First (1) social norms reflecting the dominant morality must be transgressed According to Lull and Hinerman this criterion is fundamental because without it no story can be considered a scandal In addition crucial compound considerations are also required The ldquotransgressions must be performed by (2) specific persons who carry out (3) actions that reflect an exercise of their desires or interestsrdquo Further individuals must be ldquo(4) identified as perpetrators of the act(s) and must be shown to have acted (5) intentionally or recklessly and must be (6) held responsible for their actionsrdquo The transgressions must result in ldquo(7) differential consequences for those involvedrdquo And finally before an event may be considered ldquothe revelations must be (8) widely circulated via communications media where they are (9) effectively narrated into a story which (10) inspires widespread interest and discussionrdquo15 ARI ADUT ON SCANDAL MORAL DISTURBANCES IN SOCIETY POLITICS AND ART 12 (Mark Granovetter ed 2008)16 MEDIA SCANDALS supra note 13 at 11 See also ADUT supra note 15 at 13 ldquoScandalous transgressions are often willful wrongdoings that when made public make the transgressor look like a bad person Yet exceptional acts by those we trust (such as politicians or doctors) can also set off scandals ndash but usually when they are particularly harmful and when the opinion leaders loudly and successfully frame the matter in moral termsrdquo17 See also ADUT supra note 15 at 13
4
trusted individuals groups or institutions or 2) challenge the
public authorities or both18 Further a problem or crisis
cannot rise to the level of a scandal unless it is communicated
or publicized ldquoto an audience that is negatively oriented to
itrdquo19 Although scandals may be publicized in various ways20
because procurement crises of the past have only become full-
blown procurement scandals after receiving media attention21
this paper will focus specifically on media-publicized scandals
B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
Although it has been established that a procurement crisis
cannot become a full-blown procurement scandal until published by
the media22 the crisis will never be published unless a member
of the media (including a blogger) first believes the problem or
issue warrants the attention that may elevate it to the status of
a scandal23 Factors that determine potential newsworthiness of
a story include whether the event 1) is happening currently 2)
will have a major impact 3) involves many people 4) is novel or
unusual behavior 5) involves an elite or respected person or
agency 6) includes a human interest factor (versus abstract
social forces)
18 See id at 2219 See id at 1620 See id at 1421 See eg Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893Needs cite22 Needs cite23 Needs cite
5
7) involves some type of conflict 8) is unambiguous and easy to
understand and 9) references something negative24 The more of
these factors a procurement crisis includes the more likely it
will be published as a news story and the greater chance it has
of rising to the level of a procurement scandal25 Of the above
listed criteria the eighth ndash that the public be able to
understand the story ndash is essential for a government procurement
issue to become a bona fide scandal26 If the story meets the
criteria for news but is too complicated for anyone but experts
to understand the story rarely will become a scandal27 Stated
in another way ldquoA scandal is like any other melodrama It canrsquot
be a crowd pleaser unless the audience can follow the plotrdquo28
Further once the first set of criteria is met the story still
must meet with the organizationrsquos editorial policy and a
journalist must determine if the organizationrsquos readers or
listeners will be interested in following the topic29 24 Tony Harcup amp Deirdre OrsquoNeill What Is News Galtung and Ruge Revisited 2 JOURNALISM STUDIES 261 262-643 (2001)25 Id26 Id27 MADELAINE DROHANSHELDON CHUMIR FOUNDATION FOR ETHICS IN LEADERSHIP SCANDALS AND THEIR AFTERMATH WHY WE ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT OUR MISTAKES 4 (2005) available at httpwwwchumirethicsfoundationcafilespdfscandalsandtheiraftermathpdf NIEMAN REPORTS NIEMAN FOUNDATION FOR JOURNALISM AT HARVARD Winter 2005 httpwwwniemanharvardedureportsarticle100610Knowing-When-to-Stop-Reporting-About-a-Scandalaspx28 Frank Rich Get Tom DeLay to the Church On Time NY TIMES Apr 175 2005 httpwwwnytimescom20050417opinion17richhtml29 Drohan supra note 27 at 4
6
III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
The passage of the FASA30 along with the Clinger-Cohen Act
of 199631 ldquorepresented the culmination of Congressrsquos
efforts to eliminate or reduce the barriers commercial companies
faced in selling to the United States gGovernmentrdquo32 While
these Acts brought significant reform to the way in which the
US Government procures commercial items and services33 it took
a significant length of time several scandals and a great deal
of media coverage for the reform to come about34 As President
Bill Clinton prepared to sign the FASA on October 13 1994 he
remarked
I kind of hate to sign this bill today What will Jay Leno do There will be no more $500 hammers no more $600 toilet seats no more $10 ashtrays Al Gore will never get on David Letterman again Itrsquos sort of a sad moment ndash the passing of Government purchasing as the butt of all the jokes 35
30 Needs citeFASA supra note 731 See The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642Needs cite32 Carl L Vacketta Lessons From the Commercial Marketplace 2 PUB PROCUREMENT L REV 126 128 (2002)33 See US Govrsquot Accountability Office GAOT-OCG-00-7 Federal Acquisition Trends Reforms and Challenges 9 (2000)Needs cite34 See Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 2 PUB PAPERS 1737-1738 (Oct 13 1994) Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 discussion supra Part IIIB2 and Part IIIC2Needs cite35 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)
7
At that point in time the jokes regarding $500 hammers and $600
toilet seats had been ongoing for nearly ten years36
A How it Began
As a matter of background even prior to the 1980s the
acquisition of commercial items ldquowas perceived as being plagued
by cost overruns inefficiencies and burdensome government
specifications rdquo37 Procurement officials and others
believed ldquo[g]overnment-unique specifications [were] a major
impediment to the efficient procurement of otherwise suitable
commercially developed products and servicesrdquo38 Nevertheless
even though the Commission on Government Procurement urged
Congress as early as 1972 to ldquopromote the acquisition of
commercial products over lsquoGovernment-designed items to avoid the
high cost of developing unique productsrsquordquo significant reform did
not occur during that decade39 Reform only occurred after
several ldquospare partsrdquo procurement scandals emerged in the 1980s
36 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 available at httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906
37 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL TO THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 47 (2007) available at httpswwwacquisitiongovcompaapfinalaapreporthtml (hereinafter ldquoACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORTrdquo)38 See idId at 48 (quoting Stephen Barr lsquoReinventrsquo Government Cautiously Study Urges WASH POST July 28 1993 at A17) One such impediment reported was that ldquothe military specifications for fruitcake once ran eighteen pagesrdquo 39 See id at 48Id
8
and pressured Congress to make significant changes to the
commercial item acquisition process40
B The $435 Hammer Scandal
1 Background Facts
In 1981 the Navy issued a sole-source contract41 to Gould
Inc (Gould) an electronics company that manufactured the flight
instruments for the T-34 aircraft42 Under the contract Gould
was responsible to provide over 400 different parts and tools
one of which was an ordinary claw hammer43 After negotiation of
the entire contract price Gould eventually offered the hammer to
the Government for a line item cost of $43544 In the
calculation of the line item cost of each part offered to the
Government including the hammer Gould included allocated
overhead45 The overhead cost built into the cost of each part
was distributed using the equal allocation method which meant
that the total indirect costs (such as indirect labor and
40 Needs citeId at 48-4941 Needs citeSee 48 CFR 63 (2012) 42 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906supra note 3643 See iId44 See iId45 See id
9
overhead) were divided by the total number of parts on the list
and then each part was assigned an equal amount of the support
costs basically rendering the line item prices meaningless46
Although the equal allocation method worked as ldquoa bookkeeping
procedure to create billing prices so that Gould could be paid as
it shipped line items at different times during the contractrdquo
very few non-procurement Agency employees and even fewer members
of the public knew and understood this47
This became apparent in 1983 when a Navy chief petty
officer saw the line item prices on the Gould contract and
noticed the hammerrsquos $435 unit price48 Questioning the $435
cost the chief petty officer made agency-level inquiries49
This led to several agency investigations and an audit conducted
by the Naval Audit Service50 which determined that the Gould 46 See iId47 See iId 48 Needs citeId 49 Needs citeId
50 Needs cite Id The Naval Audit Service (NAVAUDSVC) audits and assesses business risks within the Department of the Navy (DON) Internal audits give DON managers objective feedback on efficiency and effectiveness of DON programs systems functions and funds Audits have defined objectives and are done following generally accepted Government auditing standards (GAGAS) issued by the Comptroller General of the United States These are professional auditing standards that include those professional standards required of private sector public accounting firms Based on their work auditors certify or attest to the accuracy of data or to the assertions of management The work and opinion of auditors within the bounds of their profession carries recognized legal weight in court proceedings Each audit report presents conclusions on pre-established audit objectives and where appropriate summarizes a condition that needs managementrsquos
10
contract contained ldquoexcess costs of about $729000rdquo51 Secretary
of Defense Caspar Weinberger responded by issuing a public
announcement that Gould had overcharged the Navy and that not
only was the DoD seeking immediate repayment from Gould but the
DoD needed to make ldquomajor changesrdquo in the way it procured spare
parts52 Although Gould believed the Navyrsquos audit was flawed it
agreed to make a good faith repayment of $84000 in August 1983
to appease the DoD53
2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
Early on the media coverage of the hammer scandal was
neutral and even somewhat optimistic54 In early September of
1983 newspapers framed the root cause of spare parts problem as
one resulting from a combination of the equal allocation system
for distributing overhead and the DoDrsquos lack of oversight in
attention explains the root causes and effects of the condition and recommends potential solutions Audit reports are provided to the Department of the Navy commands and activities Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) Congress and via the Freedom of Information Act to the public A General Overview of the Audit Service available at httpsecnavportaldonhqnavymilportalserverptopen=512ampobjID=303ampampPageID=37387ampmode=2ampin_hi_userid=2ampcached=true (last visited Apr 2 2012)
51 See Fairhall supra note 42Id52 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 364253 See Fairhall supra note 364254 See eg James Barron High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sept 1 1983 at D1Needs cite
11
managing its inventory and procurement systems55 As additional
related facts were uncovered the portrayal of the issue
evolved56 Just a few weeks later newspapers reported the real
problem behind the high cost of hammers and other spare parts was
the lack of competitive bidding on commercial item contracts
while acknowledging the DoDrsquos efforts to remedy the system
through demanding (and receiving) repayment for the previous
overcharges and establishing incentives for increased
competition57 Surprisingly the early coverage of the scandal
appears to have been its most accurate
In October 1983 media framing of the issue began to change
dramatically58 Reports began suggesting the spare parts problem
55 See James Barron supra note 54 at D11 (High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sep 1 1983 at D1 As evidence that the equal allocation method had been to blame Barron reportedreporting that ldquoGould officials have told staff members of the House Armed Services Committee that the high markups resulted from the way the Defense Department requires contractors on some military projects to bill overheadrdquo)56 Needs citeSee eg William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983 at 2157 See See William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983id at 21 see also Brad Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 (ldquo [O]fficials admit that while other criminal probes are under way this only begins to scratch the surface [The] problem is a wasteful system that has grown without much control But the Pentagon is doing quite a bit these days to crack down on the exorbitant sums itrsquos been paying for spare partsrdquo)58 Needs citeSee Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 Capitalism for the Pentagon NY TIMES Nov 15 1983 at A1
12
was due to a ldquowasteful systemrdquo59 Nearly a month later the
presentation of the issue had again evolved and this time the
media blamed the high cost of spare parts on a combination of
greedy contractors and a lack of competition60 Congress quickly
responded to the negative publicity with those leading the
charge particularly Representative Berkley Bedell advocating
for ldquospare parts amendmentsrdquo61 Believing their high cost to be
the primary result of greedy contractors Bedell soon became a
ldquocrusaderrdquo in the movement to eliminate the overpricing of spare
parts62
Perhaps based partly on Bedellrsquos efforts media portrayal of
the hammer and spare parts scandal had again evolved by February
1984 with media coverage once again framing the scandal as one
of waste but this time also suggesting poor management was at
fault63 A few weeks later ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo shared 59 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 ( reporting This report stated that officials had admitted that proposed DoD remedies would only ldquobegin to scratch the surface in a $13-billion-a-year business involving millions of partsrdquo)60 See Capitalism for the Pentagon NY Times Nov 15 198supra note 583 at A1 (citing The article blamed the spare parts problem on a ldquolack of biddingrdquo and and on contractors who ldquoblame the Pentagon for ordering spares in small quantities and justify their fancy prices as including overhead that has been officially sanctionedldquo[the Pentagonrsquos] rdquoordering spares in small quantitiesrdquo for the spare parts problem)61 See Fairhall supra note 364262 See Steven V Roberts Congress the Provocative Saga of the $400 Hammer NY TIMES Jun 13 1984 at A2263 See Waste is Charged in Military Work NY TIMES Feb 22 1984 at A15 (reporting that Here the report charged ldquothe Defense Department has wasted millions of dollars in buying new weapons because of lax management and supervision of pricing
13
the blame with ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo while
journalists lauded the efforts of ldquopeople like Joe Sherick a
highly respected civil servant [who] rov[e] like alligators
through a lsquoswamprsquo of mismanagement and abuse at the
Pentagonrdquo64
While journalists and perhaps the public lauded the efforts
of Sherick and Bedell65 unfortunately these individuals did not
understand the true nature of the problem66 Specifically
Bedell did not understand how the equal allocation formula
worked did not comprehend the complicated nature of the
commercial acquisition process and believed that greedy
contractors were mostly to blame for the high parts costs67
With journalists following and supporting Bedellrsquos lead Bedell
advocated for Gouldrsquos prosecution and spare parts legislation68
Bedellrsquos efforts led to the passage of legislation in the House
of Representatives to control the cost of spare parts69 His
efforts as covered by the media likely also fed the anger felt
by the American public70 By June of 1984 the American public
by subcontractorsrdquo)rdquo64 See Brad Knickerbocker Pentagon Steps Up Its War on Unscrupulous Defense Contractors CHRISTIAN SCI MONITOR Mar 15 1984 at 4 [hereinafter Pentagon Steps Up]65 See id Fairhall supra note 42Needs cite66 Needs citeSee Pentagon Steps Up supra note 64 Fairhall supra note 4267 See Fairhall supra note 364268 See id69 See Wayne Biddle House Approves Stiff Rules to Control Costs of Military Spare Parts NY TIMES May 31 1984 at B2470 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42
14
was ldquoterribly disturbed over the wasterdquo it believed had occurred
in the Government71 Media stories of that time frame compared
the DoD to a fiscally irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo who should receive
less money and more discipline72
This anger put pressure on elected officials to remedy the
underlying causes of the issue and small changes resulted73
The Government responded with lsquomore laws more rules more people
checking on the checkersrsquordquo74 DoD The Pentagon abolished the
equal allocation method in 198475 and Congress passed the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA)76 also in 1984 ldquoto
establish a statutory preference for the use of competitive
procedures and commercial products whenever practicablerdquo77
In addition Congress enacted the Defense Procurement Reform
Act78 as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act
71 See Roberts supra note 62 at A2272 See Mary McGrory SPOILED Pentagonrsquos Guardians Should Give Less Money More Discipline WASH POST June 26 1984 at A2 (ldquoItrsquos no wonder the Pentagon swaggers around the way it does and frightens some of the less privileged kids in the neighborhood like programs for the poor A few people try to keep the kid in line but itrsquos pretty hopelessrdquo)73 Needs cite74 See Fairhall supra note 3642 75 See idId76 Needs citeCompetition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) Pub L 98-369 98 Stat 1175 (codified as 31 USC sectsect 3551-56)(1994)77 S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 48-4978 Needs citeDefense Procurement Reform Act Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 259 1213 (1984)(amending 10 USC sect 2305)
15
for Fiscal Year 198579 in which Congress directed the DoD to use
ldquostandard or commercial parts whenever such use is
technically acceptable and cost effectiverdquo80
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
1 Background Facts
Just as these new changes were taking place an additional
spare parts scandal emerged In late January 1985 Senator
William Roth chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (the
same committee charged with investigating the suspected cost
overruns in the hammer case) received a letter from a contractor
in Washington State81 The contractor had been invited to bid
but had had difficulty entering the bidding process on a contract
for fifty-four (54) ldquolight weight corrosive -resistant thermo-
formed polycarbonate material seamless and sufficiently
durablerdquo plastic cases that fit over toilets used aboard the
Navyrsquos P-3C Orion antisubmarine planes82 The contractor
contacted Senator Roth when he learned that the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed Corp (Lockheed) and that under the
contract the unit price of each toilet seat cover to the
79 Needs citeDepartment of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 2492 80 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 484981 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15 see also Adjusting the Bottom Line TIME Feb 18 1985 available at httpwwwtimecomtimemagazinearticle0917196074800html82 See idBiddle supra note 81
16
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
authoritiesrsquo and procurement officialsrsquo tiring push for reform
are largely ignored unless and until a scandal comes into play
Further even when such problems are publicized the coverage may
not always lead to the reform of applicable processes laws or
regulations5
The purpose of this paper is to determine whether a
correlation exists between media coverage and procurement reform
In this endeavor the following presents a case study of the
correlation between the media coverage of two sub-scandals of the
ldquospare parts scandalrdquo6 that eventually helped lead to the passage
of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 19947 and
subsequent commercial item reform8 Specifically this paper
will review the facts circumstances and ensuing media coverage
surrounding the discovery in the early 1980s that the DoD had
paid $435 for a common claw hammer and $600 for a toilet seat
cover9 A brief definition and explanation of what a ldquoscandalrdquo
is follows below along with an explanation of the criteria 5 See generally Sandeep Kathuria Best Practices for Compliance With the New Government Contractor Compliance and Ethics Rules Under the Federal Acquisition Regulations 38 PUB CONT LJ 803 809-10 (2009)6 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL TO THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 47 (2007) available at httpswwwacquisitiongovcompaapfinalaapreporthtml (hereinafter ldquoACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT rdquo)7 Needs citePub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994)8 See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)Needs cite9 Acquisition Advisory Panel Report supra note 6Needs cite
2
procurement crises and scandals must meet to receive media
attention10 A case history of the hammer and toilet seat
scandals and a summary of each scandalrsquos media coverage will then
follow11 Finally three methodologies for analyzing the
correlation between media coverage scandals and reform will be
presented and applied to the facts of the hammer and toilet seat
scandals to assess the correlation between the media coverage and
subsequent reform that occurred in those cases12
II BACKGROUND
A What is a Scandal
In order to determine why some procurement crises become
scandals and others do not it is helpful to understand what a
ldquoscandalrdquo is and how a crisis may evolve into a public scandal 13
Although definitions of ldquoscandalrdquo vary somewhat between social
scientists and other authorities14 the common theme throughout 10 See infra Part II11 See infra Part III12 See infra Part IV13 James Lull amp Stephen Hinerman The Search for Scandal in MEDIA SCANDALS MORALITY AND DESIRE IN THE POPULAR CULTURE MARKETPLACE S 11 (James Lull amp Stephen Hinerman eds 1997)14 See Scandal definition MERRIAM-WEBSTERCOM httpwwwmerriam-webstercomdictionaryscandal (last visited May 5 2011) Likewise a common dictionary definition of ldquoscandalrdquo states in relevant part that a scandal includes the
loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it a person whose conduct offends propriety or morality (ie a scandal to the profession) andor malicious or defamatory gossip
Id
3
is that in its most simple form a scandal has three basic
characteristics (1) it is a transgression (2) it is publicized
and (3) the public is interested in it and its outcome15 Social
science data demonstrates a ldquotransgressionrdquo occurs when social
norms that reflect the public morality are broken16 A
transgression can be anything that brings about shame or that
will embarrass or provoke when made public17 For a
transgression to rise to the level of a genuine scandal it must
typically 1) demoralize or shame the public to whom the
transgression is communicated involving respected or publicly
See also MEDIA SCANDALS supra note 13 at 11 Social scientists have defined the term further yet determining that for a crisis or problem to meet the definition of a ldquoscandalrdquo it must meet ten criteria First (1) social norms reflecting the dominant morality must be transgressed According to Lull and Hinerman this criterion is fundamental because without it no story can be considered a scandal In addition crucial compound considerations are also required The ldquotransgressions must be performed by (2) specific persons who carry out (3) actions that reflect an exercise of their desires or interestsrdquo Further individuals must be ldquo(4) identified as perpetrators of the act(s) and must be shown to have acted (5) intentionally or recklessly and must be (6) held responsible for their actionsrdquo The transgressions must result in ldquo(7) differential consequences for those involvedrdquo And finally before an event may be considered ldquothe revelations must be (8) widely circulated via communications media where they are (9) effectively narrated into a story which (10) inspires widespread interest and discussionrdquo15 ARI ADUT ON SCANDAL MORAL DISTURBANCES IN SOCIETY POLITICS AND ART 12 (Mark Granovetter ed 2008)16 MEDIA SCANDALS supra note 13 at 11 See also ADUT supra note 15 at 13 ldquoScandalous transgressions are often willful wrongdoings that when made public make the transgressor look like a bad person Yet exceptional acts by those we trust (such as politicians or doctors) can also set off scandals ndash but usually when they are particularly harmful and when the opinion leaders loudly and successfully frame the matter in moral termsrdquo17 See also ADUT supra note 15 at 13
4
trusted individuals groups or institutions or 2) challenge the
public authorities or both18 Further a problem or crisis
cannot rise to the level of a scandal unless it is communicated
or publicized ldquoto an audience that is negatively oriented to
itrdquo19 Although scandals may be publicized in various ways20
because procurement crises of the past have only become full-
blown procurement scandals after receiving media attention21
this paper will focus specifically on media-publicized scandals
B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
Although it has been established that a procurement crisis
cannot become a full-blown procurement scandal until published by
the media22 the crisis will never be published unless a member
of the media (including a blogger) first believes the problem or
issue warrants the attention that may elevate it to the status of
a scandal23 Factors that determine potential newsworthiness of
a story include whether the event 1) is happening currently 2)
will have a major impact 3) involves many people 4) is novel or
unusual behavior 5) involves an elite or respected person or
agency 6) includes a human interest factor (versus abstract
social forces)
18 See id at 2219 See id at 1620 See id at 1421 See eg Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893Needs cite22 Needs cite23 Needs cite
5
7) involves some type of conflict 8) is unambiguous and easy to
understand and 9) references something negative24 The more of
these factors a procurement crisis includes the more likely it
will be published as a news story and the greater chance it has
of rising to the level of a procurement scandal25 Of the above
listed criteria the eighth ndash that the public be able to
understand the story ndash is essential for a government procurement
issue to become a bona fide scandal26 If the story meets the
criteria for news but is too complicated for anyone but experts
to understand the story rarely will become a scandal27 Stated
in another way ldquoA scandal is like any other melodrama It canrsquot
be a crowd pleaser unless the audience can follow the plotrdquo28
Further once the first set of criteria is met the story still
must meet with the organizationrsquos editorial policy and a
journalist must determine if the organizationrsquos readers or
listeners will be interested in following the topic29 24 Tony Harcup amp Deirdre OrsquoNeill What Is News Galtung and Ruge Revisited 2 JOURNALISM STUDIES 261 262-643 (2001)25 Id26 Id27 MADELAINE DROHANSHELDON CHUMIR FOUNDATION FOR ETHICS IN LEADERSHIP SCANDALS AND THEIR AFTERMATH WHY WE ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT OUR MISTAKES 4 (2005) available at httpwwwchumirethicsfoundationcafilespdfscandalsandtheiraftermathpdf NIEMAN REPORTS NIEMAN FOUNDATION FOR JOURNALISM AT HARVARD Winter 2005 httpwwwniemanharvardedureportsarticle100610Knowing-When-to-Stop-Reporting-About-a-Scandalaspx28 Frank Rich Get Tom DeLay to the Church On Time NY TIMES Apr 175 2005 httpwwwnytimescom20050417opinion17richhtml29 Drohan supra note 27 at 4
6
III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
The passage of the FASA30 along with the Clinger-Cohen Act
of 199631 ldquorepresented the culmination of Congressrsquos
efforts to eliminate or reduce the barriers commercial companies
faced in selling to the United States gGovernmentrdquo32 While
these Acts brought significant reform to the way in which the
US Government procures commercial items and services33 it took
a significant length of time several scandals and a great deal
of media coverage for the reform to come about34 As President
Bill Clinton prepared to sign the FASA on October 13 1994 he
remarked
I kind of hate to sign this bill today What will Jay Leno do There will be no more $500 hammers no more $600 toilet seats no more $10 ashtrays Al Gore will never get on David Letterman again Itrsquos sort of a sad moment ndash the passing of Government purchasing as the butt of all the jokes 35
30 Needs citeFASA supra note 731 See The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642Needs cite32 Carl L Vacketta Lessons From the Commercial Marketplace 2 PUB PROCUREMENT L REV 126 128 (2002)33 See US Govrsquot Accountability Office GAOT-OCG-00-7 Federal Acquisition Trends Reforms and Challenges 9 (2000)Needs cite34 See Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 2 PUB PAPERS 1737-1738 (Oct 13 1994) Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 discussion supra Part IIIB2 and Part IIIC2Needs cite35 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)
7
At that point in time the jokes regarding $500 hammers and $600
toilet seats had been ongoing for nearly ten years36
A How it Began
As a matter of background even prior to the 1980s the
acquisition of commercial items ldquowas perceived as being plagued
by cost overruns inefficiencies and burdensome government
specifications rdquo37 Procurement officials and others
believed ldquo[g]overnment-unique specifications [were] a major
impediment to the efficient procurement of otherwise suitable
commercially developed products and servicesrdquo38 Nevertheless
even though the Commission on Government Procurement urged
Congress as early as 1972 to ldquopromote the acquisition of
commercial products over lsquoGovernment-designed items to avoid the
high cost of developing unique productsrsquordquo significant reform did
not occur during that decade39 Reform only occurred after
several ldquospare partsrdquo procurement scandals emerged in the 1980s
36 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 available at httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906
37 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL TO THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 47 (2007) available at httpswwwacquisitiongovcompaapfinalaapreporthtml (hereinafter ldquoACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORTrdquo)38 See idId at 48 (quoting Stephen Barr lsquoReinventrsquo Government Cautiously Study Urges WASH POST July 28 1993 at A17) One such impediment reported was that ldquothe military specifications for fruitcake once ran eighteen pagesrdquo 39 See id at 48Id
8
and pressured Congress to make significant changes to the
commercial item acquisition process40
B The $435 Hammer Scandal
1 Background Facts
In 1981 the Navy issued a sole-source contract41 to Gould
Inc (Gould) an electronics company that manufactured the flight
instruments for the T-34 aircraft42 Under the contract Gould
was responsible to provide over 400 different parts and tools
one of which was an ordinary claw hammer43 After negotiation of
the entire contract price Gould eventually offered the hammer to
the Government for a line item cost of $43544 In the
calculation of the line item cost of each part offered to the
Government including the hammer Gould included allocated
overhead45 The overhead cost built into the cost of each part
was distributed using the equal allocation method which meant
that the total indirect costs (such as indirect labor and
40 Needs citeId at 48-4941 Needs citeSee 48 CFR 63 (2012) 42 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906supra note 3643 See iId44 See iId45 See id
9
overhead) were divided by the total number of parts on the list
and then each part was assigned an equal amount of the support
costs basically rendering the line item prices meaningless46
Although the equal allocation method worked as ldquoa bookkeeping
procedure to create billing prices so that Gould could be paid as
it shipped line items at different times during the contractrdquo
very few non-procurement Agency employees and even fewer members
of the public knew and understood this47
This became apparent in 1983 when a Navy chief petty
officer saw the line item prices on the Gould contract and
noticed the hammerrsquos $435 unit price48 Questioning the $435
cost the chief petty officer made agency-level inquiries49
