When I first became the Justice IG, one veteran assistant inspector general commented that an IG’s office normally takes on the qualities of the person leading it. And, as noted earlier, there is an expression in the IG community that “when you’ve seen one IG . . . you’ve seen one IG.” Inspectors general bring varying skills, backgrounds, priorities, and leadership styles to the job, and they have significant discretion as to where to allocate resources, what issues to focus on, and how to lead their offices.

Yet I believe that following certain key principles can make inspectors general more effective and more valuable. Certainly, the environment, authority, and challenges vary among IG offices, but the following general principles apply to all of them, whatever their size, department, or level of government.

 I believe that following certain key principles can make inspectors general more effective and more valuable. 

1. Remain independent

The first and most important principle for an IG is to remain independent. This is the foundation of the IG Act. IGs must be independent both in fact and in appearance.

This is particularly true, and difficult, when dealing with agency leaders who are not familiar with the role of inspectors general. Some agency heads want to control IGs, directing how they operate and what they review. Agency leaders often come from other parts of the government or the private sector where they are accustomed to a clear hierarchy within organizations, and they do not know what to make of an IG. That is why an IG should communicate early and often with agency leaders about the IG’s responsibilities and authority and especially about the need for independence. Inspectors general should not accept any restrictions or directions that compromise that independence.

This does not mean that IGs should isolate themselves from agency leaders. Rather, IGs should seek open and frequent communication with agency leaders. The IG Act requires that an inspector general have direct and prompt access to the agency head when necessary. At the Justice and Defense Departments, I scheduled monthly meetings with each attorney general and secretary of defense and a separate monthly meeting with each deputy attorney general and deputy secretary of defense. During these meetings, I would inform them about our key audits, evaluations, and investigations that were ongoing or likely to be completed soon. I did not want them to be blindsided by sensitive IG reports when they were released. It is not helpful to the relationship for the agency leader to first find out about a critical audit or investigation in the media or from members of Congress. I also told them when I would be testifying about our reports so that they knew about upcoming congressional hearings. I did not ask permission, but I kept them informed. I also asked them about their key priorities and whether they had any questions or concerns about our IG reviews.

It is not helpful to the relationship for the agency leader to first find out about a critical audit or investigation in the media or from members of Congress. I also told them when I would be testifying about our reports so that they knew about upcoming congressional hearings. I did not ask permission, but I kept them informed. 

While IGs should maintain an open, professional relationship with agency leaders, inspectors general should not become too close to them. This can undermine the appearance of impartiality and independence. It is appropriate for an IG to be present at widely attended department events, such as an agency holiday party or a commemorative function that all agency leaders attend, for example, the installation of a new secretary of defense or the annual ceremony for the September 11 attacks. But individual socializing should be avoided.

In addition, an inspector general is not part of the management team.

While IGs must work with agency leaders on a regular basis to improve agency operations, IGs are sometimes called upon to investigate the actions of agency leaders. This dual role can create friction. Some agency leaders are wary of the IG, and others exhibit a refreshing sense of humor about this inherent tension. When I became the acting Defense IG, General Mark Milley, who was the army chief of staff and later the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would greet me whenever he saw me in the halls of the Pentagon by asking me how I was doing. He would then say, “Glenn, am I under investigation yet?” I would respond, “Not yet, but the day’s not over.” This interaction always drew a laugh.

While IGs should maintain an open, professional relationship with agency leaders, inspectors general should not become too close to them. This can undermine the appearance of impartiality and independence.

An inspector general also needs to keep Congress informed of problems in an agency. However, IGs must make independent decisions on where to allocate resources and how to conduct reviews. Inspectors general must not favor one political side or the other in their interactions with Congress or state and local legislatures. At the Justice and Defense IG’s offices, we offered to conduct joint briefings for the majority and minority members of Congress and their staffs. This was more efficient and ensured that both sides received the same information. Sometimes members and their staffs wanted separate briefings, which we accommodated. But we always offered to brief both sides even if it had to be done separately.

[…]

10. Don’t expect to be popular

The IG is not the most popular person in an agency. I am certain that I was not the most popular person in the halls of the Justice Department or in the Pentagon food court. IGs need to develop a thick skin for criticism and should not expect to be liked. I had no illusions that agency officials would always like me or agree with my findings.

Shortly after I became the Justice IG in 2000, I was asked by a senator to come to his office on Capitol Hill to brief him about a report my office had just issued. I brought to the briefing my terrific longtime deputy, Paul Martin, who later became the NASA IG and the United States Agency for International Development IG.

IGs need to develop a thick skin for criticism and should not expect to be liked. I had no illusions that agency officials would always like me or agree with my findings.

After I finished the briefing about our report, the senator said to me, “Good briefing, but let me now tell you what I think of IGs.” He pointed his finger at me and said, “IGs must be independent. You will do things that I won’t like. You will do things other members of Congress won’t like. You will do things the attorney general won’t like. You won’t be liked. Nobody will like you. If you think you will be liked, don’t think that. Don’t try to be liked because it won’t happen.” The senator kept pointing his finger at me and reiterating that no one would like me.

After a while, I think my deputy Paul had heard enough. He interjected, “Don’t worry about that, senator. Even I don’t like him.” The senator cracked up laughing, and that was the end of the meeting.

The goal of inspectors general—on every level—should be for their work to be respected and taken seriously, to be tough but fair, and to provide timely reports and recommendations that improve agency operations. 

While the exchange was humorous (in retrospect), the senator was making a crucial point about the role of inspectors general. They should not seek to be popular, to be liked, or to please everyone, because that will not happen. Rather, the goal of inspectors general—on every level—should be for their work to be respected and taken seriously, to be tough but fair, and to provide timely reports and recommendations that improve agency operations. Following these ten principles can help inspectors general achieve those goals.

Excerpted from Watchdogs published by University of Virginia Press ©2024