OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

0BCatalyst for Improving the Environment 

1BSpecial Report 

2BU.S. Chemical Safety and 

Hazard Investigation Board 

3BDid Not Adhere to Its 

4BMerit Promotion Plan 

Report No. 2007-S-00001 

June 4, 2007 
Report Contributors: Lauretta Ansah 

Erin Barnes-Weaver 

Tapati Bhattacharyya 

Eric Lewis 

8BAbbreviations 

CSB U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

MPP Merit Promotion Plan 

MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board 

NBC National Business Center 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007-S-00001

Office of Inspector General June 4, 2007

At a Glance 


Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Why We Did This Review 

We conducted this review in 

response to an anonymous 

hotline allegation of unfair 

hiring practices at the U.S.

Chemical Safety and Hazard 

Investigation Board (CSB).

The complainant said CSB 

ignored standards of fairness

and competition and “wired” 

recent supervisory positions for

selected candidates. We sought

to determine whether CSB had 

a sufficient pool from which to 

select candidates, and if CSB 

selected candidates in line with 

its Merit Promotion Plan. 

Background 

CSB reassigned three

investigators to supervisory

positions with promotion 

potential to the GS-15 level. 

Two other CSB employees had 

applied for the positions but

were not selected. The 

positions fell under CSB’s 

Merit Promotion Plan, under 

which senior CSB officials 

rated and recommended 

candidates to select. 

For further information, 

contact our Office of 

Congressional and Public 

Liaison at (202) 566-2391. 

To view the full report, 

click on the following link: 

HUwww.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/ 

20070604-2007-S-00001.pdf 

5BU.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation 

Board Did Not Adhere to Its Merit Promotion Plan 

What We Found 

CSB did not adhere to its Merit Promotion Plan during the process under which it 

reassigned three investigators to supervisory positions. CSB officials said they 

announced the supervisory positions in-house because successful candidates 

needed knowledge of CSB and its policies and procedures. One recommending 

official, who is also a member of CSB’s management council, said the 

management council knew who the best candidates were, but wanted a robust and 

objective selection process to ensure they made a fair decision. However, in our 

view, CSB used an overly subjective and inconsistent approach that did not 

adhere to its Merit Promotion Plan. CSB’s selection process did not emphasize 

experience as a factor, as required by the crediting plan under the Merit 

Promotion Plan. CSB did not apply several other requirements in its Merit 

Promotion Plan, including selection evaluation criteria. Further, recommending 

officials said they did not weight CSB experience heavily in the selection 

process. Not adhering to the Merit Promotion Plan suggested favoritism and the 

appearance of potential hiring offenses. 

What We Recommend 

We recommend that the CSB Chairman, for future promotions, evaluate 

candidates and manage the selection process in accordance with CSB policy. 

We also recommend that the Chairman update the Merit Promotion Plan. 

Further, we recommend that the Chairman clarify instructions on interview score 

sheets to ensure that the interview panel bases scores on information provided by 

the candidate during the interview process and not on personal knowledge of the 

candidate outside of the interview setting. 

CSB generally concurred with the intent of our first recommendation, but CSB 

objected to the implication that it did not evaluate candidates and manage the 

selection process in accordance with CSB policy or with basic principles of 

fairness. CSB officials said they have already taken some actions to clarify 

CSB’s Merit Promotion Plan and will pursue others, although they did not 

address when they expect to complete these other actions. CSB fully concurred 

with our other two recommendations, but needs to provide an action plan that 

specifies milestones. 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

June 4, 2007 

SUBJECT: U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 

Did Not Adhere to Its Merit Promotion Plan 

Report No. 2007-S-00001 

FROM: Eileen McMahon 

Assistant Inspector General 

Office of Congressional and Public Liaison 

TO: The Honorable Carolyn W. Merritt 

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 

U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard 

Investigation Board (CSB). In Fiscal Year 2004, Congress designated the EPA OIG to serve as 

the Inspector General for CSB. This report contains findings that describe the issues we 

identified and corrective actions we recommend. This report represents the opinion of the OIG 

and does not necessarily represent the final CSB position. CSB managers will make final 

determinations on matters in this report in accordance with established resolution procedures. 

The estimated cost of this report – calculated by multiplying the project’s staff days by the 

applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time – is $147,907. 

Action Required 

In accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-50, you should provide us 

with a written response to our recommendations within 90 days. Your response should include a 

corrective action plan for agreed-upon actions, including milestone dates. We have no 

objections to the further release of this report to the public. We will make this report available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

If you or your staff has any questions, please contact me at (202) 566-2546; or Eric Lewis, 

Director for Special Reviews and Inspections, at (202) 566-2664 or lewis.eric@epa.gov. 
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 

Did Not Adhere to Its Merit Promotion Plan 

Table of Contents 

Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 1 

Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 

Scope and Methodology .................................................................................................. 3 

Results of Review ............................................................................................................. 4 

CSB Applied Overly Subjective and Inconsistent Analyses..................................... 4 

CSB Did Not Adhere to Personnel Policies ............................................................. 7 

CSB Selected Candidates from a Limited Pool and Did Not Focus 

Selection Decisions on CSB Experience ................................................................. 9 

CSB’s Practices Suggested Favoritism and the Appearance of

Prohibited Personnel Practices................................................................................ 9 

Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 11 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation ......................................................................... 12 

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits ................................... 13 

Appendices 

A Full Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation ...................................................... 14 

B Distribution............................................................................................................. 35 
Purpose 

As the Inspector General for the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), 

we conducted a review of recent CSB merit reassignment selections. This was as a result of an 

anonymous complaint we received. We sought to determine whether CSB afforded all eligible 

applicants the opportunity to apply for the reassignments and fairly and competitively filled the 

positions. Specifically, we sought to answer the following questions: 

• Did CSB have a sufficient pool from which to select candidates for merit reassignments? 

• Did CSB select candidates in line with its Merit Promotion Plan? 

Background 

Congress established the CSB through Section 112(r)(6) of the Clean Air Amendments of 1990.1 

F F

CSB started operating in 1998 to investigate industrial chemical accidents to identify the causes 

and prevent future similar events. The Board consists of five members, including a chairman 

appointed by the President of the United States. CSB’s Office of Investigations currently has 

16 staff who deploy to chemical incidents to investigate causes. 

CSB reassigned three investigators to supervisory level positions on October 1, 2006. Though 

lateral reassignments, the supervisory positions have promotion potential to the GS-15 level 

without further competition. CSB created the new supervisory positions to have multiple 

investigative teams. The new supervisors would also work directly with investigators on timely 

report writing, since current GS-15 managers said they spend a lot of time on report rewrites. 

In Fiscal Year 2004, Congress designated the Inspector General for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to serve as the Inspector General for CSB. On October 3, 2006, the 

EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) received an anonymous complaint through the mail 

containing: (1) a specific allegation on the unfairness of recent supervisory reassignments, and 

(2) a general comment about other arbitrary actions and processes that happen at CSB that we 

should discuss with former staff. 

Title 5, U.S. Code, Part 335 addresses internal placements through merit promotion plans. The 

subject reassignments fell under CSB’s Merit Promotion Plan (MPP), which references Title 5 

and includes agency-specific policies related to: 

• Implementation and process control 

• Compliance with merit principles 

• Candidate pool 

• Disclosure and record keeping 

• Selection and ranking criteria 

• Performance appraisals 

1 Title 42, U.S. Code, Section 7412 (6). 

1 
CSB informed staff of the merit reassignment opportunities during a meeting of all investigative 

staff held in October 2005 and through three email announcements during the vacancy open 

period. CSB required applicants to submit their most recent performance appraisal; a resume; 

and a detailed narrative on knowledge, skills, and abilities. CSB’s human resources servicing 

provider, the National Business Center (NBC), received and reviewed applicant packages. 

(CSB’s MPP, developed in 2001, still lists the Bureau of Public Debt, Human Resources 

Division, as its human resources servicing provider.) NBC conducted reviews to ensure that 

each candidate met the minimum qualifications per the Office of Personnel Management’s 

(OPM’s) “Qualification Standards for General Schedule Positions.” CSB worked with NBC to 

develop the minimum qualification standards for the knowledge, skills, and abilities listed in the 

vacancy announcement. NBC certified all candidates as qualified because each met the 

minimum OPM qualifications and only five applied. NBC then returned the certificate to CSB 

for rating. NBC’s role in the merit promotion process ended at that point. 

CSB’s selecting official could have then chosen candidates off the certificate provided by NBC. 

CSB officials said they wanted a fair process that gave the candidates an opportunity to 

demonstrate their skills. As such, CSB devised and used a three-part selection process between 

May and August 2006 “as a best practice, not required under law, to assure the best and fairest 

outcome.” CSB’s three-part selection process included: 

• An interview by a three-member panel (weighted 60 percent)F

2 

F

• A day-long case study/writing test reviewed by a three-member panel, including an 

external writing expert (weighted 25 percent)F

3 

F

• An evaluation of past performance (weighted 15 percent) 

CSB’s human resources director said that, to the extent feasible, he “blinded” candidates by 

assigning random numbers to remove identifying information. He did this for past performance 

results, the case study/writing test before providing tests to the three-member panel to score, and 

the overall scoring of the selection process. CSB said that recommending officials only knew 

candidate numbers when they made their recommendations to the selecting official. Table 1 lists 

titles of key individuals involved in the subject merit promotions. 

2

 CSB originally selected five people for the interview panel; however, two panel members had to drop off 

unexpectedly. CSB officials said they did not have any other qualified or available employees to sit on the interview 

panel, so a three-member panel ultimately interviewed the candidates. 3

 The writing expert scored candidates’ writing ability, while the remaining case study/writing test review panel (the 

two recommending officials) scored both candidates’ writing and their scientific analytical ability. 

2 
Table 1: Key Individuals in Reviewed Merit Promotion Process 

Position Role 

Human Resources Director Among several other activities, this person served as the 

main point of contact and facilitator/coordinator for the 

selection process; developed position description, vacancy 

announcement, scoring methodology, “blinding process,” 

and behavior-based interview questions;F

4 

F facilitated 

individual candidate interviews with interview panel; and 

signed selection certificate on behalf of Chairman. 

Human Resources Specialist (NBC) Reviewed applicant packages to ensure receipt of all 

required components, and provided CSB with a selection 

certificate. 

Interview Panel (Three Appointed 

GS-15 Managers, Including Two 

Recommending Officials) 

Interviewed candidates and scored responses using a 

behavior-based questionnaire. 

