# March 24, 2004

# 

# INSPECTION MEMORANDUM

**To**: Philip Maestri

Director, Management Improvement Team

**From:** Cathy H. Lewis

Assistant Inspector General

Evaluation, Inspection and Management Services

# Subject: Review of MIT ACTION Item #126 (ED/OIG I13E0004)

This memorandum provides the results of our inspection of one Action
Plan item from the Department of Education's (Department's) Blueprint
for Management Excellence. The EIMS group is examining several Action
Plan items related to Human Capital. Our objective is two-fold: 1) were
the items completed as described; and, 2) as completed, does the action
taken help the Department towards its stated Blueprint objective. In
this report, we examined item #126 (completed on March 31, 2003),
concerning the revision and publication of new "disciplinary standards."

## 

## Background:

The Department's policy is to administer a quality personnel program, a
main part of which is maintaining high standards of employee conduct. In
order to aid in the instruction of disciplinary actions, Human Resources
Services (HRS) issued Personnel Manual Instruction (PMI) 751-1. A main
piece of PMI 751-1 is Appendix A, *Table for Penalties for Stated
Offenses*. This table provides a quick guide to common employee
disciplinary problems as well as the appropriate action to take in each
case. In November 2001, the Department established a Culture of
Accountability Team and it issued a "Report on the Culture of
Accountability" in December 2001 noting that employees felt the
Department was not handling poor performance effectively. From this
report came the recommendation to "develop and implement Department-wide
consequences for poor performance and misconduct." At the same time,
there was a government-wide push to curb abuse of travel and purchase
cards. Both of these reasons led the Department to revise the *Table of
Penalties*; the revision was released in March 2003 and the Department
announced this *Table* as part of PMI 751-1 on ConnectED on April 28,
2003. A newly revised PMI 751-1, approved on September 5, 2003, includes
not only the new *Table of Penalties*, but also combines the previous
policies on adverse actions and updates terminology.

**Objective 1: Did OM complete the actions needed to complete this
item?**

The action required by item #126 was to:

> **"Revise and publicize new 'disciplinary standards' to help ensure
> that discipline is applied consistently."**
>
> The comments field on this item states, "Completed 3/31/03. Management
> and the union reached agreement on a new Table of Penalties for
> disciplinary actions, issued March 24, 2003."

# Findings

-   The initial *Table of Penalties* issued on August 26, 2002 contained
    24 stated offenses. The new *Table of Penalties* issued on March 24,
    2003, contains 36 stated offenses.

-   The references in the old *Table* to abuse of purchase cards and
    travel cards are Numbers 23 and 24. However, in the new *Table*, the
    references to these offenses are Numbers 2 and 4. While the
    penalties for these offenses have not changed, they are given
    greater prominence in the document due to their placement.

-   Management and the union agreed upon the new *Table of Penalties* in
    March 2003. However, this new *Table* was not publicized until late
    April of that year. In addition, the Director of Human Resources
    Services did not approve the fully revised PMI 751-1 until September
    5, 2003. The publication of this document on ConnectED was on
    October 8, 2003.

**Objective 2: Did the actions completed meet the objective "To improve
the strategic management of the Department's human capital?\"**

**Finding**

-   OM did revise and publicize new disciplinary standards. While the
    revision and publication of all new standards was not "completed" by
    the date under the comments field, it has since been rectified.
    Unfortunately, one cannot measure that the revision and publication
    of these standards has accomplished the objective. One of the
    initial reasons for revising the standards was because employees
    *perceived* the handling of misconduct was not effective; whether or
    not this was the case was never fully investigated. However, the
    action completed was a critical and necessary step in meeting the
    objective.

**Recommendations:**

While action item #126 is considered "completed," we recommend that the
MIT address the above issues in the following manner:

1.  Change the "completed" date to October 8, 2003. (The date the newly
    approved PMI 751-1, containing the new Table of Penalties, was
    announced on ConnectED)

2.  The intent of this action item was to standardize the use of
    disciplinary standards. While OM did complete the action item, we
    recommend OM attempt to find the true impact these new standards
    have had.

# Departmental Response

We provided OM with a draft report. OM\'s comments and our response are
presented below. OM's response is included in its entirety as an
attachment.

**Recommendation 1:**

OM stated that the "completed" date should be March 23, 2003, the date
the *Table of Penalties* was released, not an April date that appears in
the MIT documentation, which reflects the date the materials were
printed for "official files."

### OIG Response

While the Union and management agreed on the new *Table of Penalties* on
March 23, 2003, it was not published until April, was not in the new PMI
until September, and was not on ConnectED until October. In order for
the new *Table of Penalties* to take effect, and for this action item to
be completed, it needed to appear in the newly issued and published PMI,
which occurred in October 2003. We have not modified our finding or
recommendation.

**Recommendation 2:**

OM stated that "consistent handling of conduct problems cannot be
clearly quantified" and that different components to each situation
might lead to different penalties. Further, OM did not concur with the
recommendation that it should conduct an employee survey to determine
whether the new standards have had its intended effect. OM concurred
that information about the results of the Department's actions were
important and useful, yet OM suggested that it identify the most
cost-effective and useful approach for assessing the results of the
*Table of Penalties*.

### OIG Response

While we agree that all penalties for the same offense will vary with
different circumstances, all penalties should fall within the
minimum/maximum range noted on the new *Table of Penalties*. If not,
there is no reason for OM to issue a Table for guidance purposes. We do
agree that OM should decide the best method to assess the results of the
*Table of Penalties* and have reflected this change in the
recommendation.