A Government Ill Executed - Posts of Honor

In chapter 3 of A Government Ill Executed, Paul Light turns to the state of federal political appointees.

Unlike the civil service, political appointees come and go with different administrations, and generally serve at the pleasure of the President. They play an important role in the executive branch as intermediaries between the President and the unelected civil service who are on the front lines. As Light describes them, political appointees "play a central role is managing the chain of command, interpreting legislation, overseeing regulations, and faithfully executing the laws." Without a competent person in these roles, the business of the executive branch can slow or even come to a halt.

Light is concerned that the process by which political appointees are identified, recruited, appointed and, if necessary, confirmed is broken. What is needed is a "fast, simple and fair appointments process." What we have, however, has been best characterized as "nasty and brutish without being short." This is due to "needless forms, needless delays" and the sense by all involved that a candidate is "innocent until nominated." As a result, the management of the executive branch suffers as mediocre appointees fill these posts, or they remain unfilled for large amounts of time.

Appointment

Light notes that extensive screening and many questionnaires appointees must fill out. They are unnecessarily time consuming, requiring the candidate to spend inordinate amounts of time locating every last address and phone number since college. Light estimates that a candidate will have had to answer 240 separate questions, including 61 on personal and family background, 32 on tax and finances, 35 on legal proceedings,7 on public and organizational activities and even one on the people they hired for child care.

Appointees are generally left to navigate these with little help from the White House. Outside help from lawyers and accountants must be paid for by the appointee. They then have to wait while overworked investigators from various federal agencies confirm their accuracy. The process keeps getting longer. President Kennedy took just two months to get his Senate confirmed appointments finished. The current President took nine.

Confirmation

Light does not discuss the Senate's confirmation process in much detail, which is too bad because it's every bit as bad. Senate committees have their own questionnaires, sets of interviews, etc. in preparation for a confirmation hearings. The hearing itself is generally a breeze in comparison to filling out the forms and going through the staff interview. Once that is completed, the committee needs to schedule a hearing, which requires Senators' attendance. Merely getting a confirmation hearing on the calendar can delay the appointments for months.

Lessons Learned

Light's research had revealed that appointees are most motivated by the honor and chance to serve their country. Further, they are motivated by the future leadership opportunities that holding a political appointment will provide. The federal government is unlikely to offer pay that is comparable to the private or even non-profit sectors. Presidents can provide more support for their appointees through the Office of White House personnel, which all too often doesn't act as if it really cares whether someone appointed ever takes the position. Forms and questionnaires can be streamlined.

Here, I'll add a few suggestions of my own, having staffed several confirmations in the Senate. The White House and Senate staff should devise uniform questionnaires to streamline the appointment process. Further, the number of appointees subject to Senate confirmation is ridiculous and it seems every time Congress creates a new position, the Senate insists it confirms it to gain leverage in negotiations with the White House even when the particular appointment isn't controversial. The President should agree to reduce the number of appointees (leaving more work to the civil service) in exchange for the Senate's agreeing to reduce the number of appointees subject to Senate confirmation.

I can dream, can't I?

A Government Ill Executed - Clarity of Command

(Note: this is part of an ongoing discussion of Paul Light's book A Government Ill Executed. Other posts on this book can be accessed by clicking the tag below)

In his second chapter of A Government Ill Executed, Paul Light looks at the current composition of the federal work force, the trends, and what they imply for the ability of the federal government to operate proficiently.

Noting that his 2nd characteristic of of an energetic federal service is clarity of command, Light thinks this is one area where Hamilton nods to Jefferson. Hamilton, as Secretary of the the Treasury, was noted for the details of his orders, down to the armaments that would be on each Coast Guard cutter. "Nothing was too trivial for his attention," says Light. In addition, the federal government work force is undergoing with Light calls "thickening," which refers to the addition of more and more layers between those who run the agencies and those on the front line who execute policy and gain the insight as to what's really happening on the ground.

