Read theMandate

Project 2025Chapter 3 › Proposal

Consolidate federal employee appeals in the MSPB

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, chapter 3, p. 76. Written by Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, Paul Dans.

Consolidate federal employee appeals in the MSPB

The document says “shouldWho acts: Congress, PresidentHow: not specifiedp. 76 in the PDF
What the document says

“The EEOC's federal employee section should be transferred to the MSPB, and many of the OCS's investigatory functions should be returned to the OPM.”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 76

The chapter argues that a federal employee's choice of forum among the MSPB, EEOC, FLRA and OSC produces forum shopping and delay, and proposes moving the EEOC's federal employee section to the MSPB and returning many investigatory functions to OPM, so that the MSPB becomes the main reviewer of adverse actions. The text names no instrument for the transfer. "OCS" appears as printed; the chapter elsewhere refers to the Office of Special Counsel as OSC.

What the document actually says

“The EEOC's federal employee section should be transferred to the MSPB, and many of the OCS's investigatory functions should be returned to the OPM.”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 76
That sentence, in plain words

The part of the EEOC that handles government workers should move to the MSPB. And much of the digging the OSC does should go back to OPM.

What this is about

A worker who is fired can protest to more than one agency. The book says workers shop for the one most likely to help them. It wants most protests sent to one board instead. That board is called the MSPB. The book does not say what law or order would do this.

No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken. See what the tracker does not yet cover.

Share this page

How to read this page

The quotation is the document's own words, exactly as printed, and we check the page number against the book itself before publishing. The paragraph underneath is our summary, not the document's words. So is the plain English version, which is why it sits beside the quotation rather than replacing it.

All proposals in this chapter →