O Termo de Ajustamento de Conduta (TAC) como meio alternativo para o processo administrativo disciplinar: mecanismo de governança, desburocratização e eficiência

Abstract

The Disciplinary Administrative Procedure (DAP) is a procedure for investigating infractions committed by public servants. Most of the time it is triggered to investigate conducts of low offensive potential, resulting in dismissals or irrelevant punishments that do little to improve the offender's behavior and the quality of the public service. The focus of this article is to deal with the Conduct Adjustment Term (CAT) as a mechanism of good governance in the improvement of disciplinary management and an alternative means to the establishment of the DAP. The methodology of bibliographic and empirical documental, exploratory and comparative research was used, starting from two points: qualitative comparison of the rules of the Comptroller General of the Union in line with the literature; and analysis of reports from Minas Gerais federal universities between 2015/2020. The final considerations pointed out legal, operational and attitudinal gaps that deserve the engagement of entities to strengthen governance, such as reducing bureaucracy and improving efficiency through the CAT. Most penalties of lesser offensive potential are related to non-compliance with rules or related to interpersonal treatment. The average period for trial was 9 months, which is relatively high since those established by law are much shorter. Delay is harmful to the body and public servant submitted to investigation, as well as it violates the constitutional principle of reasonable duration of the process and distances management from the notions of good practices and efficiency sought by public governance. Of the penalties applied, 75% referred to conduct that could adhere to the CAT. As for the procedural phase, almost 55% resulted in dismissals and/or acquittals and 21% in prescribed infractions (neither even investigated). Investigations (light sentences) accounted for 2/3 of the cases filed. The CAT has shown low adherence since it appeared in 2017, as only half of the analyzed FUs adopted it, not reaching 2 on average throughout the period.