This led to several agency investigations and an audit conducted
by the Naval Audit Service50 which determined that the Gould 46 See iId47 See iId 48 Needs citeId 49 Needs citeId
50 Needs cite Id The Naval Audit Service (NAVAUDSVC) audits and assesses business risks within the Department of the Navy (DON) Internal audits give DON managers objective feedback on efficiency and effectiveness of DON programs systems functions and funds Audits have defined objectives and are done following generally accepted Government auditing standards (GAGAS) issued by the Comptroller General of the United States These are professional auditing standards that include those professional standards required of private sector public accounting firms Based on their work auditors certify or attest to the accuracy of data or to the assertions of management The work and opinion of auditors within the bounds of their profession carries recognized legal weight in court proceedings Each audit report presents conclusions on pre-established audit objectives and where appropriate summarizes a condition that needs managementrsquos
10
contract contained ldquoexcess costs of about $729000rdquo51 Secretary
of Defense Caspar Weinberger responded by issuing a public
announcement that Gould had overcharged the Navy and that not
only was the DoD seeking immediate repayment from Gould but the
DoD needed to make ldquomajor changesrdquo in the way it procured spare
parts52 Although Gould believed the Navyrsquos audit was flawed it
agreed to make a good faith repayment of $84000 in August 1983
to appease the DoD53
2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
Early on the media coverage of the hammer scandal was
neutral and even somewhat optimistic54 In early September of
1983 newspapers framed the root cause of spare parts problem as
one resulting from a combination of the equal allocation system
for distributing overhead and the DoDrsquos lack of oversight in
attention explains the root causes and effects of the condition and recommends potential solutions Audit reports are provided to the Department of the Navy commands and activities Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) Congress and via the Freedom of Information Act to the public A General Overview of the Audit Service available at httpsecnavportaldonhqnavymilportalserverptopen=512ampobjID=303ampampPageID=37387ampmode=2ampin_hi_userid=2ampcached=true (last visited Apr 2 2012)
51 See Fairhall supra note 42Id52 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 364253 See Fairhall supra note 364254 See eg James Barron High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sept 1 1983 at D1Needs cite
11
managing its inventory and procurement systems55 As additional
related facts were uncovered the portrayal of the issue
evolved56 Just a few weeks later newspapers reported the real
problem behind the high cost of hammers and other spare parts was
the lack of competitive bidding on commercial item contracts
while acknowledging the DoDrsquos efforts to remedy the system
through demanding (and receiving) repayment for the previous
overcharges and establishing incentives for increased
competition57 Surprisingly the early coverage of the scandal
appears to have been its most accurate
In October 1983 media framing of the issue began to change
dramatically58 Reports began suggesting the spare parts problem
55 See James Barron supra note 54 at D11 (High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sep 1 1983 at D1 As evidence that the equal allocation method had been to blame Barron reportedreporting that ldquoGould officials have told staff members of the House Armed Services Committee that the high markups resulted from the way the Defense Department requires contractors on some military projects to bill overheadrdquo)56 Needs citeSee eg William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983 at 2157 See See William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983id at 21 see also Brad Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 (ldquo [O]fficials admit that while other criminal probes are under way this only begins to scratch the surface [The] problem is a wasteful system that has grown without much control But the Pentagon is doing quite a bit these days to crack down on the exorbitant sums itrsquos been paying for spare partsrdquo)58 Needs citeSee Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 Capitalism for the Pentagon NY TIMES Nov 15 1983 at A1
12
was due to a ldquowasteful systemrdquo59 Nearly a month later the
presentation of the issue had again evolved and this time the
media blamed the high cost of spare parts on a combination of
greedy contractors and a lack of competition60 Congress quickly
responded to the negative publicity with those leading the
charge particularly Representative Berkley Bedell advocating
for ldquospare parts amendmentsrdquo61 Believing their high cost to be
the primary result of greedy contractors Bedell soon became a
ldquocrusaderrdquo in the movement to eliminate the overpricing of spare
parts62
Perhaps based partly on Bedellrsquos efforts media portrayal of
the hammer and spare parts scandal had again evolved by February
1984 with media coverage once again framing the scandal as one
of waste but this time also suggesting poor management was at
fault63 A few weeks later ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo shared 59 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 ( reporting This report stated that officials had admitted that proposed DoD remedies would only ldquobegin to scratch the surface in a $13-billion-a-year business involving millions of partsrdquo)60 See Capitalism for the Pentagon NY Times Nov 15 198supra note 583 at A1 (citing The article blamed the spare parts problem on a ldquolack of biddingrdquo and and on contractors who ldquoblame the Pentagon for ordering spares in small quantities and justify their fancy prices as including overhead that has been officially sanctionedldquo[the Pentagonrsquos] rdquoordering spares in small quantitiesrdquo for the spare parts problem)61 See Fairhall supra note 364262 See Steven V Roberts Congress the Provocative Saga of the $400 Hammer NY TIMES Jun 13 1984 at A2263 See Waste is Charged in Military Work NY TIMES Feb 22 1984 at A15 (reporting that Here the report charged ldquothe Defense Department has wasted millions of dollars in buying new weapons because of lax management and supervision of pricing
13
the blame with ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo while
journalists lauded the efforts of ldquopeople like Joe Sherick a
highly respected civil servant [who] rov[e] like alligators
through a lsquoswamprsquo of mismanagement and abuse at the
Pentagonrdquo64
While journalists and perhaps the public lauded the efforts
of Sherick and Bedell65 unfortunately these individuals did not
understand the true nature of the problem66 Specifically
Bedell did not understand how the equal allocation formula
worked did not comprehend the complicated nature of the
commercial acquisition process and believed that greedy
contractors were mostly to blame for the high parts costs67
With journalists following and supporting Bedellrsquos lead Bedell
advocated for Gouldrsquos prosecution and spare parts legislation68
Bedellrsquos efforts led to the passage of legislation in the House
of Representatives to control the cost of spare parts69 His
efforts as covered by the media likely also fed the anger felt
by the American public70 By June of 1984 the American public
by subcontractorsrdquo)rdquo64 See Brad Knickerbocker Pentagon Steps Up Its War on Unscrupulous Defense Contractors CHRISTIAN SCI MONITOR Mar 15 1984 at 4 [hereinafter Pentagon Steps Up]65 See id Fairhall supra note 42Needs cite66 Needs citeSee Pentagon Steps Up supra note 64 Fairhall supra note 4267 See Fairhall supra note 364268 See id69 See Wayne Biddle House Approves Stiff Rules to Control Costs of Military Spare Parts NY TIMES May 31 1984 at B2470 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42
14
was ldquoterribly disturbed over the wasterdquo it believed had occurred
in the Government71 Media stories of that time frame compared
the DoD to a fiscally irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo who should receive
less money and more discipline72
This anger put pressure on elected officials to remedy the
underlying causes of the issue and small changes resulted73
The Government responded with lsquomore laws more rules more people
checking on the checkersrsquordquo74 DoD The Pentagon abolished the
equal allocation method in 198475 and Congress passed the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA)76 also in 1984 ldquoto
establish a statutory preference for the use of competitive
procedures and commercial products whenever practicablerdquo77
In addition Congress enacted the Defense Procurement Reform
Act78 as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act
71 See Roberts supra note 62 at A2272 See Mary McGrory SPOILED Pentagonrsquos Guardians Should Give Less Money More Discipline WASH POST June 26 1984 at A2 (ldquoItrsquos no wonder the Pentagon swaggers around the way it does and frightens some of the less privileged kids in the neighborhood like programs for the poor A few people try to keep the kid in line but itrsquos pretty hopelessrdquo)73 Needs cite74 See Fairhall supra note 3642 75 See idId76 Needs citeCompetition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) Pub L 98-369 98 Stat 1175 (codified as 31 USC sectsect 3551-56)(1994)77 S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 48-4978 Needs citeDefense Procurement Reform Act Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 259 1213 (1984)(amending 10 USC sect 2305)
15
for Fiscal Year 198579 in which Congress directed the DoD to use
ldquostandard or commercial parts whenever such use is
technically acceptable and cost effectiverdquo80
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
1 Background Facts
Just as these new changes were taking place an additional
spare parts scandal emerged In late January 1985 Senator
William Roth chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (the
same committee charged with investigating the suspected cost
overruns in the hammer case) received a letter from a contractor
in Washington State81 The contractor had been invited to bid
but had had difficulty entering the bidding process on a contract
for fifty-four (54) ldquolight weight corrosive -resistant thermo-
formed polycarbonate material seamless and sufficiently
durablerdquo plastic cases that fit over toilets used aboard the
Navyrsquos P-3C Orion antisubmarine planes82 The contractor
contacted Senator Roth when he learned that the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed Corp (Lockheed) and that under the
contract the unit price of each toilet seat cover to the
79 Needs citeDepartment of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 2492 80 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 484981 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15 see also Adjusting the Bottom Line TIME Feb 18 1985 available at httpwwwtimecomtimemagazinearticle0917196074800html82 See idBiddle supra note 81
16
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
procurement crises and scandals must meet to receive media
attention10 A case history of the hammer and toilet seat
scandals and a summary of each scandalrsquos media coverage will then
follow11 Finally three methodologies for analyzing the
correlation between media coverage scandals and reform will be
presented and applied to the facts of the hammer and toilet seat
scandals to assess the correlation between the media coverage and
subsequent reform that occurred in those cases12
II BACKGROUND
A What is a Scandal
In order to determine why some procurement crises become
scandals and others do not it is helpful to understand what a
ldquoscandalrdquo is and how a crisis may evolve into a public scandal 13
Although definitions of ldquoscandalrdquo vary somewhat between social
scientists and other authorities14 the common theme throughout 10 See infra Part II11 See infra Part III12 See infra Part IV13 James Lull amp Stephen Hinerman The Search for Scandal in MEDIA SCANDALS MORALITY AND DESIRE IN THE POPULAR CULTURE MARKETPLACE S 11 (James Lull amp Stephen Hinerman eds 1997)14 See Scandal definition MERRIAM-WEBSTERCOM httpwwwmerriam-webstercomdictionaryscandal (last visited May 5 2011) Likewise a common dictionary definition of ldquoscandalrdquo states in relevant part that a scandal includes the
loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it a person whose conduct offends propriety or morality (ie a scandal to the profession) andor malicious or defamatory gossip
Id
3
is that in its most simple form a scandal has three basic
characteristics (1) it is a transgression (2) it is publicized
and (3) the public is interested in it and its outcome15 Social
science data demonstrates a ldquotransgressionrdquo occurs when social
norms that reflect the public morality are broken16 A
transgression can be anything that brings about shame or that
will embarrass or provoke when made public17 For a
transgression to rise to the level of a genuine scandal it must
typically 1) demoralize or shame the public to whom the
transgression is communicated involving respected or publicly
See also MEDIA SCANDALS supra note 13 at 11 Social scientists have defined the term further yet determining that for a crisis or problem to meet the definition of a ldquoscandalrdquo it must meet ten criteria First (1) social norms reflecting the dominant morality must be transgressed According to Lull and Hinerman this criterion is fundamental because without it no story can be considered a scandal In addition crucial compound considerations are also required The ldquotransgressions must be performed by (2) specific persons who carry out (3) actions that reflect an exercise of their desires or interestsrdquo Further individuals must be ldquo(4) identified as perpetrators of the act(s) and must be shown to have acted (5) intentionally or recklessly and must be (6) held responsible for their actionsrdquo The transgressions must result in ldquo(7) differential consequences for those involvedrdquo And finally before an event may be considered ldquothe revelations must be (8) widely circulated via communications media where they are (9) effectively narrated into a story which (10) inspires widespread interest and discussionrdquo15 ARI ADUT ON SCANDAL MORAL DISTURBANCES IN SOCIETY POLITICS AND ART 12 (Mark Granovetter ed 2008)16 MEDIA SCANDALS supra note 13 at 11 See also ADUT supra note 15 at 13 ldquoScandalous transgressions are often willful wrongdoings that when made public make the transgressor look like a bad person Yet exceptional acts by those we trust (such as politicians or doctors) can also set off scandals ndash but usually when they are particularly harmful and when the opinion leaders loudly and successfully frame the matter in moral termsrdquo17 See also ADUT supra note 15 at 13
4
trusted individuals groups or institutions or 2) challenge the
public authorities or both18 Further a problem or crisis
cannot rise to the level of a scandal unless it is communicated
or publicized ldquoto an audience that is negatively oriented to
itrdquo19 Although scandals may be publicized in various ways20
because procurement crises of the past have only become full-
blown procurement scandals after receiving media attention21
this paper will focus specifically on media-publicized scandals
B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
Although it has been established that a procurement crisis
cannot become a full-blown procurement scandal until published by
the media22 the crisis will never be published unless a member
of the media (including a blogger) first believes the problem or
issue warrants the attention that may elevate it to the status of
a scandal23 Factors that determine potential newsworthiness of
a story include whether the event 1) is happening currently 2)
will have a major impact 3) involves many people 4) is novel or
unusual behavior 5) involves an elite or respected person or
agency 6) includes a human interest factor (versus abstract
social forces)
18 See id at 2219 See id at 1620 See id at 1421 See eg Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893Needs cite22 Needs cite23 Needs cite
5
7) involves some type of conflict 8) is unambiguous and easy to
understand and 9) references something negative24 The more of
these factors a procurement crisis includes the more likely it
will be published as a news story and the greater chance it has
of rising to the level of a procurement scandal25 Of the above
listed criteria the eighth ndash that the public be able to
understand the story ndash is essential for a government procurement
issue to become a bona fide scandal26 If the story meets the
criteria for news but is too complicated for anyone but experts
to understand the story rarely will become a scandal27 Stated
in another way ldquoA scandal is like any other melodrama It canrsquot
be a crowd pleaser unless the audience can follow the plotrdquo28
Further once the first set of criteria is met the story still
must meet with the organizationrsquos editorial policy and a
journalist must determine if the organizationrsquos readers or
listeners will be interested in following the topic29 24 Tony Harcup amp Deirdre OrsquoNeill What Is News Galtung and Ruge Revisited 2 JOURNALISM STUDIES 261 262-643 (2001)25 Id26 Id27 MADELAINE DROHANSHELDON CHUMIR FOUNDATION FOR ETHICS IN LEADERSHIP SCANDALS AND THEIR AFTERMATH WHY WE ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT OUR MISTAKES 4 (2005) available at httpwwwchumirethicsfoundationcafilespdfscandalsandtheiraftermathpdf NIEMAN REPORTS NIEMAN FOUNDATION FOR JOURNALISM AT HARVARD Winter 2005 httpwwwniemanharvardedureportsarticle100610Knowing-When-to-Stop-Reporting-About-a-Scandalaspx28 Frank Rich Get Tom DeLay to the Church On Time NY TIMES Apr 175 2005 httpwwwnytimescom20050417opinion17richhtml29 Drohan supra note 27 at 4
6
III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
The passage of the FASA30 along with the Clinger-Cohen Act
of 199631 ldquorepresented the culmination of Congressrsquos
efforts to eliminate or reduce the barriers commercial companies
faced in selling to the United States gGovernmentrdquo32 While
these Acts brought significant reform to the way in which the
US Government procures commercial items and services33 it took
a significant length of time several scandals and a great deal
of media coverage for the reform to come about34 As President
Bill Clinton prepared to sign the FASA on October 13 1994 he
remarked
I kind of hate to sign this bill today What will Jay Leno do There will be no more $500 hammers no more $600 toilet seats no more $10 ashtrays Al Gore will never get on David Letterman again Itrsquos sort of a sad moment ndash the passing of Government purchasing as the butt of all the jokes 35
30 Needs citeFASA supra note 731 See The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642Needs cite32 Carl L Vacketta Lessons From the Commercial Marketplace 2 PUB PROCUREMENT L REV 126 128 (2002)33 See US Govrsquot Accountability Office GAOT-OCG-00-7 Federal Acquisition Trends Reforms and Challenges 9 (2000)Needs cite34 See Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 2 PUB PAPERS 1737-1738 (Oct 13 1994) Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 discussion supra Part IIIB2 and Part IIIC2Needs cite35 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)
7
At that point in time the jokes regarding $500 hammers and $600
toilet seats had been ongoing for nearly ten years36
A How it Began
As a matter of background even prior to the 1980s the
acquisition of commercial items ldquowas perceived as being plagued
by cost overruns inefficiencies and burdensome government
specifications rdquo37 Procurement officials and others
believed ldquo[g]overnment-unique specifications [were] a major
impediment to the efficient procurement of otherwise suitable
commercially developed products and servicesrdquo38 Nevertheless
even though the Commission on Government Procurement urged
Congress as early as 1972 to ldquopromote the acquisition of
commercial products over lsquoGovernment-designed items to avoid the
high cost of developing unique productsrsquordquo significant reform did
not occur during that decade39 Reform only occurred after
several ldquospare partsrdquo procurement scandals emerged in the 1980s
36 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 available at httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906
37 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL TO THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 47 (2007) available at httpswwwacquisitiongovcompaapfinalaapreporthtml (hereinafter ldquoACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORTrdquo)38 See idId at 48 (quoting Stephen Barr lsquoReinventrsquo Government Cautiously Study Urges WASH POST July 28 1993 at A17) One such impediment reported was that ldquothe military specifications for fruitcake once ran eighteen pagesrdquo 39 See id at 48Id
8
and pressured Congress to make significant changes to the
commercial item acquisition process40
B The $435 Hammer Scandal
1 Background Facts
In 1981 the Navy issued a sole-source contract41 to Gould
Inc (Gould) an electronics company that manufactured the flight
instruments for the T-34 aircraft42 Under the contract Gould
was responsible to provide over 400 different parts and tools
one of which was an ordinary claw hammer43 After negotiation of
the entire contract price Gould eventually offered the hammer to
the Government for a line item cost of $43544 In the
calculation of the line item cost of each part offered to the
Government including the hammer Gould included allocated
overhead45 The overhead cost built into the cost of each part
was distributed using the equal allocation method which meant
that the total indirect costs (such as indirect labor and
40 Needs citeId at 48-4941 Needs citeSee 48 CFR 63 (2012) 42 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906supra note 3643 See iId44 See iId45 See id
9
overhead) were divided by the total number of parts on the list
and then each part was assigned an equal amount of the support
costs basically rendering the line item prices meaningless46
Although the equal allocation method worked as ldquoa bookkeeping
procedure to create billing prices so that Gould could be paid as
it shipped line items at different times during the contractrdquo
very few non-procurement Agency employees and even fewer members
of the public knew and understood this47
This became apparent in 1983 when a Navy chief petty
officer saw the line item prices on the Gould contract and
noticed the hammerrsquos $435 unit price48 Questioning the $435
cost the chief petty officer made agency-level inquiries49
This led to several agency investigations and an audit conducted
by the Naval Audit Service50 which determined that the Gould 46 See iId47 See iId 48 Needs citeId 49 Needs citeId
50 Needs cite Id The Naval Audit Service (NAVAUDSVC) audits and assesses business risks within the Department of the Navy (DON) Internal audits give DON managers objective feedback on efficiency and effectiveness of DON programs systems functions and funds Audits have defined objectives and are done following generally accepted Government auditing standards (GAGAS) issued by the Comptroller General of the United States These are professional auditing standards that include those professional standards required of private sector public accounting firms Based on their work auditors certify or attest to the accuracy of data or to the assertions of management The work and opinion of auditors within the bounds of their profession carries recognized legal weight in court proceedings Each audit report presents conclusions on pre-established audit objectives and where appropriate summarizes a condition that needs managementrsquos
10
contract contained ldquoexcess costs of about $729000rdquo51 Secretary
of Defense Caspar Weinberger responded by issuing a public
announcement that Gould had overcharged the Navy and that not
only was the DoD seeking immediate repayment from Gould but the
DoD needed to make ldquomajor changesrdquo in the way it procured spare
parts52 Although Gould believed the Navyrsquos audit was flawed it
agreed to make a good faith repayment of $84000 in August 1983
to appease the DoD53
2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
Early on the media coverage of the hammer scandal was
neutral and even somewhat optimistic54 In early September of
1983 newspapers framed the root cause of spare parts problem as
one resulting from a combination of the equal allocation system
for distributing overhead and the DoDrsquos lack of oversight in
attention explains the root causes and effects of the condition and recommends potential solutions Audit reports are provided to the Department of the Navy commands and activities Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) Congress and via the Freedom of Information Act to the public A General Overview of the Audit Service available at httpsecnavportaldonhqnavymilportalserverptopen=512ampobjID=303ampampPageID=37387ampmode=2ampin_hi_userid=2ampcached=true (last visited Apr 2 2012)
51 See Fairhall supra note 42Id52 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 364253 See Fairhall supra note 364254 See eg James Barron High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sept 1 1983 at D1Needs cite
11
managing its inventory and procurement systems55 As additional
related facts were uncovered the portrayal of the issue
evolved56 Just a few weeks later newspapers reported the real
problem behind the high cost of hammers and other spare parts was
the lack of competitive bidding on commercial item contracts
while acknowledging the DoDrsquos efforts to remedy the system
through demanding (and receiving) repayment for the previous
overcharges and establishing incentives for increased
competition57 Surprisingly the early coverage of the scandal
appears to have been its most accurate
In October 1983 media framing of the issue began to change
dramatically58 Reports began suggesting the spare parts problem
55 See James Barron supra note 54 at D11 (High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sep 1 1983 at D1 As evidence that the equal allocation method had been to blame Barron reportedreporting that ldquoGould officials have told staff members of the House Armed Services Committee that the high markups resulted from the way the Defense Department requires contractors on some military projects to bill overheadrdquo)56 Needs citeSee eg William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983 at 2157 See See William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983id at 21 see also Brad Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 (ldquo [O]fficials admit that while other criminal probes are under way this only begins to scratch the surface [The] problem is a wasteful system that has grown without much control But the Pentagon is doing quite a bit these days to crack down on the exorbitant sums itrsquos been paying for spare partsrdquo)58 Needs citeSee Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 Capitalism for the Pentagon NY TIMES Nov 15 1983 at A1
12
was due to a ldquowasteful systemrdquo59 Nearly a month later the
presentation of the issue had again evolved and this time the
media blamed the high cost of spare parts on a combination of
greedy contractors and a lack of competition60 Congress quickly
responded to the negative publicity with those leading the
charge particularly Representative Berkley Bedell advocating
for ldquospare parts amendmentsrdquo61 Believing their high cost to be
the primary result of greedy contractors Bedell soon became a
ldquocrusaderrdquo in the movement to eliminate the overpricing of spare
parts62
Perhaps based partly on Bedellrsquos efforts media portrayal of
the hammer and spare parts scandal had again evolved by February
1984 with media coverage once again framing the scandal as one
of waste but this time also suggesting poor management was at
fault63 A few weeks later ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo shared 59 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 ( reporting This report stated that officials had admitted that proposed DoD remedies would only ldquobegin to scratch the surface in a $13-billion-a-year business involving millions of partsrdquo)60 See Capitalism for the Pentagon NY Times Nov 15 198supra note 583 at A1 (citing The article blamed the spare parts problem on a ldquolack of biddingrdquo and and on contractors who ldquoblame the Pentagon for ordering spares in small quantities and justify their fancy prices as including overhead that has been officially sanctionedldquo[the Pentagonrsquos] rdquoordering spares in small quantitiesrdquo for the spare parts problem)61 See Fairhall supra note 364262 See Steven V Roberts Congress the Provocative Saga of the $400 Hammer NY TIMES Jun 13 1984 at A2263 See Waste is Charged in Military Work NY TIMES Feb 22 1984 at A15 (reporting that Here the report charged ldquothe Defense Department has wasted millions of dollars in buying new weapons because of lax management and supervision of pricing
13
the blame with ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo while
journalists lauded the efforts of ldquopeople like Joe Sherick a
highly respected civil servant [who] rov[e] like alligators
through a lsquoswamprsquo of mismanagement and abuse at the
Pentagonrdquo64
While journalists and perhaps the public lauded the efforts
of Sherick and Bedell65 unfortunately these individuals did not
understand the true nature of the problem66 Specifically
Bedell did not understand how the equal allocation formula
worked did not comprehend the complicated nature of the
commercial acquisition process and believed that greedy
contractors were mostly to blame for the high parts costs67
With journalists following and supporting Bedellrsquos lead Bedell
advocated for Gouldrsquos prosecution and spare parts legislation68
Bedellrsquos efforts led to the passage of legislation in the House
of Representatives to control the cost of spare parts69 His
efforts as covered by the media likely also fed the anger felt
by the American public70 By June of 1984 the American public
by subcontractorsrdquo)rdquo64 See Brad Knickerbocker Pentagon Steps Up Its War on Unscrupulous Defense Contractors CHRISTIAN SCI MONITOR Mar 15 1984 at 4 [hereinafter Pentagon Steps Up]65 See id Fairhall supra note 42Needs cite66 Needs citeSee Pentagon Steps Up supra note 64 Fairhall supra note 4267 See Fairhall supra note 364268 See id69 See Wayne Biddle House Approves Stiff Rules to Control Costs of Military Spare Parts NY TIMES May 31 1984 at B2470 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42
14
was ldquoterribly disturbed over the wasterdquo it believed had occurred
in the Government71 Media stories of that time frame compared
the DoD to a fiscally irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo who should receive
less money and more discipline72
This anger put pressure on elected officials to remedy the
underlying causes of the issue and small changes resulted73
The Government responded with lsquomore laws more rules more people
checking on the checkersrsquordquo74 DoD The Pentagon abolished the
equal allocation method in 198475 and Congress passed the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA)76 also in 1984 ldquoto
establish a statutory preference for the use of competitive
procedures and commercial products whenever practicablerdquo77
In addition Congress enacted the Defense Procurement Reform
Act78 as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act
71 See Roberts supra note 62 at A2272 See Mary McGrory SPOILED Pentagonrsquos Guardians Should Give Less Money More Discipline WASH POST June 26 1984 at A2 (ldquoItrsquos no wonder the Pentagon swaggers around the way it does and frightens some of the less privileged kids in the neighborhood like programs for the poor A few people try to keep the kid in line but itrsquos pretty hopelessrdquo)73 Needs cite74 See Fairhall supra note 3642 75 See idId76 Needs citeCompetition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) Pub L 98-369 98 Stat 1175 (codified as 31 USC sectsect 3551-56)(1994)77 S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 48-4978 Needs citeDefense Procurement Reform Act Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 259 1213 (1984)(amending 10 USC sect 2305)
15
for Fiscal Year 198579 in which Congress directed the DoD to use
ldquostandard or commercial parts whenever such use is
technically acceptable and cost effectiverdquo80
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
1 Background Facts
Just as these new changes were taking place an additional
spare parts scandal emerged In late January 1985 Senator
William Roth chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (the
same committee charged with investigating the suspected cost
overruns in the hammer case) received a letter from a contractor
in Washington State81 The contractor had been invited to bid
but had had difficulty entering the bidding process on a contract
for fifty-four (54) ldquolight weight corrosive -resistant thermo-
formed polycarbonate material seamless and sufficiently
durablerdquo plastic cases that fit over toilets used aboard the
Navyrsquos P-3C Orion antisubmarine planes82 The contractor
contacted Senator Roth when he learned that the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed Corp (Lockheed) and that under the
contract the unit price of each toilet seat cover to the