Case Study/Writing Test Panel 

(Two Recommending Officials and 

One Independent Writing Expert) 

Scored the case study/writing test. 

Recommending Officials (Two 

GS-15 CSB Investigation Managers) 

Signed performance appraisals as rating officials,F

5 

F reached 

consensus on the selection process/scoring methodology, 

scored case study/writing test, participated in candidate 

interviews, and recommended to selecting official whom to 

select. 

Selecting Official (CSB Chairman) Served as the representative of the Board to oversee the 

MPP pursuant to their personnel authority, and made final 

selection of candidates (to reassign). 

Source: EPA OIG review of CSB’s MPP and interviews with CSB officials. 

Scope and Methodology 

We conducted our field work from December 5, 2006, to February 28, 2007, in accordance with 

Government Auditing Standards. We limited our review of internal controls and compliance to 

those directly related to the issues identified in the complaint. Since the complaint was 

anonymous, we gathered evidence through interviews and reviews of documents provided by 

CSB. For both objectives, we interviewed three of the five candidates (two non-selected and one 

selected), the interview panel, the human resources director, the recommending officials, four 

former staff, and staff at NBC and OPM. To determine whether CSB had a sufficient pool from 

which to select candidates for merit reassignments, we reviewed the vacancy 

announcement/position description and OPM regulations on areas of consideration. To 

determine whether CSB selected candidates in line with its MPP, we reviewed applicant 

packages, CSB’s decision documents on whom to select, CSB’s policies, and reports by former 

OIGs for CSB on CSB’s personnel practices. 

4

 CSB officials said that behavior-based interview questions give the interview panel an indication of future success 

based on past performance. 5 While this activity relates to CSB’s Performance Appraisal Program (Board Order 010), we note it since CSB

included an evaluation of past performance in the three-part merit selection process for the subject reassignments. 

3 
We reviewed two relevant prior audit reports on CSB conducted by its OIG at the time: 

• Issues Regarding Management Accountability, Control, and Direction Have Not Been 

Resolved (IC-01-02), issued March 15, 2002: This report, prepared by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency OIG, noted CSB’s “well-documented history of 

internal conflict.” The report found that “the agency suffers from a fractured chain of 

command, blocked lines of communication, opposition between the Board and staff, and 

a climate of distrust – none of which enhance the effectiveness of the agency.” The 

report also stated that the anticipated hiring of a new Chief Operating Officer should 

provide the impetus for bringing organizational stability to day-to-day operations. CSB 

said that it successfully closed all recommendations from this report by September 2002.F

6 

• A Report on the Continuing Development of the CSB (OIG-04-04), issued January 7, 

2004: This report, prepared by the Department of Homeland Security OIG, did not 

directly relate to the issues of our review, but noted “an influx of key managers and staff 

has revitalized the CSB,” including a new Chief Operating Officer. 

Results of Review 

CSB did not adhere to its MPP during the process under which it reassigned three investigators 

to supervisory positions. CSB officials said they announced the supervisory positions in-house 

enabling only CSB personnel to apply. The reason given by CSB officials was that successful 

candidates needed knowledge of CSB and its policies and procedures. Thus, CSB afforded all 

internal applicants the ability to apply. One recommending official, who is also a member of 

CSB’s management council, stated the management council knew who the best candidates were, 

but wanted a robust and objective selection process to ensure they made a fair decision. 

However, in our view, CSB used an overly subjective and inconsistent approach and did not 

adhere to its MPP and Performance Appraisal Program. CSB’s selection process did not 

emphasize experience as a factor, as required in the crediting plan under the MPP. CSB did not 

apply several MPP requirements, including selection evaluation criteria as a means to evaluate 

candidates’ experience. Though CSB officials said successful candidates needed familiarity with 

CSB’s policies and procedures, recommending officials said that they did not weight CSB 

experience heavily in the selection process. Additionally, not adhering to the MPP suggested 

favoritism and the appearance of potential hiring offenses. 

CSB Applied Overly Subjective and Inconsistent Analyses 

NBC and OPM human resources specialists said they afford agencies a great deal of 

flexibility when structuring merit selection processes. However, while CSB had used the 

general selection and scoring method before, it could not clearly explain why it chose the 

particular weights for each selection component. CSB changes weights depending on the 

position. The human resources director said the two recommending officials helped 

design the process. However, the recommending officials said the human resources 

6

 CSB also said that the 2002 report had no relevance to concerns about the subject reassignments or perceived 

unfairness. A Board member also said the comments from the 2002 report reflect “ancient history”; however, our 

interviews with current and former staff elicited some comments similar to those in the 2002 report. 

4 
director decided the weights to assign to each selection component. One recommending 

official described his role in designing the selection methodology as indirect and 

minimal, and said he would have preferred that each component have equal weight. The 

other recommending official said that he, the human resources director, and the other 

recommending official reached consensus on the weights assigned to each selection 

component. Nonetheless, in our opinion, the scoring methodology could give the 

perception of favoring certain applicants. For example, weighting past 

performance/performance appraisals the least could have benefited a candidate with CSB 

only 10 months at the time of the vacancy announcement. Moreover, weighting the 

writing component at 25 percent of the overall score did not seem to align with 

statements by the recommending officials on the “crucial” importance of writing and how 

the nature of the supervisory positions required a more “demanding” written test. 

The interview component of the selection process, weighted the most at 60 percent, 

significantly influenced the outcome of whom recommending officials recommended for 

selection. The interview panel members awarded points when they deemed responses as 

outstanding in three of four areas. One recommending official acknowledged that the 

interviews represented the most subjective component of the selection process, and our 

evidence suggests subjectivity in the scoring. For example, during the interviews, one 

recommending official’s handwritten notes included a significantly higher number of 

negative comments to the responses from the two non-selected candidates than to the 

selected candidates’ responses (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Recommending Official’s Negative Comments 

0 0 

2 

12 

21 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Selected 

Candidate 

Selected 

Candidate 

Selected 

Candidate 

Non-Selected 

Candidate 

Non-Selected 

Candidate 

Candidates 

Number of Com

ments

 Source: EPA OIG review of recommending official’s handwritten interview notes. 

The recommending official said he applied his knowledge of selected candidates’ work 

history to give them full credit (and no negative comments) to an incomplete answer 

when a similar answer by a non-selected candidate elicited a negative comment. Thus, 

5 
the recommending official did not score candidates based solely on interview responses. 

For example: 

• In one interview question on coaching and mentoring, a non-selected candidate 

described working with co-op students and the recommending official made a 

negative comment on how the candidate “supervised at a low level.” However, 

the recommending official did not make any negative comments when two 

selected candidates described working with interns. 

• When asked about continuous learning, the same non-selected candidate received 

a negative comment when the candidate described how investigative incidents 

provide opportunities to learn. However, the recommending official did not make 

a negative comment when a selected candidate answered with “on-the-job 

training.” 

• When asked about the last management book read, the same non-selected 

candidate mentioned a book read 5 years prior and received a negative comment 

that the candidate did not engage in self-learning. However, the recommending 

official did not make a comparable negative comment when a selected candidate 

answered “none” with regard to the last book read.7 

The recommending official acknowledged that selected candidates should have also 

received negative marks similar to those given the non-selected candidate. With regard 

to one selected candidate, the recommending official said that “[the candidate] might not 

have demonstrated this during the interview, but he was the “strongest of all candidates.” 

This shows how the recommending official applied his outside perception of this 

candidate when scoring the interview process. The recommending official further said 

that “The top two [candidates] were clearly the top two. With the others the interviews 

were the telling factor.” However, the recommending official stated that, based on prior 

experience as a manager of both non-selected candidates, neither seemed qualified for the 

positions. In fact, this recommending official said that one non-selected candidate would 

“never make it as an investigator-in-charge” should future supervisory opportunities arise 

because of poor performance and execution. While he acknowledged that the other nonselected candidate experienced unfair criticism from senior CSB officials, he further said 

the candidate was not ready for a leadership role. 

7 Additionally, the same non-selected candidate got a negative comment for not mentioning a report outline; 

however, no other candidates mentioned an outline. The same non-selected candidate also got a negative remark for 

not recognizing the Board as a voting body; however, the interview panel did not ask any other candidates a 

question on the Board’s role during report review. 

6 
CSB Did Not Adhere to Personnel Policies 

Our analysis identified several instances where CSB did not adhere to its MPP and 

Performance Appraisal Program. 

Policy Statement The Chief Operating Officer implements and administers the MPP and 

Performance Appraisal Program. 

Fact CSB has not had a Chief Operating Officer in place for over 2 years. 

OIG Analysis The 2002 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency OIG 

recommended that CSB delegate a Chief Operating Officer to 

effectively manage day-to-day operations. CSB had a Chief Operating 

Officer in place during a 2004 followup report by the Department of 

Homeland Security OIG. However, that person left shortly after the 

2004 audit report and CSB has not refilled the position. The Chief 

Operating Officer is the only role identified in both the MPP and the 

Performance Appraisal Program not filled. CSB officials said the 

human resources director handles the merit promotion process on a 

day-to-day basis; however, CSB has not updated either the MPP or the 

Performance Appraisal Program to reflect the absence of the Chief 

Operating Officer position or the transfer of that day-to-day authority. 

Policy Statement Vacancy announcement content must include the number of positions 

to be filled. 

Fact CSB announced “multiple positions” instead of a specific number. 

OIG Analysis While CSB had discretion on the number of reassignments to fill, nearly 

all staff interviewed and one recommending official said CSB reduced 

the number of reassignments from four to three after receiving 

candidate applications and seeing who applied. The human resources 

director said he notified candidates that CSB would fill a maximum of 

three positions; however he could not provide evidence to support his 

claim and interviewees said otherwise. CSB officials stated they could 

not justify four teams due to staffing levels. However CSB received 

congressional budget information prior to the vacancy closing date and 

could have amended the vacancy announcement to specify the number 

of positions in light of anticipated funding.

8

 One recommending official 

agreed that CSB should have anticipated the staff shortages and 

specified the correct number of positions before announcing the 

vacancies. 

8

 The vacancy open period ran from June 27 to July 17, 2006. CSB received congressional budget markups on 

May 15 and June 29, 2006, that did not include funding for a fourth investigation team. Even though CSB received 

congressional budget markups by late June 2006, the recommending officials and human resources director did not 

meet until late July 2006 – several days after the closing date – to decide on a maximum of three positions. 

