Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






Clinton confirmed that, while four individuals were "removed from their jobs," three of those employees who were placed on administrative leave are still on leave and being paid.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Clinton: Hands Tied as Staff Escapes Discipline
FOX News
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed this week that several employees who were "removed" from their positions in the wake of the Libya terror attack are still being paid and have not actually left her department.

But she also gave a surprising answer when asked why: Her hands are tied, she said.

Amid complaints from lawmakers that no government official has really been held accountable for missteps in the run-up to the attack, Clinton claimed current federal regulations limit what disciplinary actions can be taken.

The sticking point appears to be what constitutes a "breach of duty," which is the threshold for action. Whether it turns out the secretary has more leeway, lawmakers expressed a keen interest Thursday in changing the law.

"I'm sure that Congress will work on this important issue so that those held responsible for ignoring repeated requests for more security will not continue to enjoy their paid vacations, which is what administrative leave with salary is," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), former chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement to FoxNews.com.

Ros-Lehtinen said her understanding is that department lawyers determined the review board "did not cite the correct causes that would have allowed such disciplinary action."

The congresswoman pointedly questioned Clinton on Wednesday during a House hearing about the four employees who were supposedly punished after a long-awaited report on the Sept. 11 attack was released late last year. She accused the department of doing "nothing to correct the record" when media reported at the time that department officials were being held accountable.

"There's just been a shuffling of the deck chairs," Ros-Lehtinen said.

Clinton confirmed that, while four individuals were "removed from their jobs," three of those employees who were placed on administrative leave are still on leave and being paid.

The New York Post reported last month that the fourth, Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell, resigned from his position but not the department. The State Department has not disputed that.

But Clinton claimed Wednesday that "we have taken every step that is available."

"Under federal statute and regulations, unsatisfactory leadership is not grounds for finding a breach of duty," she said. "And the (review board) did not find that these four individuals breached their duty."

Clinton was referring to the findings of the Accountability Review Board, which said "certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus in critical positions ... demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability appropriate for the State Department's senior ranks."

The board, though, said it did not find any employees "engaged in misconduct or willfully ignored his or her responsibilities, and, therefore did not find reasonable cause to believe that an individual breached his or her duty so as to be the subject of a recommendation for disciplinary action."

That language is important, because of the rules laid out by the Omnibus Diplomatic and Antiterrorism Act of 1986.

According to the law, an accountability review board can recommend disciplinary action if it believes someone has "breached the duty of that individual."

As the Libya board explained, though, "poor performance" does not necessarily "constitute a breach of duty" that could lead to disciplinary action.

The board recommended a change. In the Libya report, the board said the "unsatisfactory leadership performance" at issue "should be a potential basis for discipline recommendations by future ARBs" -- and recommended the department regulations be changed.

Clinton, too, said she was submitting legislation to "fix this problem."

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE: 01/25/2013

Editor's Note: Terminating a federal employee -- or any civil servant, for that matter -- requires just short of an act of God...that should not be. While reasonable protections need to be in place for public sector employees (they, after all, are tasked with pleasing all of the people all of the time, an impossible task to achieve in total) procedures need to be put in place to terminate and demote the inept, the delinquent and the poor performing so that "lifers" are held accountable for their performances...








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server