Lawmaker Tells Education to Get Tougher on Misbehaving Employees

The Education Department’s trivial punishments for misbehaving senior managers are undermining its culture, according to a top congressional overseer. 

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent a letter to Education’s acting Secretary John King asking him to reconsider what the lawmaker views as insufficient penalties for activities ranging from Hatch Act violations to sexual harassment. Chaffetz highlighted the actions uncovered in 10 separate investigations conducted by the department’s inspector general.

“As the acting secretary and the president’s nominee for secretary of Education, you have the ability to reset the tone for the department,” Chaffetz wrote. “You can send a strong message to department staff that nobody is above the law, and that all staff must conduct themselves in a manner that is befitting public servants, focusing first and foremost on promoting student achievement.”

Chaffetz held a hearing on the misconduct at the department earlier this month during which the committee derided Education officials -- especially its former chief information officer, Danny Harris -- for repeated instances of unethical behavior and ineptitude. The chairman criticized King for repeatedly deferring to the general counsel when asked about employees’ punishments.

Harris resigned from his position Feb. 19, which also drew criticism from Chaffetz. In his letter, Chaffetz called King’s disciplinary measure “inadequate” and deplored Harris being able to retire before “any additional action could be carried out.”

Chaffetz criticized Education for “merely” requiring Hatch Act violators to receive training on the law and written counseling.  He also highlighted a General Schedule-15 manager who sexually harassed three employees but was only suspended for 12 days. All told, the IG completed 10 investigations involving employees GS-15 or higher between fiscal years 2012 and 2015.

“The IG’s investigations demonstrate a concerning pattern of insufficient punishment by the department,” Chaffetz wrote, “one that allows senior staff to remain in positions of leadership and influence.”

Chaffetz urged King to “reconsider appropriate administrative action” for the individuals identified in the investigations. Doing so, he said, would  “ensure the department creates a strong culture of accountability and ethical behavior.”

Dorie Nolt, an Education spokeswoman, declined to answer whether King would reevaluate the disciplinary actions or if the department took issue with Chaffetz’s implication that there exists a cultural problem at the department. 

“We have received the letter, and will respond to it,” Nolt said.