79 Needs citeDepartment of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 2492 80 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 484981 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15 see also Adjusting the Bottom Line TIME Feb 18 1985 available at httpwwwtimecomtimemagazinearticle0917196074800html82 See idBiddle supra note 81
16
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
is that in its most simple form a scandal has three basic
characteristics (1) it is a transgression (2) it is publicized
and (3) the public is interested in it and its outcome15 Social
science data demonstrates a ldquotransgressionrdquo occurs when social
norms that reflect the public morality are broken16 A
transgression can be anything that brings about shame or that
will embarrass or provoke when made public17 For a
transgression to rise to the level of a genuine scandal it must
typically 1) demoralize or shame the public to whom the
transgression is communicated involving respected or publicly
See also MEDIA SCANDALS supra note 13 at 11 Social scientists have defined the term further yet determining that for a crisis or problem to meet the definition of a ldquoscandalrdquo it must meet ten criteria First (1) social norms reflecting the dominant morality must be transgressed According to Lull and Hinerman this criterion is fundamental because without it no story can be considered a scandal In addition crucial compound considerations are also required The ldquotransgressions must be performed by (2) specific persons who carry out (3) actions that reflect an exercise of their desires or interestsrdquo Further individuals must be ldquo(4) identified as perpetrators of the act(s) and must be shown to have acted (5) intentionally or recklessly and must be (6) held responsible for their actionsrdquo The transgressions must result in ldquo(7) differential consequences for those involvedrdquo And finally before an event may be considered ldquothe revelations must be (8) widely circulated via communications media where they are (9) effectively narrated into a story which (10) inspires widespread interest and discussionrdquo15 ARI ADUT ON SCANDAL MORAL DISTURBANCES IN SOCIETY POLITICS AND ART 12 (Mark Granovetter ed 2008)16 MEDIA SCANDALS supra note 13 at 11 See also ADUT supra note 15 at 13 ldquoScandalous transgressions are often willful wrongdoings that when made public make the transgressor look like a bad person Yet exceptional acts by those we trust (such as politicians or doctors) can also set off scandals ndash but usually when they are particularly harmful and when the opinion leaders loudly and successfully frame the matter in moral termsrdquo17 See also ADUT supra note 15 at 13
4
trusted individuals groups or institutions or 2) challenge the
public authorities or both18 Further a problem or crisis
cannot rise to the level of a scandal unless it is communicated
or publicized ldquoto an audience that is negatively oriented to
itrdquo19 Although scandals may be publicized in various ways20
because procurement crises of the past have only become full-
blown procurement scandals after receiving media attention21
this paper will focus specifically on media-publicized scandals
B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
Although it has been established that a procurement crisis
cannot become a full-blown procurement scandal until published by
the media22 the crisis will never be published unless a member
of the media (including a blogger) first believes the problem or
issue warrants the attention that may elevate it to the status of
a scandal23 Factors that determine potential newsworthiness of
a story include whether the event 1) is happening currently 2)
will have a major impact 3) involves many people 4) is novel or
unusual behavior 5) involves an elite or respected person or
agency 6) includes a human interest factor (versus abstract
social forces)
18 See id at 2219 See id at 1620 See id at 1421 See eg Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893Needs cite22 Needs cite23 Needs cite
5
7) involves some type of conflict 8) is unambiguous and easy to
understand and 9) references something negative24 The more of
these factors a procurement crisis includes the more likely it
will be published as a news story and the greater chance it has
of rising to the level of a procurement scandal25 Of the above
listed criteria the eighth ndash that the public be able to
understand the story ndash is essential for a government procurement
issue to become a bona fide scandal26 If the story meets the
criteria for news but is too complicated for anyone but experts
to understand the story rarely will become a scandal27 Stated
in another way ldquoA scandal is like any other melodrama It canrsquot
be a crowd pleaser unless the audience can follow the plotrdquo28
Further once the first set of criteria is met the story still
must meet with the organizationrsquos editorial policy and a
journalist must determine if the organizationrsquos readers or
listeners will be interested in following the topic29 24 Tony Harcup amp Deirdre OrsquoNeill What Is News Galtung and Ruge Revisited 2 JOURNALISM STUDIES 261 262-643 (2001)25 Id26 Id27 MADELAINE DROHANSHELDON CHUMIR FOUNDATION FOR ETHICS IN LEADERSHIP SCANDALS AND THEIR AFTERMATH WHY WE ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT OUR MISTAKES 4 (2005) available at httpwwwchumirethicsfoundationcafilespdfscandalsandtheiraftermathpdf NIEMAN REPORTS NIEMAN FOUNDATION FOR JOURNALISM AT HARVARD Winter 2005 httpwwwniemanharvardedureportsarticle100610Knowing-When-to-Stop-Reporting-About-a-Scandalaspx28 Frank Rich Get Tom DeLay to the Church On Time NY TIMES Apr 175 2005 httpwwwnytimescom20050417opinion17richhtml29 Drohan supra note 27 at 4
6
III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
The passage of the FASA30 along with the Clinger-Cohen Act
of 199631 ldquorepresented the culmination of Congressrsquos
efforts to eliminate or reduce the barriers commercial companies
faced in selling to the United States gGovernmentrdquo32 While
these Acts brought significant reform to the way in which the
US Government procures commercial items and services33 it took
a significant length of time several scandals and a great deal
of media coverage for the reform to come about34 As President
Bill Clinton prepared to sign the FASA on October 13 1994 he
remarked
I kind of hate to sign this bill today What will Jay Leno do There will be no more $500 hammers no more $600 toilet seats no more $10 ashtrays Al Gore will never get on David Letterman again Itrsquos sort of a sad moment ndash the passing of Government purchasing as the butt of all the jokes 35
30 Needs citeFASA supra note 731 See The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642Needs cite32 Carl L Vacketta Lessons From the Commercial Marketplace 2 PUB PROCUREMENT L REV 126 128 (2002)33 See US Govrsquot Accountability Office GAOT-OCG-00-7 Federal Acquisition Trends Reforms and Challenges 9 (2000)Needs cite34 See Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 2 PUB PAPERS 1737-1738 (Oct 13 1994) Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 discussion supra Part IIIB2 and Part IIIC2Needs cite35 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)
7
At that point in time the jokes regarding $500 hammers and $600
toilet seats had been ongoing for nearly ten years36
A How it Began
As a matter of background even prior to the 1980s the
acquisition of commercial items ldquowas perceived as being plagued
by cost overruns inefficiencies and burdensome government
specifications rdquo37 Procurement officials and others
believed ldquo[g]overnment-unique specifications [were] a major
impediment to the efficient procurement of otherwise suitable
commercially developed products and servicesrdquo38 Nevertheless
even though the Commission on Government Procurement urged
Congress as early as 1972 to ldquopromote the acquisition of
commercial products over lsquoGovernment-designed items to avoid the
high cost of developing unique productsrsquordquo significant reform did
not occur during that decade39 Reform only occurred after
several ldquospare partsrdquo procurement scandals emerged in the 1980s
36 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 available at httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906
37 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL TO THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 47 (2007) available at httpswwwacquisitiongovcompaapfinalaapreporthtml (hereinafter ldquoACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORTrdquo)38 See idId at 48 (quoting Stephen Barr lsquoReinventrsquo Government Cautiously Study Urges WASH POST July 28 1993 at A17) One such impediment reported was that ldquothe military specifications for fruitcake once ran eighteen pagesrdquo 39 See id at 48Id
8
and pressured Congress to make significant changes to the
commercial item acquisition process40
B The $435 Hammer Scandal
1 Background Facts
In 1981 the Navy issued a sole-source contract41 to Gould
Inc (Gould) an electronics company that manufactured the flight
instruments for the T-34 aircraft42 Under the contract Gould
was responsible to provide over 400 different parts and tools
one of which was an ordinary claw hammer43 After negotiation of
the entire contract price Gould eventually offered the hammer to
the Government for a line item cost of $43544 In the
calculation of the line item cost of each part offered to the
Government including the hammer Gould included allocated
overhead45 The overhead cost built into the cost of each part
was distributed using the equal allocation method which meant
that the total indirect costs (such as indirect labor and
40 Needs citeId at 48-4941 Needs citeSee 48 CFR 63 (2012) 42 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906supra note 3643 See iId44 See iId45 See id
9
overhead) were divided by the total number of parts on the list
and then each part was assigned an equal amount of the support
costs basically rendering the line item prices meaningless46
Although the equal allocation method worked as ldquoa bookkeeping
procedure to create billing prices so that Gould could be paid as
it shipped line items at different times during the contractrdquo
very few non-procurement Agency employees and even fewer members
of the public knew and understood this47
This became apparent in 1983 when a Navy chief petty
officer saw the line item prices on the Gould contract and
noticed the hammerrsquos $435 unit price48 Questioning the $435
cost the chief petty officer made agency-level inquiries49
This led to several agency investigations and an audit conducted
by the Naval Audit Service50 which determined that the Gould 46 See iId47 See iId 48 Needs citeId 49 Needs citeId
50 Needs cite Id The Naval Audit Service (NAVAUDSVC) audits and assesses business risks within the Department of the Navy (DON) Internal audits give DON managers objective feedback on efficiency and effectiveness of DON programs systems functions and funds Audits have defined objectives and are done following generally accepted Government auditing standards (GAGAS) issued by the Comptroller General of the United States These are professional auditing standards that include those professional standards required of private sector public accounting firms Based on their work auditors certify or attest to the accuracy of data or to the assertions of management The work and opinion of auditors within the bounds of their profession carries recognized legal weight in court proceedings Each audit report presents conclusions on pre-established audit objectives and where appropriate summarizes a condition that needs managementrsquos
10
contract contained ldquoexcess costs of about $729000rdquo51 Secretary
of Defense Caspar Weinberger responded by issuing a public
announcement that Gould had overcharged the Navy and that not
only was the DoD seeking immediate repayment from Gould but the
DoD needed to make ldquomajor changesrdquo in the way it procured spare
parts52 Although Gould believed the Navyrsquos audit was flawed it
agreed to make a good faith repayment of $84000 in August 1983
to appease the DoD53
2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
Early on the media coverage of the hammer scandal was
neutral and even somewhat optimistic54 In early September of
1983 newspapers framed the root cause of spare parts problem as
one resulting from a combination of the equal allocation system
for distributing overhead and the DoDrsquos lack of oversight in
attention explains the root causes and effects of the condition and recommends potential solutions Audit reports are provided to the Department of the Navy commands and activities Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) Congress and via the Freedom of Information Act to the public A General Overview of the Audit Service available at httpsecnavportaldonhqnavymilportalserverptopen=512ampobjID=303ampampPageID=37387ampmode=2ampin_hi_userid=2ampcached=true (last visited Apr 2 2012)
51 See Fairhall supra note 42Id52 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 364253 See Fairhall supra note 364254 See eg James Barron High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sept 1 1983 at D1Needs cite
11
managing its inventory and procurement systems55 As additional
related facts were uncovered the portrayal of the issue
evolved56 Just a few weeks later newspapers reported the real
problem behind the high cost of hammers and other spare parts was
the lack of competitive bidding on commercial item contracts
while acknowledging the DoDrsquos efforts to remedy the system
through demanding (and receiving) repayment for the previous
overcharges and establishing incentives for increased
competition57 Surprisingly the early coverage of the scandal
appears to have been its most accurate
In October 1983 media framing of the issue began to change
dramatically58 Reports began suggesting the spare parts problem
55 See James Barron supra note 54 at D11 (High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sep 1 1983 at D1 As evidence that the equal allocation method had been to blame Barron reportedreporting that ldquoGould officials have told staff members of the House Armed Services Committee that the high markups resulted from the way the Defense Department requires contractors on some military projects to bill overheadrdquo)56 Needs citeSee eg William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983 at 2157 See See William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983id at 21 see also Brad Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 (ldquo [O]fficials admit that while other criminal probes are under way this only begins to scratch the surface [The] problem is a wasteful system that has grown without much control But the Pentagon is doing quite a bit these days to crack down on the exorbitant sums itrsquos been paying for spare partsrdquo)58 Needs citeSee Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 Capitalism for the Pentagon NY TIMES Nov 15 1983 at A1
12
was due to a ldquowasteful systemrdquo59 Nearly a month later the
presentation of the issue had again evolved and this time the
media blamed the high cost of spare parts on a combination of
greedy contractors and a lack of competition60 Congress quickly
responded to the negative publicity with those leading the
charge particularly Representative Berkley Bedell advocating
for ldquospare parts amendmentsrdquo61 Believing their high cost to be
the primary result of greedy contractors Bedell soon became a
ldquocrusaderrdquo in the movement to eliminate the overpricing of spare
parts62
Perhaps based partly on Bedellrsquos efforts media portrayal of
the hammer and spare parts scandal had again evolved by February
1984 with media coverage once again framing the scandal as one
of waste but this time also suggesting poor management was at
fault63 A few weeks later ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo shared 59 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 ( reporting This report stated that officials had admitted that proposed DoD remedies would only ldquobegin to scratch the surface in a $13-billion-a-year business involving millions of partsrdquo)60 See Capitalism for the Pentagon NY Times Nov 15 198supra note 583 at A1 (citing The article blamed the spare parts problem on a ldquolack of biddingrdquo and and on contractors who ldquoblame the Pentagon for ordering spares in small quantities and justify their fancy prices as including overhead that has been officially sanctionedldquo[the Pentagonrsquos] rdquoordering spares in small quantitiesrdquo for the spare parts problem)61 See Fairhall supra note 364262 See Steven V Roberts Congress the Provocative Saga of the $400 Hammer NY TIMES Jun 13 1984 at A2263 See Waste is Charged in Military Work NY TIMES Feb 22 1984 at A15 (reporting that Here the report charged ldquothe Defense Department has wasted millions of dollars in buying new weapons because of lax management and supervision of pricing
13
the blame with ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo while
journalists lauded the efforts of ldquopeople like Joe Sherick a
highly respected civil servant [who] rov[e] like alligators
through a lsquoswamprsquo of mismanagement and abuse at the
Pentagonrdquo64
While journalists and perhaps the public lauded the efforts
of Sherick and Bedell65 unfortunately these individuals did not
understand the true nature of the problem66 Specifically
Bedell did not understand how the equal allocation formula
worked did not comprehend the complicated nature of the
commercial acquisition process and believed that greedy
contractors were mostly to blame for the high parts costs67
With journalists following and supporting Bedellrsquos lead Bedell
advocated for Gouldrsquos prosecution and spare parts legislation68
Bedellrsquos efforts led to the passage of legislation in the House
of Representatives to control the cost of spare parts69 His
efforts as covered by the media likely also fed the anger felt
by the American public70 By June of 1984 the American public
by subcontractorsrdquo)rdquo64 See Brad Knickerbocker Pentagon Steps Up Its War on Unscrupulous Defense Contractors CHRISTIAN SCI MONITOR Mar 15 1984 at 4 [hereinafter Pentagon Steps Up]65 See id Fairhall supra note 42Needs cite66 Needs citeSee Pentagon Steps Up supra note 64 Fairhall supra note 4267 See Fairhall supra note 364268 See id69 See Wayne Biddle House Approves Stiff Rules to Control Costs of Military Spare Parts NY TIMES May 31 1984 at B2470 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42
14
was ldquoterribly disturbed over the wasterdquo it believed had occurred
in the Government71 Media stories of that time frame compared
the DoD to a fiscally irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo who should receive
less money and more discipline72
This anger put pressure on elected officials to remedy the
underlying causes of the issue and small changes resulted73
The Government responded with lsquomore laws more rules more people
checking on the checkersrsquordquo74 DoD The Pentagon abolished the
equal allocation method in 198475 and Congress passed the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA)76 also in 1984 ldquoto
establish a statutory preference for the use of competitive
procedures and commercial products whenever practicablerdquo77
In addition Congress enacted the Defense Procurement Reform
Act78 as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act
71 See Roberts supra note 62 at A2272 See Mary McGrory SPOILED Pentagonrsquos Guardians Should Give Less Money More Discipline WASH POST June 26 1984 at A2 (ldquoItrsquos no wonder the Pentagon swaggers around the way it does and frightens some of the less privileged kids in the neighborhood like programs for the poor A few people try to keep the kid in line but itrsquos pretty hopelessrdquo)73 Needs cite74 See Fairhall supra note 3642 75 See idId76 Needs citeCompetition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) Pub L 98-369 98 Stat 1175 (codified as 31 USC sectsect 3551-56)(1994)77 S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 48-4978 Needs citeDefense Procurement Reform Act Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 259 1213 (1984)(amending 10 USC sect 2305)
15
for Fiscal Year 198579 in which Congress directed the DoD to use
ldquostandard or commercial parts whenever such use is
technically acceptable and cost effectiverdquo80
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
1 Background Facts
Just as these new changes were taking place an additional
spare parts scandal emerged In late January 1985 Senator
William Roth chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (the
same committee charged with investigating the suspected cost
overruns in the hammer case) received a letter from a contractor
in Washington State81 The contractor had been invited to bid
but had had difficulty entering the bidding process on a contract
for fifty-four (54) ldquolight weight corrosive -resistant thermo-
formed polycarbonate material seamless and sufficiently
durablerdquo plastic cases that fit over toilets used aboard the
Navyrsquos P-3C Orion antisubmarine planes82 The contractor
contacted Senator Roth when he learned that the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed Corp (Lockheed) and that under the
contract the unit price of each toilet seat cover to the
79 Needs citeDepartment of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 2492 80 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 484981 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15 see also Adjusting the Bottom Line TIME Feb 18 1985 available at httpwwwtimecomtimemagazinearticle0917196074800html82 See idBiddle supra note 81
16
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
trusted individuals groups or institutions or 2) challenge the
public authorities or both18 Further a problem or crisis
cannot rise to the level of a scandal unless it is communicated
or publicized ldquoto an audience that is negatively oriented to
itrdquo19 Although scandals may be publicized in various ways20
because procurement crises of the past have only become full-
blown procurement scandals after receiving media attention21
this paper will focus specifically on media-publicized scandals
B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
Although it has been established that a procurement crisis
cannot become a full-blown procurement scandal until published by
the media22 the crisis will never be published unless a member
of the media (including a blogger) first believes the problem or
issue warrants the attention that may elevate it to the status of
a scandal23 Factors that determine potential newsworthiness of
a story include whether the event 1) is happening currently 2)
will have a major impact 3) involves many people 4) is novel or
unusual behavior 5) involves an elite or respected person or
agency 6) includes a human interest factor (versus abstract
social forces)
18 See id at 2219 See id at 1620 See id at 1421 See eg Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893Needs cite22 Needs cite23 Needs cite
5
7) involves some type of conflict 8) is unambiguous and easy to
understand and 9) references something negative24 The more of
these factors a procurement crisis includes the more likely it
will be published as a news story and the greater chance it has
of rising to the level of a procurement scandal25 Of the above
listed criteria the eighth ndash that the public be able to
understand the story ndash is essential for a government procurement
issue to become a bona fide scandal26 If the story meets the
criteria for news but is too complicated for anyone but experts
to understand the story rarely will become a scandal27 Stated
in another way ldquoA scandal is like any other melodrama It canrsquot
be a crowd pleaser unless the audience can follow the plotrdquo28
Further once the first set of criteria is met the story still
must meet with the organizationrsquos editorial policy and a
journalist must determine if the organizationrsquos readers or
listeners will be interested in following the topic29 24 Tony Harcup amp Deirdre OrsquoNeill What Is News Galtung and Ruge Revisited 2 JOURNALISM STUDIES 261 262-643 (2001)25 Id26 Id27 MADELAINE DROHANSHELDON CHUMIR FOUNDATION FOR ETHICS IN LEADERSHIP SCANDALS AND THEIR AFTERMATH WHY WE ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT OUR MISTAKES 4 (2005) available at httpwwwchumirethicsfoundationcafilespdfscandalsandtheiraftermathpdf NIEMAN REPORTS NIEMAN FOUNDATION FOR JOURNALISM AT HARVARD Winter 2005 httpwwwniemanharvardedureportsarticle100610Knowing-When-to-Stop-Reporting-About-a-Scandalaspx28 Frank Rich Get Tom DeLay to the Church On Time NY TIMES Apr 175 2005 httpwwwnytimescom20050417opinion17richhtml29 Drohan supra note 27 at 4
6
III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
The passage of the FASA30 along with the Clinger-Cohen Act
of 199631 ldquorepresented the culmination of Congressrsquos
efforts to eliminate or reduce the barriers commercial companies
faced in selling to the United States gGovernmentrdquo32 While
these Acts brought significant reform to the way in which the
US Government procures commercial items and services33 it took
a significant length of time several scandals and a great deal
of media coverage for the reform to come about34 As President
Bill Clinton prepared to sign the FASA on October 13 1994 he
remarked
I kind of hate to sign this bill today What will Jay Leno do There will be no more $500 hammers no more $600 toilet seats no more $10 ashtrays Al Gore will never get on David Letterman again Itrsquos sort of a sad moment ndash the passing of Government purchasing as the butt of all the jokes 35
30 Needs citeFASA supra note 731 See The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642Needs cite32 Carl L Vacketta Lessons From the Commercial Marketplace 2 PUB PROCUREMENT L REV 126 128 (2002)33 See US Govrsquot Accountability Office GAOT-OCG-00-7 Federal Acquisition Trends Reforms and Challenges 9 (2000)Needs cite34 See Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 2 PUB PAPERS 1737-1738 (Oct 13 1994) Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 discussion supra Part IIIB2 and Part IIIC2Needs cite35 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)
7
At that point in time the jokes regarding $500 hammers and $600
toilet seats had been ongoing for nearly ten years36
A How it Began
As a matter of background even prior to the 1980s the
acquisition of commercial items ldquowas perceived as being plagued
by cost overruns inefficiencies and burdensome government
specifications rdquo37 Procurement officials and others
believed ldquo[g]overnment-unique specifications [were] a major
impediment to the efficient procurement of otherwise suitable
commercially developed products and servicesrdquo38 Nevertheless
even though the Commission on Government Procurement urged
Congress as early as 1972 to ldquopromote the acquisition of
commercial products over lsquoGovernment-designed items to avoid the
high cost of developing unique productsrsquordquo significant reform did
not occur during that decade39 Reform only occurred after
several ldquospare partsrdquo procurement scandals emerged in the 1980s
36 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 available at httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906
37 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL TO THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 47 (2007) available at httpswwwacquisitiongovcompaapfinalaapreporthtml (hereinafter ldquoACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORTrdquo)38 See idId at 48 (quoting Stephen Barr lsquoReinventrsquo Government Cautiously Study Urges WASH POST July 28 1993 at A17) One such impediment reported was that ldquothe military specifications for fruitcake once ran eighteen pagesrdquo 39 See id at 48Id
8
and pressured Congress to make significant changes to the
commercial item acquisition process40
B The $435 Hammer Scandal
1 Background Facts
In 1981 the Navy issued a sole-source contract41 to Gould
Inc (Gould) an electronics company that manufactured the flight
instruments for the T-34 aircraft42 Under the contract Gould
was responsible to provide over 400 different parts and tools
one of which was an ordinary claw hammer43 After negotiation of
the entire contract price Gould eventually offered the hammer to
the Government for a line item cost of $43544 In the
calculation of the line item cost of each part offered to the
Government including the hammer Gould included allocated
overhead45 The overhead cost built into the cost of each part
was distributed using the equal allocation method which meant
that the total indirect costs (such as indirect labor and
40 Needs citeId at 48-4941 Needs citeSee 48 CFR 63 (2012) 42 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906supra note 3643 See iId44 See iId45 See id
9
overhead) were divided by the total number of parts on the list
and then each part was assigned an equal amount of the support
costs basically rendering the line item prices meaningless46
Although the equal allocation method worked as ldquoa bookkeeping
procedure to create billing prices so that Gould could be paid as
it shipped line items at different times during the contractrdquo
very few non-procurement Agency employees and even fewer members
of the public knew and understood this47
This became apparent in 1983 when a Navy chief petty
officer saw the line item prices on the Gould contract and
noticed the hammerrsquos $435 unit price48 Questioning the $435
cost the chief petty officer made agency-level inquiries49
This led to several agency investigations and an audit conducted
by the Naval Audit Service50 which determined that the Gould 46 See iId47 See iId 48 Needs citeId 49 Needs citeId
50 Needs cite Id The Naval Audit Service (NAVAUDSVC) audits and assesses business risks within the Department of the Navy (DON) Internal audits give DON managers objective feedback on efficiency and effectiveness of DON programs systems functions and funds Audits have defined objectives and are done following generally accepted Government auditing standards (GAGAS) issued by the Comptroller General of the United States These are professional auditing standards that include those professional standards required of private sector public accounting firms Based on their work auditors certify or attest to the accuracy of data or to the assertions of management The work and opinion of auditors within the bounds of their profession carries recognized legal weight in court proceedings Each audit report presents conclusions on pre-established audit objectives and where appropriate summarizes a condition that needs managementrsquos
10
contract contained ldquoexcess costs of about $729000rdquo51 Secretary
of Defense Caspar Weinberger responded by issuing a public
announcement that Gould had overcharged the Navy and that not
only was the DoD seeking immediate repayment from Gould but the
DoD needed to make ldquomajor changesrdquo in the way it procured spare
parts52 Although Gould believed the Navyrsquos audit was flawed it
agreed to make a good faith repayment of $84000 in August 1983
to appease the DoD53
2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
Early on the media coverage of the hammer scandal was
neutral and even somewhat optimistic54 In early September of
1983 newspapers framed the root cause of spare parts problem as
one resulting from a combination of the equal allocation system
for distributing overhead and the DoDrsquos lack of oversight in
attention explains the root causes and effects of the condition and recommends potential solutions Audit reports are provided to the Department of the Navy commands and activities Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) Congress and via the Freedom of Information Act to the public A General Overview of the Audit Service available at httpsecnavportaldonhqnavymilportalserverptopen=512ampobjID=303ampampPageID=37387ampmode=2ampin_hi_userid=2ampcached=true (last visited Apr 2 2012)
51 See Fairhall supra note 42Id52 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 364253 See Fairhall supra note 364254 See eg James Barron High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sept 1 1983 at D1Needs cite
11
managing its inventory and procurement systems55 As additional
related facts were uncovered the portrayal of the issue
evolved56 Just a few weeks later newspapers reported the real
problem behind the high cost of hammers and other spare parts was
the lack of competitive bidding on commercial item contracts
while acknowledging the DoDrsquos efforts to remedy the system
through demanding (and receiving) repayment for the previous
overcharges and establishing incentives for increased
competition57 Surprisingly the early coverage of the scandal
appears to have been its most accurate
In October 1983 media framing of the issue began to change
dramatically58 Reports began suggesting the spare parts problem
55 See James Barron supra note 54 at D11 (High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sep 1 1983 at D1 As evidence that the equal allocation method had been to blame Barron reportedreporting that ldquoGould officials have told staff members of the House Armed Services Committee that the high markups resulted from the way the Defense Department requires contractors on some military projects to bill overheadrdquo)56 Needs citeSee eg William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983 at 2157 See See William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983id at 21 see also Brad Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 (ldquo [O]fficials admit that while other criminal probes are under way this only begins to scratch the surface [The] problem is a wasteful system that has grown without much control But the Pentagon is doing quite a bit these days to crack down on the exorbitant sums itrsquos been paying for spare partsrdquo)58 Needs citeSee Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 Capitalism for the Pentagon NY TIMES Nov 15 1983 at A1
