TOPICS
TOPICS
Lawmakers seek disciplinary action against FDA official
House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., Wednesday called for disciplinary action against Food and Drug Administration Assistant Commissioner Margaret Glavin, after it was revealed that Glavin had sent out an officewide e-mail criticizing the testimony of fellow FDA employees at an Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing last week.
In the e-mail, first reported in Wednesday's CongressDaily, Glavin said she was "deeply saddened" by comments made by the employees criticizing FDA food safety efforts, and that she considered them to be "erroneous." At issue was a plan to shut five FDA field laboratories and district offices.
In a letter to FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach, Dingell and House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak, D-Mich., declared: "Ms. Glavin's central message appears to be that dissent within the ranks will not be tolerated. ... As such, it is a clear violation of your policy to protect the right of FDA employees to express dissenting opinions to Congress."
Dingell and Stupak, who asked for an answer from von Eschenbach "within the week," continued: "At a minimum, we expect you to publicly disavow the ... e-mail and discipline Ms. Glavin, and evaluate her future in the position of directing FDA field staff." Stupak later said that Glavin should be removed.
COMMENTS
- Readers, please understand that it is inappropriate for an elected official to openly ask the hand that holds the evaluation pen (von Eschenbaugh) to retaliate against Ms. Gavin for supporting the FDA's "party line". Government employees are not technically allowed to be critical of our programs even when we know for certain that some of them are an absolute waste of money. However, when congress requests for a career federal employee to come and "discuss" the issue for the record, it is most appropriate and should be expected, for individuals to provide expert opinions and then for the Assitant Secretary to "tow the party line". I'm sure she was expected to do show support for executive policy decisions, perhaps not via e-mail, but in some form or fashion. Is there another federal agency out there that allows criticisim? These Michigan Gentlemen are obviously ignorant of what it takes to be a true federal employee; we don't get to actually say what we think without consequences, which means no one should be "fired" for speaking their mind. Please Sirs, think through the process before ruining peoples careers through political posturing. I'm not impressed! Sonja Posted July 31, 2007 2:25 PM