7 
Policy Statement The criteria used to rate candidates will be based on a thorough job 

analysis resulting in identification of job-related ranking factors. Jobrelated ranking factors are documented and must provide the basis for 

considering and comparing candidates based on the knowledge, skills, 

and abilities needed to be successful in the position. 

Fact A crediting plan describes specific procedures for rating each qualified 

applicant. According to the instructions, CSB was to rate each qualified 

applicant on each of the quality ranking factors on a scale of 0-5. CSB 

had, but did not use, a detailed crediting plan that included a job 

analysis for the subject reassignments. CSB and NBC developed the 

crediting plan for the reassignments prior to posting the vacancy 

announcement. In addition, when assigning ratings, the crediting plan 

said CSB should review applicants’ responses to the quality ranking 

factors (i.e., narrative on knowledge, skills, and abilities) as well as the 

rest of their applications before determining a score. 

OIG Analysis CSB’s human resources director and the NBC human resources 

specialist said CSB did not apply the crediting plan since only five 

applicants applied. However, the MPP lists no such exception related to 

a required number of applicants to trigger the use of evaluation criteria. 

CSB officials said that Section 18 from the MPP governed the subject 

reassignments, not the evaluation criteria described in Section 14. 

However, the MPP does not indicate or describe situations when certain 

sections override or incorporate others by reference, and Section 14 

describes the rating and ranking process “for each announced vacancy.” 

Policy Statement Maintain records to allow for reconstruction of promotion actions, 

including documentation of how they ranked and rated candidates. 

Fact CSB retained summary score sheets documenting interview results. 

Only one recommending official retained notes supporting his scoring 

decisions for the interviews and written tests. 

OIG Analysis CSB did not maintain the records necessary to allow for reconstruction 

or to support the rationale for selection decisions. While merit 

promotion regulations9

 do not specifically require retention of personal 

notes, we view that as a good business practice to: i) further support 

selection decisions; ii) show the recommending officials’ thoughts and 

reactions at the time of the interview; and iii) mitigate the possible 

outcome of a perception of favoritism toward particular candidates. The 

lack of notes prevented reconstruction of the reassignment action. 

Policy Statement Informal discussions between employees and selecting management 

officials are encouraged on the procedures used to rank candidates and 

information on applicant status. 

Fact The human resources director briefed candidates on the selection 

process components; however, CSB did not debrief non-selected 

candidates on the reasons for non-selection. 

OIG Analysis While the MPP does not specifically require debriefs, both non-selected 

candidates requested feedback to improve their future performance. 

9

 Specifically, Section 21 from CSB’s MPP based on Title 5, U.S. Code, Section 335.103(b)(5). 

8 
Policy Statement CSB will give “due weight” to performance appraisals in the selection 

process, and appraisals provide “the foundation for decisions on 

awards, promotions, or other actions based on performance.” 

Fact CSB weighted past performance at 15 percent of the selection process. 

CSB officials said that other parts of the selection process (the interview 

and writing test) also measured experiences and abilities, which they 

viewed as likely to be predictive of future success as past performance 

appraisals. 

OIG Analysis Weighting past performance the least did not align with statements by 

CSB officials on the unique and specialized nature of CSB’s work, and 

how they cannot hire anyone “off the street” to lead investigations. 

CSB Selected Candidates from a Limited Pool and Did Not Focus 

Selection Decisions on CSB Experience 

CSB officials justified limiting the opportunity to apply to CSB employees because they 

believed they had enough qualified internal candidates. CSB officials said they initially 

identified 10 to 12 eligible internal candidates, although only 5 ultimately applied. As a 

result, NBC submitted all applicants to CSB’s selecting official after ensuring each met 

the minimum qualifications set by the OPM. CSB officials said they considered CSB 

experience in all parts of the selection process under Section 18 of the MPP; however, 

only Section 14 of the MPP describes a crediting plan as a means to evaluate experience. 

One recommending official said CSB announced the positions internally because he 

believed the person who filled a supervisory position needed familiarity with CSB’s 

policies and procedures. However, CSB selected a candidate who had been at CSB for 

only 10 months at the time of the vacancy. To justify that candidate’s selection, the 

recommending official described the candidate’s work, from the outset, as superior to 

more tenured CSB employees. Further, both recommending officials expected candidates 

to emphasize their experience prior to joining CSB, and one rater said he did not weight 

CSB experience heavily during the selection process. 

CSB’s Practices Suggested Favoritism and the Appearance of 

Prohibited Personnel Practices 

Even though CSB designed the selection process to address any perceptions of unfairness 

or lack of objectivity, CSB management actions have contributed to a perception of 

favoritism.

10 CSB officials: 

• Developed arbitrary scoring criteria for the selection process. 

• Used one selected candidate’s 2-month performance appraisal from another 

agency while the other four candidates included full-year CSB performance 

appraisals in accordance with the Performance Appraisal Program. 

10 In the January 2007 issue of Merit, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) stated that managers need to 

recognize that both perceived and actual favoritism can result in negative consequences for the organization, such as 

increased tension, low morale or productivity, high turnover, or even time consuming and expensive appeals and 

complaints. 

9 
• Scored interview responses based upon their perceptions of candidates’ past 

experiences instead of the answers provided. 

• Did not provide feedback to non-selected candidates on the reasons for 

non-selection. 

CSB personnel said they perceived CSB’s work environment as favoring certain 

individuals: 

• One recommending official said CSB does not value diverse ideological 

viewpoints. He added that, in his opinion, people’s ideologies (including their 

views on the role of government) influenced performance ratings assigned by 

managers. However, he stated that he gave fair performance ratings to the two 

non-selected candidates. 

• Current and former staff described examples of perceived favoritism. For 

example, one manager/recommending official chose the same person to 

repeatedly serve as “acting” in a manager’s absence (despite other staff having 

greater seniority), which allowed that person greater access to and interaction with 

CSB’s management council. 

• Several current and former staff also said CSB “wired” the positions for selected 

candidates and did not give non-selected candidates fair consideration. 

One recommending official, who is also a member of CSB’s management council, said 

that CSB’s management council “visualized” the selected candidates in advance of the 

selection process. In making a generalization about internal postings, another member of 

the management council added that there is nothing inappropriate about “visualizing” 

who the best candidates are. According to the Office of Special Counsel, an independent 

Federal investigative agency that safeguards merit systems, it is not a prohibited 

personnel practice11 F to act upon one's existing expectation that one person may be the 

best selectee for a particular position (pre-selection). Pre-selection becomes a prohibited 

personnel practice when selecting officials give the pre-selected candidate an unfair 

advantage. CSB officials said that differences in interpretation or perceived departures 

from their MPP do not logically lead to favoritism or the appearance of a potential hiring 

offense. However, according to the Office of Special Counsel, “While hiring offenses 

usually require intent to deceive or manipulate the system, if a regulation implementing a 

merit system principle is violated in the process, that would also be a prohibited 

personnel practice. Negligence or imprudent actions can create the appearance of a 

hiring offense and result in complaints and investigations.” 

CSB officials directed us to their 2006 OPM human capital survey results where a 

majority of CSB employees responded positively that CSB does not tolerate personal 

11 Title 5, U.S. Code, Section 2302 (b) lists the 12 prohibited personnel practices. Section 2302 (b) (6) is most 

relevant for our review: “Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any 

personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority, grant any preference or advantage not authorized by law, 

rule, or regulation to any employee or applicant for employment (including defining the scope or manner of 

competition or the requirements for any position) for the purpose of improving or injuring the prospects of any 

particular person for employment.” 

10 
favoritism, coercion for partisan political purposes, or prohibited personnel practices. 

CSB officials noted that their responses were at least 10 percent better than the 

government-wide responses in these relevant areas. However, OPM cautioned when 

disseminating 2006 survey results that, “There is no formula or statistical model for 

determining which survey results are most important,” and that survey results “do not 

explain why employees respond to questions as they do.” OPM suggested that agencies 

use survey data with other information when assessing the state of their human capital 

management. For example, while CSB noted that its positive responses increased from 

2004 to 2006 to the question that read, “Arbitrary action, personal favoritism, and 

coercion for partisan political purposes are not tolerated,” “neutral” and “don’t know” 

responses increased as well. As OPM recommends, instead of solely pointing to numbers 

from the survey responses, CSB should couple survey results with the perceptions 

gleaned from our interviews summarized in our report to obtain a clearer picture of 

CSB’s human capital management. 

CSB officials said they intended to create a robust and objective selection process to 

ensure they made a fair decision. However, we found weak controls over the selection 

process that resulted in the opposite effect – it gave staff the perception of an unfair 

process. Several interviewees stated that CSB’s personnel practices resulted in a hostile 

work environment characterized by low morale and distrust. The 2002 report by the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency OIG also had noted a climate of distrust and 

restricted dialogue at CSB. If not corrected, this work environment could lead to reduced 

productivity, a high turnover rate, and increased cost. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the CSB Chairman: 

1. For future promotions, evaluate candidates and manage the selection process in 

accordance with CSB policy. The person responsible for day-to-day administration of 

the merit promotion process should ensure that: 

• CSB has a sound rationale for the scoring methodology. 

• Independent personnel score tests rather than recommending officials. 

• CSB applies the required evaluation criteria, including detailed crediting plans, to 

ensure a pool of high quality candidates. 

• Personnel maintain documentation, including notes, supporting selection 

decisions. 

• Applicants submit required documentation, such as the appropriate performance 

appraisals. 

• Vacancy announcements list a specific number of positions. 

• CSB affords due weight to past performance in selection decisions. 

2. Update the MPP to reflect the current human resources servicing provider and the status 

of the Chief Operating Officer. 

11 
3. Clarify instructions on interview score sheets to ensure that the interview panel bases 

scores on information provided by the candidate during the interview process and not on 

personal knowledge of the candidates outside of the interview setting. 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 

CSB disagreed with a number of our report statements and our interpretations of CSB’s MPP. 

CSB added that many of our observations focused on additional selection procedures “not even 

required by law or the CSB’s MPP.” Despite these strong disagreements with our report, 

CSB generally concurred with the intent of our first recommendation. However, CSB objected 

to the implication that it did not evaluate candidates and manage the selection process in 

accordance with CSB policy or with basic principles of fairness. CSB officials said they have 

already taken some actions to clarify CSB’s MPP and will pursue others, although they did not 

address when they expect to complete these other actions. CSB fully concurred with our other 

two recommendations. Per Office of Management and Budget Circular A-50, CSB's response to 

these recommendations should contain an action plan that specifies milestones for when CSB 

expects to complete its additional proposed actions, such as research and benchmarking, to 

further improve its MPP. We included CSB’s complete response, along with our analysis (in 

blue highlighted text), in Appendix A. 