12
was due to a ldquowasteful systemrdquo59 Nearly a month later the
presentation of the issue had again evolved and this time the
media blamed the high cost of spare parts on a combination of
greedy contractors and a lack of competition60 Congress quickly
responded to the negative publicity with those leading the
charge particularly Representative Berkley Bedell advocating
for ldquospare parts amendmentsrdquo61 Believing their high cost to be
the primary result of greedy contractors Bedell soon became a
ldquocrusaderrdquo in the movement to eliminate the overpricing of spare
parts62
Perhaps based partly on Bedellrsquos efforts media portrayal of
the hammer and spare parts scandal had again evolved by February
1984 with media coverage once again framing the scandal as one
of waste but this time also suggesting poor management was at
fault63 A few weeks later ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo shared 59 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 ( reporting This report stated that officials had admitted that proposed DoD remedies would only ldquobegin to scratch the surface in a $13-billion-a-year business involving millions of partsrdquo)60 See Capitalism for the Pentagon NY Times Nov 15 198supra note 583 at A1 (citing The article blamed the spare parts problem on a ldquolack of biddingrdquo and and on contractors who ldquoblame the Pentagon for ordering spares in small quantities and justify their fancy prices as including overhead that has been officially sanctionedldquo[the Pentagonrsquos] rdquoordering spares in small quantitiesrdquo for the spare parts problem)61 See Fairhall supra note 364262 See Steven V Roberts Congress the Provocative Saga of the $400 Hammer NY TIMES Jun 13 1984 at A2263 See Waste is Charged in Military Work NY TIMES Feb 22 1984 at A15 (reporting that Here the report charged ldquothe Defense Department has wasted millions of dollars in buying new weapons because of lax management and supervision of pricing
13
the blame with ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo while
journalists lauded the efforts of ldquopeople like Joe Sherick a
highly respected civil servant [who] rov[e] like alligators
through a lsquoswamprsquo of mismanagement and abuse at the
Pentagonrdquo64
While journalists and perhaps the public lauded the efforts
of Sherick and Bedell65 unfortunately these individuals did not
understand the true nature of the problem66 Specifically
Bedell did not understand how the equal allocation formula
worked did not comprehend the complicated nature of the
commercial acquisition process and believed that greedy
contractors were mostly to blame for the high parts costs67
With journalists following and supporting Bedellrsquos lead Bedell
advocated for Gouldrsquos prosecution and spare parts legislation68
Bedellrsquos efforts led to the passage of legislation in the House
of Representatives to control the cost of spare parts69 His
efforts as covered by the media likely also fed the anger felt
by the American public70 By June of 1984 the American public
by subcontractorsrdquo)rdquo64 See Brad Knickerbocker Pentagon Steps Up Its War on Unscrupulous Defense Contractors CHRISTIAN SCI MONITOR Mar 15 1984 at 4 [hereinafter Pentagon Steps Up]65 See id Fairhall supra note 42Needs cite66 Needs citeSee Pentagon Steps Up supra note 64 Fairhall supra note 4267 See Fairhall supra note 364268 See id69 See Wayne Biddle House Approves Stiff Rules to Control Costs of Military Spare Parts NY TIMES May 31 1984 at B2470 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42
14
was ldquoterribly disturbed over the wasterdquo it believed had occurred
in the Government71 Media stories of that time frame compared
the DoD to a fiscally irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo who should receive
less money and more discipline72
This anger put pressure on elected officials to remedy the
underlying causes of the issue and small changes resulted73
The Government responded with lsquomore laws more rules more people
checking on the checkersrsquordquo74 DoD The Pentagon abolished the
equal allocation method in 198475 and Congress passed the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA)76 also in 1984 ldquoto
establish a statutory preference for the use of competitive
procedures and commercial products whenever practicablerdquo77
In addition Congress enacted the Defense Procurement Reform
Act78 as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act
71 See Roberts supra note 62 at A2272 See Mary McGrory SPOILED Pentagonrsquos Guardians Should Give Less Money More Discipline WASH POST June 26 1984 at A2 (ldquoItrsquos no wonder the Pentagon swaggers around the way it does and frightens some of the less privileged kids in the neighborhood like programs for the poor A few people try to keep the kid in line but itrsquos pretty hopelessrdquo)73 Needs cite74 See Fairhall supra note 3642 75 See idId76 Needs citeCompetition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) Pub L 98-369 98 Stat 1175 (codified as 31 USC sectsect 3551-56)(1994)77 S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 48-4978 Needs citeDefense Procurement Reform Act Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 259 1213 (1984)(amending 10 USC sect 2305)
15
for Fiscal Year 198579 in which Congress directed the DoD to use
ldquostandard or commercial parts whenever such use is
technically acceptable and cost effectiverdquo80
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
1 Background Facts
Just as these new changes were taking place an additional
spare parts scandal emerged In late January 1985 Senator
William Roth chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (the
same committee charged with investigating the suspected cost
overruns in the hammer case) received a letter from a contractor
in Washington State81 The contractor had been invited to bid
but had had difficulty entering the bidding process on a contract
for fifty-four (54) ldquolight weight corrosive -resistant thermo-
formed polycarbonate material seamless and sufficiently
durablerdquo plastic cases that fit over toilets used aboard the
Navyrsquos P-3C Orion antisubmarine planes82 The contractor
contacted Senator Roth when he learned that the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed Corp (Lockheed) and that under the
contract the unit price of each toilet seat cover to the
79 Needs citeDepartment of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 2492 80 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 484981 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15 see also Adjusting the Bottom Line TIME Feb 18 1985 available at httpwwwtimecomtimemagazinearticle0917196074800html82 See idBiddle supra note 81
16
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
7) involves some type of conflict 8) is unambiguous and easy to
understand and 9) references something negative24 The more of
these factors a procurement crisis includes the more likely it
will be published as a news story and the greater chance it has
of rising to the level of a procurement scandal25 Of the above
listed criteria the eighth ndash that the public be able to
understand the story ndash is essential for a government procurement
issue to become a bona fide scandal26 If the story meets the
criteria for news but is too complicated for anyone but experts
to understand the story rarely will become a scandal27 Stated
in another way ldquoA scandal is like any other melodrama It canrsquot
be a crowd pleaser unless the audience can follow the plotrdquo28
Further once the first set of criteria is met the story still
must meet with the organizationrsquos editorial policy and a
journalist must determine if the organizationrsquos readers or
listeners will be interested in following the topic29 24 Tony Harcup amp Deirdre OrsquoNeill What Is News Galtung and Ruge Revisited 2 JOURNALISM STUDIES 261 262-643 (2001)25 Id26 Id27 MADELAINE DROHANSHELDON CHUMIR FOUNDATION FOR ETHICS IN LEADERSHIP SCANDALS AND THEIR AFTERMATH WHY WE ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT OUR MISTAKES 4 (2005) available at httpwwwchumirethicsfoundationcafilespdfscandalsandtheiraftermathpdf NIEMAN REPORTS NIEMAN FOUNDATION FOR JOURNALISM AT HARVARD Winter 2005 httpwwwniemanharvardedureportsarticle100610Knowing-When-to-Stop-Reporting-About-a-Scandalaspx28 Frank Rich Get Tom DeLay to the Church On Time NY TIMES Apr 175 2005 httpwwwnytimescom20050417opinion17richhtml29 Drohan supra note 27 at 4
6
III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
The passage of the FASA30 along with the Clinger-Cohen Act
of 199631 ldquorepresented the culmination of Congressrsquos
efforts to eliminate or reduce the barriers commercial companies
faced in selling to the United States gGovernmentrdquo32 While
these Acts brought significant reform to the way in which the
US Government procures commercial items and services33 it took
a significant length of time several scandals and a great deal
of media coverage for the reform to come about34 As President
Bill Clinton prepared to sign the FASA on October 13 1994 he
remarked
I kind of hate to sign this bill today What will Jay Leno do There will be no more $500 hammers no more $600 toilet seats no more $10 ashtrays Al Gore will never get on David Letterman again Itrsquos sort of a sad moment ndash the passing of Government purchasing as the butt of all the jokes 35
30 Needs citeFASA supra note 731 See The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642Needs cite32 Carl L Vacketta Lessons From the Commercial Marketplace 2 PUB PROCUREMENT L REV 126 128 (2002)33 See US Govrsquot Accountability Office GAOT-OCG-00-7 Federal Acquisition Trends Reforms and Challenges 9 (2000)Needs cite34 See Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 2 PUB PAPERS 1737-1738 (Oct 13 1994) Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 discussion supra Part IIIB2 and Part IIIC2Needs cite35 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)
7
At that point in time the jokes regarding $500 hammers and $600
toilet seats had been ongoing for nearly ten years36
A How it Began
As a matter of background even prior to the 1980s the
acquisition of commercial items ldquowas perceived as being plagued
by cost overruns inefficiencies and burdensome government
specifications rdquo37 Procurement officials and others
believed ldquo[g]overnment-unique specifications [were] a major
impediment to the efficient procurement of otherwise suitable
commercially developed products and servicesrdquo38 Nevertheless
even though the Commission on Government Procurement urged
Congress as early as 1972 to ldquopromote the acquisition of
commercial products over lsquoGovernment-designed items to avoid the
high cost of developing unique productsrsquordquo significant reform did
not occur during that decade39 Reform only occurred after
several ldquospare partsrdquo procurement scandals emerged in the 1980s
36 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 available at httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906
37 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL TO THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 47 (2007) available at httpswwwacquisitiongovcompaapfinalaapreporthtml (hereinafter ldquoACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORTrdquo)38 See idId at 48 (quoting Stephen Barr lsquoReinventrsquo Government Cautiously Study Urges WASH POST July 28 1993 at A17) One such impediment reported was that ldquothe military specifications for fruitcake once ran eighteen pagesrdquo 39 See id at 48Id
8
and pressured Congress to make significant changes to the
commercial item acquisition process40
B The $435 Hammer Scandal
1 Background Facts
In 1981 the Navy issued a sole-source contract41 to Gould
Inc (Gould) an electronics company that manufactured the flight
instruments for the T-34 aircraft42 Under the contract Gould
was responsible to provide over 400 different parts and tools
one of which was an ordinary claw hammer43 After negotiation of
the entire contract price Gould eventually offered the hammer to
the Government for a line item cost of $43544 In the
calculation of the line item cost of each part offered to the
Government including the hammer Gould included allocated
overhead45 The overhead cost built into the cost of each part
was distributed using the equal allocation method which meant
that the total indirect costs (such as indirect labor and
40 Needs citeId at 48-4941 Needs citeSee 48 CFR 63 (2012) 42 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906supra note 3643 See iId44 See iId45 See id
9
overhead) were divided by the total number of parts on the list
and then each part was assigned an equal amount of the support
costs basically rendering the line item prices meaningless46
Although the equal allocation method worked as ldquoa bookkeeping
procedure to create billing prices so that Gould could be paid as
it shipped line items at different times during the contractrdquo
very few non-procurement Agency employees and even fewer members
of the public knew and understood this47
This became apparent in 1983 when a Navy chief petty
officer saw the line item prices on the Gould contract and
noticed the hammerrsquos $435 unit price48 Questioning the $435
cost the chief petty officer made agency-level inquiries49
This led to several agency investigations and an audit conducted
by the Naval Audit Service50 which determined that the Gould 46 See iId47 See iId 48 Needs citeId 49 Needs citeId
50 Needs cite Id The Naval Audit Service (NAVAUDSVC) audits and assesses business risks within the Department of the Navy (DON) Internal audits give DON managers objective feedback on efficiency and effectiveness of DON programs systems functions and funds Audits have defined objectives and are done following generally accepted Government auditing standards (GAGAS) issued by the Comptroller General of the United States These are professional auditing standards that include those professional standards required of private sector public accounting firms Based on their work auditors certify or attest to the accuracy of data or to the assertions of management The work and opinion of auditors within the bounds of their profession carries recognized legal weight in court proceedings Each audit report presents conclusions on pre-established audit objectives and where appropriate summarizes a condition that needs managementrsquos
10
contract contained ldquoexcess costs of about $729000rdquo51 Secretary
of Defense Caspar Weinberger responded by issuing a public
announcement that Gould had overcharged the Navy and that not
only was the DoD seeking immediate repayment from Gould but the
DoD needed to make ldquomajor changesrdquo in the way it procured spare
parts52 Although Gould believed the Navyrsquos audit was flawed it
agreed to make a good faith repayment of $84000 in August 1983
to appease the DoD53
2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
Early on the media coverage of the hammer scandal was
neutral and even somewhat optimistic54 In early September of
1983 newspapers framed the root cause of spare parts problem as
one resulting from a combination of the equal allocation system
for distributing overhead and the DoDrsquos lack of oversight in
attention explains the root causes and effects of the condition and recommends potential solutions Audit reports are provided to the Department of the Navy commands and activities Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) Congress and via the Freedom of Information Act to the public A General Overview of the Audit Service available at httpsecnavportaldonhqnavymilportalserverptopen=512ampobjID=303ampampPageID=37387ampmode=2ampin_hi_userid=2ampcached=true (last visited Apr 2 2012)
51 See Fairhall supra note 42Id52 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 364253 See Fairhall supra note 364254 See eg James Barron High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sept 1 1983 at D1Needs cite
11
managing its inventory and procurement systems55 As additional
related facts were uncovered the portrayal of the issue
evolved56 Just a few weeks later newspapers reported the real
problem behind the high cost of hammers and other spare parts was
the lack of competitive bidding on commercial item contracts
while acknowledging the DoDrsquos efforts to remedy the system
through demanding (and receiving) repayment for the previous
overcharges and establishing incentives for increased
competition57 Surprisingly the early coverage of the scandal
appears to have been its most accurate
In October 1983 media framing of the issue began to change
dramatically58 Reports began suggesting the spare parts problem
55 See James Barron supra note 54 at D11 (High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sep 1 1983 at D1 As evidence that the equal allocation method had been to blame Barron reportedreporting that ldquoGould officials have told staff members of the House Armed Services Committee that the high markups resulted from the way the Defense Department requires contractors on some military projects to bill overheadrdquo)56 Needs citeSee eg William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983 at 2157 See See William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983id at 21 see also Brad Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 (ldquo [O]fficials admit that while other criminal probes are under way this only begins to scratch the surface [The] problem is a wasteful system that has grown without much control But the Pentagon is doing quite a bit these days to crack down on the exorbitant sums itrsquos been paying for spare partsrdquo)58 Needs citeSee Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 Capitalism for the Pentagon NY TIMES Nov 15 1983 at A1
12
was due to a ldquowasteful systemrdquo59 Nearly a month later the
presentation of the issue had again evolved and this time the
media blamed the high cost of spare parts on a combination of
greedy contractors and a lack of competition60 Congress quickly
responded to the negative publicity with those leading the
charge particularly Representative Berkley Bedell advocating
for ldquospare parts amendmentsrdquo61 Believing their high cost to be
the primary result of greedy contractors Bedell soon became a
ldquocrusaderrdquo in the movement to eliminate the overpricing of spare
parts62
Perhaps based partly on Bedellrsquos efforts media portrayal of
the hammer and spare parts scandal had again evolved by February
1984 with media coverage once again framing the scandal as one
of waste but this time also suggesting poor management was at
fault63 A few weeks later ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo shared 59 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 ( reporting This report stated that officials had admitted that proposed DoD remedies would only ldquobegin to scratch the surface in a $13-billion-a-year business involving millions of partsrdquo)60 See Capitalism for the Pentagon NY Times Nov 15 198supra note 583 at A1 (citing The article blamed the spare parts problem on a ldquolack of biddingrdquo and and on contractors who ldquoblame the Pentagon for ordering spares in small quantities and justify their fancy prices as including overhead that has been officially sanctionedldquo[the Pentagonrsquos] rdquoordering spares in small quantitiesrdquo for the spare parts problem)61 See Fairhall supra note 364262 See Steven V Roberts Congress the Provocative Saga of the $400 Hammer NY TIMES Jun 13 1984 at A2263 See Waste is Charged in Military Work NY TIMES Feb 22 1984 at A15 (reporting that Here the report charged ldquothe Defense Department has wasted millions of dollars in buying new weapons because of lax management and supervision of pricing
13
the blame with ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo while
journalists lauded the efforts of ldquopeople like Joe Sherick a
highly respected civil servant [who] rov[e] like alligators
through a lsquoswamprsquo of mismanagement and abuse at the
Pentagonrdquo64
While journalists and perhaps the public lauded the efforts
of Sherick and Bedell65 unfortunately these individuals did not
understand the true nature of the problem66 Specifically
Bedell did not understand how the equal allocation formula
worked did not comprehend the complicated nature of the
commercial acquisition process and believed that greedy
contractors were mostly to blame for the high parts costs67
With journalists following and supporting Bedellrsquos lead Bedell
advocated for Gouldrsquos prosecution and spare parts legislation68
Bedellrsquos efforts led to the passage of legislation in the House
of Representatives to control the cost of spare parts69 His
efforts as covered by the media likely also fed the anger felt
by the American public70 By June of 1984 the American public
by subcontractorsrdquo)rdquo64 See Brad Knickerbocker Pentagon Steps Up Its War on Unscrupulous Defense Contractors CHRISTIAN SCI MONITOR Mar 15 1984 at 4 [hereinafter Pentagon Steps Up]65 See id Fairhall supra note 42Needs cite66 Needs citeSee Pentagon Steps Up supra note 64 Fairhall supra note 4267 See Fairhall supra note 364268 See id69 See Wayne Biddle House Approves Stiff Rules to Control Costs of Military Spare Parts NY TIMES May 31 1984 at B2470 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42
14
was ldquoterribly disturbed over the wasterdquo it believed had occurred
in the Government71 Media stories of that time frame compared
the DoD to a fiscally irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo who should receive
less money and more discipline72
This anger put pressure on elected officials to remedy the
underlying causes of the issue and small changes resulted73
The Government responded with lsquomore laws more rules more people
checking on the checkersrsquordquo74 DoD The Pentagon abolished the
equal allocation method in 198475 and Congress passed the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA)76 also in 1984 ldquoto
establish a statutory preference for the use of competitive
procedures and commercial products whenever practicablerdquo77
In addition Congress enacted the Defense Procurement Reform
Act78 as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act
71 See Roberts supra note 62 at A2272 See Mary McGrory SPOILED Pentagonrsquos Guardians Should Give Less Money More Discipline WASH POST June 26 1984 at A2 (ldquoItrsquos no wonder the Pentagon swaggers around the way it does and frightens some of the less privileged kids in the neighborhood like programs for the poor A few people try to keep the kid in line but itrsquos pretty hopelessrdquo)73 Needs cite74 See Fairhall supra note 3642 75 See idId76 Needs citeCompetition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) Pub L 98-369 98 Stat 1175 (codified as 31 USC sectsect 3551-56)(1994)77 S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 48-4978 Needs citeDefense Procurement Reform Act Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 259 1213 (1984)(amending 10 USC sect 2305)
15
for Fiscal Year 198579 in which Congress directed the DoD to use
ldquostandard or commercial parts whenever such use is
technically acceptable and cost effectiverdquo80
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
1 Background Facts
Just as these new changes were taking place an additional
spare parts scandal emerged In late January 1985 Senator
William Roth chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (the
same committee charged with investigating the suspected cost
overruns in the hammer case) received a letter from a contractor
in Washington State81 The contractor had been invited to bid
but had had difficulty entering the bidding process on a contract
for fifty-four (54) ldquolight weight corrosive -resistant thermo-
formed polycarbonate material seamless and sufficiently
durablerdquo plastic cases that fit over toilets used aboard the
Navyrsquos P-3C Orion antisubmarine planes82 The contractor
contacted Senator Roth when he learned that the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed Corp (Lockheed) and that under the
contract the unit price of each toilet seat cover to the
79 Needs citeDepartment of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 2492 80 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 484981 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15 see also Adjusting the Bottom Line TIME Feb 18 1985 available at httpwwwtimecomtimemagazinearticle0917196074800html82 See idBiddle supra note 81
16
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
The passage of the FASA30 along with the Clinger-Cohen Act
of 199631 ldquorepresented the culmination of Congressrsquos
efforts to eliminate or reduce the barriers commercial companies
faced in selling to the United States gGovernmentrdquo32 While
these Acts brought significant reform to the way in which the
US Government procures commercial items and services33 it took
a significant length of time several scandals and a great deal
of media coverage for the reform to come about34 As President
Bill Clinton prepared to sign the FASA on October 13 1994 he
remarked
I kind of hate to sign this bill today What will Jay Leno do There will be no more $500 hammers no more $600 toilet seats no more $10 ashtrays Al Gore will never get on David Letterman again Itrsquos sort of a sad moment ndash the passing of Government purchasing as the butt of all the jokes 35
30 Needs citeFASA supra note 731 See The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642Needs cite32 Carl L Vacketta Lessons From the Commercial Marketplace 2 PUB PROCUREMENT L REV 126 128 (2002)33 See US Govrsquot Accountability Office GAOT-OCG-00-7 Federal Acquisition Trends Reforms and Challenges 9 (2000)Needs cite34 See Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 2 PUB PAPERS 1737-1738 (Oct 13 1994) Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 discussion supra Part IIIB2 and Part IIIC2Needs cite35 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)
7
At that point in time the jokes regarding $500 hammers and $600
toilet seats had been ongoing for nearly ten years36
A How it Began
As a matter of background even prior to the 1980s the
acquisition of commercial items ldquowas perceived as being plagued
by cost overruns inefficiencies and burdensome government
specifications rdquo37 Procurement officials and others
believed ldquo[g]overnment-unique specifications [were] a major
impediment to the efficient procurement of otherwise suitable
commercially developed products and servicesrdquo38 Nevertheless
even though the Commission on Government Procurement urged
Congress as early as 1972 to ldquopromote the acquisition of
commercial products over lsquoGovernment-designed items to avoid the
high cost of developing unique productsrsquordquo significant reform did
not occur during that decade39 Reform only occurred after
several ldquospare partsrdquo procurement scandals emerged in the 1980s
36 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 available at httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906
37 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL TO THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 47 (2007) available at httpswwwacquisitiongovcompaapfinalaapreporthtml (hereinafter ldquoACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORTrdquo)38 See idId at 48 (quoting Stephen Barr lsquoReinventrsquo Government Cautiously Study Urges WASH POST July 28 1993 at A17) One such impediment reported was that ldquothe military specifications for fruitcake once ran eighteen pagesrdquo 39 See id at 48Id
8
and pressured Congress to make significant changes to the
commercial item acquisition process40
B The $435 Hammer Scandal
1 Background Facts
In 1981 the Navy issued a sole-source contract41 to Gould
Inc (Gould) an electronics company that manufactured the flight
instruments for the T-34 aircraft42 Under the contract Gould
was responsible to provide over 400 different parts and tools
one of which was an ordinary claw hammer43 After negotiation of
the entire contract price Gould eventually offered the hammer to
the Government for a line item cost of $43544 In the
calculation of the line item cost of each part offered to the
Government including the hammer Gould included allocated
overhead45 The overhead cost built into the cost of each part
was distributed using the equal allocation method which meant
that the total indirect costs (such as indirect labor and
40 Needs citeId at 48-4941 Needs citeSee 48 CFR 63 (2012) 42 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906supra note 3643 See iId44 See iId45 See id
9
overhead) were divided by the total number of parts on the list
and then each part was assigned an equal amount of the support
costs basically rendering the line item prices meaningless46
Although the equal allocation method worked as ldquoa bookkeeping
procedure to create billing prices so that Gould could be paid as
it shipped line items at different times during the contractrdquo
very few non-procurement Agency employees and even fewer members
of the public knew and understood this47
This became apparent in 1983 when a Navy chief petty
officer saw the line item prices on the Gould contract and
noticed the hammerrsquos $435 unit price48 Questioning the $435
cost the chief petty officer made agency-level inquiries49
This led to several agency investigations and an audit conducted
by the Naval Audit Service50 which determined that the Gould 46 See iId47 See iId 48 Needs citeId 49 Needs citeId
50 Needs cite Id The Naval Audit Service (NAVAUDSVC) audits and assesses business risks within the Department of the Navy (DON) Internal audits give DON managers objective feedback on efficiency and effectiveness of DON programs systems functions and funds Audits have defined objectives and are done following generally accepted Government auditing standards (GAGAS) issued by the Comptroller General of the United States These are professional auditing standards that include those professional standards required of private sector public accounting firms Based on their work auditors certify or attest to the accuracy of data or to the assertions of management The work and opinion of auditors within the bounds of their profession carries recognized legal weight in court proceedings Each audit report presents conclusions on pre-established audit objectives and where appropriate summarizes a condition that needs managementrsquos
10
contract contained ldquoexcess costs of about $729000rdquo51 Secretary
of Defense Caspar Weinberger responded by issuing a public
announcement that Gould had overcharged the Navy and that not
only was the DoD seeking immediate repayment from Gould but the
DoD needed to make ldquomajor changesrdquo in the way it procured spare
parts52 Although Gould believed the Navyrsquos audit was flawed it
agreed to make a good faith repayment of $84000 in August 1983
to appease the DoD53
2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
Early on the media coverage of the hammer scandal was
neutral and even somewhat optimistic54 In early September of
1983 newspapers framed the root cause of spare parts problem as
one resulting from a combination of the equal allocation system
for distributing overhead and the DoDrsquos lack of oversight in
attention explains the root causes and effects of the condition and recommends potential solutions Audit reports are provided to the Department of the Navy commands and activities Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) Congress and via the Freedom of Information Act to the public A General Overview of the Audit Service available at httpsecnavportaldonhqnavymilportalserverptopen=512ampobjID=303ampampPageID=37387ampmode=2ampin_hi_userid=2ampcached=true (last visited Apr 2 2012)
51 See Fairhall supra note 42Id52 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 364253 See Fairhall supra note 364254 See eg James Barron High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sept 1 1983 at D1Needs cite
11
managing its inventory and procurement systems55 As additional
related facts were uncovered the portrayal of the issue
evolved56 Just a few weeks later newspapers reported the real
problem behind the high cost of hammers and other spare parts was
the lack of competitive bidding on commercial item contracts
while acknowledging the DoDrsquos efforts to remedy the system
through demanding (and receiving) repayment for the previous
overcharges and establishing incentives for increased
competition57 Surprisingly the early coverage of the scandal
appears to have been its most accurate
In October 1983 media framing of the issue began to change
dramatically58 Reports began suggesting the spare parts problem
55 See James Barron supra note 54 at D11 (High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sep 1 1983 at D1 As evidence that the equal allocation method had been to blame Barron reportedreporting that ldquoGould officials have told staff members of the House Armed Services Committee that the high markups resulted from the way the Defense Department requires contractors on some military projects to bill overheadrdquo)56 Needs citeSee eg William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983 at 2157 See See William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983id at 21 see also Brad Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 (ldquo [O]fficials admit that while other criminal probes are under way this only begins to scratch the surface [The] problem is a wasteful system that has grown without much control But the Pentagon is doing quite a bit these days to crack down on the exorbitant sums itrsquos been paying for spare partsrdquo)58 Needs citeSee Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 Capitalism for the Pentagon NY TIMES Nov 15 1983 at A1
12
was due to a ldquowasteful systemrdquo59 Nearly a month later the
