1 reply to this topic

[Doc Holiday]

The answer as to why ATF cannot accept responsibility is; because The Mr. Domenich', Mr. Hoovers and Mr. Carters built a culture of "Whats in it for me". The mentality of this Bureau is all Appearances and Smoke and Mirrors. Mr. Melson continues the practice of letting the lawyers run a law enforcement Bureau. You do not and should not need to rely so heavily on the junkyard dog mentality of Chief counsels Office if you are doing things right and above board. Most in the Executive staff have forgotten what it is to be an ATF Agent. We do not need to hide behind legal games. We do it upfront and with integrity. If you bosses have Chief counsel on speed dial for the day to day running of your Directorate, you are doing something wrong. In 25 yrs with this agency, I have never had to call counsel because some issue I was involved in required legal wranglings and motions to oppose agency documents. If you need a agency attorney to answer the question, then you may be doing something wrong. We real agents subscribe to an unwritten rule that if you need an attorney to explain your actions, you are probably guilty.

[Enufsenuf]

In relation to something Hiram A. mentioned in a recent post, the Office of OPRSO, Inspection Division, conducts administrative and operational reviews of different offices in the agency. Funny thing is, OPRSO schedules these reviews over a year in advance giving each office time to “fix” anything they may find that may be done incorrectly. Management is now threatening employees (and in some cases has already taken action) that their performance evaluations will reflect any deficiencies that show up in the office review if, in the opinion of management, the employee had an opportunity to correct the deficiency. As an example, one supervisor wrote in an employee’s performance appraisal that the employee had submitted “x” number of investigations in either NForce or NSpect that had to be returned for correction in order to comply with the review requirements.

In each investigation submitted in NForce or NSpect, someone in management had to review the investigation and “close” the assignment with a recommendation. Yet when a problem arises a year or more later during an OPRSO review, the employee is going to be held responsible? What exactly are the supervisors being held accountable for? What are the administrative officers in each office being held accountable for? OPRSO has provided each office with a “checklist” of specific items that will be verified during an operational review, so why are those items not being regularly monitored by management analysts assigned to each division. Again, a case of management protecting management. It cannot possibly be management’s fault if the review discloses a deficiency of some sort . . . so blame it on the agents and “inspectors” who work diligently and are dedicated to this agency.

And while we're discussing absurdities, why does OPRSO notify offices of upcoming reviews? Unplanned/unscheduled reviews would alleviate the “fixing” of deficiencies that should be regularly monitored and corrected and provide a more accurate picture of what management is doing in each division. In addition, it would alleviate manipulation and maneuvering by management to get who they want on their review team.

Why is so difficult for management to admit imperfections? No one is perfect and no one expects that this agency will be faultless, but we can do better than this!