12 
Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed To 

Amount 

1 11 For future promotions, evaluate candidates and 

manage the selection process in accordance with 

CSB policy. The person responsible for day-to-day 

administration of the merit promotion process 

should ensure that: 

• CSB has a sound rationale for the scoring 

methodology. 

• Independent personnel score tests rather 

than recommending officials. 

• CSB applies the required evaluation criteria, 

including detailed crediting plans, to ensure a 

pool of high quality candidates. 

• Personnel maintain documentation, including 

notes, supporting selection decisions. 

• Applicants submit required documentation, 

such as the appropriate performance 

appraisals. 

• Vacancy announcements list a specific 

number of positions. 

• CSB affords due weight to past performance 

in selection decisions. 

O CSB Chairman 

2 

3 

11 

12 

Update the MPP to reflect the current human 

resources servicing provider and the status of the 

Chief Operating Officer. 

Clarify instructions on interview score sheets to 

ensure that the interview panel bases scores on 

information provided by the candidate during the 

interview process and not on personal knowledge 

of the candidates outside of the interview setting. 

O 

O 

CSB Chairman 

CSB Chairman 

1 O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending; 

C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed; 

U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress 

13 
Appendix A 

Full Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 

MEMORANDUM 

To: Eric L. Lewis May 8, 2007 

Director of Special Reviews and Inspections 

From: Carolyn W. Merritt 

Chairman and CEO 

Subject: CSB Comments on Draft Report (OIG Assignment No. 2007-00335) 

The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) has been in operation for 

approximately nine years, and has had a Merit Promotion Plan (MPP) in place since 2001. The 

plan was employed during fiscal year 2006 to conduct a merit selection process to reassign three 

investigators into supervisory positions. None of the new supervisors received a promotion. 

OIG Response: During our kickoff meeting with CSB officials on December 4, 2006, CSB’s 

Human Resources Director agreed these reflected “lateral reassignments with promotion 

potential to the GS-15 level.” As we noted in the report, these reassignments required no further 

competition to attain the GS-15 level. 

In making these reassignments, the CSB complied with legal requirements and its own MPP. 

Beyond that, the CSB went to extra effort to ensure the fairness of the process by establishing 

additional selection procedures that were not required by law or the MPP. The CSB relied 

throughout the process on the advice and assistance of its personnel service provider, the 

National Business Center (NBC), which is an OPM certified Center of Excellence for Human 

Resources. 

OIG Response: During our review, CSB officials described NBC’s involvement in the subject 

reassignments as limited to ensuring candidates met the minimum qualifications and certifying 

all candidates for the selection certificate. In our interview with the NBC staff person assigned 

to assist CSB, he clearly stated that he “[W]as not involved in the selection process. It was 

CSB’s internal matter.” He emphasized that he did not make any suggestion to CSB regarding 

the subject positions. 

The CSB and NBC cooperated with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) in its inquiry and 

provided over 800 pages of documents, numerous interviews, and additional supplementary 

materials to fully support every aspect of the process. 

14 
OIG Response: The documents requested by our team reflect what one would expect a team to 

review when analyzing a personnel matter (e.g., vacancy announcement; position description; 

applicant packages; qualifying certificate; selection decision documents; and relevant Board 

Orders, including the MPP). Our document request specified no page total, and our team 

provided CSB several weeks to gather materials. We did not ask for direct access to all 

records/files pertaining to the reassignment decision as the OIG normally does, to minimize 

disruption to CSB. 

OIG staff also sought out and interviewed former employees with no knowledge of the specific 

merit promotion process that was employed in this instance. 

OIG Response: As CSB notes, the MPP had an effective date of 2001. Three of the former 

staff interviewed by our team left their employment with CSB in 2006, and the fourth left in 

2005. We did not interview former employees on the specific recent reassignments; rather, we 

did so to get background about CSB’s work environment. 

The CSB’s process was proper and the OIG found nothing that would have changed the 

outcome. Ironically, many of the OIG’s observations focus on additional selection procedures, 

which the OIG acknowledges were not even required by law or the CSB’s MPP. 

OIG Response: CSB correctly asserts that the extra procedures were not necessary; however, 

CSB personnel stated that they were done to provide assurance to CSB staff that the selection 

process was fair. Further, the MPP contained the procedures that CSB told its staff it would 

follow and provided the basis for our finding that CSB’s actions did foster the perception of 

favoritism. 

The OIG was also concerned that CSB’s practices may have suggested favoritism and the 

appearance of prohibited personnel practices. However, perceptions of favoritism are not 

unusual with merit promotions, and there is no evidence that CSB’s practices contributed to 

anyone’s perceptions of favoritism. Indeed, the complaint to the OIG assumed the process was 

“wired” from the outset. It is not clear that the CSB could have done anything different to satisfy 

an individual who prejudged the process before it began. An individual’s perception of 

favoritism obviously of itself does not suggest or constitute a prohibited personnel practice. 

OIG Response: We based our findings on the actions of CSB personnel responsible for 

executing the MPP and the three former staff we interviewed who previously worked in CSB’s 

Office of Investigations. 

As discussed in detail below, the CSB disagrees with a number of the OIG’s statements and 

interpretations of the CSB’s MPP. Despite these strong disagreements with the OIG draft report, 

the CSB generally concurs with the intent of the OIG’s first recommendation, which is intended 

to improve the merit selection process in the future. The CSB strenuously objects, however, to 

the recommendation’s implication that the CSB did not evaluate candidates and manage the 

selection process in accordance with CSB policy or with basic principles of fairness. The CSB 

also disagrees with some of the specific suggestions related to this recommendation, but has 

15 
already taken some actions to clarify the MPP and will pursue others. Specifically, the CSB will 

conduct additional research on merit selection issues and seek input from OPM before making 

further changes to its MPP. 

OIG Response: We agree with CSB’s efforts to clarify its MPP and improve the process in the 

future. In its corrective action plan, CSB should specify a timeframe for implementation of these 

‘other actions’ to clarify the MPP. 

The CSB fully concurs with the OIG’s other two recommendations--that the CSB should update 

its MPP and clarify instructions to interview panelists. The CSB has already revised its MPP to 

address these issues. Per the OIG’s request, the CSB is addressing the factual accuracy of the 

draft report and indicating our concurrence or non-concurrence with each finding and proposed 

recommendation. 

CSB Did Not Apply an Overly Subjective and Inconsistent Analysis 

UScoring Methodology 

It is important to note that the selection process scoring methodology criticized by the OIG was 

not required by law or the MPP. It was a good faith effort to create a fair and objective process 

on which to base reassignment decisions. Moreover, the CSB disagrees with the OIG’s opinion 

that the process was “overly subjective” or that “scoring methodology could give the perception 

of favoring certain applicants.” Two of the five candidates scored the highest on all selection 

components and would have been selected regardless of the weighting formula on any one 

factor. The third selected candidate clearly outperformed the non-selected candidates on the 

interview component. All panelists scored this candidate with the highest possible scores on the 

interview component. Thus, this candidate would have been selected regardless of the weighting 

formula. 

OIG Response: We do not take a position on who CSB should have selected. We did observe 

that the third selected candidate had the same scores as a non-selected candidate going into the 

interview portion of the selection process. CSB structured the interview scoring methodology to 

award 60 points when the panel “highly recommended” a candidate based on outstanding 

answers in 3 of 4 areas. The scoring methodology awarded zero points and a “do not 

recommend” even if the panel thought candidates provided satisfactory responses in all four 

areas. The non-selected candidate received satisfactory remarks from all members of the panel 

and, thus, zero points for the highest weighted selection component. Further, as we noted in the 

report, we found the interview scoring for one recommending official flawed and the other 

recommending official, as well as the third member of the interview panel, did not provide their 

notes from the interviews that would allow us to recreate the process. 

Contrary to the OIG’s suggestion, giving past performance appraisals the weight of 15% did not 

benefit a candidate with only 10 months of CSB experience. All candidates submitted their most 

recent performance appraisals as required by the reassignment posting. Each candidate was 

scored based on the submitted appraisal, and no candidate received more or less benefit from this 

approach. 

16 
OIG Response: CSB stated that it weighted performance appraisals at 15 percent because the 

interview and writing test would also measure experience. The non-selected candidates did not 

receive any points for their interviews and thus no additional points for experience. 

In hindsight, some may feel that this component could have been weighted more heavily. 

However, this would not have changed the outcome of the selection process.1 

OIG Response: The report states that weighting past experience at 15 percent appeared to give 

the least experienced candidate an advantage; the report did not state that it was the only factor in 

the decision. 

The OIG also questions the weight assigned to the writing portion of the test, which was 25% of 

the overall score, and asserts this did not align with informal statements about the importance of 

writing skills by some to OIG staff long after the reassignment actions were completed. 

OIG Response: The two recommending officials who suggested the selections to the Chairman 

made these statements. They also serve as the two line managers in CSB’s Office of 

Investigations overseeing the work of the reassigned supervisory investigators and junior staff. 

They stated candidates’ writing ability was crucial. 

Writing was one of four critical KSA’s as outlined in the position posting. Therefore, it was 

given a weight of 25% representing one of four critical elements. Again, in hindsight, some may 

feel that this component could have been weighted more heavily. However, this would not have 

changed the outcome of the selection process2. 

OIG Response: We cannot speculate on changing the outcome because, without notes, we 

cannot fully recreate the interview component and we found the section we could recreate 

flawed. CSB did not provide any explanation for why it valued such a critical component 35 

points lower than the interview. 

1 Non-selected candidates would not have outperformed the selected candidates even if more weight had been 

assigned to this component. The non-selected candidates’ past performance scores were no better than any of the 

selected candidates. 

OIG Response: On past performance, the non-selected candidates’ scores tied the third selected candidate’s score 

heading into the interview portion of the selection process weighted 60 percent. 

2 Non-selected candidates would UnotU have outperformed the selected candidates even if more weight had been 

assigned to this component. Two of the selected candidates had the highest scores on the writing test. The third 

selected candidate had a better raw score on the writing test than the non-selected candidates. Had this third selected 

candidate’s raw score been 0.2 higher, this candidate would have received an overall score which would have tied 

the candidate for second best on the writing component. 

