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

B-202515 1 (1981-06-25)

handle is hein.gao/gaobabkbs0001 and id is 1 raw text is: COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON D.C. 20548 B-202515 June 25, 1981 Mr. S. David Freeman Chairman of the Board of Directors Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue, S.W. Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Dear Mr. Freeman: This letter is in response to yours dated March 13, 1981, in which you request our views on alproposal to change t-hd statutory jurisdiction of tah Merit Systems Protection Boardl In your letter you express the belief that certain field offices of the Merit Systems Protection Board have been behaving irresponsibly in setting aside adverse personnel actions imposed by Federal agencies in cases of employee misconduct, and you describe several cases in detail to illustrate your point. You indicate that the field office determinations in those particular cases are now pending before the Board on appeal. However, you suggest that a resolution of the problem you perceive might also be achieved through legislation changing the statutory jurisdiction of the Board and its field offices. The suggested statutory amendment would permit the Board to review agency- assessed adverse personnel actions only in cases where it is proven that the penalty is grossly disproportionate to the offense or the result of prohibited discrimination. You essentially ask whether we would be willing to endorse such a legislative proposal. On April 10, 1981, the Board issued an Opinion and Order, copy enclosed, in which it concluded that it did have authority under present law to reassess sanctions imposed by agencies, but only in cases where the agency-imposed penalty is clearly exces- sive, disproportionate to the sustained charges, or arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. However, that opinion is subject to judicial review under the provisions of section 7703 of title 5, United States Code, so that the issue may not be com- pletely settled as to what statutory authority, if any, the Board now has to act in such cases. Consequently, at this time we are not prepared to endorse the proposed statutory amendment. Rather, we believe that the process of judicial review should be allowed to take its course.

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.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most