A Firing Process That Takes Two Years Is Broken

Today is an anniversary Bob Whitmore never sought, and it is being marked with a present he doesn't want.

Exactly two years ago, Whitmore was placed on paid administrative leave by the Labor Department, where he is a senior executive in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Now, after the agency paid him $300,000 to do nothing, he learned Tuesday that he will be fired this month for behavior that his bosses say was disruptive and inappropriate.

This is not a story about whether Whitmore deserves to get the boot. It is a story about a bureaucracy that strings along an employee who had 37 years of "acceptable service," according to his dismissal letter. The bosses prohibited him from doing a lick of work, even from home, causing taxpayers to pay for zilch.

Certainly there should be no rush to judgment in cases where a career is at stake. But there is nothing to suggest that Whitmore's case should have taken so long to decide. Perhaps it's not only the federal hiring process that is broken. If this is any example, the firing process is in pretty bad shape, too.

In fairness to the Obama administration, the case was resolved in a reasonable amount of time after it took office in January.

As we've reported in previous columns, Whitmore was placed on leave after an altercation with his supervisor that involved allegations, on both sides, of shouting and spitting. He said it was not until April that was he given the specific reasons for his proposed dismissal in a 19-page document.

Whitmore has said that the proposed firing was retaliation for his complaints that corporate officials were allowed to underreport worker injuries. He fought the firing but lost.

The "decision letter" he received yesterday from Deputy Assistant Secretary Donald G. Shalhoub said Whitmore engaged "in a high degree of disruptive, intimidating and inappropriate behavior in the workplace." Shalhoub's letter said Whitmore's offer to submit to stress management counseling "rings hollow."

Whitmore also offered to work at home for 90 days, during which supervisors could evaluate his performance. That would have given them time to decide "am I worth salvaging or do you want to throw me out with the rest of the trash," Whitmore said.

A lesser penalty, Shalhoub wrote, is insufficient because of "the pervasive nature of your misconduct and the detrimental effect it has had on the efficiency and morale of employees."

The decision to fire Whitmore can be appealed.