Re: How to Act

Uh, it is not a felony to shoplift $96 worth of merchandise--it is a Class B Misdemeanor. I agree it is not right, but Border Patrol Agents are people like everyone else and are going to make mistakes. The firing was totally wrong, in my opinion--he should have been suspended for a week and given an ethics seminar, and that's it. All of the Feds who cannot pay thier credit debts (like a grade 13 who can't pay a house mortgage) get to keep their jobs, so go figure!

Re: How to Act

Program Manager of OPM, I sure hope that you are not managing the Civil Service Retirement Program. You totally miss the point. It's not the $96. This individual is basically dishonest and should therefore not hold a law enforcement position in the Federal Service. Do I trust this guy to be honest on the job, absolutely not, neither does the court.

Re: How to Act

I am not a Manager, I am an Analyst. And no, I did not miss the point of the article (about the dishonesty), I think you missed the point of what I wrote. Nowhere did I defend his actions--but it is a rather minor infraction of the law. It is in the same league as drinking in public for crying out loud. I have seen people do far worse things (like those who owe so much money [thousands of dollars] to the credit companies with a GS-13 pay grade) and they get to keep their jobs when the background checks come back, but someone shoplifts $96 worth of merchandise and gets fired? I understand that federal employees (especially border patrol agents) are held to a higher standard, but they are people like everyone else and are going to make mistakes in life. It's not like he embezelled money.

Also, why are you bringing up the Civil Service Retirement Program? That has nothing to do with this, and I said nothing about that in my response. Why are you comparing that to petty theft??

Re: Held at higher level

I beg to differ. You are your own person after your tour of duty ends; but, you should pay the cost for your decisions, should they violate law. Putting barriers on people to hold them hostage after they leave the duty station (unless they are on a 24-hour duty call) is outlandish.

Re: Held at higher level

Federal employees are held to a higher. Federal employees can (and rightly so) be disciplined for off duty misconduct that tends to bring discredit onto the federal service. Management made the right decision. The man was a sworn police officer. He should never carry a badge again.

Re: Held at higher level

Sorry Unhigh, your off-duty misconduct can and will have an affect on your Federal service; particularly if you are required to maintain a security clearance. If there is a nexus between your off-duty misconduct and the position you hold, you can expect to suffer some sort of action.

Re: Held at higher level

Unhigh, I have to agree with everyone else. It doesn't matter if you are on or off duty, you are a Federal Employee. Granted, some people do get away with stuff, but you are supposed to act appropriately. I don't agree with the firing, though, that was too harsh for such a petty thing. He probably was not well liked or he did something else on the job to get reprimanded for.

Re: Punishment does not fit the crime

The end result evidently depended on whether he was "liked" or not. Had he been liked or in the "click" he would have been spoken to (maybe).

Re: Punishment does not fit the crime

Hmm,

Be accused of shoplifting $96 worth of goods from Wal-Mart, have the charges dropped and get fired from your job for conduct unbecoming. Illegally access information that you are duty-bound to protect out of "curiosity" and get slapped with a year's probation, $1,000 fine, 100 hours of community service, and keep your job (See the article this same date re: IRS Employee). I understand that the Border Patrol Officer supposedly admitted his guilt despite the charges being dropped, and that law enforcement may be held to a higher standard, but something is still wrong with this picture. In the IRS case, the penalty seems too light; in the Homeland Security case, the penalty seems too harsh, given the misdemeanor criminal charges were dropped. Also, in reviewing the decision, I note that the agency rule allows for a penalty range for "conduct unbecoming" of from 14 days suspension to removal. Why the Agency determined to apply the maximum penalty under the rule is beyond me.

Re: Punishment does not fit the crime

I suffered something like this in college. Did a minor, stupid thing, admitted it, and got suspended for a semester...while other people who did things far worse than what I did (like pulling a gun on people and threating them) got probation. Imagine that!

Re: Punishment does not fit the crime

You are perfect for the federal sector.

No consequences for your actions. Ever. A suspension? For a thief? A thief?? He'd probably let a terrorist fly for a few hours of overtime....

Re: Punishment does not fit the crime

Retired Manager, HHS, IRS employees who commit unauthorized accesses to taxpayet information do not keep their jobs. Rather, they are removed. However, if theUnited States Attorney opts to prosecut, he or she often requests that the IRS delay adverse action until the litgation is finished. In such cases, the IRS suspends the employee indefintely without pay and when the plea agreement or conviction is received by the Agency, it then proceeds to remove the employee. How do I know this? I work in the ER/LR unit responsible for overseeing compliance with IRS policy and applicable laws regarding access of tax information. Any IRS employee who accesses a taxpayer's information without the taxpayer's consent or knowledge is removed, even for a first offense. The article you reference only dealt with the court adjudication and not the IRS' actions. Our commissioner reports the IRS' disposition of such cases to Congress twice a year.

Re: Held to higher standard

In whose Government? I see violations of law on a daily basis and have reported it to those at the higher level, without action, mind you. Why?? Probably because they, too, are engaging in illegal activity.

Re: Held to higher standard

Like what?