TOPICS
TOPICS
Dead End
A federal air marshal claiming the Transportation Security Administration unfairly fired him during a one-year probationary period lacks recourse at the Merit Systems Protection Board, the board ruled recently.
When John P. Bell accepted an air marshal position with TSA in April 2002, he signed a form agreeing to serve for a year on a trial basis. Four months into the probationary period, TSA fired him for failing to meet job requirements.
Bell challenged that decision at MSPB, but on March 4, the board ruled that he had no legal standing because at the time of his termination he had worked at TSA for less than a year. Under United States Code, Title 5, Section 7511, MSPB must hear timely complaints from federal employees fired after serving in non-probationary positions or after holding other permanent civilian jobs for at least a year.
The law also allows MSPB to hear challenges submitted by employees serving in excepted service positions for less than a year, if those employees previously spent more than a year working for the government in similar civilian positions. Bell claimed that he fell under this definition because he was in the Coast Guard prior to taking an excepted service air marshal job at TSA.
Prior military service does not count toward the one-year threshold, MSPB explained in the ruling. Bell's TSA application clearly stated that he worked in a military, not civilian, capacity at the Coast Guard, the board noted.
Bell reserves the option of challenging MSPB's March 4 ruling at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
John P. Bell v. Homeland Security Department, Merit Systems Protection Board (AT-0752-03-0807-I-1), March 4, 2004
Interior Ethics
An 18-month investigation into a senior official with the Interior Department found that the department should do more to improve its ethics program, according to government investigators.
The Interior Department's Inspector General's Office and the U.S. Office of Government Ethics have concluded that the department should provide more guidance to officials on how to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest.
Both offices investigated whether Interior Department Deputy Director J. Steven Griles violated his ethics agreement when he hosted a dinner party with department officials and a former business associate; and when he contacted Environmental Protection Agency officials regarding projects that concerned some of his former clients. Griles was found to have not broken any laws. OEG left open the possibility that Griles violated ethic rules.
OEG referred those instances to Interior Secretary Gale Norton, who said Tuesday that Griles "has been cleared of the allegations," and she considers the cases closed.
The inspector general and OEG said Interior's ethics office needed more funding, additional staff and support from top political and career appointees.
"We believe that the problems Mr. Griles encountered could have been avoided if he had received accurate guidance on how to implement his ethics agreement, as well as guidance on how to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest," an OEG report said.
"With a more effective ethics program, including better counseling and comprehensive training that helps employees identify when a problem may exist and emphasizes an employee's obligation to seek advice before acting in a manner that may be problematic, [Interior] can ensure that its employees and officials avoid the problems Mr. Griles has encountered," the report concluded.
The inspector general issued broad recommendations the department can take to address "endemic deficiencies that have plagued, and continue to plague," its ethics program.
An Interior spokeswoman said Thursday that department has made strides in improving its ethics program. The department also issued an eight-page fact sheet showing steps that have been taken since 2002 on the ethics front.
"I take seriously the inspector general's recommendations, and Interior will continue to take steps to improve the ethics office," Norton said.










Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.