OIG Response: According to CSB’s writing score methodology, an average total score for the writing portion 

assigned 12.5 points to candidates whose total score fell in the range of 40 to 59. Candidates received 20 points if 

their total score fell in the range of 60 to 79. The third selected candidate had a total score of 59.3, and would have 

needed a score 0.7 higher to get 20 points as another selected candidate received, not 0.2 as CSB alleges. The third 

selected candidate received a lower score on the technical analysis component of the writing test than one of the 

non-selected candidates. 

17 
UInterview Process 

It is worth noting that the interviews were not a required component of the selection process 

under the MPP or the law. 

OIG Response: True; however, not only did CSB still decide to incorporate interviews as part 

of its selection process, it weighted interview scores at 60 percent of the overall process. 

The “inconsistent analysis” the OIG identified is that one interview panelist incorrectly 

considered extraneous information about candidates instead of solely relying on their responses 

to interview questions. There is no evidence that this was anything other than an honest mistake, 

but it does require corrective action to clarify the instructions to interviewers. 

OIG Response: Our report does not state that this action was intentional. However, we did find 

unfair interview scoring by one recommending official, and the absence of supporting notes 

makes it impossible to rate the objectiveness of the second recommending official’s interview 

scoring. 

Accordingly, the CSB has revised the section of its MPP concerning interviews. Under the 

revised MPP, if interviews are conducted, interview panel score sheets must contain specific 

instructions that every candidate must be evaluated solely on the basis of the information 

provided by the candidate during the interview and not on any other basis. In addition, each 

member of the panel will be asked to certify in writing that his or her scores are based strictly on 

the information provided by the candidate during the interview. 

OIG Response: We partially agree with this revision to CSB’s MPP. However, absent notes 

from all interview panel members, we cannot reconstruct the interview process. 

CSB Adhered to its Personnel Policies 

The OIG’s draft report asserts “several instances where it appeared that CSB did not adhere to 

its MPP and Performance Appraisal Program.” [emphasis added] The table below summarizes 

the OIG’s analysis and the CSB’s response to each point. As explained in detail below, the CSB 

fully adhered to its personnel policies. The CSB concurs that the OIG identified instances 

where the MPP needed to be updated or revised to minimize confusion or resolve possible 

ambiguities. The CSB has already amended its MPP to resolve these issues, and will conduct 

further research, benchmarking and review to make additional improvements, if necessary. 

OIG Response: We do not agree that CSB fully adhered to its personnel policies. We do agree 

with CSB’s efforts to update the MPP to minimize confusion and resolve possible ambiguities. 

In its corrective action plan, CSB should specify a timeframe for implementing its “further 

research, benchmarking and review to make additional improvements” to its MPP. 

18 
Policy Statement The Chief Operating Officer implements and administers the MPP and Performance 

Appraisal Program. 

Fact CSB has not had a Chief Operating Officer in place for over 2 years. 

OIG Analysis The 2002 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency OIG 

recommended that CSB delegate a Chief Operating Officer to effectively manage 

day-to-day operations. CSB had a Chief Operating Officer in place during a 2004 

follow up report by the Department of Homeland Security OIG. However, that 

person left shortly after the 2004 audit report and CSB has not refilled the position. 

The Chief Operating Officer is the only role identified in both the MPP and the 

Performance Appraisal Program not filled. CSB officials said the human resources 

director handles the merit promotion process on a day-to-day basis; however, CSB 

has not updated either the MPP or the Performance Appraisal Program to reflect 

the absence of the Chief Operating Officer position or the transfer of that day-to-day 

authority. 

CSB Analysis The HRD handled the merit promotion process on a day to day basis. The plan’s 

outdated descriptions of management positions did not cause any problem in the 

hiring process. The fact that the plan had some outdated clauses does not justify 

the OIG’s claim that the CSB did not adhere to the plan. 

CSB Action The MPP has been revised and the Performance Appraisal Program will be 

updated to reflect current management arrangements. 

OIG Response: We agree with CSB’s revision to its MPP. In its corrective action 

plan, CSB should specify a timeframe for updating its Performance Appraisal 

Program to reflect current management arrangements. 

Policy Statement Vacancy announcement content must include the number of positions to be filled. 

Fact CSB announced “multiple positions” instead of a specific number. 

OIG Analysis While CSB had discretion on the number of reassignments to fill, nearly all staff 

interviewed and one recommending official said CSB reduced the number of 

reassignments from four to three after receiving candidate applications and seeing 

who applied. The human resources director said he notified candidates that CSB 

would fill a maximum of three positions; however he could not provide evidence to 

support his claim and interviewees said otherwise. CSB officials stated they could 

not justify four teams due to staffing levels. However CSB received congressional 

budget information prior to the vacancy closing date and could have amended the 

vacancy announcement to specify the number of positions in light of anticipated 

funding.F

3 

F One recommending official agreed that CSB should have anticipated the 

staff shortages and specified the correct number of positions before announcing the 

vacancies. 

CSB Analysis The OIG’s analysis is based on an incorrect interpretation of the CSB’s MPP and 

incorrect facts. 

Section 10 of the MPP provides that an announcement must include the number of 

positions to be filled. This number could include a range, might be specific, or as in 

this instance, may simply state the term “multiple.” NBC concurred in the CSB’s 

use of the term “multiple” in the announcement. 

OIG Response: We agree with CSB’s revision to its MPP to note that “The number 

of positions to be filled may be expressed as a specific number such as “one”, a 

range, such as “one to four”, or an indeterminate number such as “multiple” or “a 

 The vacancy open period ran from June 27 to July 17, 2006. CSB received congressional budget markups on May 

15 and June 29, 2006, that did not include funding for a fourth investigation team. Even though CSB received 

congressional budget markups by late June 2006, the recommending officials and human resources director did not 

meet until late July 2006 – several days after the closing date – to decide on a maximum of three positions. 

19 

3
maximum of two.” However, that language did not exist in the MPP in place at the 

time of our review for the subject reassignments. The MPP in place at the time of 

the subject vacancy simply said with regard to announcement content “Title, series, 

grade pay range, and number of positions to be filled.” It is not clear from our 

interview with the NBC staff person assigned to CSB that the person ‘concurred’ 

with CSB’s use of the term ‘multiple.’ The NBC staff person told our team that he 

“was not aware of the number of positions for the reassignments (4 or 3)” and that 

all he knew was that the “announcement came out as ‘multiple positions’.” 

Other agencies also employ similar language in their postings when more than one 

position may be filled. In any event, the CSB announcement did not state four 

positions. Even if it had, the CSB could have filled three, two, one or no positions at 

all. 

Ultimately, the CSB did determine that there would be a maximum of three positions 

filled. The CSB has provided an additional timeline and a supplemental statement 

by its HRD which confirms that the decision to go with a maximum of three 

teams occurred on July 24, 2006, before the identity of the candidates was 

known to CSB officials. Indeed, no one at the CSB knew the identities of all five 

candidates for the reassignment until the HRD received application packages on 

July 31, 2006. (See Attachment A for a detailed timeline.) 

OIG Response: The Human Resources Director acknowledged to us that he 

shared candidates’ identities with recommending officials before he “blinded” the 

selection process. The Human Resources Director also said that in a small agency, 

there is no way to keep identities completely blind. The vacancy open period ran 

from June 27, 2006, to July 17, 2006. Our evidence shows that CSB’s Human 

Resources Director knew the identity of at least one candidate (a non-selected 

candidate) before July 31, 2006, because the Human Resources Director needed 

that candidate to resend materials on July 18, 2006, to NBC that did not go through 

in an earlier fax transmission on July 11, 2006. 

The assertion in the draft by some staff that the CSB reduced the number of 

reassignments from four to three after receiving candidate applications is incorrect. 

None of these individuals had specific knowledge of when this decision was made. 

According to the HRD, a recommending official who apparently confirmed this point 

of view participated in the decision-making process on this issue on July 21, 2006. 

Thus, the recommending official may simply be confused as to the sequence of 

events which occurred some months ago. The HRD informed candidates who 

applied that there were going to be a maximum of three teams on August 15, 2006. 

This was done as courtesy because the CSB had hoped to be able to field four 

teams. Thus, job candidates could have understandably hoped that four positions 

would be filled. However, the CSB never promised that there would be 4 

candidates reassigned to supervisory positions. The CSB had discretion to fill as 

many positions as it determined necessary based on its business needs, the 

number of qualified candidates, and its budgetary resources. 

OIG Response: We do not disagree that CSB had discretion to fill as many 

positions as it determined necessary. However, as we stated above, nearly all staff 

we interviewed said that CSB presented the subject reassignments as four 

supervisory investigator positions. 

OIG Response: We concur. However, the perception among nearly all staff we 

interviewed was that CSB presented the subject reassignments as four supervisory 

investigator positions. 

20 
CSB Action The CSB has revised its MPP to clarify management discretion in posting a number 

of positions in an MPP announcement. In addition, it has revised its MPP so that 

each announcement includes a statement explaining that the CSB may not select 

any candidates or fewer than the number announced. 

OIG Response: We agree with CSB’s revision to its MPP. 

The CSB anticipates that these revisions will lessen the potential in the future for 

employees to mistakenly believe that a position posting is a rigid quota that will be 

filled at a set number. 

Policy Statement The criteria used to rate candidates will be based on a thorough job analysis 

resulting in identification of job-related ranking factors. Job-related ranking factors 

are documented and must provide the basis for considering and comparing 

candidates based on the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to be successful in 

the position. 

Fact A crediting plan describes specific procedures for rating each qualified applicant. 

According to the instructions, CSB was to rate each qualified applicant on each of 

the quality ranking factors on a scale of 0-5. CSB had, but did not use, a detailed 

crediting plan that included a job analysis for the subject reassignments. CSB and 

NBC developed the crediting plan for the reassignments prior to posting the 

vacancy announcement. In addition, when assigning ratings, the crediting plan said 

CSB should review applicants’ responses to the quality ranking factors (i.e., 

narrative on knowledge, skills, and abilities) as well as the rest of their applications 

before determining a score. 

OIG Analysis CSB’s human resources director and the NBC human resources specialist said CSB 

did not apply the crediting plan since only five applicants applied. However, the 

MPP lists no such exception related to a required number of applicants to trigger the 

use of evaluation criteria. CSB officials said that Section 18 from the MPP governed 

the subject reassignments, not the evaluation criteria described in Section 14. 

