TOPICS
TOPICS
OMB chief talks management
Office of Management and Budget Director Rob Portman addressed federal officials and academics at a luncheon Tuesday, speaking specifically about management issues for the first time publicly since he took office in May.
Drawing on his own congressional background as a 12-year representative from Ohio, Portman said OMB needs to provide more and better information to lawmakers so they can understand the benefits of management initiatives.
Congress "is a target-rich environment -- there are plenty of members of Congress who need to hear more about management," Portman said, noting that the few members who do focus on management "can be extremely helpful to us in spreading the word and ... making it a politically and substantively interesting issue."
He praised the integration of management and budget under one roof at OMB, saying the high profile of budget issues allows management to piggy-back for greater visibility. But he said it was important to have people dedicated to the management side since budget issues sometimes command the vast majority of his time as director.
As a case in point, Portman left the luncheon, hosted by the IBM Center for the Business of Government, early to attend a bill-signing ceremony. That left Deputy Director for Management Clay Johnson to speak to the administration's progress on key points in the President's Management Agenda.
Johnson framed some of those updates in terms of the lasting impacts of the initiatives, suggesting a new focus on the legacy this administration leaves, but shared few new ideas for how OMB would convince a reluctant Congress to adopt measures that have proven controversial.
He credited employees' strong commitment to the management agenda for a good showing overall, with about 90 percent of agencies now earning a green score, for success, on their progress. "Some [employees] may be loyal to this president, some may not be loyal to the president, but their primary loyalty and affiliation is to the agency, and if something is good for the agency ... they will be for it," he said.
On competitive sourcing, Johnson said OMB's ability to educate and illuminate "hasn't been what it could be," citing estimates that the government could save $4 billion to $6 billion a year from a greater use of public-private job competitions. He suggested that the administration might enlist the support of bloggers to draw attention to members of Congress who oppose the competitions.
Speaking on the administration's use of the Program Assessment Rating Tool, Johnson confirmed that OMB will soon complete reviews of all government programs, a process that has rolled out incrementally over five years.
Johnson said OMB will prepare to re-evaluate programs that "are ready for that," noting those rated poorly two or three years ago have had time to make improvements, and many would like to see an update to the ExpectMore.gov Web site, which makes program ratings available to the public.
COMMENTS
- "Some [employees] may be loyal to this president, some may not be loyal to the president, but their primary loyalty and affiliation is to the agency, and if something is good for the agency ... they will be for it," he said. [Clay Johnson] Loyalty to the President is a political question, not a management question. Government employees should have the option to follow the will or stated intent of the Board of Directors [Congress] and not the direction of the president without fear of reprisal. The new personnel systems in DoD and DHS provide a basis for total dedication to the president and a total disregard for congressional intent or stated desire. Who cares what Congress wants when you pay depends on doing what the president wants. Thus dropping of the civil service system condemns the government to operate under a dictator president because he now has the power to pay those who do his bidding and not pay those who adhere to congressional intent of stated rules. They already disregard congressional rules attached to specific appropriations, such as the environmental cleanup area. The services are adding other appropriated money to the cleanup appropriation actions and are using the specific cleanup appropriation for other purposes. Both are limited or prohibited by the appropriation language but it is done anyway. When the issue is raised no one cares what Congress wants they simply push money to areas where the party needs election pressure, such as the removal of McClellan AFB from the closure list under the Clinton administration. The party makes no difference -- both do it. Taxpayer Posted September 27, 2006 10:12 AM
