LAST week the Oxford Mail gave readers the chance to quiz an Ofsted inspector. Her Majesty's Inspector Sarah Hubbard is here with the answers.
Julie from Marston: Do Ofsted inspectors have to have a background in education or can they come from any profession? What sort of training and qualifications do they have before they inspect schools?
Sarah Hubbard: We have two types of inspectors at Ofsted: Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI) who work directly for us, and Ofsted Inspectors (OI), who are contracted to support or lead a number of inspections each year. All of our school inspectors have considerable experience in education. They are required to hold a degree and have qualified teacher status.
School inspectors are also expected to have a minimum of five years’ leadership experience, for example as a headteacher or senior leader. The majority of OIs still currently work as school leaders and teachers, and take a few days out each year to inspect for Ofsted.
All inspectors receive substantial training, which is delivered in a variety of forms, such as face-to-face training, online training and on-the job-training. Training our workforce to deliver high quality inspections is a high priority for Ofsted. We also closely monitor the quality of inspections. The feedback we give to our inspectors as part of this process is an important aspect of their on-going professional development.
Mark from Didcot: How long does an inspection team from Ofsted spend in each school, on average?
Sarah Hubbard: We inspect in a proportionate way, to ensure resources are focused where they are needed most. The time spent in a school varies depending on the type of inspection. Most commonly, during a full inspection (section 5), school inspectors spend two days in the school.
For short inspections of good schools (section 8) inspectors spend one day at the school, working closely with leaders.
Karen from Botley: Does Ofsted get given instructions by the Government on what inspectors have to look out for and how they should grade schools?
Sarah Hubbard: No. Ofsted is independent and impartial and we report directly to Parliament.
However, the statutory basis on which Ofsted routinely inspects schools is determined by government policy.
This stipulates matters on which Ofsted must inspect and report. By law, Ofsted must inspect schools with the aim of providing information to parents, promoting improvement and holding schools to account.
In 2015, we introduced the common inspection framework, which sets out the principles that apply to inspection and the criteria that inspectors consider when making their judgements
For those interested in the statutory guidance, the details can be found in Section 41 of the Education Act 2011.
Peter from Botley: Why is Ofsted necessary? I can remember a time before it existed and schools seemed to get on just fine. Have things improved since Ofsted was created?
Sarah Hubbard: Prior to Ofsted, there was no standardised reporting on the performance of schools.
Ofsted was established in 1992 to provide parents, and the public more generally, with an independent evaluation of how schools are performing. Yes, schools have improved since Ofsted was created.
I firmly believe that Ofsted is a force for improvement. The education landscape has changed dramatically since Ofsted was first introduced.
Gone are the days when children would simply go to their local school.
Parents now have a wider choice of types of school, and through our inspection reports, they can make a more informed decision about the right one for their youngsters. Inspection also plays a crucial role in providing assurance to the public and to government that minimum standards of education, skills and childcare are being met.
And that public money is being spent well; and arrangements for safeguarding are effective.
Since the creation of Ofsted more than 25 years ago, 85 per cent of schools are now good or better. This is a remarkable achievement and while it is not solely down to Ofsted, inspection is an important lever in driving improvements.
Priya from Cowley: What is more important from an inspector’s point of view – academic performance or extra-curricular activities?
Sarah Hubbard: There are a number of factors we consider when judging a school’s overall effectiveness, which include both academic performance and extra-curricular activities.
Neither is weighted more strongly than the other. The key for inspectors is balance.
They will evaluate pupils’ academic and vocational achievement across the curriculum. They will also consider the curriculum’s impact on pupils’ progress and outcomes, and their personal, development, behaviour and welfare.
Inspectors also look at how well the school supports the formal curriculum with extra-curricular opportunities for pupils to extend their knowledge and Boost their skills in a range of artistic, creative and sporting activities.
Mumtaz from East Oxford: My child goes to a school rated ‘good’ but I have heard that ‘good’ schools are only subject to short inspections.
How can I be sure it is definitely still meeting a high standard if inspections are not as in-depth?
Sarah Hubbard:Short inspections were introduced precisely so that good schools could have more regular ‘health-checks’.
You can be assured that we are able to make secure judgements through these one day inspections, because the information we gather about a school is based firmly on evidence.
