Section 1.12

Section 1.12, also known as the "incapacity clause," was a part of the Official CTU Operations Manual that stated that it was acceptable to remove a high-ranking official from their position if they are deemed mentally unfit for duty.

Day 5

Convinced by Audrey Raines that Lynn McGill was impeding CTU's investigation of the day's terrorist threat, Curtis Manning had Security escort McGill to holding. This action was based on the firing of CTU techie Carrie Bendis, the imprisoning of Bill Buchanan, and the attempted imprisoning of Chloe O'Brian, Edgar Stiles, and Curtis Manning. Manning then called Division Command to inform them of his actions and a full review of McGill's conduct was initiated.

Identifying an Unstable Superior

The extract from the Official Manual states the following.

“

CTU's agency charter permits the removal of the highest ranking official at CTU if he or she is deemed mentally unfit for duty. In this case, the incapacity clause of Section 1.12 must be invoked by the next-to-highest-ranking officer. The person in question may be detained and removed from the floor, but this action must be reviewed as soon as possible by District personnel. To be found just, the action must meet the following requirements or be supported by the following evidence: Two or more witnesses - other than the second-highest-ranking official - attest that, prior to his or her removal, the highest-ranking official had demonstrated erratic behavior, poor judgement, or questionable conduct that would jeopardize CTU personnel or the active protocol. CTU review boards have ruled that "erratic behavior, poor judgement, and jeopardy-inducting conduct" is behavior such as: Abusive, profane and inciting language or physical actions directed at CTU personnel. Stubborn instance 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, or digitally encoded or hard-copy documentation that supports the staff's assessment that the official 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 the questionable actions, commands or directives but refused to do so. Clear, compelling evidence that the second-in-command did not simply disagree with a superior but found that person's behavior to be truly detrimental to the CTU protocol, mission, or staff and had no other adequate remedy except the enactment of Section 1.12. Important Employees are reminded that any superior who is relieved of duty under section 1.12 should still be treated with courtesy, even while being detailed. District draws a sharp distinction between superiors removed under the incapacity clause and those removed under suspicion of being a mole or traitor. Do not confuse the two.

”