The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the Institute for European Intelligence and Security.
History of the Inspectorate
Colloquially know as 'The Inspectorate', the independent Office of the Inspector-General (OIG) is responsible for overseeing the conduct of the Institute and its members. It responds to complaints and acts as the last line of appeal for Institute decisions. It is a separate entity from the Institute and is charged with investigating and reporting to the public on matters of competence and malpractice in the field of Intelligence.
The Inspectorate was established in the Governing Document of the Institute in 2015. Since that time, it has been conducting secret inquiries on its own terms, overseeing the conduct of officers throughout the intelligence profession.
Over time, the remit of the Inspectorate has changed to match the strategic focus of the Institute. However, it has always been an independent authority and remains an essential accountability mechanism for a professional membership.
Members of the Inspectorate
Candidates for the role of Inspector-General may not have had any prior association with intelligence organisations or any other association or belief that would demonstrate a conflict of interest. Furthermore they must demonstrate a lifetime career in positions of public trust. Appointments are never made from the military, judiciary, police or other professions deemed too close or sympathetic to the intelligence services. Appointments are frequently made from the press, trustees, non-profit workers and volunteers.
Post-appointment an Inspector-General is free to appoint other members of the Inspectorate as they see fit. This Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigates issues of malpractice and incompetency by individuals or organisations. Also, they review Institute policies, expenditures, administration and operations. A team may conduct malpractice and incompetency investigations at any time in response to a complaint and may not be dissolved until an outcome is reached. However, reviews are only conducted on an annual basis.
Members of the Inspectorate are cleared to the same level as members of the Institute and bound by the same secrecy obligations. They scrutinise sensitive information of all kinds and hold hearings in closed session.
Upon receipt of a complaint an Inspector-General is appointed by the Chair of the Institute to lead the Inspectorate investigating the issue. After the appointment of an Inspector-General the Institute may not be involved with the work of the Inspectorate. The Office of the Inspector General is free to investigate the issue overtly or covertly in in order to present a complete report to the public. Information may only be withheld in the event that disclosure is considered (by the Inspector-General) to result in harm to individuals or national/regional interests. Even then, only the relevant parts of the body of a report may be sanitised, the findings of a report must always be revealed in full.
In the event that such sanitisation is prejudicial to the outcome or presents misleading findings, the Inspector-General must state in his conclusions "The investigation found sufficient evidence to support/dismiss charges of professional (and/or criminal) incompetence/malpractice." together with an explanation as to why further evidence could not be provided.
The Institute, its officers, registrants and any other accredited organisations or personnel are obliged to co-operate with an investigation and may face disciplinary action if they fail to do so. In severe cases of criminal incompetence and misconduct, the Inspector-General may permanently strike accredited organisations or individuals from the register and turn them over for criminal prosecution.
The Inspector-General is the only official with the power to dismiss the Chair of the Institute.
Currently, there aren't any publications presented here, because:
- Since its inception, the Inspectorate has only been called upon to present annual reports to the Central Committee of the Institute.
- No internal or external complaint has ever been raised against a member of the central committee.
- Minor disciplinary cases are dealt with by the Institute and do not require the involvement of the Inspectorate. Therefore, no lay member of the Institute has ever been suspected or reported for serious wrongdoing.
- The Inspectorate has never been called upon to investigate issues of wrongdoing in unregulated third parties.
- No Institute decision has ever needed a final line in appeal.