Although the DHS responses were mostly couched in only general terms, they do provide some insight into how agencies have been using administrative leave, or at least how they did until the recent OPM directive.
It shows, for example, that the most common reasons for the leave were alleged misconduct or fitness for duty issues, followed by security concerns.
In most conduct cases, the department said it could not reassign the employee instead because of the “seriousness” of the alleged conduct and “concern for protection of government resources.” But in most of those cases the agency also said, somewhat contradictorily, that it could not put the employee on unpaid leave because the evidence was insufficient to support it.
Fitness for duty cases mostly involved medical issues that affected management’s “confidence in the employee’s ability to remain safely in the workplace” while security issues primarily involved clearance-related matters.
In all but 10 cases, the value of the paid time off exceeded $100,000—none of them less than about $70,000–in a dozen it fell between $200,000 and $300,000 and in five cases exceeded $300,000—with one of those just under $400,000.
Grassley, who is known for pursuing oversight of agencies on issues such as misuse of charge cards and other personnel-related spending, said he is considering drafting a bill to force agencies to make a decision on whether an employee is a danger to fellow employees and must be removed from the workplace or whether that person can be reassigned while the case is resolved.
