The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board squandered at least $5.09 million in taxpayer money on paralegals who did anything but their jobs. Yet what's more appalling is that the Commerce Department inspector general's report on this scandal recommends no firings or legal action.
The report says “substantial, pervasive waste ... endured for more than four years,” beginning in 2010. Supposedly working from home, board paralegals were paid for 50 to 75 hours of “non-production time” per 80-hour pay period.
They also received annual performance bonuses worth thousands of dollars — for watching TV, listening to radio, web-surfing, emailing, using social media and online shopping sites, exercising, doing household chores, reading and doing volunteer work. Meanwhile, paralegals in the appeals board office were reading e-books.
The patent board, awaiting the end of a hiring freeze that kept it from adding judges, ignored such slacking by a paralegal staff it had expanded to help clear a backlog averaging 21,000 cases annually. Only when the IG's office became involved did the board take action.
The report recommends recovering the bonuses. But that's far short of full accountability. Taxpayers deserve to see those who issued and collected unearned paychecks and bonuses face firings and legal action — fitting consequences for their outrageous misconduct.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.