Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ataraxic89 t1_iyhhyr7 wrote

This is misleading in that there has been an acting DOD IG that whole time.

Obviously confirmation is good but its not like no one was there.

50

ghrarhg t1_iyhjglv wrote

True, it just means our institutions are failing us because of political agendas.

52

fvb955cd t1_iyi1rbn wrote

Acting is different than actual though, in practice. 9/10, acting officials are career feds, who, to avoid the legal uncertainties of appointee vacancy requirements and restrictions, rock the boat as little as possible. This is generally fine for obscure, deputy level officials, but the IG office in particular needs to have someone who can rock the boat, and stand up to senior agency officials, and if necessary, be the canary in the coal mine and take the bullet to bring a major issue to the attention of congress. Senate appointees know their tenure is limited. They haven't planned their career around the federal retirement age like an acting Civil servant has.

I agree that the article could be clarified, but its important not to treat acting officials as the same as appointed officials when in practice they aren't.

36

SAugsburger t1_iyiw84w wrote

This. There are a lot of mundane low level roles that are appointed that the difference from acting and actual probably isn't that significant. IG isn't one of them.

2

notcaffeinefree t1_iyio2s0 wrote

An illegal acting DOD IG.

>A June legal opinion from the Government Accountability Office found O’Donnell has been serving as acting Pentagon inspector general unlawfully per the Vacancies Act, which “limits the service of an acting official to 210 days beginning on the date the vacancy occurs.”

9

TheHomersapien t1_iyi8nwj wrote

The unconfirmed people in that role were installed by Trump, so yeah, in effect there was nobody there. And that's the reason he didn't have anyone confirmed: he wanted to install a flunky that would work to deepen and broaden that swamp he was gonna "drain."

6