Wanted: Henhouse Guards
Must have sharp teeth, strong jaws, huge appetite
…in which we lighthouses have new dangerous rocks along the shore to illuminate for our fellow citizens. We’ll be using eggs and legs and wings as metaphors as we note threats to ethics in government. This free post at Thoughtful Enough is a short one, about 500 words. Thanks for reading and for considering a free or paid subscription.
Remember the knuckleheads who thought the perfect person to be our Secretary of Defense was a handsome but hard-drinking Fox cable show host? Such kidders. They are now sifting through more résumés to suggest Inspectors General (IGs). These are the government’s henhouse guardians, protectors of the Executive Branch bureaucracy with its dozens and dozens of Grade A extra large projects and its fat, feathery taxpayer-funded line items.
Imagine you were on the IG résumé reading team. Who would make a good IG? Would you have to think up the qualifications all by yourself? No. Congress put some helpful thoughts into writing when it passed the Inspector General Act of 1978. Legislators felt the need to establish trustworthy guardians of the federal bureaucracy.
Let’s examine the text of that 1978 legislation as amended. The command from Congress about selecting IGs is in section 3 of the act:
(a) There shall be at the head of each Office an Inspector General who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations.
Subsequent text in the IG Act of 1978 specifies that IGs should report to the head of their establishment, and that head is not allowed to “prevent or prohibit the Inspector General from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing any subpoena during the course of any audit or investigation.” It notes that a President can fire an IG but must “communicate the reasons for any such removal to both Houses of Congress.”
Solely on the basis of integrity… demonstrated ability…! Someone forgot to tell today’s résumé sifters about that instruction.
Our new president axed 17 agency IGs in his first week in office, did not notify Congress of the reasons for the firings, and now is appointing new IGs, some of whom have histories of ethical lapses and some of whom are deeply partisan. In other words, the president is ignoring the law and appointing loyalists instead of people who are well qualified to be IGs.
The résume squad seems to think the ideal henhouse guard has thick silvery fur, long sharp canines, and a history of fowl play. “My, grandma, what big teeth you have!” said Little Red Résumé Hood.
What happens next? The Republican-majority Senate is likely to appoint the president’s proposed IGs. Eggs and chickens everywhere will be nervous. Throughout the executive branch, expect omelet stations to be open soon, and in a flash the feathers will be flying and the fricasseeing will follow.
You could call your senators and ask them to insist on IG nominees known for nonpartisan integrity and fiscal prudence. You might have to define all those terms for this batch of senators.
Keep your beacons lit, fellow lighthouses, because this administration gives little indication of being trustworthy in shadows.