We focus on key aspects, including safeguarding, to confirm the school remains good.
We also work in close collaboration with the school’s leaders throughout the short inspection.
Between inspections, Ofsted uses risk assessment processes to ensure that its approach to inspection is proportionate. If our risk assessment indicates that standards at a school may have deteriorated significantly, then it will automatically receive a full inspection.
Inspector
I’d like some information, if you don't mind, Mr Birling. Two hours ago a young woman died in the infirmary. She'd been taken there this afternoon because she'd swallowed a lot of strong disinfectant. Burnt her inside out, of course.
Eric (involuntarily)
My God!
Inspector
Yes, she was in great agony. They did everything they could for her at the infirmary, but she died. Suicide, of course.
Birling (rather impatiently)
Yes, yes. Horrid business. But I don't understand why you should come here, Inspector -
Inspector (cutting through, massively)
I’ve been round to the room she had, and she'd left a letter there and a sort of diary. Like a lot of these young women who get into various kinds of trouble, she'd used more than one name. But her original name - her real name - was Eva Smith.
Birling (thoughtfully)
Eva Smith?
Inspector
Do you remember her, Mr Birling?
Birling (slowly)
No - I seem to remember hearing that name - Eva Smith - somewhere. But it doesn't convey anything to me. And I don't see where I come into this.
Act One
A home is typically the largest single investment you’ll ever make, and you’ll likely spend a lot of time and energy searching for the perfect place. By the time you're ready to buy, you'll already know a lot about the house. However, it's a good idea to do a little more detective work and get answers to a few investigative questions. It will give you additional peace of mind in your purchase.
A conversation with the seller, the seller's agent, and a review of the public records can fill in detail blanks that will help you make a better decision. Contacting the county's property appraiser for the home's location are great starting points. Here are the ten investigative questions to ask a home seller.
There are many reasons why people move, including job relocation, desire to get into a smaller/larger house, life events (marriage, the birth of a child, death of a spouse, or other reason), and retirement. While you may not always get a truthful answer, asking why the seller is moving can be helpful in determining how much room there is for negotiating.
Depending on the reason for moving, the seller may be willing to accept a lower offer if it means they can be out of the home faster. Of course, if the seller is in no hurry to sell, there may be little room for negotiation.
One of the primary reasons a house ends up staying on the market a long time is that it was priced too high to begin with. This mispricing is often a function of a poor strategy.
The longer a house stays on the market, the harder it becomes to sell since the listing becomes “stale,” and buyers think there must be something inherently wrong with the property (otherwise it would have sold by now, right?). If the home has been on the market for a long time, the seller may be motivated and more willing to negotiate.
Knowing how much the seller paid is helpful for a couple of reasons. First, it tells you if values in the local market have gone up or down since the seller purchased the home. Second, it may help you determine how open the sellers may be to negotiation, and here’s why: If the sellers bought the home at rock bottom, they may be more willing to move down on price since they will still make a reasonable profit. If your sellers purchased the home for close to or more than the asking price, however, they probably won’t be willing to move much—if at all—on price.
If the sellers won’t tell you what they paid, you can find out by checking the public records. They are available at the Register of Deeds (or a similar office, such as Recorder of Deeds) in the county where the property is located.
Anything that is permanently attached to the home (for example, faucets, cabinets, and window blinds) is considered a fixture and is generally included in a home sale. Sometimes, legal definitions determine what is—and what is not—included in the sale, but sometimes an item can fall into a gray area.
When in doubt, and to avoid disappointment, ask what’s included in the sale and get it in writing. Pay close attention to items such as outdoor play equipment, sheds, lighting fixtures, appliances, window treatments, wall-mounted sound systems, and anything else you would be upset to find missing if you moved into the home.
In many real estate markets, a light fixture is considered a part of the house, and if the seller is taking it—because it's an expensive chandelier, for example—they must replace it with at least a basic fixture.
Neighborhoods can be affected by any number of nuisances including speeding on community streets, traffic congestion, noise (from traffic, neighbors, barking dogs, and/or nearby businesses), crime, bothersome odors (including cigarette smoke), litter, poor maintenance, bright lights, and problem neighbors who cause disturbances. While you may not get a particularly detailed answer, it’s a good idea to at least try to find out about any problems before going through with a purchase. In addition to asking the seller about nuisances, you can visit the local police department to research crime statistics for the neighborhood.
