Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory board debates first‑year performance metrics for inspector general, calls some targets unrealistic
Summary
Board members told the meeting several first‑year metrics for the new inspector general are unrealistic for a one‑person office and suggested reducing targets and meeting with the IG to revise deadlines; metrics questioned included 24 annual presentations and initiating investigations within five days.
Members of the Inspector General Advisory Board said the performance metrics drafted for the newly appointed inspector general should be revised to reflect the reality of a small start‑up office.
A committee member told the board the proposed targets were not reasonable for an office that currently operates largely as a single person. “I think they're unreasonable. Particularly 3 c, 24 presentations annually,” the committee member said, adding that requiring an investigation to be initiated within five days is unclear and may be infeasible.
Board members also noted that metric 6(b), which tracks the percentage of recommendations agreed to by the administration, could be unfair because the board cannot compel the administration to accept recommendations. Another member cautioned that even well‑crafted recommendations sometimes fail to be adopted and that measures should account for structural limits on implementation.
The chair acknowledged these concerns and urged a meeting with Inspector General Ms. Madigan to refine the first‑year evaluation and fold any changes into the policies and procedures discussion. Members agreed to aim to finalize evaluation criteria before December and to revisit targets after the first year to allow iterative adjustments.