presentation of the issue had again evolved and this time the
media blamed the high cost of spare parts on a combination of
greedy contractors and a lack of competition60 Congress quickly
responded to the negative publicity with those leading the
charge particularly Representative Berkley Bedell advocating
for ldquospare parts amendmentsrdquo61 Believing their high cost to be
the primary result of greedy contractors Bedell soon became a
ldquocrusaderrdquo in the movement to eliminate the overpricing of spare
parts62
Perhaps based partly on Bedellrsquos efforts media portrayal of
the hammer and spare parts scandal had again evolved by February
1984 with media coverage once again framing the scandal as one
of waste but this time also suggesting poor management was at
fault63 A few weeks later ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo shared 59 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 ( reporting This report stated that officials had admitted that proposed DoD remedies would only ldquobegin to scratch the surface in a $13-billion-a-year business involving millions of partsrdquo)60 See Capitalism for the Pentagon NY Times Nov 15 198supra note 583 at A1 (citing The article blamed the spare parts problem on a ldquolack of biddingrdquo and and on contractors who ldquoblame the Pentagon for ordering spares in small quantities and justify their fancy prices as including overhead that has been officially sanctionedldquo[the Pentagonrsquos] rdquoordering spares in small quantitiesrdquo for the spare parts problem)61 See Fairhall supra note 364262 See Steven V Roberts Congress the Provocative Saga of the $400 Hammer NY TIMES Jun 13 1984 at A2263 See Waste is Charged in Military Work NY TIMES Feb 22 1984 at A15 (reporting that Here the report charged ldquothe Defense Department has wasted millions of dollars in buying new weapons because of lax management and supervision of pricing
13
the blame with ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo while
journalists lauded the efforts of ldquopeople like Joe Sherick a
highly respected civil servant [who] rov[e] like alligators
through a lsquoswamprsquo of mismanagement and abuse at the
Pentagonrdquo64
While journalists and perhaps the public lauded the efforts
of Sherick and Bedell65 unfortunately these individuals did not
understand the true nature of the problem66 Specifically
Bedell did not understand how the equal allocation formula
worked did not comprehend the complicated nature of the
commercial acquisition process and believed that greedy
contractors were mostly to blame for the high parts costs67
With journalists following and supporting Bedellrsquos lead Bedell
advocated for Gouldrsquos prosecution and spare parts legislation68
Bedellrsquos efforts led to the passage of legislation in the House
of Representatives to control the cost of spare parts69 His
efforts as covered by the media likely also fed the anger felt
by the American public70 By June of 1984 the American public
by subcontractorsrdquo)rdquo64 See Brad Knickerbocker Pentagon Steps Up Its War on Unscrupulous Defense Contractors CHRISTIAN SCI MONITOR Mar 15 1984 at 4 [hereinafter Pentagon Steps Up]65 See id Fairhall supra note 42Needs cite66 Needs citeSee Pentagon Steps Up supra note 64 Fairhall supra note 4267 See Fairhall supra note 364268 See id69 See Wayne Biddle House Approves Stiff Rules to Control Costs of Military Spare Parts NY TIMES May 31 1984 at B2470 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42
14
was ldquoterribly disturbed over the wasterdquo it believed had occurred
in the Government71 Media stories of that time frame compared
the DoD to a fiscally irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo who should receive
less money and more discipline72
This anger put pressure on elected officials to remedy the
underlying causes of the issue and small changes resulted73
The Government responded with lsquomore laws more rules more people
checking on the checkersrsquordquo74 DoD The Pentagon abolished the
equal allocation method in 198475 and Congress passed the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA)76 also in 1984 ldquoto
establish a statutory preference for the use of competitive
procedures and commercial products whenever practicablerdquo77
In addition Congress enacted the Defense Procurement Reform
Act78 as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act
71 See Roberts supra note 62 at A2272 See Mary McGrory SPOILED Pentagonrsquos Guardians Should Give Less Money More Discipline WASH POST June 26 1984 at A2 (ldquoItrsquos no wonder the Pentagon swaggers around the way it does and frightens some of the less privileged kids in the neighborhood like programs for the poor A few people try to keep the kid in line but itrsquos pretty hopelessrdquo)73 Needs cite74 See Fairhall supra note 3642 75 See idId76 Needs citeCompetition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) Pub L 98-369 98 Stat 1175 (codified as 31 USC sectsect 3551-56)(1994)77 S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 48-4978 Needs citeDefense Procurement Reform Act Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 259 1213 (1984)(amending 10 USC sect 2305)
15
for Fiscal Year 198579 in which Congress directed the DoD to use
ldquostandard or commercial parts whenever such use is
technically acceptable and cost effectiverdquo80
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
1 Background Facts
Just as these new changes were taking place an additional
spare parts scandal emerged In late January 1985 Senator
William Roth chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (the
same committee charged with investigating the suspected cost
overruns in the hammer case) received a letter from a contractor
in Washington State81 The contractor had been invited to bid
but had had difficulty entering the bidding process on a contract
for fifty-four (54) ldquolight weight corrosive -resistant thermo-
formed polycarbonate material seamless and sufficiently
durablerdquo plastic cases that fit over toilets used aboard the
Navyrsquos P-3C Orion antisubmarine planes82 The contractor
contacted Senator Roth when he learned that the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed Corp (Lockheed) and that under the
contract the unit price of each toilet seat cover to the
79 Needs citeDepartment of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 2492 80 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 484981 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15 see also Adjusting the Bottom Line TIME Feb 18 1985 available at httpwwwtimecomtimemagazinearticle0917196074800html82 See idBiddle supra note 81
16
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
At that point in time the jokes regarding $500 hammers and $600
toilet seats had been ongoing for nearly ten years36
A How it Began
As a matter of background even prior to the 1980s the
acquisition of commercial items ldquowas perceived as being plagued
by cost overruns inefficiencies and burdensome government
specifications rdquo37 Procurement officials and others
believed ldquo[g]overnment-unique specifications [were] a major
impediment to the efficient procurement of otherwise suitable
commercially developed products and servicesrdquo38 Nevertheless
even though the Commission on Government Procurement urged
Congress as early as 1972 to ldquopromote the acquisition of
commercial products over lsquoGovernment-designed items to avoid the
high cost of developing unique productsrsquordquo significant reform did
not occur during that decade39 Reform only occurred after
several ldquospare partsrdquo procurement scandals emerged in the 1980s
36 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 available at httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906
37 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL TO THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 47 (2007) available at httpswwwacquisitiongovcompaapfinalaapreporthtml (hereinafter ldquoACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORTrdquo)38 See idId at 48 (quoting Stephen Barr lsquoReinventrsquo Government Cautiously Study Urges WASH POST July 28 1993 at A17) One such impediment reported was that ldquothe military specifications for fruitcake once ran eighteen pagesrdquo 39 See id at 48Id
8
and pressured Congress to make significant changes to the
commercial item acquisition process40
B The $435 Hammer Scandal
1 Background Facts
In 1981 the Navy issued a sole-source contract41 to Gould
Inc (Gould) an electronics company that manufactured the flight
instruments for the T-34 aircraft42 Under the contract Gould
was responsible to provide over 400 different parts and tools
one of which was an ordinary claw hammer43 After negotiation of
the entire contract price Gould eventually offered the hammer to
the Government for a line item cost of $43544 In the
calculation of the line item cost of each part offered to the
Government including the hammer Gould included allocated
overhead45 The overhead cost built into the cost of each part
was distributed using the equal allocation method which meant
that the total indirect costs (such as indirect labor and
40 Needs citeId at 48-4941 Needs citeSee 48 CFR 63 (2012) 42 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906supra note 3643 See iId44 See iId45 See id
9
overhead) were divided by the total number of parts on the list
and then each part was assigned an equal amount of the support
costs basically rendering the line item prices meaningless46
Although the equal allocation method worked as ldquoa bookkeeping
procedure to create billing prices so that Gould could be paid as
it shipped line items at different times during the contractrdquo
very few non-procurement Agency employees and even fewer members
of the public knew and understood this47
This became apparent in 1983 when a Navy chief petty
officer saw the line item prices on the Gould contract and
noticed the hammerrsquos $435 unit price48 Questioning the $435
cost the chief petty officer made agency-level inquiries49
This led to several agency investigations and an audit conducted
by the Naval Audit Service50 which determined that the Gould 46 See iId47 See iId 48 Needs citeId 49 Needs citeId
50 Needs cite Id The Naval Audit Service (NAVAUDSVC) audits and assesses business risks within the Department of the Navy (DON) Internal audits give DON managers objective feedback on efficiency and effectiveness of DON programs systems functions and funds Audits have defined objectives and are done following generally accepted Government auditing standards (GAGAS) issued by the Comptroller General of the United States These are professional auditing standards that include those professional standards required of private sector public accounting firms Based on their work auditors certify or attest to the accuracy of data or to the assertions of management The work and opinion of auditors within the bounds of their profession carries recognized legal weight in court proceedings Each audit report presents conclusions on pre-established audit objectives and where appropriate summarizes a condition that needs managementrsquos
10
contract contained ldquoexcess costs of about $729000rdquo51 Secretary
of Defense Caspar Weinberger responded by issuing a public
announcement that Gould had overcharged the Navy and that not
only was the DoD seeking immediate repayment from Gould but the
DoD needed to make ldquomajor changesrdquo in the way it procured spare
parts52 Although Gould believed the Navyrsquos audit was flawed it
agreed to make a good faith repayment of $84000 in August 1983
to appease the DoD53
2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
Early on the media coverage of the hammer scandal was
neutral and even somewhat optimistic54 In early September of
1983 newspapers framed the root cause of spare parts problem as
one resulting from a combination of the equal allocation system
for distributing overhead and the DoDrsquos lack of oversight in
attention explains the root causes and effects of the condition and recommends potential solutions Audit reports are provided to the Department of the Navy commands and activities Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) Congress and via the Freedom of Information Act to the public A General Overview of the Audit Service available at httpsecnavportaldonhqnavymilportalserverptopen=512ampobjID=303ampampPageID=37387ampmode=2ampin_hi_userid=2ampcached=true (last visited Apr 2 2012)
51 See Fairhall supra note 42Id52 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 364253 See Fairhall supra note 364254 See eg James Barron High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sept 1 1983 at D1Needs cite
11
managing its inventory and procurement systems55 As additional
related facts were uncovered the portrayal of the issue
evolved56 Just a few weeks later newspapers reported the real
problem behind the high cost of hammers and other spare parts was
the lack of competitive bidding on commercial item contracts
while acknowledging the DoDrsquos efforts to remedy the system
through demanding (and receiving) repayment for the previous
overcharges and establishing incentives for increased
competition57 Surprisingly the early coverage of the scandal
appears to have been its most accurate
In October 1983 media framing of the issue began to change
dramatically58 Reports began suggesting the spare parts problem
55 See James Barron supra note 54 at D11 (High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sep 1 1983 at D1 As evidence that the equal allocation method had been to blame Barron reportedreporting that ldquoGould officials have told staff members of the House Armed Services Committee that the high markups resulted from the way the Defense Department requires contractors on some military projects to bill overheadrdquo)56 Needs citeSee eg William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983 at 2157 See See William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983id at 21 see also Brad Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 (ldquo [O]fficials admit that while other criminal probes are under way this only begins to scratch the surface [The] problem is a wasteful system that has grown without much control But the Pentagon is doing quite a bit these days to crack down on the exorbitant sums itrsquos been paying for spare partsrdquo)58 Needs citeSee Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 Capitalism for the Pentagon NY TIMES Nov 15 1983 at A1
12
was due to a ldquowasteful systemrdquo59 Nearly a month later the
presentation of the issue had again evolved and this time the
media blamed the high cost of spare parts on a combination of
greedy contractors and a lack of competition60 Congress quickly
responded to the negative publicity with those leading the
charge particularly Representative Berkley Bedell advocating
for ldquospare parts amendmentsrdquo61 Believing their high cost to be
the primary result of greedy contractors Bedell soon became a
ldquocrusaderrdquo in the movement to eliminate the overpricing of spare
parts62
Perhaps based partly on Bedellrsquos efforts media portrayal of
the hammer and spare parts scandal had again evolved by February
1984 with media coverage once again framing the scandal as one
of waste but this time also suggesting poor management was at
fault63 A few weeks later ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo shared 59 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 ( reporting This report stated that officials had admitted that proposed DoD remedies would only ldquobegin to scratch the surface in a $13-billion-a-year business involving millions of partsrdquo)60 See Capitalism for the Pentagon NY Times Nov 15 198supra note 583 at A1 (citing The article blamed the spare parts problem on a ldquolack of biddingrdquo and and on contractors who ldquoblame the Pentagon for ordering spares in small quantities and justify their fancy prices as including overhead that has been officially sanctionedldquo[the Pentagonrsquos] rdquoordering spares in small quantitiesrdquo for the spare parts problem)61 See Fairhall supra note 364262 See Steven V Roberts Congress the Provocative Saga of the $400 Hammer NY TIMES Jun 13 1984 at A2263 See Waste is Charged in Military Work NY TIMES Feb 22 1984 at A15 (reporting that Here the report charged ldquothe Defense Department has wasted millions of dollars in buying new weapons because of lax management and supervision of pricing
13
the blame with ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo while
journalists lauded the efforts of ldquopeople like Joe Sherick a
highly respected civil servant [who] rov[e] like alligators
through a lsquoswamprsquo of mismanagement and abuse at the
Pentagonrdquo64
While journalists and perhaps the public lauded the efforts
of Sherick and Bedell65 unfortunately these individuals did not
understand the true nature of the problem66 Specifically
Bedell did not understand how the equal allocation formula
worked did not comprehend the complicated nature of the
commercial acquisition process and believed that greedy
contractors were mostly to blame for the high parts costs67
With journalists following and supporting Bedellrsquos lead Bedell
advocated for Gouldrsquos prosecution and spare parts legislation68
Bedellrsquos efforts led to the passage of legislation in the House
of Representatives to control the cost of spare parts69 His
efforts as covered by the media likely also fed the anger felt
by the American public70 By June of 1984 the American public
by subcontractorsrdquo)rdquo64 See Brad Knickerbocker Pentagon Steps Up Its War on Unscrupulous Defense Contractors CHRISTIAN SCI MONITOR Mar 15 1984 at 4 [hereinafter Pentagon Steps Up]65 See id Fairhall supra note 42Needs cite66 Needs citeSee Pentagon Steps Up supra note 64 Fairhall supra note 4267 See Fairhall supra note 364268 See id69 See Wayne Biddle House Approves Stiff Rules to Control Costs of Military Spare Parts NY TIMES May 31 1984 at B2470 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42
14
was ldquoterribly disturbed over the wasterdquo it believed had occurred
in the Government71 Media stories of that time frame compared
the DoD to a fiscally irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo who should receive
less money and more discipline72
This anger put pressure on elected officials to remedy the
underlying causes of the issue and small changes resulted73
The Government responded with lsquomore laws more rules more people
checking on the checkersrsquordquo74 DoD The Pentagon abolished the
equal allocation method in 198475 and Congress passed the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA)76 also in 1984 ldquoto
establish a statutory preference for the use of competitive
procedures and commercial products whenever practicablerdquo77
In addition Congress enacted the Defense Procurement Reform
Act78 as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act
71 See Roberts supra note 62 at A2272 See Mary McGrory SPOILED Pentagonrsquos Guardians Should Give Less Money More Discipline WASH POST June 26 1984 at A2 (ldquoItrsquos no wonder the Pentagon swaggers around the way it does and frightens some of the less privileged kids in the neighborhood like programs for the poor A few people try to keep the kid in line but itrsquos pretty hopelessrdquo)73 Needs cite74 See Fairhall supra note 3642 75 See idId76 Needs citeCompetition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) Pub L 98-369 98 Stat 1175 (codified as 31 USC sectsect 3551-56)(1994)77 S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 48-4978 Needs citeDefense Procurement Reform Act Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 259 1213 (1984)(amending 10 USC sect 2305)
15
for Fiscal Year 198579 in which Congress directed the DoD to use
ldquostandard or commercial parts whenever such use is
technically acceptable and cost effectiverdquo80
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
1 Background Facts
Just as these new changes were taking place an additional
spare parts scandal emerged In late January 1985 Senator
William Roth chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (the
same committee charged with investigating the suspected cost
overruns in the hammer case) received a letter from a contractor
in Washington State81 The contractor had been invited to bid
but had had difficulty entering the bidding process on a contract
for fifty-four (54) ldquolight weight corrosive -resistant thermo-
formed polycarbonate material seamless and sufficiently
durablerdquo plastic cases that fit over toilets used aboard the
Navyrsquos P-3C Orion antisubmarine planes82 The contractor
contacted Senator Roth when he learned that the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed Corp (Lockheed) and that under the
contract the unit price of each toilet seat cover to the
79 Needs citeDepartment of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 2492 80 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 484981 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15 see also Adjusting the Bottom Line TIME Feb 18 1985 available at httpwwwtimecomtimemagazinearticle0917196074800html82 See idBiddle supra note 81
16
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
and pressured Congress to make significant changes to the
commercial item acquisition process40
B The $435 Hammer Scandal
1 Background Facts
In 1981 the Navy issued a sole-source contract41 to Gould
Inc (Gould) an electronics company that manufactured the flight
instruments for the T-34 aircraft42 Under the contract Gould
was responsible to provide over 400 different parts and tools
one of which was an ordinary claw hammer43 After negotiation of
the entire contract price Gould eventually offered the hammer to
the Government for a line item cost of $43544 In the
calculation of the line item cost of each part offered to the
Government including the hammer Gould included allocated
overhead45 The overhead cost built into the cost of each part
was distributed using the equal allocation method which meant
that the total indirect costs (such as indirect labor and
40 Needs citeId at 48-4941 Needs citeSee 48 CFR 63 (2012) 42 See James Fairhall The Case for the $435 Hammer ndash Investigation of Pentagonrsquos Procurement WASH MONTHLY Jan 1987 httpfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m1316is_v18ai_4619906supra note 3643 See iId44 See iId45 See id
9
overhead) were divided by the total number of parts on the list
and then each part was assigned an equal amount of the support
costs basically rendering the line item prices meaningless46
Although the equal allocation method worked as ldquoa bookkeeping
procedure to create billing prices so that Gould could be paid as
it shipped line items at different times during the contractrdquo
very few non-procurement Agency employees and even fewer members
of the public knew and understood this47
This became apparent in 1983 when a Navy chief petty
officer saw the line item prices on the Gould contract and
noticed the hammerrsquos $435 unit price48 Questioning the $435
cost the chief petty officer made agency-level inquiries49
This led to several agency investigations and an audit conducted
by the Naval Audit Service50 which determined that the Gould 46 See iId47 See iId 48 Needs citeId 49 Needs citeId
50 Needs cite Id The Naval Audit Service (NAVAUDSVC) audits and assesses business risks within the Department of the Navy (DON) Internal audits give DON managers objective feedback on efficiency and effectiveness of DON programs systems functions and funds Audits have defined objectives and are done following generally accepted Government auditing standards (GAGAS) issued by the Comptroller General of the United States These are professional auditing standards that include those professional standards required of private sector public accounting firms Based on their work auditors certify or attest to the accuracy of data or to the assertions of management The work and opinion of auditors within the bounds of their profession carries recognized legal weight in court proceedings Each audit report presents conclusions on pre-established audit objectives and where appropriate summarizes a condition that needs managementrsquos
10
contract contained ldquoexcess costs of about $729000rdquo51 Secretary
of Defense Caspar Weinberger responded by issuing a public
announcement that Gould had overcharged the Navy and that not
only was the DoD seeking immediate repayment from Gould but the
DoD needed to make ldquomajor changesrdquo in the way it procured spare
parts52 Although Gould believed the Navyrsquos audit was flawed it
agreed to make a good faith repayment of $84000 in August 1983
to appease the DoD53
2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
Early on the media coverage of the hammer scandal was
neutral and even somewhat optimistic54 In early September of
1983 newspapers framed the root cause of spare parts problem as
one resulting from a combination of the equal allocation system
for distributing overhead and the DoDrsquos lack of oversight in
attention explains the root causes and effects of the condition and recommends potential solutions Audit reports are provided to the Department of the Navy commands and activities Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) Congress and via the Freedom of Information Act to the public A General Overview of the Audit Service available at httpsecnavportaldonhqnavymilportalserverptopen=512ampobjID=303ampampPageID=37387ampmode=2ampin_hi_userid=2ampcached=true (last visited Apr 2 2012)
51 See Fairhall supra note 42Id52 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 364253 See Fairhall supra note 364254 See eg James Barron High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sept 1 1983 at D1Needs cite
11
managing its inventory and procurement systems55 As additional
related facts were uncovered the portrayal of the issue
evolved56 Just a few weeks later newspapers reported the real
problem behind the high cost of hammers and other spare parts was
the lack of competitive bidding on commercial item contracts
while acknowledging the DoDrsquos efforts to remedy the system
through demanding (and receiving) repayment for the previous
overcharges and establishing incentives for increased
competition57 Surprisingly the early coverage of the scandal
appears to have been its most accurate
In October 1983 media framing of the issue began to change
dramatically58 Reports began suggesting the spare parts problem
55 See James Barron supra note 54 at D11 (High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sep 1 1983 at D1 As evidence that the equal allocation method had been to blame Barron reportedreporting that ldquoGould officials have told staff members of the House Armed Services Committee that the high markups resulted from the way the Defense Department requires contractors on some military projects to bill overheadrdquo)56 Needs citeSee eg William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983 at 2157 See See William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983id at 21 see also Brad Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 (ldquo [O]fficials admit that while other criminal probes are under way this only begins to scratch the surface [The] problem is a wasteful system that has grown without much control But the Pentagon is doing quite a bit these days to crack down on the exorbitant sums itrsquos been paying for spare partsrdquo)58 Needs citeSee Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 Capitalism for the Pentagon NY TIMES Nov 15 1983 at A1
12
was due to a ldquowasteful systemrdquo59 Nearly a month later the
presentation of the issue had again evolved and this time the
media blamed the high cost of spare parts on a combination of
greedy contractors and a lack of competition60 Congress quickly
responded to the negative publicity with those leading the
charge particularly Representative Berkley Bedell advocating
for ldquospare parts amendmentsrdquo61 Believing their high cost to be
the primary result of greedy contractors Bedell soon became a
ldquocrusaderrdquo in the movement to eliminate the overpricing of spare
parts62
Perhaps based partly on Bedellrsquos efforts media portrayal of
the hammer and spare parts scandal had again evolved by February
1984 with media coverage once again framing the scandal as one
of waste but this time also suggesting poor management was at
fault63 A few weeks later ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo shared 59 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 ( reporting This report stated that officials had admitted that proposed DoD remedies would only ldquobegin to scratch the surface in a $13-billion-a-year business involving millions of partsrdquo)60 See Capitalism for the Pentagon NY Times Nov 15 198supra note 583 at A1 (citing The article blamed the spare parts problem on a ldquolack of biddingrdquo and and on contractors who ldquoblame the Pentagon for ordering spares in small quantities and justify their fancy prices as including overhead that has been officially sanctionedldquo[the Pentagonrsquos] rdquoordering spares in small quantitiesrdquo for the spare parts problem)61 See Fairhall supra note 364262 See Steven V Roberts Congress the Provocative Saga of the $400 Hammer NY TIMES Jun 13 1984 at A2263 See Waste is Charged in Military Work NY TIMES Feb 22 1984 at A15 (reporting that Here the report charged ldquothe Defense Department has wasted millions of dollars in buying new weapons because of lax management and supervision of pricing
13
the blame with ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo while
journalists lauded the efforts of ldquopeople like Joe Sherick a
highly respected civil servant [who] rov[e] like alligators
through a lsquoswamprsquo of mismanagement and abuse at the
Pentagonrdquo64
While journalists and perhaps the public lauded the efforts
of Sherick and Bedell65 unfortunately these individuals did not
understand the true nature of the problem66 Specifically
Bedell did not understand how the equal allocation formula
worked did not comprehend the complicated nature of the
commercial acquisition process and believed that greedy
contractors were mostly to blame for the high parts costs67
With journalists following and supporting Bedellrsquos lead Bedell
advocated for Gouldrsquos prosecution and spare parts legislation68
Bedellrsquos efforts led to the passage of legislation in the House
of Representatives to control the cost of spare parts69 His
efforts as covered by the media likely also fed the anger felt
by the American public70 By June of 1984 the American public
by subcontractorsrdquo)rdquo64 See Brad Knickerbocker Pentagon Steps Up Its War on Unscrupulous Defense Contractors CHRISTIAN SCI MONITOR Mar 15 1984 at 4 [hereinafter Pentagon Steps Up]65 See id Fairhall supra note 42Needs cite66 Needs citeSee Pentagon Steps Up supra note 64 Fairhall supra note 4267 See Fairhall supra note 364268 See id69 See Wayne Biddle House Approves Stiff Rules to Control Costs of Military Spare Parts NY TIMES May 31 1984 at B2470 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42
14
was ldquoterribly disturbed over the wasterdquo it believed had occurred
in the Government71 Media stories of that time frame compared
the DoD to a fiscally irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo who should receive
less money and more discipline72
This anger put pressure on elected officials to remedy the
underlying causes of the issue and small changes resulted73
The Government responded with lsquomore laws more rules more people
checking on the checkersrsquordquo74 DoD The Pentagon abolished the
equal allocation method in 198475 and Congress passed the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA)76 also in 1984 ldquoto
establish a statutory preference for the use of competitive
procedures and commercial products whenever practicablerdquo77
In addition Congress enacted the Defense Procurement Reform
Act78 as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act
71 See Roberts supra note 62 at A2272 See Mary McGrory SPOILED Pentagonrsquos Guardians Should Give Less Money More Discipline WASH POST June 26 1984 at A2 (ldquoItrsquos no wonder the Pentagon swaggers around the way it does and frightens some of the less privileged kids in the neighborhood like programs for the poor A few people try to keep the kid in line but itrsquos pretty hopelessrdquo)73 Needs cite74 See Fairhall supra note 3642 75 See idId76 Needs citeCompetition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) Pub L 98-369 98 Stat 1175 (codified as 31 USC sectsect 3551-56)(1994)77 S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 48-4978 Needs citeDefense Procurement Reform Act Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 259 1213 (1984)(amending 10 USC sect 2305)
15
for Fiscal Year 198579 in which Congress directed the DoD to use
ldquostandard or commercial parts whenever such use is
technically acceptable and cost effectiverdquo80
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
1 Background Facts
Just as these new changes were taking place an additional
spare parts scandal emerged In late January 1985 Senator
William Roth chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (the
same committee charged with investigating the suspected cost
overruns in the hammer case) received a letter from a contractor
in Washington State81 The contractor had been invited to bid
but had had difficulty entering the bidding process on a contract
for fifty-four (54) ldquolight weight corrosive -resistant thermo-
formed polycarbonate material seamless and sufficiently
durablerdquo plastic cases that fit over toilets used aboard the
Navyrsquos P-3C Orion antisubmarine planes82 The contractor
contacted Senator Roth when he learned that the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed Corp (Lockheed) and that under the
