About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (January 12, 2023)

handle is hein.crs/govekfh0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congressional Research Service Informing the legislitive debate since 1914 S Updated January 12, 2023 Removal of Inspectors General: Rules, Practice, and Considerations for Congress In 1978, Congress passed the Inspector General Act (IG Act; P.L. 95-452) with the intent to improve oversight within certain executive branch agencies. During the floor debate on the legislation, Senator Thomas Eagleton described independence as the most important characteristic of the inspectors general (Congressional Record, vol. 124, part 29, October 22, 1978, p. 30952). While this independence has been considered essential, it is also weighed against the fact that inspectors general (IGs) are situated within the agencies and that their dual mission is to report to both their home agencies and Congress. This calls for consideration of the balance between independence from and general supervision by agencies. The removal procedures for IGs fall between removal without limitations and removal only for cause and have been considered an integral element of IG independence since 1978. Nonetheless, Presidents have removed IGs, and those actions have raised concerns in Congress regarding the independence of IGs. In addition, Congress has considered and enacted additional removal requirements since 1978. This In Focus provides an overview of the current removal procedure for IGs, identifies past presidential removals, and discusses potential issues for Congress. Removal Procedure The removal procedure for presidentially appointed IGs is found in Section 3(b) of the IG Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended). The section reads in part: An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress (including the appropriate congressional committees), not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal. For the IGs appointed by agency heads, which are listed in Section 8G(2) of the IG Act, the same notice rule applies, except that the head of the agency, rather than President, appoints and removes the IG. For agencies headed by boards, committees, or commissions, removal requires the written concurrence of two-thirds of the members. The inspector general for the U.S. Postal Service may be removed only with agreement of seven out of nine postal governors and only for cause. The 30-day notice requirement was established under the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-409), and the requirement that notice include a substantive rationale was added by the Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022 (Title LII, Subtitle A, of P.L. 117-263). Additionally, in most cases, the President must provide Congress with written notice 15 days before placing an IG on non-duty status and generally cannot do so at all during the 30-day notice period before removal of an IG. Acting IGs, some of whom have served in that capacity for years at a time, may not enjoy the same removal protections as confirmed IGs. The status of acting IGs in positions subject to Senate confirmation is dictated by the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. §§3345-3349c; see CRS Report R44997, The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview, by Valerie C. Brannon). Removal Practice There are several examples of presidents removing IGs. A common theme across those examples, which are outlined below, is concern from Congress that removals have the potential to undermine the actual and perceived independence of IGs. adent Reagans Ren of All lns3ectoi During presidential transitions, turnover of most political appointees is the norm. New presidents have the authority to remove IGs at the start of their Administrations and make their own nominations. However, following such action at the start of the Reagan Administration, practice has disfavored removal of IGs during presidential transitions. One of President Ronald Reagan's first official acts upon his inauguration on January 20, 1981, was to remove all 15 confirmed and acting IGs then working across the executive branch. This action appears to have caused bipartisan concern in Congress. On February 3, 1981, an article in the New York Times quoted Representatives L. H. Fountain and Frank Horton, the chair and ranking member of the House Committee on Government Operations, respectively, as saying that the move had the potential to politicize, and thereby undermine, the position of IG (Robert Pear, Ouster of All Inspectors General by Reagan Called Political Move, New York Times, February 3, 1981, p. B14). The controversy dissipated after President Reagan's nominees (including a number of the previously removed IGs) met with the approval of Congress. By the time the

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most