One Less Executive Privilege?

In an overwhelming bipartisan vote, the House of Representatives has voted to give Inspectors General more secure tenure in office. As MSNBC reports, the President has threatened to veto this bill, but unless he has 41 supporters in the Senate, he is likely to get trampled if he stands in the way of this legislation.

What alarmed me while reading the story was that all the House seemed to be asking for was the standard protections that civil service employees usually expect. That is, they won't be removed from office without proper cause being shown if the bill becomes a law. The President, apparently, would prefer that Inspectors General serve solely at his pleasure, subject to removal whenever he pleases. That's his power under the original 1978 law, which states: "An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. The President shall communicate the reasons for any such removal to both Houses of Congress." It's odd that the old law says sets so few conditions (none, in fact) for removal, given the criteria it establishes for appointment. An Inspector General must be chosen "without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations."

Congress is taking action against the President because his lackeys aren't abiding by the terms of the 1978 law. That document dictates: "Each Inspector General shall report to and be under the general supervision of the head of the establishment involved or, to the extent such authority is delegated, the officer next in rank below such head, but shall not report to, or be subject to supervision by, any other officer of such establishment. Neither the head of the establishment nor the officer next in rank below such head shall prevent or prohibit the Inspector General from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing any subpoena during the course of any audit or investigation."
But as the MSNBC story notes, there have been numerous recent cases in which "heads of the establishment" are interfering with Inspector General investigations. The object of the current bill seems to be to give the IGs more leverage by stripping their superiors of the ability to deter investigations through the threat of a summary sacking by the President. The President's mouthpieces will doubtless say that the whole IG program is an executive branch effort at self-regulation and that the bill's grant of budgetary powers to Congress violates the separation of powers. Too bad for them: part of the separation and balance of powers should include empowering the different branches to act as watchdogs over one another. There seems to be proof enough that this Administration, at least, can't be trusted to be its own watchdog, or can't be trusted to treat its watchdogs better than a beaten pit bull at the Vick kennel.

Here's the 1978 law itself for those who want to research it further.