contract the unit price of each toilet seat cover to the
79 Needs citeDepartment of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 2492 80 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 484981 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15 see also Adjusting the Bottom Line TIME Feb 18 1985 available at httpwwwtimecomtimemagazinearticle0917196074800html82 See idBiddle supra note 81
16
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
overhead) were divided by the total number of parts on the list
and then each part was assigned an equal amount of the support
costs basically rendering the line item prices meaningless46
Although the equal allocation method worked as ldquoa bookkeeping
procedure to create billing prices so that Gould could be paid as
it shipped line items at different times during the contractrdquo
very few non-procurement Agency employees and even fewer members
of the public knew and understood this47
This became apparent in 1983 when a Navy chief petty
officer saw the line item prices on the Gould contract and
noticed the hammerrsquos $435 unit price48 Questioning the $435
cost the chief petty officer made agency-level inquiries49
This led to several agency investigations and an audit conducted
by the Naval Audit Service50 which determined that the Gould 46 See iId47 See iId 48 Needs citeId 49 Needs citeId
50 Needs cite Id The Naval Audit Service (NAVAUDSVC) audits and assesses business risks within the Department of the Navy (DON) Internal audits give DON managers objective feedback on efficiency and effectiveness of DON programs systems functions and funds Audits have defined objectives and are done following generally accepted Government auditing standards (GAGAS) issued by the Comptroller General of the United States These are professional auditing standards that include those professional standards required of private sector public accounting firms Based on their work auditors certify or attest to the accuracy of data or to the assertions of management The work and opinion of auditors within the bounds of their profession carries recognized legal weight in court proceedings Each audit report presents conclusions on pre-established audit objectives and where appropriate summarizes a condition that needs managementrsquos
10
contract contained ldquoexcess costs of about $729000rdquo51 Secretary
of Defense Caspar Weinberger responded by issuing a public
announcement that Gould had overcharged the Navy and that not
only was the DoD seeking immediate repayment from Gould but the
DoD needed to make ldquomajor changesrdquo in the way it procured spare
parts52 Although Gould believed the Navyrsquos audit was flawed it
agreed to make a good faith repayment of $84000 in August 1983
to appease the DoD53
2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
Early on the media coverage of the hammer scandal was
neutral and even somewhat optimistic54 In early September of
1983 newspapers framed the root cause of spare parts problem as
one resulting from a combination of the equal allocation system
for distributing overhead and the DoDrsquos lack of oversight in
attention explains the root causes and effects of the condition and recommends potential solutions Audit reports are provided to the Department of the Navy commands and activities Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) Congress and via the Freedom of Information Act to the public A General Overview of the Audit Service available at httpsecnavportaldonhqnavymilportalserverptopen=512ampobjID=303ampampPageID=37387ampmode=2ampin_hi_userid=2ampcached=true (last visited Apr 2 2012)
51 See Fairhall supra note 42Id52 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 364253 See Fairhall supra note 364254 See eg James Barron High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sept 1 1983 at D1Needs cite
11
managing its inventory and procurement systems55 As additional
related facts were uncovered the portrayal of the issue
evolved56 Just a few weeks later newspapers reported the real
problem behind the high cost of hammers and other spare parts was
the lack of competitive bidding on commercial item contracts
while acknowledging the DoDrsquos efforts to remedy the system
through demanding (and receiving) repayment for the previous
overcharges and establishing incentives for increased
competition57 Surprisingly the early coverage of the scandal
appears to have been its most accurate
In October 1983 media framing of the issue began to change
dramatically58 Reports began suggesting the spare parts problem
55 See James Barron supra note 54 at D11 (High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sep 1 1983 at D1 As evidence that the equal allocation method had been to blame Barron reportedreporting that ldquoGould officials have told staff members of the House Armed Services Committee that the high markups resulted from the way the Defense Department requires contractors on some military projects to bill overheadrdquo)56 Needs citeSee eg William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983 at 2157 See See William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983id at 21 see also Brad Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 (ldquo [O]fficials admit that while other criminal probes are under way this only begins to scratch the surface [The] problem is a wasteful system that has grown without much control But the Pentagon is doing quite a bit these days to crack down on the exorbitant sums itrsquos been paying for spare partsrdquo)58 Needs citeSee Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 Capitalism for the Pentagon NY TIMES Nov 15 1983 at A1
12
was due to a ldquowasteful systemrdquo59 Nearly a month later the
presentation of the issue had again evolved and this time the
media blamed the high cost of spare parts on a combination of
greedy contractors and a lack of competition60 Congress quickly
responded to the negative publicity with those leading the
charge particularly Representative Berkley Bedell advocating
for ldquospare parts amendmentsrdquo61 Believing their high cost to be
the primary result of greedy contractors Bedell soon became a
ldquocrusaderrdquo in the movement to eliminate the overpricing of spare
parts62
Perhaps based partly on Bedellrsquos efforts media portrayal of
the hammer and spare parts scandal had again evolved by February
1984 with media coverage once again framing the scandal as one
of waste but this time also suggesting poor management was at
fault63 A few weeks later ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo shared 59 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 ( reporting This report stated that officials had admitted that proposed DoD remedies would only ldquobegin to scratch the surface in a $13-billion-a-year business involving millions of partsrdquo)60 See Capitalism for the Pentagon NY Times Nov 15 198supra note 583 at A1 (citing The article blamed the spare parts problem on a ldquolack of biddingrdquo and and on contractors who ldquoblame the Pentagon for ordering spares in small quantities and justify their fancy prices as including overhead that has been officially sanctionedldquo[the Pentagonrsquos] rdquoordering spares in small quantitiesrdquo for the spare parts problem)61 See Fairhall supra note 364262 See Steven V Roberts Congress the Provocative Saga of the $400 Hammer NY TIMES Jun 13 1984 at A2263 See Waste is Charged in Military Work NY TIMES Feb 22 1984 at A15 (reporting that Here the report charged ldquothe Defense Department has wasted millions of dollars in buying new weapons because of lax management and supervision of pricing
13
the blame with ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo while
journalists lauded the efforts of ldquopeople like Joe Sherick a
highly respected civil servant [who] rov[e] like alligators
through a lsquoswamprsquo of mismanagement and abuse at the
Pentagonrdquo64
While journalists and perhaps the public lauded the efforts
of Sherick and Bedell65 unfortunately these individuals did not
understand the true nature of the problem66 Specifically
Bedell did not understand how the equal allocation formula
worked did not comprehend the complicated nature of the
commercial acquisition process and believed that greedy
contractors were mostly to blame for the high parts costs67
With journalists following and supporting Bedellrsquos lead Bedell
advocated for Gouldrsquos prosecution and spare parts legislation68
Bedellrsquos efforts led to the passage of legislation in the House
of Representatives to control the cost of spare parts69 His
efforts as covered by the media likely also fed the anger felt
by the American public70 By June of 1984 the American public
by subcontractorsrdquo)rdquo64 See Brad Knickerbocker Pentagon Steps Up Its War on Unscrupulous Defense Contractors CHRISTIAN SCI MONITOR Mar 15 1984 at 4 [hereinafter Pentagon Steps Up]65 See id Fairhall supra note 42Needs cite66 Needs citeSee Pentagon Steps Up supra note 64 Fairhall supra note 4267 See Fairhall supra note 364268 See id69 See Wayne Biddle House Approves Stiff Rules to Control Costs of Military Spare Parts NY TIMES May 31 1984 at B2470 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42
14
was ldquoterribly disturbed over the wasterdquo it believed had occurred
in the Government71 Media stories of that time frame compared
the DoD to a fiscally irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo who should receive
less money and more discipline72
This anger put pressure on elected officials to remedy the
underlying causes of the issue and small changes resulted73
The Government responded with lsquomore laws more rules more people
checking on the checkersrsquordquo74 DoD The Pentagon abolished the
equal allocation method in 198475 and Congress passed the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA)76 also in 1984 ldquoto
establish a statutory preference for the use of competitive
procedures and commercial products whenever practicablerdquo77
In addition Congress enacted the Defense Procurement Reform
Act78 as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act
71 See Roberts supra note 62 at A2272 See Mary McGrory SPOILED Pentagonrsquos Guardians Should Give Less Money More Discipline WASH POST June 26 1984 at A2 (ldquoItrsquos no wonder the Pentagon swaggers around the way it does and frightens some of the less privileged kids in the neighborhood like programs for the poor A few people try to keep the kid in line but itrsquos pretty hopelessrdquo)73 Needs cite74 See Fairhall supra note 3642 75 See idId76 Needs citeCompetition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) Pub L 98-369 98 Stat 1175 (codified as 31 USC sectsect 3551-56)(1994)77 S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 48-4978 Needs citeDefense Procurement Reform Act Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 259 1213 (1984)(amending 10 USC sect 2305)
15
for Fiscal Year 198579 in which Congress directed the DoD to use
ldquostandard or commercial parts whenever such use is
technically acceptable and cost effectiverdquo80
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
1 Background Facts
Just as these new changes were taking place an additional
spare parts scandal emerged In late January 1985 Senator
William Roth chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (the
same committee charged with investigating the suspected cost
overruns in the hammer case) received a letter from a contractor
in Washington State81 The contractor had been invited to bid
but had had difficulty entering the bidding process on a contract
for fifty-four (54) ldquolight weight corrosive -resistant thermo-
formed polycarbonate material seamless and sufficiently
durablerdquo plastic cases that fit over toilets used aboard the
Navyrsquos P-3C Orion antisubmarine planes82 The contractor
contacted Senator Roth when he learned that the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed Corp (Lockheed) and that under the
contract the unit price of each toilet seat cover to the
79 Needs citeDepartment of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 2492 80 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 484981 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15 see also Adjusting the Bottom Line TIME Feb 18 1985 available at httpwwwtimecomtimemagazinearticle0917196074800html82 See idBiddle supra note 81
16
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
contract contained ldquoexcess costs of about $729000rdquo51 Secretary
of Defense Caspar Weinberger responded by issuing a public
announcement that Gould had overcharged the Navy and that not
only was the DoD seeking immediate repayment from Gould but the
DoD needed to make ldquomajor changesrdquo in the way it procured spare
parts52 Although Gould believed the Navyrsquos audit was flawed it
agreed to make a good faith repayment of $84000 in August 1983
to appease the DoD53
2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
Early on the media coverage of the hammer scandal was
neutral and even somewhat optimistic54 In early September of
1983 newspapers framed the root cause of spare parts problem as
one resulting from a combination of the equal allocation system
for distributing overhead and the DoDrsquos lack of oversight in
attention explains the root causes and effects of the condition and recommends potential solutions Audit reports are provided to the Department of the Navy commands and activities Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) Congress and via the Freedom of Information Act to the public A General Overview of the Audit Service available at httpsecnavportaldonhqnavymilportalserverptopen=512ampobjID=303ampampPageID=37387ampmode=2ampin_hi_userid=2ampcached=true (last visited Apr 2 2012)
51 See Fairhall supra note 42Id52 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 364253 See Fairhall supra note 364254 See eg James Barron High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sept 1 1983 at D1Needs cite
11
managing its inventory and procurement systems55 As additional
related facts were uncovered the portrayal of the issue
evolved56 Just a few weeks later newspapers reported the real
problem behind the high cost of hammers and other spare parts was
the lack of competitive bidding on commercial item contracts
while acknowledging the DoDrsquos efforts to remedy the system
through demanding (and receiving) repayment for the previous
overcharges and establishing incentives for increased
competition57 Surprisingly the early coverage of the scandal
appears to have been its most accurate
In October 1983 media framing of the issue began to change
dramatically58 Reports began suggesting the spare parts problem
55 See James Barron supra note 54 at D11 (High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sep 1 1983 at D1 As evidence that the equal allocation method had been to blame Barron reportedreporting that ldquoGould officials have told staff members of the House Armed Services Committee that the high markups resulted from the way the Defense Department requires contractors on some military projects to bill overheadrdquo)56 Needs citeSee eg William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983 at 2157 See See William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983id at 21 see also Brad Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 (ldquo [O]fficials admit that while other criminal probes are under way this only begins to scratch the surface [The] problem is a wasteful system that has grown without much control But the Pentagon is doing quite a bit these days to crack down on the exorbitant sums itrsquos been paying for spare partsrdquo)58 Needs citeSee Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 Capitalism for the Pentagon NY TIMES Nov 15 1983 at A1
12
was due to a ldquowasteful systemrdquo59 Nearly a month later the
presentation of the issue had again evolved and this time the
media blamed the high cost of spare parts on a combination of
greedy contractors and a lack of competition60 Congress quickly
responded to the negative publicity with those leading the
charge particularly Representative Berkley Bedell advocating
for ldquospare parts amendmentsrdquo61 Believing their high cost to be
the primary result of greedy contractors Bedell soon became a
ldquocrusaderrdquo in the movement to eliminate the overpricing of spare
parts62
Perhaps based partly on Bedellrsquos efforts media portrayal of
the hammer and spare parts scandal had again evolved by February
1984 with media coverage once again framing the scandal as one
of waste but this time also suggesting poor management was at
fault63 A few weeks later ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo shared 59 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 ( reporting This report stated that officials had admitted that proposed DoD remedies would only ldquobegin to scratch the surface in a $13-billion-a-year business involving millions of partsrdquo)60 See Capitalism for the Pentagon NY Times Nov 15 198supra note 583 at A1 (citing The article blamed the spare parts problem on a ldquolack of biddingrdquo and and on contractors who ldquoblame the Pentagon for ordering spares in small quantities and justify their fancy prices as including overhead that has been officially sanctionedldquo[the Pentagonrsquos] rdquoordering spares in small quantitiesrdquo for the spare parts problem)61 See Fairhall supra note 364262 See Steven V Roberts Congress the Provocative Saga of the $400 Hammer NY TIMES Jun 13 1984 at A2263 See Waste is Charged in Military Work NY TIMES Feb 22 1984 at A15 (reporting that Here the report charged ldquothe Defense Department has wasted millions of dollars in buying new weapons because of lax management and supervision of pricing
13
the blame with ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo while
journalists lauded the efforts of ldquopeople like Joe Sherick a
highly respected civil servant [who] rov[e] like alligators
through a lsquoswamprsquo of mismanagement and abuse at the
Pentagonrdquo64
While journalists and perhaps the public lauded the efforts
of Sherick and Bedell65 unfortunately these individuals did not
understand the true nature of the problem66 Specifically
Bedell did not understand how the equal allocation formula
worked did not comprehend the complicated nature of the
commercial acquisition process and believed that greedy
contractors were mostly to blame for the high parts costs67
With journalists following and supporting Bedellrsquos lead Bedell
advocated for Gouldrsquos prosecution and spare parts legislation68
Bedellrsquos efforts led to the passage of legislation in the House
of Representatives to control the cost of spare parts69 His
efforts as covered by the media likely also fed the anger felt
by the American public70 By June of 1984 the American public
by subcontractorsrdquo)rdquo64 See Brad Knickerbocker Pentagon Steps Up Its War on Unscrupulous Defense Contractors CHRISTIAN SCI MONITOR Mar 15 1984 at 4 [hereinafter Pentagon Steps Up]65 See id Fairhall supra note 42Needs cite66 Needs citeSee Pentagon Steps Up supra note 64 Fairhall supra note 4267 See Fairhall supra note 364268 See id69 See Wayne Biddle House Approves Stiff Rules to Control Costs of Military Spare Parts NY TIMES May 31 1984 at B2470 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42
14
was ldquoterribly disturbed over the wasterdquo it believed had occurred
in the Government71 Media stories of that time frame compared
the DoD to a fiscally irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo who should receive
less money and more discipline72
This anger put pressure on elected officials to remedy the
underlying causes of the issue and small changes resulted73
The Government responded with lsquomore laws more rules more people
checking on the checkersrsquordquo74 DoD The Pentagon abolished the
equal allocation method in 198475 and Congress passed the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA)76 also in 1984 ldquoto
establish a statutory preference for the use of competitive
procedures and commercial products whenever practicablerdquo77
In addition Congress enacted the Defense Procurement Reform
Act78 as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act
71 See Roberts supra note 62 at A2272 See Mary McGrory SPOILED Pentagonrsquos Guardians Should Give Less Money More Discipline WASH POST June 26 1984 at A2 (ldquoItrsquos no wonder the Pentagon swaggers around the way it does and frightens some of the less privileged kids in the neighborhood like programs for the poor A few people try to keep the kid in line but itrsquos pretty hopelessrdquo)73 Needs cite74 See Fairhall supra note 3642 75 See idId76 Needs citeCompetition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) Pub L 98-369 98 Stat 1175 (codified as 31 USC sectsect 3551-56)(1994)77 S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 48-4978 Needs citeDefense Procurement Reform Act Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 259 1213 (1984)(amending 10 USC sect 2305)
15
for Fiscal Year 198579 in which Congress directed the DoD to use
ldquostandard or commercial parts whenever such use is
technically acceptable and cost effectiverdquo80
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
1 Background Facts
Just as these new changes were taking place an additional
spare parts scandal emerged In late January 1985 Senator
William Roth chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (the
same committee charged with investigating the suspected cost
overruns in the hammer case) received a letter from a contractor
in Washington State81 The contractor had been invited to bid
but had had difficulty entering the bidding process on a contract
for fifty-four (54) ldquolight weight corrosive -resistant thermo-
formed polycarbonate material seamless and sufficiently
durablerdquo plastic cases that fit over toilets used aboard the
Navyrsquos P-3C Orion antisubmarine planes82 The contractor
contacted Senator Roth when he learned that the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed Corp (Lockheed) and that under the
contract the unit price of each toilet seat cover to the
79 Needs citeDepartment of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 2492 80 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 484981 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15 see also Adjusting the Bottom Line TIME Feb 18 1985 available at httpwwwtimecomtimemagazinearticle0917196074800html82 See idBiddle supra note 81
16
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
managing its inventory and procurement systems55 As additional
related facts were uncovered the portrayal of the issue
evolved56 Just a few weeks later newspapers reported the real
problem behind the high cost of hammers and other spare parts was
the lack of competitive bidding on commercial item contracts
while acknowledging the DoDrsquos efforts to remedy the system
through demanding (and receiving) repayment for the previous
overcharges and establishing incentives for increased
competition57 Surprisingly the early coverage of the scandal
appears to have been its most accurate
In October 1983 media framing of the issue began to change
dramatically58 Reports began suggesting the spare parts problem
55 See James Barron supra note 54 at D11 (High Cost of Military Parts NY TIMES Sep 1 1983 at D1 As evidence that the equal allocation method had been to blame Barron reportedreporting that ldquoGould officials have told staff members of the House Armed Services Committee that the high markups resulted from the way the Defense Department requires contractors on some military projects to bill overheadrdquo)56 Needs citeSee eg William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983 at 2157 See See William H Miller DoD Opens War on Spare-Parts Costs INDUSTRY WEEK Sep 19 1983id at 21 see also Brad Knickerbocker Pentagonrsquos Misers Now Take Closer Look at Spare Parts Purchases CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Oct 13 1893 at 3 (ldquo [O]fficials admit that while other criminal probes are under way this only begins to scratch the surface [The] problem is a wasteful system that has grown without much control But the Pentagon is doing quite a bit these days to crack down on the exorbitant sums itrsquos been paying for spare partsrdquo)58 Needs citeSee Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 Capitalism for the Pentagon NY TIMES Nov 15 1983 at A1
12
was due to a ldquowasteful systemrdquo59 Nearly a month later the
presentation of the issue had again evolved and this time the
media blamed the high cost of spare parts on a combination of
greedy contractors and a lack of competition60 Congress quickly
responded to the negative publicity with those leading the
charge particularly Representative Berkley Bedell advocating
for ldquospare parts amendmentsrdquo61 Believing their high cost to be
the primary result of greedy contractors Bedell soon became a
ldquocrusaderrdquo in the movement to eliminate the overpricing of spare
parts62
Perhaps based partly on Bedellrsquos efforts media portrayal of
the hammer and spare parts scandal had again evolved by February
1984 with media coverage once again framing the scandal as one
of waste but this time also suggesting poor management was at
fault63 A few weeks later ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo shared 59 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 ( reporting This report stated that officials had admitted that proposed DoD remedies would only ldquobegin to scratch the surface in a $13-billion-a-year business involving millions of partsrdquo)60 See Capitalism for the Pentagon NY Times Nov 15 198supra note 583 at A1 (citing The article blamed the spare parts problem on a ldquolack of biddingrdquo and and on contractors who ldquoblame the Pentagon for ordering spares in small quantities and justify their fancy prices as including overhead that has been officially sanctionedldquo[the Pentagonrsquos] rdquoordering spares in small quantitiesrdquo for the spare parts problem)61 See Fairhall supra note 364262 See Steven V Roberts Congress the Provocative Saga of the $400 Hammer NY TIMES Jun 13 1984 at A2263 See Waste is Charged in Military Work NY TIMES Feb 22 1984 at A15 (reporting that Here the report charged ldquothe Defense Department has wasted millions of dollars in buying new weapons because of lax management and supervision of pricing
13
the blame with ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo while
journalists lauded the efforts of ldquopeople like Joe Sherick a
highly respected civil servant [who] rov[e] like alligators
through a lsquoswamprsquo of mismanagement and abuse at the
Pentagonrdquo64
While journalists and perhaps the public lauded the efforts
of Sherick and Bedell65 unfortunately these individuals did not
understand the true nature of the problem66 Specifically
Bedell did not understand how the equal allocation formula
worked did not comprehend the complicated nature of the
commercial acquisition process and believed that greedy
contractors were mostly to blame for the high parts costs67
With journalists following and supporting Bedellrsquos lead Bedell
advocated for Gouldrsquos prosecution and spare parts legislation68
Bedellrsquos efforts led to the passage of legislation in the House
of Representatives to control the cost of spare parts69 His
efforts as covered by the media likely also fed the anger felt
by the American public70 By June of 1984 the American public
by subcontractorsrdquo)rdquo64 See Brad Knickerbocker Pentagon Steps Up Its War on Unscrupulous Defense Contractors CHRISTIAN SCI MONITOR Mar 15 1984 at 4 [hereinafter Pentagon Steps Up]65 See id Fairhall supra note 42Needs cite66 Needs citeSee Pentagon Steps Up supra note 64 Fairhall supra note 4267 See Fairhall supra note 364268 See id69 See Wayne Biddle House Approves Stiff Rules to Control Costs of Military Spare Parts NY TIMES May 31 1984 at B2470 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42
14
was ldquoterribly disturbed over the wasterdquo it believed had occurred
in the Government71 Media stories of that time frame compared
the DoD to a fiscally irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo who should receive
less money and more discipline72
This anger put pressure on elected officials to remedy the
underlying causes of the issue and small changes resulted73
The Government responded with lsquomore laws more rules more people
checking on the checkersrsquordquo74 DoD The Pentagon abolished the
equal allocation method in 198475 and Congress passed the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA)76 also in 1984 ldquoto
establish a statutory preference for the use of competitive
procedures and commercial products whenever practicablerdquo77
In addition Congress enacted the Defense Procurement Reform
Act78 as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act
71 See Roberts supra note 62 at A2272 See Mary McGrory SPOILED Pentagonrsquos Guardians Should Give Less Money More Discipline WASH POST June 26 1984 at A2 (ldquoItrsquos no wonder the Pentagon swaggers around the way it does and frightens some of the less privileged kids in the neighborhood like programs for the poor A few people try to keep the kid in line but itrsquos pretty hopelessrdquo)73 Needs cite74 See Fairhall supra note 3642 75 See idId76 Needs citeCompetition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) Pub L 98-369 98 Stat 1175 (codified as 31 USC sectsect 3551-56)(1994)77 S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 48-4978 Needs citeDefense Procurement Reform Act Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 259 1213 (1984)(amending 10 USC sect 2305)
15
for Fiscal Year 198579 in which Congress directed the DoD to use
ldquostandard or commercial parts whenever such use is
technically acceptable and cost effectiverdquo80
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
1 Background Facts
Just as these new changes were taking place an additional
spare parts scandal emerged In late January 1985 Senator
William Roth chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (the
same committee charged with investigating the suspected cost
overruns in the hammer case) received a letter from a contractor
in Washington State81 The contractor had been invited to bid
but had had difficulty entering the bidding process on a contract
for fifty-four (54) ldquolight weight corrosive -resistant thermo-
formed polycarbonate material seamless and sufficiently
durablerdquo plastic cases that fit over toilets used aboard the
Navyrsquos P-3C Orion antisubmarine planes82 The contractor
contacted Senator Roth when he learned that the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed Corp (Lockheed) and that under the
contract the unit price of each toilet seat cover to the
79 Needs citeDepartment of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 2492 80 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 484981 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15 see also Adjusting the Bottom Line TIME Feb 18 1985 available at httpwwwtimecomtimemagazinearticle0917196074800html82 See idBiddle supra note 81
16
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
was due to a ldquowasteful systemrdquo59 Nearly a month later the
presentation of the issue had again evolved and this time the
media blamed the high cost of spare parts on a combination of
greedy contractors and a lack of competition60 Congress quickly
responded to the negative publicity with those leading the
charge particularly Representative Berkley Bedell advocating
for ldquospare parts amendmentsrdquo61 Believing their high cost to be
the primary result of greedy contractors Bedell soon became a
ldquocrusaderrdquo in the movement to eliminate the overpricing of spare
parts62
Perhaps based partly on Bedellrsquos efforts media portrayal of
the hammer and spare parts scandal had again evolved by February
1984 with media coverage once again framing the scandal as one
of waste but this time also suggesting poor management was at
fault63 A few weeks later ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo shared 59 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3 ( reporting This report stated that officials had admitted that proposed DoD remedies would only ldquobegin to scratch the surface in a $13-billion-a-year business involving millions of partsrdquo)60 See Capitalism for the Pentagon NY Times Nov 15 198supra note 583 at A1 (citing The article blamed the spare parts problem on a ldquolack of biddingrdquo and and on contractors who ldquoblame the Pentagon for ordering spares in small quantities and justify their fancy prices as including overhead that has been officially sanctionedldquo[the Pentagonrsquos] rdquoordering spares in small quantitiesrdquo for the spare parts problem)61 See Fairhall supra note 364262 See Steven V Roberts Congress the Provocative Saga of the $400 Hammer NY TIMES Jun 13 1984 at A2263 See Waste is Charged in Military Work NY TIMES Feb 22 1984 at A15 (reporting that Here the report charged ldquothe Defense Department has wasted millions of dollars in buying new weapons because of lax management and supervision of pricing
13
the blame with ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo while
journalists lauded the efforts of ldquopeople like Joe Sherick a
highly respected civil servant [who] rov[e] like alligators
through a lsquoswamprsquo of mismanagement and abuse at the
Pentagonrdquo64
While journalists and perhaps the public lauded the efforts
of Sherick and Bedell65 unfortunately these individuals did not
understand the true nature of the problem66 Specifically
Bedell did not understand how the equal allocation formula
worked did not comprehend the complicated nature of the
commercial acquisition process and believed that greedy
contractors were mostly to blame for the high parts costs67
With journalists following and supporting Bedellrsquos lead Bedell
