<
33
\
^t0SrX
&
V PRO^4-0
o
2
Lll
o
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
2007-M-00003
May 7, 2007
Why We Did This Review
We conducted this special
review to determine whether
the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) took
disciplinary action on employee
misconduct cases identified by
Office of Inspector General
(OIG) Reports of Investigation;
and if the disciplinary action
taken was timely, appropriate,
and in accordance with
established guidelines. We
looked at cases closed between
October 1, 2002, and
September 30, 2006.
Background
Many jobs at EPA require
employees to deal with the
public. EPA employees also
manage, control, and oversee
Federal funds as well as
sensitive and confidential data.
EPA employees must maintain
the highest standards of
conduct as representatives of
the Agency. Failure to deal
quickly and decisively with
violations of these standards
undermines the confidence the
public will have in the Agency.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2007/
20070507-2007-M -00003. pdf
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
EPA Needs to Respond More Timely to
Reports of Investigation
What We Found
While EPA took disciplinary action where deemed appropriate, it did not take
the actions timely. EPA policies require the Agency to initiate disciplinary
actions within 30 days from the date the Office of Inspector General's Office
of Investigations issues a Report of Investigation. However, EPA took an
average of almost 200 days to do so. According to several EPA action
officials, EPA may not take disciplinary action within 30 days because the
Agency cannot complete the process recommended in the EPA Disciplinary
Process Handbook within 30 days. EPA officials noted they are often uneasy
in dealing with the sensitive issues involved, and union involvement can also
cause delays. Further, EPA officials said it would be helpful if the Office of
Investigations did followup on the status of pending actions and provided
reminders.
For six cases we reviewed, the Agency did not take disciplinary actions that
were severe enough considering the nature of the misconduct. For example,
EPA only gave an oral admonishment to an employee who was absent without
authorization for over 400 hours. Another employee, who pled guilty in court
to using a credit card stolen from another Federal agency for personal
purchases, only received a letter of reprimand. A third employee, who pled
guilty to bank fraud and was sentenced to a day in jail and 5 years probation,
had a 45-day suspension recommended by the employee's supervisor reduced
by the action official to 14 days.
What We Recommend
We recommend that the EPA Deputy Administrator:
1.	Re-evaluate the 30-day reporting requirement to consider a timeframe
more in line with the length of time necessary to accomplish EPA's
disciplinary process.
2.	In cases when the Agency is unable to meet established timeframes,
provide an action plan that includes any interim action taken to minimize
the risks of continued misconduct pending final disciplinary action.
3.	Assure that disciplinary actions taken in employee integrity and
misconduct cases are sufficient and appropriate.
The Agency generally agreed with our recommendations, although we would
like to see the Agency make more of a commitment to dealing with employee
misconduct.

-------