trust : A recent article ... [Rein 2014] about administrative actions involving the National Archives’ Inspector General and players outside NARA drew predictable comments from ordinary readers who used simple political framing. But one comment zeroed in on the issue of trust.
“An Inspector General cannot compel trust from those employees [whose?] concerns about agency operations he looks into. He or she earns trust within a critical mass of employees within an agency – or not. Trust is precious capital and the IG the sole accountable officer in handling the capital. The capital of trust lies in the hands of the official who holds an IG function alone. It is affected by far more than press coverage (which can help or hinder its accumulation) or issued reports. This applies to all Inspectors General, regardless of method of appointment.
¶
Trust depends on a delicate mix of elements. The opinions of outsiders (on the Hill, in the press) are irrelevant to the process of building or destroying employee trust. They are not dependents in the process.
¶
Trust cannot be built or rebuilt by compulsion or outside reporting or by the Hill. This part of the job every IG must (or should – it cannot be required despite being a critical element) face on his or her own from the time he or she first assumes a position in an agency or department. Trust in an IG is solely employee-owned, employee-granted, and employee-driven.
(†379)
trust : The tendentious reporting of issues in which I tangentially was a player in 1994 by virtue of having been made the subject of a complaint simply undermined my trust in the way the newspaper reported archival issues.
¶
I easily rebutted the allegation made about me in 1994. We do hold our reputations in our own hands, after all. (†380)
