WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley continues to press the Department of Homeland Security on its reasons for putting numerous employees on paid administrative leave for long periods of time, citing vague reasons from the department for the leave.  Grassley also noted that putting the former head of security at the Transportation Security Administration on paid administrative leave pending reassignment does not appear consistent with guidance that employees should remain in the workplace in some capacity unless posing a threat.

In a letter to Secretary Jeh Johnson, Grassley said the Department of Homeland Security has failed to respond with the level of specificity he requested in October 2014 and renewed in October 2015.

“Without this information, I still cannot fully understand the circumstances in which DHS has been placing employees on administrative leave,” Grassley wrote.  “It also suggests that the Department itself lacks visibility into the circumstances and causes of extended periods of administrative leave, which calls into question its ability to further reduce the incidence of extended administrative leave.”

Grassley wrote that the department’s response “shows that with prolonged and intense scrutiny and oversight, the Department has successfully reduced the number of employees on extended administrative leave.”  However, he expressed concern about several extreme cases.

A Border Patrol agent was placed on administrative leave for misconduct and a subsequent investigation for a total of 9,736 hours, with an approximate total cost to the agency of $545,156. The circumstances justifying this length of leave were not provided.  

A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Civil Rights Specialist had been placed on administrative leave for “Financial Unsuitability” for a total time of 4,040 hours. The estimated amount paid was $122,751.  “The agency noted that the circumstances were not present that would have allowed that employee to be placed on indefinite suspension or reassigned to another position requiring access to FEMA systems or facilities, without more explanation,” Grassley wrote.

Grassley cited the example of a top official, the former head of security for the Transportation Security Administration, going on paid administrative leave as meriting “continued oversight.”

The official was put on paid administrative leave to effectuate a leadership change, according to testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee. Meanwhile, departmental and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) guidance state that an employee should remain in the workplace unless his or her presence poses a threat to the employee or others, results in loss or damage to government property, or otherwise jeopardizes legitimate government interests.

“(TSA) Administrator (Peter) Neffenger did not explain how the employee posed a threat, but rather stated it was used to effectuate a leadership change,” Grassley wrote.  “This would appear inconsistent with both departmental and OPM guidance regarding the appropriate use of administrative leave.”

Grassley asked a series of questions “to better understand this situation and how DHS is ensuring continued oversight over the proper use of administrative leave at its components.”

In February, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved a bipartisan bill Grassley co-authored that would reduce unnecessary paid administrative leave to protect taxpayers and employee whistleblowers who are put on leave as retaliation.  

“There’s a Wild West environment among agencies on paid administrative leave,” Grassley said at the time.  “Some agencies use it too much, and the taxpayers get short-changed.  The statutory and regulatory vacuum on the use of paid leave has contributed to this problem.  Congress is stepping in with legislation to fill the void.  Our bill puts strict limits on administrative leave.  It makes clear when other forms of paid leave are allowable and when employees should be on the job instead.  Paid leave shouldn’t be a crutch for management to avoid making tough personnel decisions or a club for wrongdoers to use against whistleblowers.”

Grassley’s latest letter to the Department of Homeland Security is available here.  The department’s prior response is available here.  

 

-30-