advocated for Gouldrsquos prosecution and spare parts legislation68
Bedellrsquos efforts led to the passage of legislation in the House
of Representatives to control the cost of spare parts69 His
efforts as covered by the media likely also fed the anger felt
by the American public70 By June of 1984 the American public
by subcontractorsrdquo)rdquo64 See Brad Knickerbocker Pentagon Steps Up Its War on Unscrupulous Defense Contractors CHRISTIAN SCI MONITOR Mar 15 1984 at 4 [hereinafter Pentagon Steps Up]65 See id Fairhall supra note 42Needs cite66 Needs citeSee Pentagon Steps Up supra note 64 Fairhall supra note 4267 See Fairhall supra note 364268 See id69 See Wayne Biddle House Approves Stiff Rules to Control Costs of Military Spare Parts NY TIMES May 31 1984 at B2470 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42
14
was ldquoterribly disturbed over the wasterdquo it believed had occurred
in the Government71 Media stories of that time frame compared
the DoD to a fiscally irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo who should receive
less money and more discipline72
This anger put pressure on elected officials to remedy the
underlying causes of the issue and small changes resulted73
The Government responded with lsquomore laws more rules more people
checking on the checkersrsquordquo74 DoD The Pentagon abolished the
equal allocation method in 198475 and Congress passed the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA)76 also in 1984 ldquoto
establish a statutory preference for the use of competitive
procedures and commercial products whenever practicablerdquo77
In addition Congress enacted the Defense Procurement Reform
Act78 as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act
71 See Roberts supra note 62 at A2272 See Mary McGrory SPOILED Pentagonrsquos Guardians Should Give Less Money More Discipline WASH POST June 26 1984 at A2 (ldquoItrsquos no wonder the Pentagon swaggers around the way it does and frightens some of the less privileged kids in the neighborhood like programs for the poor A few people try to keep the kid in line but itrsquos pretty hopelessrdquo)73 Needs cite74 See Fairhall supra note 3642 75 See idId76 Needs citeCompetition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) Pub L 98-369 98 Stat 1175 (codified as 31 USC sectsect 3551-56)(1994)77 S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 48-4978 Needs citeDefense Procurement Reform Act Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 259 1213 (1984)(amending 10 USC sect 2305)
15
for Fiscal Year 198579 in which Congress directed the DoD to use
ldquostandard or commercial parts whenever such use is
technically acceptable and cost effectiverdquo80
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
1 Background Facts
Just as these new changes were taking place an additional
spare parts scandal emerged In late January 1985 Senator
William Roth chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (the
same committee charged with investigating the suspected cost
overruns in the hammer case) received a letter from a contractor
in Washington State81 The contractor had been invited to bid
but had had difficulty entering the bidding process on a contract
for fifty-four (54) ldquolight weight corrosive -resistant thermo-
formed polycarbonate material seamless and sufficiently
durablerdquo plastic cases that fit over toilets used aboard the
Navyrsquos P-3C Orion antisubmarine planes82 The contractor
contacted Senator Roth when he learned that the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed Corp (Lockheed) and that under the
contract the unit price of each toilet seat cover to the
79 Needs citeDepartment of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 2492 80 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 484981 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15 see also Adjusting the Bottom Line TIME Feb 18 1985 available at httpwwwtimecomtimemagazinearticle0917196074800html82 See idBiddle supra note 81
16
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
the blame with ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo while
journalists lauded the efforts of ldquopeople like Joe Sherick a
highly respected civil servant [who] rov[e] like alligators
through a lsquoswamprsquo of mismanagement and abuse at the
Pentagonrdquo64
While journalists and perhaps the public lauded the efforts
of Sherick and Bedell65 unfortunately these individuals did not
understand the true nature of the problem66 Specifically
Bedell did not understand how the equal allocation formula
worked did not comprehend the complicated nature of the
commercial acquisition process and believed that greedy
contractors were mostly to blame for the high parts costs67
With journalists following and supporting Bedellrsquos lead Bedell
advocated for Gouldrsquos prosecution and spare parts legislation68
Bedellrsquos efforts led to the passage of legislation in the House
of Representatives to control the cost of spare parts69 His
efforts as covered by the media likely also fed the anger felt
by the American public70 By June of 1984 the American public
by subcontractorsrdquo)rdquo64 See Brad Knickerbocker Pentagon Steps Up Its War on Unscrupulous Defense Contractors CHRISTIAN SCI MONITOR Mar 15 1984 at 4 [hereinafter Pentagon Steps Up]65 See id Fairhall supra note 42Needs cite66 Needs citeSee Pentagon Steps Up supra note 64 Fairhall supra note 4267 See Fairhall supra note 364268 See id69 See Wayne Biddle House Approves Stiff Rules to Control Costs of Military Spare Parts NY TIMES May 31 1984 at B2470 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42
14
was ldquoterribly disturbed over the wasterdquo it believed had occurred
in the Government71 Media stories of that time frame compared
the DoD to a fiscally irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo who should receive
less money and more discipline72
This anger put pressure on elected officials to remedy the
underlying causes of the issue and small changes resulted73
The Government responded with lsquomore laws more rules more people
checking on the checkersrsquordquo74 DoD The Pentagon abolished the
equal allocation method in 198475 and Congress passed the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA)76 also in 1984 ldquoto
establish a statutory preference for the use of competitive
procedures and commercial products whenever practicablerdquo77
In addition Congress enacted the Defense Procurement Reform
Act78 as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act
71 See Roberts supra note 62 at A2272 See Mary McGrory SPOILED Pentagonrsquos Guardians Should Give Less Money More Discipline WASH POST June 26 1984 at A2 (ldquoItrsquos no wonder the Pentagon swaggers around the way it does and frightens some of the less privileged kids in the neighborhood like programs for the poor A few people try to keep the kid in line but itrsquos pretty hopelessrdquo)73 Needs cite74 See Fairhall supra note 3642 75 See idId76 Needs citeCompetition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) Pub L 98-369 98 Stat 1175 (codified as 31 USC sectsect 3551-56)(1994)77 S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 48-4978 Needs citeDefense Procurement Reform Act Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 259 1213 (1984)(amending 10 USC sect 2305)
15
for Fiscal Year 198579 in which Congress directed the DoD to use
ldquostandard or commercial parts whenever such use is
technically acceptable and cost effectiverdquo80
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
1 Background Facts
Just as these new changes were taking place an additional
spare parts scandal emerged In late January 1985 Senator
William Roth chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (the
same committee charged with investigating the suspected cost
overruns in the hammer case) received a letter from a contractor
in Washington State81 The contractor had been invited to bid
but had had difficulty entering the bidding process on a contract
for fifty-four (54) ldquolight weight corrosive -resistant thermo-
formed polycarbonate material seamless and sufficiently
durablerdquo plastic cases that fit over toilets used aboard the
Navyrsquos P-3C Orion antisubmarine planes82 The contractor
contacted Senator Roth when he learned that the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed Corp (Lockheed) and that under the
contract the unit price of each toilet seat cover to the
79 Needs citeDepartment of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 2492 80 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 484981 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15 see also Adjusting the Bottom Line TIME Feb 18 1985 available at httpwwwtimecomtimemagazinearticle0917196074800html82 See idBiddle supra note 81
16
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
was ldquoterribly disturbed over the wasterdquo it believed had occurred
in the Government71 Media stories of that time frame compared
the DoD to a fiscally irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo who should receive
less money and more discipline72
This anger put pressure on elected officials to remedy the
underlying causes of the issue and small changes resulted73
The Government responded with lsquomore laws more rules more people
checking on the checkersrsquordquo74 DoD The Pentagon abolished the
equal allocation method in 198475 and Congress passed the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA)76 also in 1984 ldquoto
establish a statutory preference for the use of competitive
procedures and commercial products whenever practicablerdquo77
In addition Congress enacted the Defense Procurement Reform
Act78 as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act
71 See Roberts supra note 62 at A2272 See Mary McGrory SPOILED Pentagonrsquos Guardians Should Give Less Money More Discipline WASH POST June 26 1984 at A2 (ldquoItrsquos no wonder the Pentagon swaggers around the way it does and frightens some of the less privileged kids in the neighborhood like programs for the poor A few people try to keep the kid in line but itrsquos pretty hopelessrdquo)73 Needs cite74 See Fairhall supra note 3642 75 See idId76 Needs citeCompetition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) Pub L 98-369 98 Stat 1175 (codified as 31 USC sectsect 3551-56)(1994)77 S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 48-4978 Needs citeDefense Procurement Reform Act Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 259 1213 (1984)(amending 10 USC sect 2305)
15
for Fiscal Year 198579 in which Congress directed the DoD to use
ldquostandard or commercial parts whenever such use is
technically acceptable and cost effectiverdquo80
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
1 Background Facts
Just as these new changes were taking place an additional
spare parts scandal emerged In late January 1985 Senator
William Roth chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (the
same committee charged with investigating the suspected cost
overruns in the hammer case) received a letter from a contractor
in Washington State81 The contractor had been invited to bid
but had had difficulty entering the bidding process on a contract
for fifty-four (54) ldquolight weight corrosive -resistant thermo-
formed polycarbonate material seamless and sufficiently
durablerdquo plastic cases that fit over toilets used aboard the
Navyrsquos P-3C Orion antisubmarine planes82 The contractor
contacted Senator Roth when he learned that the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed Corp (Lockheed) and that under the
contract the unit price of each toilet seat cover to the
79 Needs citeDepartment of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 2492 80 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 484981 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15 see also Adjusting the Bottom Line TIME Feb 18 1985 available at httpwwwtimecomtimemagazinearticle0917196074800html82 See idBiddle supra note 81
16
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
for Fiscal Year 198579 in which Congress directed the DoD to use
ldquostandard or commercial parts whenever such use is
technically acceptable and cost effectiverdquo80
C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
1 Background Facts
Just as these new changes were taking place an additional
spare parts scandal emerged In late January 1985 Senator
William Roth chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee (the
same committee charged with investigating the suspected cost
overruns in the hammer case) received a letter from a contractor
in Washington State81 The contractor had been invited to bid
but had had difficulty entering the bidding process on a contract
for fifty-four (54) ldquolight weight corrosive -resistant thermo-
formed polycarbonate material seamless and sufficiently
durablerdquo plastic cases that fit over toilets used aboard the
Navyrsquos P-3C Orion antisubmarine planes82 The contractor
contacted Senator Roth when he learned that the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed Corp (Lockheed) and that under the
contract the unit price of each toilet seat cover to the
79 Needs citeDepartment of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 Pub L No 98-525 98 Stat 2492 80 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 484981 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15 see also Adjusting the Bottom Line TIME Feb 18 1985 available at httpwwwtimecomtimemagazinearticle0917196074800html82 See idBiddle supra note 81
16
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
Government was approximately $60083 In his letter to Roth the
contractor contended similar items could be purchased in the
commercial marketplace for approximately $2584
2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
By mid-February 1985 the $600 toilet seat had become
another of government procurementrsquos most publicized spare parts
scandals and unfortunately for the DoD a punch line85 Time
Magazine reported Senator William Cohen quipping during a Senate
Armed Services Committee meeting that the $600 toilet seat
ldquo[gave] new meaning to the word thronerdquo86 In addition
Secretary Weinberger was depicted in a political cartoon as being
fiscally wasteful with a toilet seat around his neck and
President Ronald Reagan was forced to defend him regarding the
topic at a televised press conference87
The toilet seat scandal livened the media coverage
surrounding the larger spare parts scandal and added fuel to the
mediarsquos contention that the underlying cause was waste and
uncontrolled spending88 As the scandal continued to play out in
83 See id84 See idAdjusting the Bottom Line supra note 8185 See Fred Hiatt Now the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5Needs cite86 See Wayne Biddle Price of Toilet Seat is Cut for Navy NY TIMES Feb 6 1985 at D15Id87 See William Safire On Language But It Would Be Wrong NY TIMES Apr 13 1986 at sect 6 1688 See Fred Hiatt Nowsupra the $600 Toilet Seat WASH POST Feb 5 1985 at A5note 85
17
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
the media however it started to become clear that at least some
members of the media and Congress were beginning to understand
that a more systemic problem underlying commercial acquisition
was to blame89 As early as February 1985 news stories reported
that upon learning the DoD had purchased 54 toilet seat covers
from Lockheed Representative Cohen stated ldquoWhat I donrsquot
understand about this procurement is why we have an aircraft
manufacturer making toilet covers Would we ask a toilet company
to build a C5rdquo90
Although some were beginning to understand the complicated
nature of the problem due to the prolonged negative publicity
surrounding the issue most of the American public did not and
was increasingly upset regarding the DoDrsquos spending91 In April
1985 Secretary Weinberger published an article in The Washington
Post seeking to regain public trust by presenting the facts
surrounding the various DoD spare parts purchases including the
hammer92 Secretary Weinbergerrsquos article did little to assuage
the publicrsquos concerns93 and when The New York Times published a
front page article in May 1985 alleging that the $84000
89 Needs citeSee id90 Hiatt supra note 88Id91 Needs cite92 Caspar Weinberger How the Pentagon Bought 3500 Pliers at $310 Each WASH POST Apr 13 1985 at A21 (ldquoEditorials regarding the purchase of pliers from Boeing Aircraft Company cast an incomplete and inaccurate perspective on Department of Defense procurement The public needs to know all the factsrdquo)93 Needs cite
18
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
repayment Gould had made to the Navy in 1983 for the hammer
contract was only 11 percent of what the US Government was
owed94 the public pushed for action95 The Navy responded by
conducting a new audit of the Gould contract and determined that
Gould owed the Government only an additional $8310 over and
above the already paid $84000 due to the overpricing96 These
findings and their publication prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution97
but did what previous media coverage had been unable to do ndash
showing that the primary cause of the problem was not
unscrupulous contractors but was some type of systemic problem98
this assisted in the march towards effective reform99
D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
By mid-May 1985 the hammer and toilet seat scandals
combined with scandals over weapons procurement had outraged the
public to the extent that both chambers of Congress passed an
unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze100 Less than a
94 See Jeff Gerth Contract Savings by US Questioned NY TIMES May 2 1985 at A195 Needs cite96 See Fairhall supra note 3642 97 Needs cite98 Needs cite99 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127100 Dina Rasor News and Analysis ndash Corruption at Home the DoDrsquos $436 Hammer TRUTHOUT BLOG (Dec 8 2010) httpcsfilmorg201012corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammerhttpsheridanworkscomblog20101209news-and-analysis-corruption-at-home-the-dods-436-hammer see also Chris Reidy Budget Squeaks By With Defense Freeze ORLANDO SENTINEL (May
19
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
month later the media was portraying Secretary Weinberger as a
ldquovictim of inflated Pentagon budgets and [the] lsquotoilet seat
syndromersquordquo and as the one responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos
blunders and boondoggles ndash symbolized in the public mind by the
notorious $640 paid for a toilet seatrdquo 101 As such media
coverage suggested that Secretary Weinberger was no longer
trusted even by the President102
In reality the true nature of the spare parts scandal was
that the Governmentrsquos ldquohost of burdensome and intrusive laws and
regulationsrdquo 103 relating to commercial item acquisition were
ldquocostly burdensome and riskyrdquo for most commercial businesses104
and as such the Government effectively deterred all but a few
companies from the federal market by ldquomaintaining mandating
detailed standards and specifications for the products and
11 1985) at A-1 A-4httparticles
orlandosentinelcom1985-05-11news0300050184_1_reagan-budget-budget-committee-senate-budget
101 See William Johnson Weinberger Victim of Military Bills THE GLOBE AND MAIL Jun 5 1985 at 11 According to Johnson Secretary Weinberger was ldquoin political trouble a victim of inflated Pentagon budgets of his own loss of credibility and above all of the lsquotoilet seat syndromersquordquo Johnson further reported that ldquothe man who carried through President Ronald Reaganrsquos big military buildup over the past four years can no longer get through to the President as he used tordquo102 See id As substantiation that Reagan no longer trusted Secretary Weinberger as he once had it was reported the President had ldquoaccepted a Senate proposal for a package deal [that included] defense spending frozen without consulting Mr Weinbergerrdquo 103 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127104 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
20
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
servicesrdquo it sought to buy105 Although the media the public
and even Congress did not understand the specific cause
underlying the spare parts scandals106 ldquothe constant drumbeat of
propaganda about defense scandals and defense spendingrdquo had made
it clear the system was broken107
Due to pressure from the public to fix the system President
Reagan created ldquoThe Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Managementrdquo (hereinafter ldquoPackard Commissionrdquo)108 in 1985 to
recommend reforms for defense management109 Although the Packard
Commission focused mainly on the acquisition of major weapons
systems it also analyzed the spare parts cases110 Upon review
the Packard Commission determined that the ldquothe problems
[surrounding the spare parts scandals] were seldom the result of
fraud or dishonesty [but] [r]ather were symptomatic
of other underlying problems [affecting] the entire
105 Vacketta supra note 32 at 127 106 Needs cite107 Lou Cannon amp David Hoffman An Interview with President Reagan Transcript of President Reaganrsquos Interview Yesterday With White House Correspondents Lou Cannon and David Hoffman WASH POST Feb 11 1986 at A8108 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49109 Evan Thomas Barrett Seaman amp Bruce van Voorst Defensive About Defense TIME Mar 10 1986 at 43httpwwwtimecomtimeprintout0881696086200html110 The Presidentrsquos Blue Ribbon Commrsquon on Def Mgmt (The Packard Commission) a Quest for Excellence Final Report to the President and Apprsquox (Washington DC The Packard Commrsquon June 1986) at 44
21
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
acquisition systemrdquo111 In response to its findings the Packard
Commission determined
DoD should make greater use of components systems and services available ldquooff-the-shelfrdquo It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements No matter how DoD improves its organization or procedures the defense acquisition system is unlikely to manufacture products as cheaply as the commercial marketplace Products developed uniquely for military use and to military specifications generally cost substantially more than their commercial counterparts 112
The Packard Commission Report further advocated using competition
ldquoas a lsquoforemostrsquo commercial practice [to] be aggressively
used in the acquisition of lsquosystems products and professional
servicesrsquordquo113 Congress responded to the Packard Commission
Report by amending Title 10 of the United States Code to
establish a DoD preference to use ldquonondevelopmental itemsrdquo
(NDIs) or ldquoany item of supply that is available in the
commercial marketplacerdquo where those items would meet DoDrsquos
needsrdquo114 111 Id112 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 60)113 ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37Id at 50 (quoting The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 62) 114 IdACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 50 The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines and distinguishes NDIs from commercial items NDIs are defined as
ldquo(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for government purposes by a Federal agency a State or local government or a foreign government with which the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement (2) Any item described
22
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
Congress followed up this legislation with direction to the
DoD set forth in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991115 to ldquoissue new regulations to address
impediments to the acquisition of commercial itemsrdquo116 The DoD
responded by creating Parts 210 and 211 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (ldquoDFARSrdquo) in 1991117 which
described in paragraph (1) of this definition that requires only minor modification or modification of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency or (3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) solely because the item is not yet in userdquo
48 CFR sect 2101 (20112)
On the other hand commercial items are defined in pertinent part as
ldquoAny item other than real property that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmetal purposes any item that evolved from an item [customarily used by the general public] any item [meeting the above criteria that has received] modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace rdquo Id
See id115 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Pub L No 101-189 sect 824(b) 103 Stat 1352 1504-05 (1989)
116 HR Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) (Conf Rep) reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069HR Conf Rep No 101-331 at 612 (1989) as reprinted in 1989 USCCAN 977 1069117 56 Fed Reg 36315 36315-17 (July 31 1991) (codified at 48 CFR Ch 2 pts 210 211)
23
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
defined and set forth a preference for NDIs and also ldquocontained
an early predecessor to the modern statutory definition of
ldquocommercial itemsrdquo118 Seeing a need for further reform in this
area Congress established an Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Laws otherwise known as the ldquoSection 800
Panelrdquo in 1990119
The Section 800 Panelrsquos recommendation led to the passage of
the FASA120 in 1994121 The passage of FASA then resulted in
major revisions to FAR parts 10 11 12 and 52122 These
reforms along with the passage and implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act in 1996123 resulted in
a 1) uniform definition for a ldquocommercial itemrdquo 2) ldquoclear
federal precedence preference for the acquisition of commercial
118 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 Pub L No 101-510 sect 800 104 Stat 1485 1587
119 See id120 Needs citeFASA supra note 7121 Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial Item Contracts When is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 291 294 (1998) Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 (1994) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE ]Carl L Vacketta amp Susan H Pope Commercial item Contracts When Is a Government Contract Term or Condition Consistent with ldquoStandardrdquo or ldquoCustomaryrdquo Commercial Practice 27 PUB CONT LJ 122 See idVacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 296 60 Fed Reg 48205 48207 (September 18 1995) (codified at 48 CFR pts 10 11 12 and 52) [ADDED NEW SOURCE HERE]123 See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642
24
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
itemsrdquo and 3) mandates that government procurement officials
conduct market research to determine whether there is a
commercial item in the marketplace that will meet the agencyrsquos
needs prior to developing new detailed design specifications124
Although the FASA and Clinger-Cohen Act resulted in the bulk of
reform that currently exists regarding commercial acquisition
Congress and the Executive Branch have continued to improve
commercial item procurement by making subtle changes to the
ldquodefinition of lsquocommercial itemsrsquo and the process of their
acquisitionrdquo over the past several years125 124 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128 125 ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 56 For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo For example in 1998 Congress directed the Executive Branch to clarify the meaning of ldquocatalog-based pricingrdquo and ldquomarket-based pricingrdquo in the FARrsquos definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 Tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003)See Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 Pub L No 105-261 sect 803(a) 112 Stat 1920 2082 (1998) In 1999 the definition of ldquocommercial itemsrdquo was further modified to explain the meaning of ldquoservices in support of commercial itemsrdquo See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Pub L No 106-65 sect 805 113 Stat 512 705 (1999) The definition of ldquocommercial items was defined even further in 2003 to ldquoaccommodate explicit authorization for time-and-material commercial services contractsrdquo See Service Acquisition Reform
25
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
These changes have resulted in long-standing and effective
reform to ensure ldquothere [are] no more $500 hammers no more $600
toilet seats rdquo126 Such reform has allowed commercial
companies to enter the federal marketplace free from overly
complicated government contract clauses and ldquounique requirements
that would require them to change the way they do businessrdquo127
As a result of this reform federal agencies now have uniform
practices for buying commercial goods and services128 This has
ensured that commercially available items such as hammers and
toilet seat covers are acquired in the commercial marketplace
from those who specialize in making them at the most competitive
prices129
IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
While several studies have suggested procurement scandals
have the potential to lead to reform130 there is a complete lack
Act of 2003 (ldquoSARArdquo) Pub L No 108-136 tit XIV sect 1432 117 Stat 1663 1672-73 (2003) 126 Remarks on Signing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 supra note 35 at 1738 2 PUB PAPERS 1738 (Oct 13 1994)127 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128128 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128129 Needs cite130 See Kathuria supra note 5 at 814-818 Following several procurement scandals in the 1980s the US Government responded by launching investigations prosecuting wrongdoers establishing a ldquoBlue Ribbon Commissionrdquo to review the defense acquisition process and implementing voluntary agency compliance programs and sentencing guidelines In addition although the ldquoUnited States has been witness to procurement scandals since the beginning of the republicrdquo it was not until the procurement scandal of Operation Illwind occurred in the mid to late 1980s
26
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
of scholarly literature on the correlation between media coverage
of procurement scandals and any subsequent reform131 Therefore
the below case study adapts and applies three related
methodologies from other disciplines to the above-described facts
of the hammer and toilet seat scandals to analyze the effects of
between media coverage and procurement scandals132 Specifically
it tests a theory set forth by Madelaine Drohan that scandals
must transit through seven stages before effective reform will
occur133 Against the backdrop of Drohanrsquos theory it then
considers two additional supporting methodologies posited by
Lawrence Sherman and framing analysts134 Because the hammer and
toilet seat scandals were not separate scandals in and of
themselves but were rather ldquosub-scandalsrdquo of the larger spare
parts scandal135 the below will analyze the hammer and toilet
seat scandals together as part of the same scandal
chronologically
that the Procurement Integrity Act was passed and implemented Id See also Timothy M Cox Is the Procurement Integrity Act ldquoImportantrdquo Enough for the Mandatory Disclosure Rule A Case for Inclusion 40 Pub Cont LJ 347 351 (2011)131 Needs cite132 See infra Part IV133 See Drohan supra note 1527134 See infra Parts IVB and IVC135 See Fairhall supra note 42 51 Needs cite
27
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
From 2004-2005 Madelaine Drohan a Canadian journalist
conducted research regarding the correlation between media
coverage and corporate business scandals to determine if the
media coverage resulted in lasting reform punishment or
attitudes to improve accountability136 Although similar in
nature to the other two methodologies described below Drohanrsquos
theory appears to be the first of its kind to identify discrete
stages of scandals and then associate the effects of media
coverage to these various stages137 For the present case study
Drohanrsquos theory is primarily helpful in understanding how media
coverage may impact a scandal in its various stages and how
those effects may impact reform later in time
Drohan found that one can predict to at least some degree
whether a scandal will result in the reformation of applicable
laws or regulations by analyzing how journalists have chosen to
frame the scandal in recent news stories and which stage it is
currently in138 Specifically under Drohanrsquos theory how a
journalist frames a scandal will determine which stage the
scandal will end in and thus whether it will ever result in
136 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2 137 Needs cite138 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1
28
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
punishment or reform139 According to Drohan corporate and
monetary scandals progress through a discernable pattern of seven
discrete stages including ldquoanxiety focus denial validation
definition punishment and aftermathrdquo140
Under the first stage ldquoanxietyrdquo a scandal emerges from
pre-existing public anxiety about a situation141 The second
stage ldquofocusrdquo occurs after a ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo happens that
attracts the attention of the media which then ldquostokes public
outrage and indignationrdquo142 It is at this point the media
applies the newsworthiness values described above143 to determine
if the event warrants further media coverage and has the
potential to become a scandal144 In the third stage of ldquodenial
and evasionrdquo an individual or organization denies or evades