Disclosure statements serve to inform buyers about a home’s condition and help protect sellers from future legal action if problems are found. While disclosures vary by state and even county, sellers must make disclosures about such items as existing liens, lead-based paint, natural hazards (e.g., floodplain), termite problems, history of property-line disputes, and defects in major systems and/or appliances. In fact, there are eight disclosures sellers must make; it makes sense to ask about all of them, just in case.
Because there may be problems with the house that the seller knows about—but is not required by law to disclose—it can be helpful to ask point-blank: Are there any potential hassles with this house? You might find out about problems ahead of time and be able to negotiate repair costs. Of course, you should still get a comprehensive inspection before buying the house since there might be issues the seller doesn’t know about or won’t willingly share.
While disclosure rules vary from state to state, home sellers generally must tell you about any current problems with the property—but they don’t have to tell you about any past problems that have been corrected. If it’s already fixed, why is it important to know? Because it might lead to another problem in the future.
A leaky roof might have been repaired, for example—but what was done about the water that ended up in the attic? Ask if the seller has had to fix any problems with the house, and how well the solution worked. It’s also helpful to find out who did the work in case there is a similar problem in the future.
Ask about the age and condition of key components of the house so you are prepared for any big expenses you could be facing. Start with the roof: newer ones may last anywhere from 15 to 50 years, depending on the roofing material. An asphalt roof lasts about 15 to 20 years, so if it’s already 15 years old, you might be looking at a fairly immediate large expense. Also ask about the heating and cooling systems, appliances, water heater, septic, plumbing, and electrical systems.
Bad renovations, sketchy plumbing, and mediocre construction can end up costing you both financially and emotionally—and even in terms of your health. It’s important to ask if any major repairs and renovations have been done to the home and who did them: was it a licensed contractor or a DIY project?
See whether the seller can produce a building permit for repairs and renovations that require one. Such improvements include any structural additions, installing a new roof, adding/relocating electrical outlets, adding/relocating plumbing fixtures, and installing/replacing an HVAC (heating, venting, and air conditioning) system.
If the seller doesn't have the building permits (perhaps the work was done by an earlier owner), double-check with the local building department, usually through the county or city authorities.
If a permit should have been issued—but wasn’t—the building official may have the authority to force the current owner (which could be you, if you buy the house) to obtain the permit and satisfy the current code requirements. This could turn into a very costly project.
This question might put the seller on the spot, or seem a touch personal. But it can get the person talking about the home, neighborhood, and community. You might learn something positive that you might not have known otherwise—the tight-knit community, the short walk to the library, the way the sun shines through the living-room windows in the afternoon, the low heating bills, or the wildflowers that grow in the summer on the hill behind the house.
Listing and marketing materials include lots of details about a house (the number of bedrooms and baths, and the square footage, for example) and the showing lets you see it firsthand. But talking to the seller can help you learn exactly what you could be getting into. If you have difficulty being able to connect with the seller, try to get some of these questions answered through your real estate agent.
Questions are arising about whether the city acted properly when it allowed a dentist to move into a building that was the site of a March 30 medical gas accident that seriously injured a Tonganoxie youth.
Lawrence City Hall officials confirmed that they do not have a record of whether a required third-party inspection of a medical gas system was conducted at a new dental surgery center operated by Dr. S. Kirk Vincent at 4811 Bob Billings Parkway.
On March 30, Tonganoxie High School senior Austin Stone went to the dental office to have his wisdom teeth removed. After being sedated with medical gas, complications occurred, according to a Web site created by Stone’s family. Stone was taken to Lawrence Memorial Hospital after he stopped breathing, and later was taken to Kansas University Hospital. Attempts to reach members of the Stone family for comment were unsuccessful. As of late Thursday, Stone remained hospitalized but further updates on his medical condition were not available.
The city maintains it was not legally obligated to ensure that a qualified private firm was hired by the builders to inspect the medical gas system, which is used to deliver oxygen and nitrous oxide. But Scott McCullough — the city’s director of planning and development services, who oversees the inspections department — said the city may make changes to the code.
“This event certainly highlights that more can be done to ensure that the inspections are noted in the file,” McCullough said.