Additional layers are the result of two things, says Light. The first is additional missions that bring with them their own bureaucracy. The second is the misperception that more leaders equals better leadership. Instead of just a Secretary and a couple of Assistant Secretaries overseeing the civil service, we now have so many layers, especially of political appointees, that we now have people with titles that can barely fit on a business card: "Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary." Modern developments along these lines include a proliferation of "Chief of Staff"s and C-level (e.g., Chief Financial Officer, Chief Acquisition Officer, etc.) to further confuse the thicken the executive branch hierarchy.

As a result, communication of what is expected from the top to the bottom becomes obscured and makes it all the more difficult for the President to get his agenda enacted. Also, key information from the "front lines" never gets to the decision makers at the top. Accordingly, we get faulty government responses to crisis like Hurricane Katrina, doubts about weapons of mass destruction never get aired at the level where decisions are made, and safety concerns about the space shuttle getting lost.

We also have a problem when we consider this with the broken confirmation system we'll discuss later. Because so many offices remain vacant for long periods of time, important information and decisions sit on empty desks. The more layers, the more opportunities for this to occur.

The key is to reverse this trend, says Light, "thin the system."

In this respect, Light looks to Jefferson rather than Hamilton for inspiration. Hamilton believed in highly prescriptive edicts that would filter down through a broad chain of civil servants. Jefferson believed in delegation, following broad principles rather than detailed orders and the use of informal communication over normal bureaucratic modes. Light noted that Jefferson understood that with new missions come new bureaucracy, which obscures clarity of command. Although the often start out flat, they have a tendency to thicken over time he observed.

While Light does a masterful job of describing the problem and the reasons for its evolution, he is much less enlightening on how to thin the federal government. He notes that most Presidents since Carter have understood the problem and endeavored to correct it, but little has been accomplished on this front other than cosmetically.

A few thoughts. First, a "thick" federal bureaucracy seems to be another price we pay for too many missions in addition to not having enough resources as we discussed earlier. Second, it's important to realize than "thinning" the government in this regard doesn't mean cutting workers but rather flattening so that information from the front lines goes through fewer hands on its way to the Oval Office.

Reforming the civil service in this way is clearly important, but it will require a big overhaul that will meet with fierce opposition from government employees and the unions that represent them. Perhaps one helpful step would be for the next President not to appoint someone to every box on the org chart. That would mean abstaining from awarding a "plum" however (and the political juice it creates for him). It's unclear whether that's asking too much.

A Government Ill Executed - For the Public Benefit

(This is an installment in an ongoing series of Paul Light's new book, A Government Ill Executed)

The first characteristic of an "energetic federal service" regards its missions, namely that they be "extensive and arduous enterprises for the public benefit," according to Hamilton. Or, as Light puts it succinctly, "missions that matter."

The reasons for this are several. First, we only have so many resources. If we try to too much we risk underfunding vital missions, leading to failure. Next, we cause dismay and lower morale among the federal work force when we keep adding to their current job without increasing the resources. He cites what has happened to domestic agencies since 9/11:

9/11 may have created a greater sense of purpose at the federal departments and agencies such as Defense and State involved in the new war on terrorism. But it may have diluted a greater sense of purpose at other[s]...(such as Agriculture, Education, Housing, etc.)

If this is the case, it reflects a failure among the leadership of these agencies to retool themselves to ask how they can remain relevant in a time when combating terrorism is among the nation's highest priorities? Perhaps Agriculture could get rid of its extracurriculars (it runs a giant adult education program for those lucky enough to live in Washington, DC and enjoy cut rate college type classes) and plowed its resources into creating a world class system for ensuring the safety of our food supply?

What follows in this chapter is a lengthy analysis of those tasks undertaken by the federal government since World War II - a "top fifty" of the government's "greatest" endeavors. They range from advancing human rights, to educating and training veterans, consumer protecting, expanding home ownership, protecting the right to vote, etc. The list, Light notes, grows but as it does old items do not get pushed off. Instead, they merely become underfunded, leaving underinspired federal employees to manage them in addition to the new flavor of the month.

Light calls on the government to decide which missions truly matter. To aid him, he has polled a large cadre of political scientists to evaluate the top fifty in each of the following categories: (1) importance, (2) difficulty, and (3) success (he acknowledges the many biases such a system will have).