However, the MPP does not indicate or describe situations when certain sections 

override or incorporate others by reference, and Section 14 describes the rating and 

ranking process “for each announced vacancy.” 

CSB Analysis The CSB adhered to its MPP and concurs with NBC’s guidance on this point. 

Crediting plans are used to narrow down a large pool of applicants to a manageable 

number from which a final selection may be made. Section 14.a. of the MPP plainly 

states the point: “The rating and ranking process is designed to provide the 

selecting official with a reasonable number of well qualified candidates for each 

announced vacancy.” Thus, when there are not a large number of candidates, 

rating and ranking may not be performed. Section 16.d. of the MPP states: “When 

there are few qualified competitive merit promotion applicants and rating and 

ranking is not performed, the HR Specialist will compare the application with the 

rating guide. All applicants possessing a majority of the ranking factors will be 

referred. If there are no well qualified candidates, and further expansion of the Area 

of Consideration is not practical, all qualified candidates may be referred.” 

In this case, all 5 candidates were referred. Rating and ranking under sections 16 

and 17 of the MPP was not required because there were few candidates. An 

additional component in this selection process that was similar in effect to “rating and 

ranking” was the three-part evaluation of the referred candidates under section 18 of 

the MPP. Thus, the OIG position seems to be that paper “rating and ranking” under 

sections 16 and 17 would have somehow improved the process even with the 

extensive selection process that occurred. The CSB disagrees because rating and 

ranking was not needed to provide the selecting official with a reasonable number of 

21 
well qualified candidates for the reassignments. 

The CSB agrees with the OIG that the MPP can be clarified to emphasize that rating 

and ranking may not be performed when there are fewer than 10 candidates. 

CSB Action The CSB has revised its MPP to clarify that rating and ranking may not be 

performed when there are 10 or fewer candidates. 

OIG Response: CSB’s revision to its MPP needs to meet all of the requirements of 

5 C.F.R. Section 335.103 “Agency Promotion Programs” and include information 

about how CSB will identify the best qualified candidates when it does not use a 

crediting plan. Section 335.103(b)(4) states that selection procedures will provide 

for management's right to select from among a group of best qualified candidates. 

CSB and NBC drafted the crediting plan in order to help ensure that CSB received 

well qualified candidates. Because there was not a very large field of applicants 

(five candidates for three positions), NBC forwarded all candidates because they 

met the minimum requirements of the positions. Section 335.103(b)(2) states that 

the agency must be sure that the area of consideration is sufficiently broad to 

ensure the availability of high quality candidates, taking into account the nature and 

level of the positions covered. CSB had several options available to increase the 

field of applicants and reduce the perception of favoritism, such as re-advertising, 

opening the announcement to a wider field than just CSB employees, or keeping 

the announcement open longer. CSB did not choose to use any of those options. 

CSB can revise its MPP in many ways and can include an exception to rating and 

ranking in appropriate cases. However, any changes CSB makes to its MPP need 

to comply with all of the requirements of 5 C.F.R. Section 335.103 in order to 

ensure that CSB bases promotions on merit. 

Policy Statement Maintain records to allow for reconstruction of promotion actions, including 

documentation of how they ranked and rated candidates. 

Fact CSB retained summary score sheets documenting interview results. Only one 

recommending official retained notes supporting his scoring decisions for the 

interviews and written tests. 

OIG Analysis CSB did not maintain the records necessary to allow for reconstruction or to support 

4 the rationale for selection decisions. While merit promotion regulations F do not 

specifically require retention of personal notes, we view that as a good business 

practice to: i) further support selection decisions; ii) show the recommending 

officials’ thoughts and reactions at the time of the interview; and iii) mitigate the 

possible outcome of a perception of favoritism toward particular candidates. The 

lack of notes prevented reconstruction of the reassignment action. 

CSB Analysis The CSB maintained adequate records for the merit selection process in 

accordance with law and its MPP, and takes strong exception to any suggestion to 

the contrary. 

To date, the CSB has supplied the OIG with over 800 pages of records 

documenting and explaining every aspect of this merit promotion (reassignment) 

process from the preparation of the vacancy announcement through the candidate 

evaluation process to the final selection decisions. In turn, this extensive 

documentation enabled the OIG to prepare its detailed analysis and critique of the 

process. Thus, it is simply not accurate to say that the records maintained by the 

CSB did not allow for the reconstruction of this merit promotion action. 

OIG Response: The lack of all notes from the interview panel and from one of the 

writing test reviewers prevented clear reconstruction of the reassignment actions. 

4

 Specifically, Section 21 from CSB’s MPP based on Title 5, U.S. Code, Section 335.103(b)(5). 

22 
In fact, the CSB’s recordkeeping in this case was consistent with the applicable 

section of the MPP and the regulatory and records management authorities upon 

which that section is based. The CSB satisfied the requirement of section 21 of the 

MPP, and the corresponding requirement in the OPM merit promotion regulations, 5 

C.F.R. § 335.103(b)(5), to maintain records allowing reconstruction of the promotion 

action. Neither of these authorities prescribes any particular form for such records, 

nor do they identify personal notes as required records. Likewise, the applicable 

General Records Schedule (GRS 1.32) describes the subjects to be documented in 

merit promotion case files – all of which are covered by the CSB’s records in this 

case – but does not specify any particular type of record for documenting those 

subjects. Based on these objective measures, the CSB maintains that its 

recordkeeping for this merit promotion action was more than sufficient. 

Finally, the CSB does not agree with the OIG’s contention that personal notes of 

interviews would have somehow avoided issues with this process. In short, what 

the OIG identified was not a record keeping issue. What the OIG identified was a 

lack of full clarity in the structured interview process that allowed one interviewer to 

consider extraneous information. The CSB believes that it has addressed this 

issue, in part, by now requiring clearer instructions and a certification on its MPP 

score sheets. 

CSB Actions The CSB has revised the section of its MPP concerning interviews. Under the 

revised MPP, if interviews are conducted, interview panel score sheets must 

contain specific instructions that every candidate must be evaluated solely on the 

basis of the information provided by the candidate during the interview and not on 

any other basis. In addition, each member of the panel must certify in writing that 

his or her scores are based strictly on the information provided by the candidate 

during the interview. 

OIG Response: While CSB's actions to regularize the interview process may 

advance the actual and perceived fairness of the selection process, these actions 

do not ensure that a record of the process is retained or that reconstruction of the 

process can occur. We agree that 5 C.F.R. §335.103(b)(5) does not specify 

particular forms of records and rather requires maintaining records sufficient to 

reconstruct the action. Our review found that we could not reconstruct the subject 

reassignments without notes from the interviews. 

Finally, the CSB will conduct research and benchmarking to improve its structured 

interview process. 

OIG Response: In its corrective action plan, CSB should specify a timeframe for 

improving the structured interview process as a result of CSB’s research and 

benchmarking. 

Policy Statement Informal discussions between employees and selecting management officials are 

encouraged on the procedures used to rank candidates and information on 

applicant status. 

Fact The human resources director briefed candidates on the selection process 

components; however, CSB did not debrief non-selected candidates on the reasons 

for non-selection. 

OIG Analysis While the MPP does not specifically require debriefs, both non-selected candidates 

requested feedback to improve their future performance. 

23 
CSB Analysis As the OIG acknowledges, the CSB adhered to the MPP. Debriefs are not required 

by the MPP. Nevertheless, the HRD did brief candidates on the selection process 

components. 

OIG Response: We continue to believe that CSB should provide requested 

feedback to non-selected internal candidates that they believe would help improve 

their future performance. 

Policy Statement CSB will give “due weight” to performance appraisals in the selection process, and 

appraisals provide “the foundation for decisions on awards, promotions, or other 

actions based on performance.” 

Fact CSB weighted past performance at 15 percent of the selection process. CSB 

officials said that other parts of the selection process (the interview and writing test) 

also measured experiences and abilities, which they viewed as likely to be 

predictive of future success as past performance appraisals. 

OIG Analysis Weighting past performance the least did not align with statements by CSB officials 

on the unique and specialized nature of CSB’s work, and how they cannot hire 

anyone “off the street” to lead investigations. 

CSB Analysis The CSB adhered to its MPP. The CSB allotted a 15% weight to performance 

appraisals, which is entirely consistent with section 18.d. of the MPP. 

OIG Response: We cannot comment on whether 15 percent is ‘entirely consistent’ 

with Section 18.d of CSB’s MPP as CSB never provided a rationale for weighting the 

selection components. Therefore, we could not make a determination of whether 

performance appraisals received due weight. 

Other parts of the selection process (the interview and writing test) also measured 

experiences and abilities that were as likely to be predictive of future success as 

past performance appraisals. 

OIG Response: CSB states that creative interview answers equally substitute for 

demonstrated experience. Further, CSB’s interview scoring methodology afforded 

no points even when interview panelists determined that candidates provided 

satisfactory answers in describing their experiences. 

Under the circumstances, reasonable minds could differ on the appropriate weight 

to place on past performance appraisals. However, the weight applied in this 

instance was in no manner a deviation from section 18.d. of the MPP. The OIG’s 

perception that the weight “did not align” with statements by management 

officials does not mean that the CSB did not adhere to the MPP. 

CSB Selected Candidates from an Appropriate Pool and Focused on 

Appropriate Experience 

According to the OIG, it conducted an investigation to answer the following specific question: 

“Did the CSB have a sufficient pool from which to select candidates for merit reassignments?” 

The answer to this question is simply “Yes.” 

The CSB properly limited its area of consideration to CSB employees in accordance with its 

MPP, because the CSB reasonably expected to locate enough well qualified candidates 

internally. The CSB had 12 employees who were eligible for reassignment, and expected that 

several of these employees would apply for the reassignment. Five employees applied, and three 

were reassigned to supervisory investigator positions. 

24 
OIG Response: As stated previously, the Code of Federal Regulations requires the agency to 

ensure the area of consideration is sufficiently broad to ensure the availability of high quality 

candidates, taking into account the nature and level of the positions covered. 

As for the “experience” factor, the OIG seems to mistakenly assume that there needed to be 

some special focus on CSB specific experience in the selection process. 

