After beginning a report by claiming it had uncovered no “major issues” with the State Department’s disciplinary process, the agency inspector general detailed a litany of seemingly significant problems with the way officials address misconduct.
State’s disciplinary procedures were viewed by some as “operating slowly, producing inconsistent outcomes, and being biased,” said the report, which was prepared by Robert Peterson, assistant IG for inspections.
Perceptions of bias stem from the fact that State Department employees in the foreign and civil service are represented by different unions and are governed by different regulations.
For example, foreign service officers who have their security clearances suspended during a security investigation are reassigned to unclassified work while the probe continues, while civil service officers in the same situation are put on administrative leave or indefinite suspension.
Disciplinary decisions regarding employee misconduct can take anywhere from a few weeks to many months, causing damage to the careers of those waiting for either vindication or punishment and complicating misconduct investigations as witnesses move away and memory fades.
State Department officials have failed to inform employees of the consequences of misconduct or the proper way to report it, the report found.
“Without such information, employees may question the credibility, or even the existence, of the disciplinary process and the deterrent effect may be lost,” the IG said.
The department warned its managers and supervisors in 2007 that they could face punishment if they ignored misconduct among their staff. But after reviewing 1,700 cases from 2007 to 2013, the IG found not even a single instance of a supervisor being held responsible for failing to discipline or report the misconduct of a subordinate.
“Absent deterrence and correction, employees may continue or even escalate their misconduct,” the report said.
The agency’s human resources bureau, which has authority over disciplinary procedures, has delegated its responsibility to eight bureaus within the State Department. However, it provides little oversight of those bureaus’ efforts, the report said.
What’s more, the human resources bureau and those to which it has delegated authority have no guidelines in place for situations where the official deciding on matters of discipline has a conflict of interest, such as personal ties to the employee accused of misconduct, the IG found.
Although nearly half of all proposed punishments are softened or withdrawn in the disciplinary process, many officials don’t document the reasons why they walk their proposals back.
“Beyond impairing employee efficiency and effectiveness, misconduct can be damaging to national security, employee safety and morale, public and congressional confidence, and diplomatic relations,” the IG said.
Go here to read the full State Department IG report.
