Inspectors general urge lawmakers to pass job security measures

Inspectors general on Wednesday called for stronger legal protections against reprisals, term limits and enhanced personnel flexibilities.

The president and agency heads should only be allowed to fire inspectors for violating established ground rules, three representatives of the IG community said at a congressional hearing. IGs should serve for fixed terms of nine years, the witnesses argued, and should be allowed to depart from Title 5 of the United States Code, the law governing personnel management at most executive branch agencies.

Inspectors general cannot be expected to complete rigorous, independent and objective investigations if they fear they will face retaliation for uncovering waste, fraud and abuse at federal agencies, the witnesses said. Currently, presidents and agency heads can fire IGs after notifying Congress. There is no list of defensible causes for removal.

"No inspector general should have to work in that atmosphere and climate," said Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y.

Term limits would enhance job security, provide continuity during changes in administration and "serve to improve IG operations by facilitating long-range planning and increasing institutional memory," according to the written testimony of Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. IG Gaston Gianni Jr., Corporation for National and Community Service IG J. Russell George, and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System IG Barry Snyder.

The inspectors also advocated expansion of personnel flexibilities to help IG offices "better compete with the private sector in attracting high-quality candidates, especially for positions requiring technical expertise." The ability to design merit-based pay systems, offer recruitment and retention bonuses and extend probationary periods for new employees would help, the witnesses said.

A bill (H.R. 3457) introduced by Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., last fall addresses several items on the IGs' wish list, but differs slightly in details. The legislation spells out five legitimate reasons for removing inspectors general before the end of a seven-year term.

Members of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Efficiency and Financial Management, eager to advance Cooper's legislation, invited Gianni, George and Snyder to share the IG community's recommendations for modifying the measure.

The witnesses said they generally support the bill, but would change some details. For example, they pushed for a nine-year term, rather than seven years, to make sure IGs "span administrations."

The IGs called on lawmakers to clarify the five causes for removal, listed as: permanent disability, inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance, and conviction of a felony or conduct involving "moral turpitude." Some of these categories, the IGs argued -- especially "inefficiency" -- are vague.

The inspectors general had a few reservations with the personnel provision in Cooper's bill as well. Under the proposal, IG offices could create personnel management systems under Title 5. But some IG offices, including those at the Defense and Homeland Security departments, already are exempt from the law governing executive branch personnel systems and should not have to relinquish that flexibility, the witnesses said.

Cooper said Wednesday that he hopes to work out the differences and move the bill along as quickly as possible. The legislation is bipartisan, he noted, with Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., as a co-sponsor. All lawmakers should support measures that encourage objective, independent IG investigations, he said.

"This is about good government," said Rep. Todd Platts, R-Pa., the subcommittee chairman.

But the measure is likely to stir up some controversy, the witnesses said, emphasizing that they appeared at the hearing to represent the views of the inspector general community, rather than the opinions of the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency and President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, where they hold leadership positions. The PCIE is made up of presidentially appointed IGs, and the ECIE represents agency head-appointed IGs.

The Bush administration has not taken an official position on Cooper's legislation, said Office of Management and Budget spokesman Chad Kolton.

But some components of the legislation, including the list of causes for removal, are likely to be "sensitive," Gianni said. Administrations are naturally "leery" of relinquishing authority, he explained: "I don't look for any administration to come forward and suggest strengthening the powers of the inspectors general."