OIG Response: The Human Resources Director said that, in CSB’s experience, they “have had 

problems in hiring folks off the street to lead investigations because CSB's work is so unique and 

specialized. ... They figured they had about 10-12 staff that could qualify and apply for the three 

supervisor positions in the Office of Investigations, and that most of these 10-12 had spent 

significant time at the CSB.” Given the “unique and specialized” nature of CSB’s work, one 

would expect the selection process to account for CSB experience by weighting past 

performance higher than 15 percent. 

CSB experience was required for inclusion in the pool of candidates for reassignment. All of the 

candidates possessed CSB specific experience to varying degrees, and this qualified them for 

consideration. The KSA’s that were employed for this position and the three part selection 

process were not limited to measuring CSB specific experience. Once in the pool, it was up to 

each candidate to demonstrate his or her abilities in accordance with the selection criteria. For 

example, CSB specific experience may have been helpful to candidates in succeeding on the 

writing test, but it was not a requirement. 

CSB’s Practices did not Suggest Favoritism or the Appearance of Prohibited 

Personnel Practices 

The OIG’s concern is that CSB’s practices may have suggested favoritism and the appearance of 

prohibited personnel practices. However, perceptions of favoritism are not unusual with merit 

promotions,F

5 

F and there is no evidence that CSB’s practices contributed to anyone’s perceptions 

of favoritism. 

5

 The MSPB has observed that “[i]n the final analysis, while the perception of fairness - as well as fairness itself – 

are critical goals for the Government’s merit promotion system, at least the perception of fairness may not be 

completely attainable.” 

OIG Response: CSB noted that perceptions of favoritism are not unusual with merit promotions. CSB cited a 

statement from a December 2001 MSPB report entitled “The Federal Merit Promotion Program: Process vs. 

Outcome.” However, CSB did not include the full passage in its excerpt. The 2001 MSPB report noted, 

“[W]hile the perception of fairness is an important goal for the Government's merit promotion system, it may not be 

completely attainable. Based on our review, however, we believe there are some actions that can be taken to at least 

narrow the perception gap by improving the actual operation of the Government's merit promotion process.” The 

report further stated, and we agree that, “The goal should be to help employees develop more realistic expectations 

about their opportunities for advancement and any actions they can take to improve their chances. One of the most 

important problems facing the merit promotion process is its lack of credibility with many members of the Federal 

workforce. One reason employees often do not find the merit promotion process credible is because they do not 

really understand the basis on which selecting officials make their decision.” 

25 
OIG Response: CSB’s practices contributed to at least one person’s perception of favoritism as 

evidenced by the anonymous hotline allegation we received that served as the impetus for our 

review. Subsequently, we learned through our interviews that both non-selected candidates and 

all former employees who previously worked in CSB’s Office of Investigations thought CSB had 

the selected candidates in mind when it announced the supervisory investigator reassignment 

opportunities. 

Indeed, the complaint to the OIG assumed the process was “wired” from the outset. It is not clear 

that the CSB could have done anything different to satisfy an individual who prejudged the 

process before it began. An individual’s perception of favoritism obviously of itself does not 

suggest or constitute a prohibited personnel practice. 

OIG Response: The anonymous allegation we received served as the basis of our review; 

however, we further based our report’s findings on CSB’s actions. As we stated above, in 

addition to our anonymous complainant, all three former staff we interviewed who previously 

worked in CSB’s Office of Investigations described their perceptions of favoritism as well. We 

agree that perceptions do not, by themselves, constitute a prohibited personnel practice. 

However, as our report notes, the Office of Special Counsel has said “[I]f a regulation 

implementing a merit system principle is violated in the process, that would also be a prohibited 

personnel practice. Negligence or imprudent actions can create the appearance of a hiring 

offense and result in complaints and investigations.” Our report provides several instances of 

where CSB did not adhere to its MPP. Our report also provides examples of actions on the part 

of management that might have contributed to the perception of favoritism and, thus, the 

appearance of a hiring offense. Among others, these included the confusion surrounding when 

CSB decided to change the number of reassignments from four to three, using a selected 

candidate’s 2-month performance appraisal, scoring interview responses based upon their 

perceptions of candidates’ past experiences instead of the answers provided, and not debriefing 

non-selected candidates despite repeated requests that CSB do so. 

UThe MPP Selection Process 

The OIG alleged that the CSB contributed to perceptions of favoritism because it: 

• Developed arbitrary scoring criteria for the selection process. 

• Used one selected candidate’s 2-month performance appraisal from another agency while 

the other four candidates included full-year CSB performance appraisals in accordance 

with the Performance Appraisal Program. 

• Scored interview responses based upon their perceptions of candidates’ past experiences 

instead of the answers provided. 

• Did not provide feedback to non-selected candidates on the reasons for non-selection. 

All of these “findings” were made by the OIG long after the process was complete. None of this 

information was known to the candidates during the process itself and logically could not have 

impacted anyone’s perceptions about the process one way or the other. 

26 
OIG Response: The selection process CSB used and the related management actions 

contributed to the existing perception of favoritism shared by current and former staff during our 

interviews. 

In any event, on three of the four points, the CSB disagrees with the OIG’s findings: 

• Scoring Criteria- There were three parts of the selection process (Writing test/Case 

Study, Interview, and Past Performance Appraisal) to measure the four KSA’s for the 

position: 

1. Knowledge of chemical production operations OR chemical safety programs OR 

hazardous chemical safety OR federal laws and regulations, OR consensus 

standards related to chemical safety to analyze the findings of industrial accident 

investigations. 

2. Experience synthesizing large volumes of information and research to write major 

reports, and prepare and deliver formal oral presentations. 

3. Experience leading and managing complex technical projects such as 

investigating industrial accidents or other similar projects, including negotiating 

with diverse parties to facilitate a project. 

4. Building and managing effective teams by encouraging cooperation, trust, and 

consensus building; resolving conflicts; mentoring and coaching your team to 

ensure that all members develop to their potential and collaborating with others 

using team problem solving methodologies and tools. 

The weighting for each part of the selection process was rational and well thought out. Writing 

was one of four critical KSA’s as outlined in the position posting. Therefore it was given an 

appropriate weight of 25% representing one of four critical elements. The interview section 

represented 60% of the selection process. It could have represented up to 75% of the score 

because it needed to measure the three non-writing KSA’s. However, because the MPP does 

require consideration of past performance appraisals, 15% weight was accorded to this factor. 

OIG Response: Here CSB seems to suggest that it included a review of performance appraisals 

(weighted 15 percent) only because of the MPP’s requirement that CSB give “due weight” to 

performance appraisals. CSB seems to suggest that it would have preferred to further increase 

the already significant weight assigned to the interview portion which would have done little to 

mitigate our independent opinion that CSB applied an overly subjective approach to the subject 

reassignments. 

• Performance Appraisals- The position announcement required the applicants to submit 

their “Current or most recent performance appraisal”. All candidates correctly submitted 

their current/most recent performance appraisal as required in the position announcement. 

Contrary to the OIG’s suggestion, there was no requirement that a candidate submit a 

CSB performance appraisal. 

27 
OIG Response: Our team pointed out to CSB officials that the candidate with only 10 

months of CSB experience at the time of the vacancy submitted a performance appraisal 

that only covered a 2-month time period where all other candidates submitted full-year 

performance appraisals. While CSB correctly asserts that the vacancy did not require 

candidates to submit a CSB appraisal, the fact that CSB scored the third selected 

candidate’s 2-month appraisal (from another agency with different descriptions of critical 

job elements) the same as other candidates’ full-year appraisals suggests the appearance 

of favoritism. 

• Feedback on Non-Selection- As the OIG acknowledges, the CSB adhered to the MPP. 

Debriefs are not required by the MPP. Nevertheless, the HRD did brief candidates on the 

selection process components. 

OIG Response: As we stated above, in a small organization such as CSB, we continue 

to believe that CSB should provide requested feedback to non-selected internal 

candidates that they believe would help improve their future performance. 

UGeneral Perceptions of Favoritism at the CSB 

Two of the general perceptions identified by the OIG do not relate to the process the OIG 

examined. The third item simply repeats the false charge that the reassignment process was 

“wired.” These negative assertions were evidently from a few former and current employeesF

6

F –

including non-selected candidates. Negative assertions from this limited and potentially biased 

pool should not be surprising. 

OIG Response: The anonymous hotline letter we received in October 2006 included two points: 

1) a specific allegation pertaining to CSB’s recent filling of three supervisory positions with 

promotion potential to the GS-15 level (i.e., no competition; positions wired from the beginning); 

and 2) general “arbitrary things” with regard to personnel activities at the CSB that we should 

discuss with former CSB staff. Our team conducted work related to both points, and focused 

primarily on the specific allegation that pertained to the three supervisory positions. CSB 

quickly dismisses what we heard during our interviews as “negative assertions” from a 

“potentially biased pool” instead of using the feedback we gleaned during our interviews as a 

basis to closer examine employee perceptions at CSB and improve its work environment. CSB 

officials may want to explore further why few current and former employees we interviewed had 

positive statements about CSB leadership. 

6 Some former employees contacted the CSB. These individuals were surprised that the IG contacted them, and had 

no relevant information on the merit selection process. 

OIG Response: CSB worked with our team to identify former staff for interviews, and CSB provided us the 

contact information for the former staff we ultimately interviewed. All individuals interviewed by our team 

provided relevant information on CSB’s merit promotion process and shared their observations of CSB’s actions 

leading to the subject reassignments. 

28 
More reliable and far more positive data may be gleaned from OPM’s FY 2006 governmentwide survey results, which was based on a much larger pool—almost all current CSB employees. 

Not surprisingly, this data paints a more positive picture of the CSB on the relevant issues. 

Comparative data from other agencies also shows that the CSB exceeded other government 

agencies by at least 10% in critical areas that were the topic of the OIG report: 

OIG Response: We did perform limited, general, and non-statistical analysis of CSB’s survey 

results during the course of our review. However, we believe that including survey numbers 

pertaining to the three survey questions cited by CSB without proper trends analysis does not 

prove or disprove anything or add additional value to the report. For example, while CSB noted 

that its positive responses increased from 2004 to 2006 to the question that read, “Arbitrary 

action, personal favoritism, and coercion for partisan political purposes are not tolerated” 

(question #44), “neutral” and “don’t know” responses increased as well. As our report notes, 

OPM suggests that agencies use survey data with other information when assessing the state of 

their human capital management. As OPM recommends, instead of solely pointing to numbers 

from the survey responses, CSB should couple survey results with the perceptions gleaned from 

our interviews summarized in our report to obtain a clearer picture of CSB’s human capital 

management. 

