TOPICS
TOPICS
Presidential campaigns and Senate urged to expedite appointments process
To read tips from longtime federal executives on surviving the transition, click here.
Designating senior career employees to serve temporarily in critical agency jobs during a presidential transition is not sufficient to maintain government continuity, the head of a good government group said on Thursday.
"We have an amazing career workforce that is under stress," said Max Stier, president and chief executive officer of the Partnership for Public Service. "But it is not a substitute [for appointees] and won't be viewed as a substitute by the new president, or by the leadership he will bring in ultimately."
The Partnership, along with several other good government groups, is calling on both presidential campaigns and the Senate to fast-track the ordinarily lengthy political appointments process in light of the country's economic crisis. Specifically, the groups are asking the candidates and the relevant Senate committees to agree to a timetable for considering and voting on nominees to the 50 most critical agency positions within 30 days of the 2009 inauguration, and others within 45 days of their nomination. That plan would require the president-elect to submit the names of designees to the appropriate Senate committees by early December.
There are roughly 4,000 political appointees in the government, and more than 1,100 of those require Senate confirmation. On average, it takes up to one year to assemble a new administration.
"The real holdup has not been the Senate, but in providing names to the Senate," said Stier, during a conference call with reporters. Filling the top slots at the Treasury Department is particularly crucial, he said, given the $700 billion government bailout package for the financial industry that Congress currently is hashing out.
"We don't want the secretary of Treasury home alone in 2009," he said.
But looking back at 2001, it appears that the Senate did drag its feet -- at least on some Treasury Department nominees. In 2001, then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was the only top department official confirmed by Jan. 20, also the date the Senate received the nomination. The deputy secretary was not approved until August 2001. The Senate received that nomination in March. The undersecretary for domestic finance also was not confirmed until August; the administration submitted that nomination in April.
Stier said he has not discussed the timetable idea directly with the campaigns, but he has been in contact with the Senate committees. In addition to the Senate Finance Committee, those with jurisdiction over homeland security, defense, intelligence, foreign relations and law enforcement should consider expediting nominations, he said.
In fact, the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act directs the president-elect to submit the names of nominees for sensitive national security positions by the date of the inauguration. The law also allows each presidential candidate to submit before the election the names of those transition team members requiring security clearances.
Most political observers agree that presidential transitions and a lengthy appointments process can leave the country vulnerable to attack, or government mismanagement. Sixty percent of President Bush's appointees were in place at the time of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
COMMENTS
- Political Appointees, in the purest since, have a place in carrying out the President's agenda. However, many appointees do not bring with them the knowledge and experience in working within the federal government. That being said, political appointees should have less power, as it relates to hiring and firing of career government employees. Career employees are fired on the request of a political appointee, who is temporary, but the firing is permanent. More often than not, the firing is based on "personal" disagreements, instead of a career employee's poor performance. Belinda Fadlelmola Posted November 11, 2008 10:54 AM
- The notion that an agency can run with NO political appointees makes little (actually no) sense. Who sets agency policies? Unelected, unaccountable civil servants? We should just trust them to do whatever they think best and the person we elected has no say how they perform the jobs? Like civil servants wouldn't bring their own agendas? Agencies need an agenda. The only question is whether it's a politically accountable one. Civil Servants aren't politically accountable (note: that's not to say they're not responsible), but without someone at the helm who serves at the pleasure of the President, how can we hold the White House accountable for the agencies' activities? All the money and no control - a dangerous pipe dream. You don't need to think civil servants aren't hard working, conscientious capable people to see why this doesn't work. And this has zero to do with the current administration. If you feel the need to bash an administration, you need to go back to Andrew Johnson and the spoils system. Anonymous Posted September 26, 2008 4:23 PM
- If McCain wins he will have a Democratic House and Senate, and politically, I see NO REASON why -- as in the past -- the Senate should not use the confirmation process as a bully puppet for various issues -- pertinent or not to a particular nominee. The problem with GovOnline news/editorial -- is that youse guys keep retailing these press releases from the good government goo-goos -- like the Partnership for Government Service--which implore and berate the political class (e.g. the Senate, their staffers, as associated inhibitors of speedy confirmation) with a list of operational virtues -- better government, smooth transition, best interests of the American people, etc, etc,-- in short the Boy/Scout Girl Scout list of civic good government. But, but..we live in a POLITICAL system - designed for contention - Senate vs. President, but, but…the goo-goos (who are in fact far more sophisticated than their Dick and Jane press releases) keep preaching and press releasing a simplistic formula for speedy confirmation – be good citizens, just do the right thing and confirm quickly. Alas, politics is not the dark side of government operations, politics is the ocean wherein all branches of government swim, and giving nominees a hard time, often a very, very hard and long time, is pure political activity – it’s indigenous, not toxic or exotic. But, alas, GovExOnline most likely does not have the time, resources, or editorial proclivities to pursue and analyze the POLTICAL gains or losses of confirmation delays. Instead, youse guys keep running goody-two shoes pieces for the entertainment and easy baiting of readers – maybe it builds ratings, but, it belies your claim (pose?) as an insightful newsletter on federal government. Concerned Retiree Posted September 26, 2008 12:35 PM
