Nov 16, 2004

Non-Transition Logjam

by Cliopatria

Executive branch administrative expert Paul Light, who seems to be the go-to guy for transition analysis, has a troubling essay in the NYTimes today. An excerpt [bold and italic emphasis added]:

...the presidential appointments process remains as cumbersome as ever. Every administration since 1961, first-term or second-term, has been later in filling its jobs than its predecessor, while every appointee has been more vulnerable to death by a thousand paper cuts.

Much of the frustration comes from efforts to"scandal-proof" the government by treating every nominee, in the memorable phrase of one former White House aide, as innocent until nominated. Despite repeated calls to make the process more efficient, appointees still have to fill out more than 60 pages of forms, answer more than 240 questions, and supply reams of financial data - sorted in every which way. They still have to supply the dates and places of birth of their mothers- and fathers-in-law, a complete inventory of all foreign travel, including short trips to Mexico and Canada, and the name of a high school classmate who can vouch for their character. Many of the questions date back to the McCarthy era and serve no purpose for increasing confidence in the nominee, but they must be answered nonetheless. At least one of the forms is best completed by typewriter.
...
Past appointees actually suffer from their prior service - the Federal Bureau of Investigation is obligated to cross-check their last set of forms against the new set, adding even more time to the process.
...
it is the subcabinet that bears the brunt of the frustration and delay. Nominees to the subcabinet, defined as any position below that of secretary, waited almost nine months on average to enter office in Mr. Bush's first term. The federal hierarchy was not so much headless during the period as neckless. On July 11, 2001, for example, barely a quarter of the presidential appointees who would be involved in the war on terrorism had been either nominated or confirmed; on Sept. 11, the percentage was still well below half.

This is no way to run a government.

There are two obvious solutions ("There's always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken), one of which strengthens the President's hand and one of which weakens it, and by supporting both I hope to stake a claim to non-partisan interest in good government. First, as Light argues, the process needs to be streamlined so that background checks are meaningful but reasonably efficient. It doesn't seem too much to ask in the digital age, though I understand that too much efficiency in data collection does raise privacy concerns; still, nine months on average is absurd. Security is a real concern: increase the funding and staffing for background checks, an area which our government has been increasingly outsourcing and underfunding in recent years at all levels. This will make administrations more flexible in staffing, and quicker to get moving.

Second, reduce the political appointment layer of government. Even after winning, Bush is expected to need to make"300 to 400" new confirmation-level appointments, and a full transition could have involved as many as six thousand jobs to fill. This is absurd. We need experts, and we need loyal civil servants, and though there are certainly flaws in a civil service system, they are not as great as the flaws in a political patronage system; bureaucracy really is an advance over feudalism as a system of delegation and management. I really don't think that, given the choice, most Americans want their federal government politicized to this extent. I think, as a starting place, that the number of appointees, and confirmable appointeess, should be cut in half immediately, with further cuts, more carefully considered, to follow; most cuts preferably to be achieved by eliminating positions rather than entrenching current appointees.

Yes, this would weaken the impact, to some degree, of the presidency, but not that much, frankly. In conjunction with a streamlined appointment process, it would make the Executive Branch more responsive, responsible and effective.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

mark safranski - 11/17/2004

Hi Ralph,

Here you go:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/story?id=253007&;page=2

Quote of note:
"According to Goss' supporters, the agency has been out of control, recently leaking negative stories to the press to undermine the White House.

"The CIA has got to be kept out of partisan politics," said Stansfield Turner, who was CIA director under President Carter. "And it appears that they were leaking information to influence the election. Porter Goss has now got a difficult problem."

Admiral Turner probably disagrees with Bush administration foreign policy but my guess is that he is " old school" on the subject of military or intel personnel involving themselves in partisan politics. What the CIA officials did in my view was insubordination and improper involvement in the political process, not " whistlebowing" or a simple policy wrangle.

If their disagreement was that strong these officials should have taken the rout Michael Sheuer did and made their case openly and/or resigned or made the case in Congressional testimony to the appropriate oversight committees.

Richard Henry Morgan - 11/17/2004

I think the good professor is right. Turner was a strong opponent of Goss at nomination, decrying him as a partisan. Curiously, Sen. Graham of Florida and Sen. Schumer (both Democrats) praised Goss for his non-partisanship. Who you going to believe?

Ralph E. Luker - 11/17/2004

Mark, Can you cite us a source for Stansfield Turner's endorsement of Porter Goss's early management of the CIA? He opposed Goss's nomination and confirmation.

mark safranski - 11/17/2004

The president is not merely an executive administrator, he's the *Chief Executive* and the head of a co-equal branch of government, not one subordinate to the legislature.

Having accountability for the policies and regulatory actions of Federal agencies the president must have the authority as well to appoint his own senior administrators. Or remove them. Technocracy is neither democratic, constitutional or a good idea in my view nor does the current system under CSRA resemble the 19th century spoils system. Most Federal employees enjoy civil service protection and even career employees removed from SES posts do not lose their status or pensions.

Secondly, the transfer of quasi-legislative powers to executive regulatory agencies over the last half-century is the doing of Congress ( and is also revocable by them )not an usurpation of the executive branch.

Goss and Kissinger faced different problems. In the latter case of CIA officials who attempted to tip the scales for Mr. Kerry, that kind of overt partisanship can't be tolerated for obvious reasons. Imagine if senior FBI officials decided to torpedo Democratic candidates for Congress by leaking information from their security files ? Stansfield Turner, who is no conservative, has come out in support of Porter Goss and rightly so.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/16/2004

I guess "trivial, hyperbolic" is a matter of perspective. I fundamentally disagree with your assignment of primary agency to the presidency: the president, however important as an administrator, is just that, an executive administrator. The President executes the law of the land, in other words, the mandates of Congress, not the electorate. The vast majority of the work of the Federal Government is supported bipartisanly and should not be subject to radical political shifts based on presidential elections.

The conflation of the executive with legislative authority, under the guise of "making policy", is one of the fundamental flaws of contemporary political practice and thinking, in my view. Obstructionist bureaucrats should be removed, not tolerated, but what qualifies as obstructionism needs to be very carefully defined, not as resistance to administrative fiat, but as failure to carry out their duties. Kissinger, in other words, was right; Goss is wrong.

mark safranski - 11/16/2004

Jonathan,

I have to disagree on the number of confirmable posts being cut in half for the very good reason that the electorate through their representatives need to be the final authority on policy, not unelected civil servants however well-meaning or expert.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was passed in order to strengthen the president's hand, in this case Jimmy Carter's hand, over a recalcitrant bureaucracy where a culture of passive-aggressively outwaiting administrations had become deeply rooted and cost-free.

Kissinger, in his memoirs, writes about having to threaten to transfer en masse an entire regional desk in order to get a long-delayed and obstructive paper on African policy written. Bureaucrats should simply not have an option of ignoring presidential or cabinet directives while holding office at the policy making level.

Nor has CRSA been abused by presidents. If anything, there has been great flexibility in appointing career civil servants to high-level positions by presidents of both parties - Robert Gates became DCI, Lawrence Eagleberger became Secretary of State, Colin Powell served in a variety of positions in four administrations.

The problem or breakdown in the appointment process you have highlighted is in the Senate where nominees for relatively inconsequential posts are now subject to mini-campaigns of media demonization by professional extremists. If senators as a body decided to ignore trivial, hyperbolic, complaints by activists and address, as they formerly did, only significant ethical or policy concerns, the process would be speedier.