• Question 44 from the OPM survey stated - “Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and 

coercion for partisan political purposes are not tolerated.” Positive response government 

wide was 45% vs. 57% at the CSB. 

• Question 45 from the OPM survey stated- “Prohibited Personnel Practices (for example, 

illegally discriminating, obstructing a person’s right to compete for employment, 

knowingly violating veterans’ preference requirements) are not tolerated.” Positive 

response government wide was 58% vs. 71% at the CSB. 

• Question 46 from the OPM survey stated -“I can disclose a suspected violation of any 

law, rule or regulation without fear of reprisal.” Positive response government wide was 

48% vs. 58% at the CSB. 

The OIG report goes to some effort to dismiss these far more representative data on the exact 

issues the OIG examined, and relies on a much more suspect and subjective source of data. 

OIG Response: Our review focused on the facts surrounding CSB’s merit promotion process 

for the specific subject reassignments. A general survey is not the same as a direct examination 

of a particular area. 

U“Visualization” of Candidates 

The OIG report observes that “[o]ne recommending official, who is also a member of CSB’s 

management council, said that CSB’s management council ‘visualized’ the selected candidates in 

advance of the selection process.” The OIG added: “Upholding his statement, another member of 

the management council added that there is nothing inappropriate about ‘visualizing’ who the 

best candidates are.” 

29 
There are problems with the OIG’s assertions. First, the CSB’s management council played no 

role in selecting candidates for reassignment. Only three members played any role in the 

selection process at all. Second, the management council simply never visualized the selected 

candidates in the manner suggested. Third, no management council member “upheld” the 

manager’s statement; the official quoted as doing so has specifically rebutted the OIG’s 

assertion. 

OIG Response: Four members of the management council played a role in the selection 

process, not three as CSB asserts. The four members included: the Human Resources Director; 

the two recommending officials who signed performance appraisals, interviewed candidates, 

scored writing tests, and recommended to the Chairman whom to select; and the Director of 

CSB’s Office of Administration who served on the interview panel. We stand by our statement 

in our report. The recommending official unequivocally and clearly said that CSB’s 

management council ‘visualized’ the selected candidates in advance of the selection process. We 

amended our report to omit reference to another management council member upholding the 

manager’s statement. 

A CSB manager did state that there is nothing inappropriate about “visualizing” who the best 

candidates are, but in context, this was not meant to support the factual assertion that such an 

exercise had occurred. 

Rather, it was simply an attempt to clarify that, in general, thinking about specific candidates is 

not itself illegal. As the OIG notes, the Office of Special Counsel agrees: “it is not a prohibited 

personnel practice to act upon one's existing expectation that one person may be the best selectee 

for a particular position (pre-selection).” 

The CSB requests that the OIG’s final report retract the point about the alleged visualizing 

exercise or revise the text to indicate that this comment was based on the uncorroborated remarks 

of one employee and rebutted by others. 

OIG Response: We changed our report to reflect this feedback. 

In any event, as noted, the management council itself did not participate in the selection process. 

Recommendations 

Despite these strong disagreements with the OIG draft report, the CSB generally concurs with 

the intent of the OIG’s first recommendation, which is intended to improve the merit selection 

process in the future. The CSB strenuously objects, however, to the recommendation’s 

implication that the CSB did not evaluate candidates and manage the selection process in 

accordance with CSB policy or with basic principles of fairness. The CSB also disagrees with 

some of the specific suggestions related to this recommendation, but has already taken some 

actions to clarify the MPP and will pursue others. Specifically, the CSB will conduct additional 

research on merit selection issues and seek input from OPM before making further changes to its 

30 
MPP. The CSB fully concurs with the second and third recommendations. The CSB has already 

revised its MPP to address these issues. The CSB’s detailed response is summarized below. 

Recommendation 1: For future promotions, evaluate candidates and manage the 

selection process in accordance with CSB policy. The 

 person responsible for day-to-day administration of the 

 merit promotion process should ensure that: 

• CSB has a sound rationale for the scoring 

methodology. 

• Independent personnel score tests rather than 

recommending officials. 

• CSB applies the required evaluation criteria, 

including detailed crediting plans, to ensure a pool 

of high quality candidates. 

• Personnel maintain documentation, including notes, 

supporting selection decisions. 

• Applicants submit required documentation, such as 

the appropriate performance appraisals. 

• Vacancy announcements list a specific number of 

positions. 

• CSB affords due weight to past performance in 

selection decisions. 

CSB Response: Of course, the CSB’s concurs with the general intent “to 

manage the selection process in accordance CSB policy.” 

However, the CSB objects that the recommendation implies 

that the CSB did not manage the process in accordance 

with CSB policy. The CSB also disagrees with some of the 

specific suggestions because: 

• The CSB employed a sound rationale for the 

scoring methodology; 

• The OIG did not identify any problem or a 

perceived problem by having the recommending 

officials score tests, and in future personnel actions, 

it may be the case that the recommending officials 

are the ones that are best positioned to score tests; 

• CSB applied the required evaluation criteria, and 

went beyond these requirements to ensure a fair and 

objective process; 

• The CSB did maintain adequate documentation; 

• All applicants submitted the appropriate 

performance appraisals as required for the subject 

action; and 

31 
• Due weight was given to past performance for the 

subject action.F

7 

CSB Action: Although the CSB evaluated candidates and managed the 

selection process in accordance with CSB policy, the OIG 

did identify areas where the MPP could be clarified, and 

the Board has approved the following revisions to the MPP: 

• A provision providing further explanation that the 

number of positions in a vacancy announcement 

may be expressed as a number, a range, or an 

indeterminate number. 

• A provision adding a requirement that each vacancy 

announcement include a statement explaining that 

the CSB may not select any candidates or fewer 

than the number announced. 

• A provision stating that ranking and rating may not 

be performed if there are 10 or fewer qualified 

competitive merit promotion applicants; 

In addition to these revisions, the CSB will conduct 

additional research, benchmark other merit promotion 

plans, and submit its revised MPP to OPM to ensure that 

the revisions conform to all requirements and to obtain best 

practices feedback. As a result of this additional review, the 

CSB may further revise its MPP to meet the general intent 

of the recommendation. 

OIG Response: We agree with CSB’s efforts to revise and 

clarify its MPP. In its corrective action plan, CSB should 

specify a timeframe for conducting additional research, 

benchmarking other merit promotion plans, and submitting 

its revised MPP to OPM to ensure that revisions conform to 

all requirements and obtain best practices feedback. 

Recommendation 2: Update the MPP to reflect the current human resources 

servicing provider and the status of the Chief Operating 

Officer. 

CSB Response: Concur. The CSB has revised its MPP to reflect the 

discontinuation of the Chief Operating Officer position, and 

the roles of the Human Resource Director and servicing 

personnel office. The CSB will also update its Performance 

7 The CSB has included specific information in this document and submitted extensive information to the OIG to 

support each point above. 

32 
Appraisal Program to reflect current management 

arrangements. 

OIG Response: We agree with CSB’s revision to its MPP 

on the role of the Human Resources Director. In its 

corrective action plan, CSB should specify a timeframe for 

updating its Performance Appraisal Program to reflect 

current management arrangements. 

Recommendation 3: Clarify instructions on interview score sheets to ensure that 

the interview panel bases scores on information provided 

by the candidate during the interview process and not on 

personal knowledge of the candidates outside of the 

interview setting. 

CSB Response: Concur. The CSB has revised its MPP to help avoid the 

concerns that the OIG identified. Under the revised MPP, if 

interviews are conducted, interview panel score sheets will 

contain specific instructions that those candidates are to be 

evaluated solely on the basis of the information provided 

by candidates during the interview and not on any other 

basis. In addition, each member of the panel will be asked 

to certify in writing that his or her scores are based strictly 

on the information provided by the candidate during the 

interview. The CSB will also conduct research and 

benchmarking to determine if other measures would benefit 

its structured interview process. 

OIG Response: We agree with CSB’s revisions to its 

MPP. In its corrective action plan, CSB should specify a 

timeframe for conducting research and benchmarking to 

determine if other measures would benefit its structured 

interview process. 

33 
Attachment A 

TIMELINE - NUMBER OF INVESTIGATION TEAMS 

Date Description 

9-2005 Initial Budget Request for FY 2007 includes additional funding to staff four 

investigation teams. 

10-2005 CSB announced new investigation supervisor teams. Plan to have 4 teams of 4 to 5 

investigators under the new supervisors (lead investigators). To achieve this plan, 

the CSB would need 16 to 20 staff investigators in addition to 4 new supervisors 

(lead investigators) and 2 investigation managers. 

As of October 2005, there were 18 investigator positions at the GS-14 level or lower, 

1 of which was vacant. The original goal was to have 4 teams. In order to do so, the 

CSB needed to fill a vacancy and obtain additional funding for the next fiscal year to 

hire more investigators. 

12-2005 An investigator resigns, creating an additional shortfall in staffing. 

2-2006 FY 2007 Budget Justification is submitted to Congress. Discussed restructuring and 

expanding the Office of Investigations to meet the agency’s strategic goals, by 

creating four self-sufficient investigative teams, each headed by a designated Lead 

Investigator. 

5-2006 An additional investigator resigns, creating a further shortfall in staffing. 

5-15-2006 House markup: no funding for fourth team. 

6-27-2006 Announcement for multiple supervisory investigator positions. 

6-29-2006 Senate markup: no funding for fourth team. 

7-21-2006 Recommending Officials and HR Director determine that there should be a 

maximum of 3 teams based on appropriation committee reports showing that there 

would not be sufficient funding for 4 investigation teams. Also took into 

consideration the actual number of staff on board. 

7-24-2006 HR Director reviewed evaluation and selection process with Selecting Official, who 

decided to have a maximum of 3 teams.F*

F 

7-31-2006 HR Director receives selection certificate from NBC. 

8-15-2006 HR Director informed candidates that there would be a maximum of 3 teams. 

9-11-2006 Initial Budget Request for FY 2008 includes additional funding to staff a fourth 

investigation team. 

*

 The CSB would have created fewer than 3 teams if investigation managers had been unable to recommend 3 

candidates for the supervisory investigator positions. 

34 
Appendix B 

Distribution 

Chairman, U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 

Audit Liaison, U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 

General Counsel, U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 

Acting Inspector General, EPA 

35