McCullough said the city has not been on-site to determine what went wrong with the medical gas system at the building. But since the accident, Dr. Vincent — in a letter to the city’s building inspection’s department — wrote that the accident was caused by improper installation of the medical gas lines.
“The individual manifolds used to connect the oxygen and nitrous oxide were inadvertently transposed,” Dr. Vincent wrote in the April 8 letter. “I was given the go-ahead to begin practicing, and a serious injury occurred to a young man in my office. The problem was solely related to the incorrect hookup of the manifolds.”
According to building permit documents obtained by the Journal-World and 6News through a Kansas Open Records Act request, Lawrence-based Action Plumbing installed the medical gas lines.
An attorney for Action Plumbing said he did not know whether a third-party inspection had been done on the medical gas system. A representative for the general contractor — Lawrence-based Design Build Collaborative — declined to comment.
Some leaders in the Lawrence plumbing industry are raising concerns about whether the city did enough to prevent the accident.
“A mistake was made, but there was a means of not having that mistake happen if there would have been an inspection,” said Denis Wittman, the business officer for the Lawrence chapter of the Plumbers & Pipefitters union.
City officials did make more than 15 inspections of the building, as part of the normal process for any building to receive a building permit in the city, McCullough said.
But city code requires the contractor hire an outside inspection company to conduct a variety of tests on the medical gas system, McCullough said. He said under the code, Dr. Vincent should have received a certificate from the contractor showing the medical gas inspection had been completed.
Dr. Vincent said he never received such a certificate, adding that he was unaware that he was supposed to receive a certificate.
It is unclear whether the city — as the enforcer of the code — had an obligation to determine whether the inspection had been done before city inspectors issued a permit allowing Dr. Vincent to occupy the building.
McCullough said the city’s position is that it had no obligation to verify the medical gas inspection took place.
“As I understand it, we did not take any steps to determine whether it was inspected because it doesn’t fall under our purview,” McCullough said.
In 2007, the city switched its plumbing code from the Uniform Plumbing Code system to the International Plumbing Code system. The switch was made by the City Commission despite formal opposition from the city’s Board of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters. The plumbing board recommended against adopting the International code because members said the International code was often too vague and open to interpretation.
In March 2007 — when the City Commission was debating the subject — commissioners were warned that the International code had lesser medical gas standards, according to the City Commission meeting minutes. Bill Schweitzer, the north central regional manager for the company that publishes the Uniform Plumbing Code, specifically brought up the medical gas issue.
This week, Schweitzer said news of the accident angered him.
“I’m a little bit hot, to say the least, and quite upset,” Schweitzer said. “It is senseless. There’s absolutely no reason for that to happen. None.”
McCullough said the city didn’t agree with the assertion that the International code was weak in the area of medical gas regulation, but said the city was open to adding provisions to the code.
Dr. Vincent, in a letter to the city, has asked that the city be required to verify a proper inspection of medical gas systems has been done before a building is allowed to be occupied.
McCullough said he likely will present that idea to the city’s plumbing board in May or June.
Wittman — the union representative — said he’ll also push for a more thorough review of the entire International Plumbing Code. He fought adoption of the code in 2007, saying it was vague in several areas.
“I’m not going to let this one lay,” Wittman said. “I got beat down on it before and got tired and finally just said it was something we could live with. But now it is clear that we can’t.”
Inspector
I’d like some information, if you don't mind, Mr Birling. Two hours ago a young woman died in the infirmary. She'd been taken there this afternoon because she'd swallowed a lot of strong disinfectant. Burnt her inside out, of course.
Eric (involuntarily)
My God!
Inspector
Yes, she was in great agony. They did everything they could for her at the infirmary, but she died. Suicide, of course.
Birling (rather impatiently)
Yes, yes. Horrid business. But I don't understand why you should come here, Inspector -
Inspector (cutting through, massively)
I’ve been round to the room she had, and she'd left a letter there and a sort of diary. Like a lot of these young women who get into various kinds of trouble, she'd used more than one name. But her original name - her real name - was Eva Smith.
Birling (thoughtfully)
Eva Smith?
Inspector
Do you remember her, Mr Birling?
Birling (slowly)
No - I seem to remember hearing that name - Eva Smith - somewhere. But it doesn't convey anything to me. And I don't see where I come into this.