responsibility which increases the longevity of the scandal145
The first three stages are necessary to give the scandal
momentum nevertheless if the next two stages are not reached
the scandal will often die out146 The fourth and fifth stages
ldquovalidationrdquo and ldquodefinitionrdquo are often reached together or in
close succession147 Validation occurs when authorities
139 See generally Drohan supra note 27 at 1-2140 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15141 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15142 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15143 See infra Part IIB144 Needs cite145 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15 146 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15147 See Drohan supra note 27 at 175
29
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
officially confirm a foundation for the suspicion of wrongdoing
while ldquodefinitionrdquo occurs when an investigation of some kind is
ordered to specify the underlying causes of the scandal148 Under
Drohanrsquos theory an investigation helps keep the scandal alive by
keeping the news in the public eye and distributing additional
information about any wrongdoing149 According to Drohan the
most important stage from the publicrsquos point of view is the
sixth or ldquopunishmentrdquo stagerdquo because once a scandal has run its
course due to the extensive publicity the public will only
ldquo[only] be appeased by a fitting punishmentrdquo150 In the final
ldquoaftermathrdquo stage authorities ldquoaddress [and remedy] the
underlying causes of the scandalrdquo151 This is where reform
occurs if it occurs at all152
In regards to the punishment stage Drohan determined that
ldquowhen a scandal rsquoskipsrsquo a stagelsquopublic uneasersquo will result
along with rsquothe feeling that the scandal has not been dealt with
properlyrsquordquo153 She found that many scandals end in the punishment
stage and that when they end in this stage since they never
transit on to the aftermath stage long-lasting reform does not
occur154 Drohan found that the reason scandals often ended in
148 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815149 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-1815150 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18151 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19152 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19153 See Drohan supra note 27 at 15154 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19
30
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
the punishment phase was because ldquoonce [the punishment] stage has
passed much of the media loses interest and the pressure on
authorities to tighten laws and regulations is lessenedrdquo155 She
further discovered this was more likely to happen when the media
framed the transgression involved as the action(s) of one or a
few wayward individuals or organizations and not due to a
systemic problem relating to a process law or regulation156
Under Drohanrsquos theory even when a scandal does make it to
the ldquoaftermathrdquo stage media coverage often ends According to
Drohan this is because a reformation process provides little
human interest and few events to cover and reporters are often
ldquogeneralistsrdquo who know very little about the detailed subject
matter being addressed and reformed157 Drohan ultimately
determined that consistent media coverage was necessary even in
step seven to maintain pressure on government officials to make
and implement necessary reform measures158
2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
In the case at hand because hammer and toilet seat scandals
involved the Department of Defense (DoD) procurement system they
were perfect storms waiting to happen and ldquoanxietyrdquo or stage
155 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18156 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18-19157 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20158 See Drohan supra note 27 at 19-20
31
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
one of Drohanrsquos theory was already present159 In mid to late-
1983 the American public was somewhat uneasy regarding the
amount of money being spent for weapons to acquire the ldquolargest
real-dollar peacetime military program in historyrdquo160 Therefore
when news of the $435 hammer scandal broke these pre-existing
public concerns regarding defense spending increased public
interest encouraged media coverage and exerted pressure on
authorities to act161 The second stage then quickly followed
when the ldquocrystallizing eventrdquo or focus occurred when agency-
level investigations were conducted regarding the $435 item unit
price of the hammer charged to the Navy as discovered by the
Navy chief petty officer and reported by the press162
Under Drohanrsquos theory under stage three a scandal requires
some type of denial or evasion to continue and can normally be
averted or at least short-lived by an early admission of guilt or
wrongdoing163 In regards to the hammer scandal this step
appears to have been at least initially skipped Although on a
local level there may have been some denial or evasion about how
the $435 price was calculated this is simply unknown due to lack
of media coverage on the topic What is known is that after the
initial Navy audit confirmed an overcharge Secretary Weinberger
159 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48160 See Capitalism for the Pentagon supra note 60 at A1161 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48162 See Fairhall supra note 3642163 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16
32
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
made a public announcement validating the problem and informing
it the public that DoD had demanded repayment from Gould164
Within a month Gould had paid the demanded sum165
Under Drohanrsquos theory Weinbergerrsquos admission and Gouldrsquos
repayment should have short-circuited the scandal166 After all
initial media framing of the story suggested the scandal was due
only to negligence and a faulty accounting system167
Nevertheless the scandal did not stop here168 It may have
continued because the hammer scandal was only one of several sub-
scandals surrounding the spare parts scandal or because some saw
Gouldrsquos voluntarily repayment as a sign of guilt169 but
regardless it continued170
Secretary Weinbergerrsquos admissionvalidation of the Gouldrsquos
ldquooverchargerdquo acted not only as step three but four as well
Between late 1983 to the middle of 1985 the scandal wavered
between stages four and five During this time although the
mediarsquos framing of the scandal evolved several times the problem
was portrayed in two basic lights - that the underlying cause was
due to 1) a faulty non-competitive or wasteful government
164 See Weinberger Demands New Effort to Cut Costs NY TIMES Jul 28 1983 at A17 see also Fairhall supra note 21165 See Fairhall supra note 3642166 Needs citeSee Drohan supra note 27 See Fairhall supra note 42 48167 See Barron supra note 5554 at D1 168 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48169 See Fairhall supra note 3642170 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48
33
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
system or all of the foregoing171 or 2) the result of
unscrupulous defense contractors172
Because of a number of misunderstandings the fact that
additional overpriced parts were discovered or of uncertainty
whether the root cause arose from individual contractors or a
larger systemic problem (and if so from what type of systemic
problem) it took Congress and procurement officials over a year
to get past stage five to define the problem and assess
appropriate reform173
In the case of the hammer scandal stage six or
ldquopunishmentrdquo was initially considered but ultimately skipped
Although Representative Bedell believed unscrupulous contractors
were the cause of the spare parts scandal and pushed for the
prosecution of Gould174 eventually a new Navy audit determined
that Gouldrsquos overcharge had been much less than originally
thought175 These findings prevented Gouldrsquos prosecution
assisted in suggesting that the true nature of the problem was
systemic rather than individual and resulted in the public
pushing for reform176 It also shifted the mediarsquos portrayal of
171 See Miller supra note 5756 at 21 see also Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 3172 See Pentagon Steps UpKnickerbocker supra note 64 at 4173 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 52174 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 48175 See Fairhall supra note 3642176 See Vacketta supra note 32 at 127
34
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
the issue from focusing on individual defense contractors to
focusing on overall problems in commercial item acquisition177
When this occurred the hammer scandal was pushed back into
stage five as members of Congress and others struggled to define
the true nature of the problem178 At this point members of
Congress attempted to push the scandal into stage seven by
abolishing the equal allocation method179 passing CICA180 and
enacting the Defense Procurement Reform Act as a component of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985181
Nevertheless when the $600 toilet seat scandal came along
in January 1985 it was seen simply as a new development in the
continuing saga of the larger spare parts scandal rather than as
a new and separate scandal182 Therefore the toilet seat scandal
joined the hammer scandal as part of the larger spare parts
scandal and in so doing skipped stages one and two The ensuing
media coverage of the toilet seat scandal however resulted in
additional concern among the public which generated more
questions and moved the overall spare parts scandal (including
the hammer and toilet seat scandals) back to stages three through
five183 In the repeated stage five DoD responded to the new 177 Needs citeSee Fairhall supra note 42 50178 Needs cite Id at 48179 See Fairhall supra note 3642180 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11181 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849182 See Biddle supra note 69 at D15B24183 Needs cite See Drohan supra note 27 at 17-18
35
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
development of the toilet seat scandal by denying wrongdoing and
trying to explain the calculation of the cost of toilet seat
covers while validating that reforms were needed184 As the
media coverage concentrated its portrayal of the problem as
systemic and wasteful the American public became further
distrustful and outraged over defense spending and as a result
Congress passed an unprecedented one-year defense budget
freeze185
This event once again led the overall spare parts scandal to
stage five This time as a result of the publicrsquos outrage over
government spending the Packard Commission was created in part
to investigate the underlying causes of the spare parts cases and
recommend reform186 After the Packard Commission issued its
report the hammer and toilet seat scandals as part of the
overall spare parts scandal finally moved into step seven or
the ldquoaftermathrdquo As explained in detail above although it took
several years for full and effective reform to take place187 the
Packard Commissionrsquos recommendations ultimately led to the
184 See Hiatt supra note 88 at A5185 See Rasor supra note 100 186 See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUISITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 49-50See Thomas Seaman amp Voorst supra note 109 see also The Packard Commission supra note 110 at 44 see also ACQUSITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT e 37 at 49-50187 Needs cite (Cross reference to earlier section)
36
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
passage of the FASA in 1994188 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in
1996189 which finally resulted in the lasting reform needed
regarding commercial items acquisition190
Drohanrsquos theory as applied to the hammer and toilet
scandals has its strengths and weaknesses One the one hand
the aspect of Drohanrsquos theory suggesting media framing of the
scandal directly correlates to the stage a scandal will end in
and whether or not it will lead to reform191 appears quite valid
here As explained above the framing of the hammer and toilet
seat scandals evolved over time and in accordance with the
larger spare parts scandal Media coverage of events during this
time shows that when the media portrayed the overcharges as being
caused by greedy contractors Congress and the public sought
their prosecution192 Nevertheless when a new Navy audit
determined the problem was more systemic than individual the
media changed their portrayal of the issue as a system-wide
failure193 Although the media did not necessarily understand the
underlying cause of the systemic problem the mediarsquos framing of
188 See Vacketta amp Pope supra note 121 at 294See Vacketta Pope supra note t 294189 See FASA supra note 7Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 Pub L No 103-355 108 Stat 3243 see also The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 Pub L No 104-106 110 Stat 645 (codified at 10 USC sect 2305a)Federal Acquisition Reform (ldquoClinger-Cohenrdquo) Act of 1996 PUB L NO 104-106 110 STAT 642190 Needs cite See Vacketta supra note 32 at 128191 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18 192 See Fairhall supra note 3642 193 Needs cite See Fairhall supra note 42 at 47
37
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
the issue as one that involved the entire DoD procurement system
increased the publicrsquos outrage and led to its push for reform as
evidenced by the unprecedented defense spending freeze194 This
freeze then forced Congress DoD and other officials to make
necessary and long-lasting changes195
While Drohanrsquos theory provides insight regarding the
importance of media influence on the public it is not a perfect
methodology to use in a multi-scandal situation such as the
spare parts scandal Although Drohan states that the stages of
scandal tend to transit in an orderly fashion196 as applied to
this case it is clear that when a scandal involves multiple sub-
scandals the bigger scandal may be forced to repeat stages when
a ldquonew developmentrdquo or sub-scandal comes to light197 As such
the larger scandal may not transit through the seven stages in a
chronological way Further as shown by this case study there
may be situations where a scandal skips the ldquopunishmentrdquo step
entirely the step Drohan opines is the ldquomost importantrdquo to the
public198
Drohanrsquos finding that the media often loses interest once
the punishment stage passes199 is true to a large degree here In
194 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 195 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID196 See Drohan supra note 1527197 See discussion supra p 31-37198 See Drohan supra note 1827199 See Drohan supra note 27 at 18
38
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
researching the available media coverage it is clear that once
the Packard Commission convened and recommended changes media
coverage decreased dramatically and only mentioned the spare
parts scandal when reflecting upon historic examples of
government ldquowasterdquo200 Although under Drohanrsquos theory
authorities may become less inclined to make significant changes
in laws or regulations once media attention lessens201 this does
not appear to have been the case regarding the spare parts
scandals Although little if any media coverage continued
during the commercial item acquisition reform process202
effective and lasting reform continued for the next several
years203 In this manner Drohanrsquos theory appears flawed
200 See Michael O Leavitt and Thomas Barker Fix Competitive Bidding Dont Kill It WASH TIMES Feb 28 2011 at B3 see also William Safire Bridge to Nowhere NY TIMES Oct 8 2006 (comparing the ldquobridge to nowhererdquo to ldquothe $600 toilet seat in budget-cutters periodic denunciations of government waste fraud and abusersquordquo) see also John J Hamre Realities of Today Demand a New Defense Acquisition Reform AVIATION WEEK amp SPACE TECHNOLOGY Nov 28 2005 at 74 (reflecting on the spare parts scandal ldquomost often characterized as $600 toilet seats and $427 hammersrdquo) see also Hard to Swallow WASH POST Apr 16 1991 at A18 (editorial questioning whether the attendance of a military staff sergeant at a cooking school at the Greenbrier Hotel was comparable to ldquothe $ 600-toilet-seat inquiryrdquo)201 See Drohan supra note 27 at 20 202 Needs cite [ Like FN 204 below I have searched but have not come up with a specific source to back up the claim that there was an absence of media coverage during this time period ndash RCohn]203 Needs citeACQU I SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 39
39
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
Although major academic writings have not yet cited Drohanrsquos
theory of the ldquosevenrdquo stages of scandal204 several studies
conducted in related disciplines support and closely coincide
with several of her findings regarding the various stages205 One
example is a theory initially set forth by Lawrence W Sherman
an academic criminologist in 1978 regarding the relationship
between scandal and reform206 Shermanrsquos work primarily studied
the role and effect of scandals and reform in police
organizations207 Because the executive agencies that utilize the
government procurement system involve similar public trust and
because there has been very little research conducted on the
relationship between organizational deviance and scandal208
Shermanrsquos theory is relevant and applicable to this case study
204 Needs cite [Per recommendation I searched Westlaw Lexis and HeinOnline and did not find a mention of Drohan Not sure if the footnote should be removed altogether as there is nothing to cite to ndash RCohn]205 See eg Needs cite LAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xvii (1978)206 See id at xvLAWRENCE W SHERMAN SCANDAL AND REFORM CONTROLLING POLICE CORRUPTION xv (1978)207 See iId208 See Brandon A Sullivan Scandal and Reform An Examination of Societal Responses to Major Financial and Corporate Crime 6 (Aug 2010) (unpublished MS thesis Bowling Green University) httpetdohiolinkeduviewcgiSullivan20Brandonpdfbgsu1277141954
40
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
Although Sherman recognized the importance of the media in
publicizing scandals unlike Drohan209 he believed the mediarsquos
primary value was its ability to incite enough negative public
opinion relating to a scandal to influence the public to demand
reform210 as he theorized that ldquointernal conflict was dominantrdquo
in influencing the publicrsquos motivation to encourage reform211
For the below analysis Shermanrsquos work is useful because it
describes how scandals can impact reform Under Shermanrsquos
theory a social control mechanism must be enacted to address
deviant behavior212 He believed that scandals could be agents of
change213 because they could work as tools to ldquomobiliz[e] external
social controlrdquo214 Nevertheless similar to Drohanrsquos ldquostage twordquo
of a scandal215 Sherman believed change could only result if the
publicrsquos reaction to a scandal particularly one related to the
violation of public trust in an institution is ldquoone of intense
outrage and anger rather than mere disapprovalrdquo216
Further like Drohanrsquos stages two through six217 Shermanrsquos theory
holds that in order to lead to reform a negative reaction must 209 See Drohan supra note 27 at 1 3 16Needs cite210 See Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)Needs cite211Id Tony G Poveda The Effects of Scandal on Organizational Deviance The Case of the FBI 2 JUST Q 237 242 (1985)212 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 3213 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at xv 214 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59215 See Drohan supra note 27 at 16216 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 60-61217 See Drohan supra note 27
41
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
be sustained218 Finally similar to aspects of Drohanrsquos seventh
stage219 Sherman found that the ldquodeterrent effect of [scandals]
on [corruption] does not seem to be lastingrdquo220 unless long-term
ldquocontrols and policies which [sic] deter [the underlying cause
are] implementedrdquo221
2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Under Shermanrsquos theory scandals can be a catalyst of
change222 and work as a tool of social control 223 In the cases
of both the hammer and toilet seat scandals from the facts set
forth it is clear the public had an extremely negative and
sustained reaction to the spare parts scandals and that this
reaction lasted a number of years224 Examples of events
demonstrating the publicrsquos intense and sustained anger over the
related matter include the following 1) the media story
published in June 1984 comparing the DoD to a fiscally
irresponsible ldquoteenagerrdquo225 2) the immediate internal steps the
DoD took to respond to the scandals that included ldquo more
rules more people checking on the checkersrdquo226 3) Congressrsquo
218 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 61219 See Drohan supra note 27220 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 226221 See Poveda supra note 211210 at 241 222 See SHERMAN supra note 205206 at xv223 See SHERMAN supra note 206205 at 59 224 See Rasor supra note 100Needs cite 225 See McGrory supra note 72 at A2226 See Fairhall supra note 3642
42
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
passage of CICA227 and enacting the Defense Procurement Reform
Act as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1985228 4) the depiction of Secretary Weinberger in
a political cartoon with a toilet seat around his neck 5)
President Reaganrsquos public defense of Secretary Weinberger
regarding the toilet seat at a press conference229 6) the April
1985 Washington Post article written by Secretary Weinberger
seeking to regain public trust regarding defense spending by
presenting a set of facts relating to the hammer and toilet
seat230 7) the outrage over the May 1985 New York Times article
that led to a second audit of Gould by the Navy Audit Service231
8) the unprecedented one-year defense budget freeze232 and 9) the
June 1985 story portraying Secretary Weinberger as the man
responsible ldquofor all of the Pentagonrsquos blunders and boondoggles ndash
symbolized in the public mind by the notorious $640 paid
for a toilet seatrdquo 233 These events particularly the defense
freeze are examples of the publicrsquos sustained negative reaction
that forced Congress the DoD and procurement officials to
create and implement commercial item reform
227 See S Rep No 98-50 at 1 (1984) as reprinted in 1984 USCCAN at 2110-11228 See ACQUI SITION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT supra note 37 at 4849229 See Safire supra note 87 at sect6 16230 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21231 See Fairhall supra note 3642232 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100233 See Johnson supra note 101
43
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
While Sherman believed the media was an important tool in
bringing about reform234 a number of social scientists have
conducted more exhaustive studies regarding the correlation
between the manner in which issues are ldquoframedrdquo or portrayed by
the news media and its effects and believe the media to be an
even more influential tool in reform than Sherman235 These
studies substantiate Drohanrsquos theory that how a scandal is framed
will affect public response to the transgression which may in
turn lead to subsequent reform236
Social scientists have long established that the media plays
an influential role as an agenda setter237 by focusing readersrsquo or
listenersrsquo attention on particular attributes within an event or
issue238 Studies surrounding agenda setting have determined
ldquodiffering amounts of emphasis and coverage of issues by the mass 234 See Sherman supra note 206205 at 67235 See William G Jacoby Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending 44 AM J POL SCI 750 751 (2000) see also generally Paul R Brewer amp Kimberly Gross Studying the Effects of Framing on Public Opinion About Policy Issues in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 159 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)236 See Drohan supra note 27 at 17 18Needs cite237 See Michael W Wagner Think of it This Way Issue Framing Salience and Public Opinion Change 2 (Apr 15 2004) (unpublished manuscript) httpwwwallacademiccommetap_mla_apa_research_citation08237pages82377p82377-1php238 See Jim A Kuypers Framing Analysis From a Rhetorical Perspective in DOING NEWS FRAMING ANALYSIS 298 (Paul DrsquoAngelo amp Jim A Kuypers ed 2010)
44
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
media lead over time to the public regarding these issues to be
of differing levels of importancerdquo239 Taking agenda-setting a
step further social scientists have also extensively studied
though to a lesser degree ldquoissue framingrdquo (also known as
ldquoframingrdquo)240
Framing analyses have found the ldquomanner in which an issue is
framed can affect the manner in which citizens learn about and
formulate opinions on itrdquo241 Under a framing theory the mass
media ldquoprovide[s] frames that tell audience members how to
understand [certain] controversies [suggesting] what the
controversy is about rdquo242 The frame selects ldquoaspects of a
perceived reality and make[s] [it] more salient in a
communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition causal interpretation moral evaluation
andor treatment recommendationrdquo243 The news media ldquocan so focus
on an issue that it takes center stage on the nationrsquos attention
stagerdquo and suggests a certain opinion of an issue244 Social
scientists have determined that when a framed message emphasizes
a certain aspect of an issue that aspect ldquois accorded greater
239 See Wagner supra note 237 at 6 240 See Wagner supra note 237 at 2241 See Wagner supra note 237 at 7242 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159 (citing William A Gamson amp Andre Modigliani The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY 14337-77 (R Braungart ed 1987))243 See Brewer amp Gross supra note 235 at 159244 See Kuypers supra note 238 at 299
45
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
weight in the individualrsquos attituderdquo which leads to ldquoframing
effectsrdquo such as changes in attitudes or opinions245
Researchers have further found that the public does not need to
be persuaded by a frame for the frame to play a role in the
evolution of an issue the public only needs to have a strong
reaction to it in that ldquoframes can merely activate long-existing
opinions on issues that previously were not highly salientrdquo246
Ultimately social scientists have concluded that although ldquothe
press lsquomay not be very successful in telling its readers what to
think [it] is stunningly successful in telling its readers what
to think aboutrsquordquo247
2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
Here it is clear that news framing had a hand in the life
of the scandal from the beginning Originally the scandal was
portrayed as one due to negligence and a faulty accounting
system248 Then by late 1983 it was framed as due to a lack of
competitive bidding249 By mid-1984 the problem was painted as a
245 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8246 See Wagner supra note 237 at 8247 Jim A Kuypers amp Stephen D Cooper A Comparative Framing Analysis of Embedded and Behind-the-Lines Reporting on the 2003 Iraq War 6 QUALITATIVE RES REP IN COMMCrsquoN 1 (2005) (quoting BC COHEN THE PRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY 13 (1963)citing ME McCombs amp DL Shaw The Agenda-Setting Functions of the Mass Media 36 PUB OP Q 176-187 (1972))248 See Barron supra note 5455 at D1249 See Miller supra note 5657 at 21 see also Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 3
46
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
systemic ldquowaste and poor managementrdquo problem combined with
ldquounscrupulous defense contractorsrdquo250 As explained above once
the Navy conducted a new audit of the hammer contract and Gould
was somewhat absolved251 the mediarsquos portrayed the underlying
cause of the issue as one of systemic waste252
The examples of actions that occurred due to public disdain
described in the Sherman analysis above demonstrate that by the
time the defense freeze had been put into place the American
public believed the DoD had violated its stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and committed widespread fiscal waste253 When compared
with the framing of news stories set forth in the case history
above it is clear the publicrsquos perceptions were in line with the
mediarsquos representation of the facts involved from the beginning
of the scandal up to the time of the defense freeze254 Evidence
that the public had accepted the mediarsquos views of these events is
further suggested by the facts that although Secretary Weinberger
and President Reagan attempted to ldquoset the record straightrdquo
regarding the actual facts of the scandal by writing newspaper
articles and holding press conferences as late as April 1985255
the public did not respond to them or appear to believe them256 250 See Knickerbocker supra note 57 at 4 251 See Fairhall supra note 3642 252 See Johnson supra note 101253 See discussion supra IIIB2Needs cite254 Needs cite255 See Weinberger supra note 92 at A21 see also Cannon amp Hoffman supra note 107 at A8256 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite
47
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
Rather the public continued to pressure Congress257 which led to
the unprecedented defense freeze just a month later258 and
indirectly led to the ultimate reform of the commercial items
acquisition process259 These facts support both Drohanrsquos and the
news framing theories suggesting that the framing of issues
affects public opinion which can in turn pressure officials to
reform a process260
V CONCLUSION
From the beginning the spare parts scandals including both
the hammer and toilet seat scandals met all the criteria of
newsworthy stories261 These scandals were current negative and
involved spending a seemingly exorbitant amount of taxpayersrsquo
money for seemingly common items262 They included elements of
human interest and also seemed to include at least initially a
simple and easily understood set of facts ndash namely overcharging
of the Government by large and sophisticated defense contractors
for common everyday tools that could be purchased at a local
hardware store263 As described above during the nearly two
yearsrsquo time that occurred between the time the hammer scandal
broke to the defense spending freeze that occurred the American
257 Needs citeId258 See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100 259 See supra notes 112-114Needs cite260 See discussion supra Part IVA2Needs cite261 See discussion supra Part IIBNeeds cite262 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 263 Needs citeId
48
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-
public was subjected to a constant stream of news regarding the
scandals264
The above analysis shows that although Drohanrsquos theory of
scandals is not perfect it has several elements of accuracy that
are supported by Shermanrsquos study of scandal and reform as well as
by the news framing analysis theory265 This case study
demonstrates that the way the media portrays a problem will
impact whether or not it rises to the level of a scandal and will
impact the scandal throughout its various stages by impacting the
publicrsquos personal reactions opinions and responses to the
scandal266 It shows that when the publicrsquos reactions to scandal
are negative and strong last long enough and result in public
pressure such media coverage may indirectly lead to lasting
reform of faulty processes267
264 See discussion supra Parts IIIB2 IIIC2Needs cite 265 See discussion supra Part IVB1Needs cite 266 See discussion supra Parts IVA2 IVB2 IVC2Needs cite 267 Needs citeSee discussion supra Part IIID
49
- See Rasor supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- See Rasor supra note 100 see also Reidy supra note 100
- I INTRODUCTION
- II BACKGROUND
-
- A What is a Scandal
- B Scandals As Newsworthy Stories
-
- III A CASE HISTORY OF THE $435 HAMMER AND $600 TOILET SCANDALS AND RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE
-
- A How it Began
- B The $435 Hammer Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage and the Development of the Hammer Scandal
-
- C The $600 Toilet Seat Scandal
-
- 1 Background Facts
- 2 Media Coverage of the $600 Toilet Scandal and Ongoing Hammer Scandal
-
- D Outcome and Reform Resulting From the Spare Parts Scandals
-
- IV METHODOLOGIES AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDIA COVERAGE SCANDALS AND REFORM
-
- A Methodology 1 Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
-
- 1 Overview of Drohanrsquos Seven Stages of Scandal
- 2 Findings and Analysis Drohanrsquos Stages of Scandal as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- B Methodology 2 Shermanrsquos Study of Correlation Between Scandal and Reform
-
- 1 Overview of Shermanrsquos Study
- 2 Findings and Analysis Shermanrsquos Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- C Methodology 3 The News Framing Analysis Theory
-
- 1 Overview of the News Framing Analysis Theory
- 2 Findings and Analysis The News Framing Analysis Theory as Applied to the Hammer and Toilet Seat Scandals
-
- V CONCLUSION
-