Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 5
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Deciding an Adverse Action: The Process and the Proposal
Total Comments: 5
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.5978 | +0.0013 | +2.59% |
| F | $12.2860 | +0.0333 | +2.98% |
| C | $14.1659 | -0.4366 | -14.46% |
| S | $17.8387 | -0.4776 | -9.86% |
| I | $19.2068 | -0.7342 | -22.43% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $15.9502 | -0.4128 | -12.55% |
| L 2030 | $15.5418 | -0.3515 | -10.73% |
| L 2020 | $15.1884 | -0.2889 | -8.78% |
| L 2010 | $14.8769 | -0.1467 | -3.77% |
| L Income | $13.3265 | -0.0801 | -1.07% |
September 5, 2008
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
© 2008 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Deciding Official
HUD
Wed May 14, 2008 9:58 AM
Post Reply
The Deciding Official is simply a rubber stamp. They will support the most baseless proposal. The facts are irrelevant. I am speaking about my experience at HUD.
Robert Gilson's article
shainis & peltzman chartered
Wed May 14, 2008 10:39 AM
Post Reply
succinct and terrific
Not Surprising
Federal Government
Wed May 14, 2008 2:01 PM
Post Reply
It is not surprising that the government prevails in 80 to 90% of appeals of adverse actions; I would be very surprised if it didn't. In the first place, very few managers are willing to go through the hassle of bringing and defending an adverse action unless they know they can make it stick. In my agency, it's obvious that management isn't looking to fire or discipline anyone doing a good or even half-decent job; adverse actions are reserved for only the most blatant misconduct. Conversely, employees affected by adverse actions have nothing to lose by appealing them except their legal fees. They do, however, have a lot to gain and many obviously figure an appeal is worth a shot no matter how obviously guilty they are. In light of this fundamental difference in motivation between the two sides, it stands to reason that very few appeals deserve to succeed. Kudos to the MSPB for bearing that out, and to FedSmith for reporting some of the more ridiculous appeals attempted.
Discipline v. Adverse Action
DHS
Thu May 15, 2008 8:48 AM
Post Reply
The simplification makes inaccurate distinctions between disciplinary and adverse actions. Reprimands are not adverse actions. Suspensions of 14 days or less are adverse actions. Most, but not all, adverse actions are disciplinary.
It is possible to simplify and be accurate. You might talk about major (appealable to MSPB) and minor (not appealable) adverse actions. The distinction can be important in deciding what action to take. If the agency is considering a 20-day suspension for a first offense, knocking it back to 14 days may correct the conduct deficiency while avoiding the possibility of a MSPB hearing.
Unless required by an agency's procedures, adverse action procedures do not apply to oral or written cautions, counseling, and reprimands. It is worth considering whether the simpler, less formal disciplinary actions might be sufficient to correct the conduct at issue.
Mediation
USDA-Forest Service, Ret.
Fri May 30, 2008 9:49 AM
Post Reply
Good article! I could have used the Proposal Review Worksheet when I was an active employee. As a private consultant/mediator (www.mediatewithfs.com), I'm sensitive as to where and when opportunities to mediate workplace disputes could be beneficial. I believe a manager can improve performance and employee confidence by offering mediation even if the expectation is to proceed with adverse action. A win/win mediation can iron out a lot of wrinkles in an adverse action that can focus the proposal to what is necessary, if, in fact, there is anything left to be discussed. Regardless, early mediation even when unsuccessful smooths the way for a better informed and less controversial final result. It can make things easier for the Deciding Official as well as for all the others involved.
I would be interested to know how you might see mediation inserted in your article. Thank you.