Act One
A $1.17 million settlement with a former Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General employee who flagged issues with embattled Inspector General Joseph Cuffari is raising a fresh set of questions from Congress.
The settlement, signed earlier this month but revealed by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) on Thursday, admits no wrongdoing by Cuffari’s office but makes a substantial whistleblower reprisal payment to Jennifer Costello, the employee.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) investigation into the matter surfaces a number of bizarre clashes between the two employees, including a beef over Costello’s refusal to print thousands of pages of documents she asserted Cuffari could read online to his initial plan to try and assign her to a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) dealing with countering weapons of mass destruction.
But lawmakers are also raising questions over whether Cuffari misled Congress about the need for a $1.4 million contract to investigate Costello and others.
The settlement received by Costello is the largest known settlement for an employee of an inspector general office and among the largest ever given to a federal employee.
A joint letter from top Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee and House Oversight and Accountability Committee obtained by The Hill indicates lawmakers plan to probe the deal, as well as why Cuffari’s deputy was able to sign off on the agreement without alerting other officials.
A deposition in front of the board “raises serious concerns about your possibly retaliatory actions and lack of candor, improper use of taxpayer dollars, and lack of truthfulness in your communications with Congress,” Reps. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) write in the letter to Cuffari.
Costello in 2019 made disclosures about Cuffari to both Congress and the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), which is now investigating Cuffari. He likewise complained to the organization about her.
Costello’s complaints included that Cuffari delayed a report on DHS’s struggle to track children and parents separated at the border under a Trump administration policy, according to records Costello supplied to the POGO.
Costello was dismissed in June 2020, but Cuffari told the MSPB his plan to assign her to the Office for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction — despite her lack of relevant experience — was made before an investigation into her conduct.
“Your testimony appears to show that at least one of the allegations brought against Ms. Costello as a basis for her proposed removal was frivolous,” the lawmakers wrote.
“Specifically, the deposition transcript reveals that after you requested that Ms. Costello print thousands of pages of DHS OIG policies, she expressed concern to you that it was not a ‘valuable use of the staff resources or appropriated funds.’ You then decided that this suggestion was grounds for removal because she ‘was making a determination on whether or not [the printing] was appropriate.’”
The POGO report indicates Cuffari made other inaccurate claims to justify his firing of Costello, including that she ordered a criminal review of his travel shortly after taking the job — a review that was initiated by another employee.
Cuffari spent $1.4 million on a contract with law firm WilmerHale to investigate Costello and others, one that lawmakers contend “did not substantiate any illegal conduct.”
They say Cuffari also failed to disclose to Congress that other inspectors general he asked to probe the conduct of Costello declined to do so.
“Your omission of this important information raises questions about your intentions when you informed Congress that you conferred with other Inspectors General and whether or not you accurately reflected the events preceding your decision to hire WilmerHale,” they wrote.
The settlement with Costello was signed by his chief of staff, Kristen Fredricks, something Thompson and Raskin say should have prompted an alert to ethics officials, as federal regulations require that they be consulted when the conduct at issue involves the head of the agency.
“It is unclear whether you raised concerns regarding your subordinate’s approval of the $1.17 million settlement to resolve allegations pertaining to your misconduct. It is also unclear whether or not you sought an opinion from a DHS ethics officer,” they wrote.
“However, it is deeply troubling that the individual who approved the settlement is someone whom you directly oversee and promoted to the position of Chief of Staff. This decision raises a potentially serious and flagrant abuse of your position.”
Cuffari’s office did not respond to request for comment over the POGO report or the letter from Democrats.
An attorney for Costello said she was pleased with the result of the years-long battle.
“My client stood for what she believed was right. Time has revealed that she was indeed right. And now she has a balm for the sacrifice she made to preserve the integrity of the work of the faithful civil servants of DHS OIG,” Costello attorney Eden Brown Gaines said in a statement.
The matter adds to the growing complaints about Cuffari, who has earned the ire of lawmakers after failing to notify them that Secret Service text messages from Jan. 6 were lost in software migration.
He most recently came under fire for saying that he routinely deletes text messages from his own government phone — an action that appears to violate record retention laws.
