Survey finds nomination process deters potential appointees

Most corporate and civic leaders believe that serving in the government as a presidential appointee is an honor, but said mediocre pay and an embarrassing nomination process would deter them from the job, according to a new survey. The survey of 580 leaders in business, academia, the nonprofit sector and state and local government was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates as part of the Presidential Appointee Initiative (PAI). The initiative is designed to suggest improvements to the appointments process. Paul C. Light, senior adviser to the initiative and director of governmental studies at the Brookings Institution, and Virginia L. Thomas, senior fellow in government studies at the Heritage Foundation, wrote the study. "The intense scrutiny and intrusive nature of the process has become a strong disincentive to serve for qualified candidates," said Thomas. While 72 percent of the survey's respondents called serving as an appointee an honor, 71 percent of respondents said better pay would make the job more attractive. Other deterrents for nominees included undergoing a confusing and demanding appointments process, not being able to return to their previous jobs after government service and relocating to Washington. Sixty-six percent of the survey's respondents said the Senate's approach to confirmations was too demanding and that legislators made the process "an ordeal." "I didn't want to go through the nomination and confirmation process which I knew would be deadly and would probably fail. The threat of having your family vilified was too much for me," said one respondent. Light and Thomas also wrote a study in April of current and former political appointees that found most nominees endure a long and stressful process to enter public service. The survey included 435 current and former senior-level appointees of the Clinton, Bush and Reagan administrations. Forty percent of those respondents called the process confusing, and 23 percent said it was embarrassing. Senate confirmation drew the most ire among the steps of the process. Several good-government groups--including Brookings and the Heritage Foundation--and lawmakers such as Sens. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., have called for improvements to the appointments process and offered advice to the next group of nominees.

In November, the Presidential Appointee Initiative and the Council for Excellence in Government published a "survivor's guide" for potential appointees on everything from filling out forms to handling the media. Congress passed the Presidential Transition Act of 2000--sponsored by Thompson and Lieberman--in October. It provides for briefings and an orientation for political appointees, creates a "transitions" directory with important administrative information and information about agencies, and requires the Office of Government Ethics to report on burdensome disclosure requirements for appointees. Last August, the Heritage Foundation published The Keys to a Successful Presidency, which offered advice to presidential hopefuls from dozens of presidential experts ranging from former White House chiefs of staff to former White House personnel directors. Despite the wealth of information for nominees however, nearly half of the new survey's respondents said they knew little or nothing about the appointments process.