Page:Professionalism within the Workforce.pdf/12

 the ITG were formalized and an organization chart was approved by the Chief Integrity Officer as follows:

The ITG oversees adherence to the Secret Service's code of conduct by impartially adjudicating allegations of employee misconduct in a fair, consistent, and timely manner. The Chief Integrity Officer and the Deputy Chief Integrity Officer apply the guidance contained in the Table of Penalties to adjudicate substantiated allegations of employee misconduct.

With the ITG now firmly established and the Table of Penalties in use, the process for reporting and investigating allegations of misconduct, as well as proposing and taking disciplinary action is more clearly defined than it was prior to April 2012. Under the new process, if an initial complaint is received by a front-line supervisor, the supervisor is required, outside of a limited number of minor violations, to report the allegation through his/her chain of command to the Secret Service Office of Professional Responsibility (RES). Within RES, the Inspection Division (ISP) then has a responsibility to chair an Intake Group meeting to review the misconduct allegations. The Intake Group comprises the Special Agent in Charge of ISP, the Chief of the Security Clearance Division or higher, the Deputy Chief Integrity Officer, an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, and a representative from the Assistant Director's office where the affected employee is assigned.

The Intake Group has a responsibility to examine the allegation to (1) determine whether further investigation by ISP is warranted, (2) refer allegations of misconduct where additional information is not warranted to the ITG for appropriate administrative action, (3) administratively close cases where allegations of misconduct are unfounded, lacking in specificity, or where no violation of Secret Service policy has occurred, and (4) refer the matter to the appropriate management official when appropriate. If the Intake Group determines that additional investigation by ISP is necessary, then ISP presents the information to the DHS OIG. In consultation with the DHS OIG, a decision is then