Lawmakers are also reviewing reports he censored findings of domestic abuse and sexual harassment by DHS employees.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
A $1.17 million settlement with a former Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General employee who flagged issues with embattled Inspector General Joseph Cuffari is raising a fresh set of questions from Congress.
The settlement, signed earlier this month but revealed by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) on Thursday, admits no wrongdoing by Cuffari’s office but makes a substantial whistleblower reprisal payment to Jennifer Costello, the employee.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) investigation into the matter surfaces a number of bizarre clashes between the two employees, including a beef over Costello’s refusal to print thousands of pages of documents she asserted Cuffari could read online to his initial plan to try and assign her to a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) dealing with countering weapons of mass destruction.
But lawmakers are also raising questions over whether Cuffari misled Congress about the need for a $1.4 million contract to investigate Costello and others.
The settlement received by Costello is the largest known settlement for an employee of an inspector general office and among the largest ever given to a federal employee.
A joint letter from top Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee and House Oversight and Accountability Committee obtained by The Hill indicates lawmakers plan to probe the deal, as well as why Cuffari’s deputy was able to sign off on the agreement without alerting other officials.
A deposition in front of the board “raises serious concerns about your possibly retaliatory actions and lack of candor, improper use of taxpayer dollars, and lack of truthfulness in your communications with Congress,” Reps. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) write in the letter to Cuffari.
Costello in 2019 made disclosures about Cuffari to both Congress and the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), which is now investigating Cuffari. He likewise complained to the organization about her.
Costello’s complaints included that Cuffari delayed a report on DHS’s struggle to track children and parents separated at the border under a Trump administration policy, according to records Costello supplied to the POGO.
Costello was dismissed in June 2020, but Cuffari told the MSPB his plan to assign her to the Office for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction — despite her lack of relevant experience — was made before an investigation into her conduct.
“Your testimony appears to show that at least one of the allegations brought against Ms. Costello as a basis for her proposed removal was frivolous,” the lawmakers wrote.
“Specifically, the deposition transcript reveals that after you requested that Ms. Costello print thousands of pages of DHS OIG policies, she expressed concern to you that it was not a ‘valuable use of the staff resources or appropriated funds.’ You then decided that this suggestion was grounds for removal because she ‘was making a determination on whether or not [the printing] was appropriate.’”
The POGO report indicates Cuffari made other inaccurate claims to justify his firing of Costello, including that she ordered a criminal review of his travel shortly after taking the job — a review that was initiated by another employee.
Cuffari spent $1.4 million on a contract with law firm WilmerHale to investigate Costello and others, one that lawmakers contend “did not substantiate any illegal conduct.”
They say Cuffari also failed to disclose to Congress that other inspectors general he asked to probe the conduct of Costello declined to do so.
“Your omission of this important information raises questions about your intentions when you informed Congress that you conferred with other Inspectors General and whether or not you accurately reflected the events preceding your decision to hire WilmerHale,” they wrote.
The settlement with Costello was signed by his chief of staff, Kristen Fredricks, something Thompson and Raskin say should have prompted an alert to ethics officials, as federal regulations require that they be consulted when the conduct at issue involves the head of the agency.
“It is unclear whether you raised concerns regarding your subordinate’s approval of the $1.17 million settlement to resolve allegations pertaining to your misconduct. It is also unclear whether or not you sought an opinion from a DHS ethics officer,” they wrote.
“However, it is deeply troubling that the individual who approved the settlement is someone whom you directly oversee and promoted to the position of Chief of Staff. This decision raises a potentially serious and flagrant abuse of your position.”
Cuffari’s office did not respond to request for comment over the POGO report or the letter from Democrats.
An attorney for Costello said she was pleased with the result of the years-long battle.
“My client stood for what she believed was right. Time has revealed that she was indeed right. And now she has a balm for the sacrifice she made to preserve the integrity of the work of the faithful civil servants of DHS OIG,” Costello attorney Eden Brown Gaines said in a statement.
The matter adds to the growing complaints about Cuffari, who has earned the ire of lawmakers after failing to notify them that Secret Service text messages from Jan. 6 were lost in software migration.
He most recently came under fire for saying that he routinely deletes text messages from his own government phone — an action that appears to violate record retention laws.
Lawmakers are also reviewing reports he censored findings of domestic abuse and sexual harassment by DHS employees.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
