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

1 1 (May 12, 2020)

handle is hein.crs/govdacl0001 and id is 1 raw text is: ,..........s .--- r,-b Se May 12, 2020 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 are situated within the agencies and that their dual mission is to report to both their home agencies and Congress, which calls for consideration of the balance between independence from and general supervision by agencies. The removal procedures for inspectors general, which fall between removal without limitations and removal only for cause, have been considered an integral element of that independence since 1978. Nonetheless, there have been some instances in which Presidents have removed inspectors general, and those actions have raised concerns in Congress. In addition, Congress has considered and enacted additional removal requirements since 1978. This In Focus provides an overview of the current removal procedure for inspectors general, identifies some notable removals, and discusses potential issues for Congress. Rero a,-,0a Pro'eduare The removal procedure for presidentially appointed inspectors general is found in Section 3(b) of the IG Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended). The section reads: 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 reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, 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 inspectors general of designated federal entities (DFEs), which are listed in Section 8G(2) of the IG Act, the same notice rule applies, except that the head of the DFE, rather than President, appoints and removes the inspector general. For DFEs 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). Previously, the President (or head of a DFE) was required to communicate the reasons for any such removal to both Houses of Congress but not to provide advance notice. Acting inspectors general, some of whom have served in this capacity for years at a time, do not enjoy the same removal protections as confirmed inspectors general. The status of acting inspectors general 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). CRS has identified three instances of inspector general removals by Presidents. This section discusses those actions and examples of related congressional practice. R,:eagan's Rkxovai of APt hnsspe,:os One of President Reagan's first official acts upon his inauguration on January 20, 1981, was to remove all 15 confirmed and acting inspectors general 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 chairperson 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 inspector general (Robert Pear, Ouster of All Inspectors General by Reagan Called Political Move, New York Times, February 3, 1981, p. B 14). The controversy dissipated after President Reagan's nominees met with the approval of Congress. By the time the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations and Human Resources of the House Committee on Government Operations held a hearing on April 1, 1981, Chairperson Fountain stated that his concerns had been eased by the fact that five of the former inspectors general had been renominated and the Administration had made other commitments to support the inspector general system. Chairperson Fountain, though, also described the impact of the removals: This action undoubtedly had an adverse effect on the operations of the offices whose directors were abruptly removed. Much more serious damage was done, however, by the perception that Inspectors Wy's C.,, Eg \,, Ngwq 10 0\ ILI

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