Still Waiting

Recently, The New York Times published a story about the long delays in selecting and confirming appointees to the top 500 jobs in the Obama administration.  As of the end of August, only 43% of those positions had been filled.  This statistic reflects a larger reality that has been a problem for several decades as sharper partisanship and other factors have made the whole process more difficult and the results less satisfactory.

A decade ago at The Century Foundation, we undertook studies designed to reach conclusions that might help streamline the process for both parties. We commissioned papers by Professor G. Calvin Mackenzie and journalist Robert Shogan on how the process worked and what seemed to be the major problems. In addition, the following year G. Calvin Mackenzie, The Goldfarb Family Distinguished Professor of Government at Colby College, wrote The Presidential Appointment Process in 1997, on our behalf laying out the nature of the problem and offering even more far reaching solutions. 

 In the run-up to the 2000 election, since it was clear there would be a new president, it seemed there might be a bipartisan willingness to consider such reforms and to change, anachronisms such as secret holds on nominations in the Senate. We also set up a task force under the leadership of former Senators John C. Culver and Charles McC. Mathias, which produced a comprehensive report and recommendations in its report, “Obstacle Course.” 

As we noted then, few groups of Americans look, on  paper, as accomplished and deserving as the list of presidential appointees to top government posts. At the same time, the average length of stay in one of these jobs has been declining. This fact is often overlooked as nominees begin the cumbersome process of being “vetted,’ filling out multiple forms, tolerating investigations and answering deeply personal questions. For some high profile nominees the process is even worse. Opposing interest groups and political adversaries seize on any aspect of a person’s life that can be construed as controversial and often, facilitated by a press eager for conflict, transform the process into a game of political “gotcha.”

By the beginning of the new century, the average length of time it took to confirm had lengthened from two months during the Kennedy Administration to more than eight months. This sorry situation is compounded by the fact that many political appointees spend two years or less actually in office. This situation is hardly a prescription for excellence in public management.

Not all the problems, of course, are the result of difficulties with Senate confirmation.  Some are defensive moves on the part of administrations that have been burned.  Some others are part of cultural and political changes that open up as fair game more and more of a person’s personal life, financial affairs, and past statements and activities.  Well organized vetting of candidates for these appointments still does not protect the administration completely from sometimes distorted, highly focused and intense scrutiny from its opponents.  As noted, the media’s willingness to fixate on these questions as the sine qua non of the appointments process brushes aside years of experience, multiple degrees and achievements in favor of some apparent slipup or unconventional use of a phrase, let alone a controversial position.

The Task Force’s key findings included asserting that the appointment process was repellent to people it seeks to recruit and it seems almost abusive to some appointees. In addition it was noted that the appointment process has become a maelstrom of complexity, much of which serves little public purpose. Other recommendations included:

 

·    the number of presidential appointments should be reduced substantially, by approximately a third of the current total;

·    appointments to advisory commissions and routine promotions of military officers and others should cease to be presidential appointments and cease to require Senate confirmation;

·    the president’s efforts to fill the job should be augmented temporarily with additional staff and FBI investigations should be eliminated for non-sensitive positions;

·    simplifying the conflict of interest laws is another finding the task force strongly endorsed;

·    all parties in the appointments process, Congressional and Executive, should agree on a single financial disclosure form which would save time and money for all appointees;

·    setting up an interoffice agency group to facilitate appointments and transition after people are finally approved for their new jobs;

·    significant modification of the practice of holds by individual senators and confirmation debates should be given fast track status in the Senate to shield them from these holds;

·    confirmation hearings also should be waived for noncontroversial appointees to lower level positions;

·    some committees should conduct executive sessions for examination of certain personal records or criticisms of nominees based on questionable evidence.

 

Importantly, the group argued for more civil discourse and courtesy and constructiveness in the process.  Since the members of the task force represented some of the elites of both parties and since most recommendations were unanimous, one might say it’s surprising they didn’t go very far. However, very little of general politics has moved in the direction of constructive bipartisan engagement in the last 10 years. One can only hope that the current delays reopen these questions and the President’s deep commitment to trying to achieve bipartisan solutions makes it possible for these issues to be revisited and finally reformed.