CTU’s agency charter permits the removal of the highest-ranking official at CTU if he or she is deemed mentally unfit for duty by others around him or her. In this case, the incapacity clause of Section 1.12 must be invoked by the next-to-highest-ranking officer.
While the person in question may be detained and removed from the floor, this action must be reviewed as soon as possible by district personnel. In order to be found just, the action must meet the following tests or be supported by the following evidence:
- Two or more witnesses-other than the second-highest-ranking official-who can attest that prior to his or her removal, the highest-ranking official had demonstrated erratic behavior, poor judgment, or conduct that would place CTU personnel or the active protocol in jeopardy. In the past, CTU review boards have ruled that “erratic behavior, poor judgment and jeopardy-inducing conduct” is behavior such as:
* Abusive, profane, and inciting language or physical actions directed at CTU personnel.
* Stubborn insistence on the following of orders that seem to be inconsistent, unproductive, and unwarranted in light of the facts of the active protocol.
* Mentally unstable behavior consistent with a psychological impairment.
* Disturbing behavior or directives that appear to be conducted for the sole purpose of self-aggrandizement.
- Logs, databases, digitally encoded or hard-copy documentation that support the staff’s assessment that the official had behaved in a manner inconsistent with that of a sound and prudent superior confronted with similar information, facts or events.
- The superior in question was warned by his second-in-command to reconsider his questionable actions, commands or directives, but refused to do so.
- Clear, compelling evidence that the second-in-command did not simply disagree with his or her superior, but found that person’s behavior to be truly detrimental to the CTU protocol, mission, or staff, and had no other adequate remedy at hand but the enactment of Section 1.12.
