GovernmentExecutive.com

A senior Republican lawmaker rebuked the Homeland Security Department Tuesday for attempting to lower the threshold of evidence needed to fire or discipline an employee.

"I don't understand why DHS has proposed changes to the evidentiary standard," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairwoman of the Governmental Affairs Committee. Collins made her comments during a speech at the legislative conference of the National Treasury Employees Union, which also opposes the lowered standard of proof.

Citing continued military obligations abroad and the threat of terrorism at home, Congress allowed the Defense Department and Homeland Security to rework their personnel systems. As part of the proposed DHS personnel overhaul, officials intend to lower the standard of proof for disciplinary actions, streamline the appeals process, implement performance pay initiatives and create a more flexible workforce.

Union leaders and some lawmakers say that many of the reforms have little to do with homeland security.

Under the department's judicial system, a "preponderance of evidence" is needed to dismiss or discipline an employee. The proposed regulations would lower that to "substantial evidence." The "preponderance" standard demands that more than half the evidence must point toward an employee's guilt, but the "substantial" standard is not readily defined.

DHS Deputy Secretary James Loy has said the lowered standard of proof is required to ensure efficient homeland security operations.

In her speech Tuesday, Collins also called for an independent appeals board for the department. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, made a similar appeal during a hearing last week.

"You've got to move that outside the agency to get a guarantee of fairness," Collins said.

COMMENTS

• George W. could sell snake oil as a cure for the common cold in the interest of National Security. That seems to be the catch all phrase of the Bush Administration to ensure swift and blind support. It's too late for Senators and Congressmen to whine about the DHS personnel system in an effort to save their political careers. Legislators should have jumped off the patriotic bandwagon when it became less about right and reason and more about political posturing and Bush's personal agenda against civil service employees. Too little too late folks. GovExec.com reader Posted March 3, 2004 9:50 AM
• It is not the standard of proof in discipline cases that should get people worried since the Department still has the burden of proof- even if it is diminished- to have some evidence of wrongdoing. My concern is with regard to performance cases. Now that discipline and performance are on the same track, the Department will be able to de facto summarily dismiss its employees based on almost no evidence of poor performance and the employee can only bring, by preponderance of evidence, a case that the Department made a procedural or legal mistake. I fear that between pay-for-performance with a small budget for awards on one end and basically, summary dismissals for any performance problems on the other end, with no real opportunity for employees to show performance improvement, there will be a serious lowering of morale and ability to function in one of the key Departments of the federal government. HR Specialist GovExec.com reader Posted March 3, 2004 7:31 AM