Among the most important missions identified were expanding voting rights, rebuilding Europe after World War II and increasing low income families access to health care. The most difficult were identified as advancing human rights, arms control, and fighting work place discrimination. The most successful were rebuilding Europe, expanding voting rights strengthening our nation's highway system.

There's certainly a lot to disagree with in the list, but one thing that struck me is this: two of the most important were also two of the most successful - when this country really wants to get something done, it generally can (expanding health care, however, comes near last in success).

Light's essential point in this chapter is that government really needs to focus on high impact missions - those of most importance. Arguably, however, this needs to be done at the expense of lesser important programs. His survey reveals the following the be among the least important missions:

-Controlling immigration;
-increasing market competition; and
-devolving responsibility to the states.

Huh?

Here we see the bias Light was talking about among the academics Light polled. Clearly, immigration is not among the least important issues given all the political heat that exists around it. Had Light polled economists, they would have been able to explain how increasing market competition has led to power prices and more public welfare than many if not all government programs.

This leads us to another conclusion: there's no good consensus in many cases on what government should be doing. This is important because administration come and go. Control of Congress can change hands, or at least Congressional Committee heads change, which can mean different priorities. The programs we're most concerned about, however, require steady attention, oversight and funding. Without consensus, this won't happen for a sustained period long enough to see them through to successful completion.

It seems to me that we should begin talking about a framework to determine what is truly important for the federal government to do. In addition to asking what the impact of the mission is on the nation's citizens, there are a few other questions that I think need to be asked. First, what among those high impact missions can ONLY the federal government accomplish as opposed to the private sector or NGOs or state and local governments. Next, on which missions is there the necessary consensus along the political spectrum to ensure that they are adequately funded year in and year out rather than waxing or waning depending on who is in power?

Here's my takeaway from this first chapter:

When we can focus the federal government on those missions we can all (read: mostly all) agree that most impact our lives and that only it can perform, we'll be on our way to a government well executed.

A Government Ill Executed - Introduction

In his introduction to A Government Ill Executed, Paul Light starts out by detailing his main thesis regarding why our federal government is having performance problems.

1. An agenda of "staggering reach" without adequate resources, leading to "a long list of frustrations."
2. A chain of command that is broken up by needless layers of management.
3. The broken appointment / confirmation process for Presidential appointees.
4. A federal workforce motivated more by compensation than meaningful work.
5. Young people seeking to do public service more likely to enter the non-profit / NGO world than the federal government.
6. A non-stop treadmill of administrative reforms that get discarded and replaced with every new administration.
7. The growth of the role of contractors, grantees and others who perform federal government work that used to be performed by employees of the US government.

To combat these problems, Light looks to Alexander Hamilton's definition of an energetic executive. As he interprets Hamilton, an energetic federal service has 7 characteristics (perhaps the 7 is a convenient interpretation). They are says Light:

1. Missions that matter
2. Clarity of command
3. Posts of honor (i.e. appointments by merit, not political ties)
4. Vigor and expedition
5. A "Spirit of Service" (the concept of a professional, life time civil service, with formal education, etc.)
6. Steadiness in Administration
7. Safety in the Executive (the ability to hold the executive in check through transparency and accountability).

Although Light gives short descriptions of what these mean, the rest of the book looks at them one by one, and explains exactly how these principles can, properly executed, improve the performance of the federal government. Because the topic of good government is so central to this blog, we'll be looking at them one by one, and asking in future posts how they hold up in light of future challenges.

This last point is especially important because I've found that political science is a great way of explaining what happened in the past, but not always so useful for handling issues that come down the pike in the future. So, we'll take a closer look at Light's thesis in coming weeks and try to analyze their usefulness in meeting the many challenges that will face the next President.

Light contrasts Hamilton's approach with Jefferson, who distrusted a strong federal government and would be all too happy with an inefficient one inadequately financed and resourced. Jefferson saw the executive branch as only one part of a single level of government, and government as only one part of society. Recall, in contrast, to Hamilton the execution of the federal government was the very soul of good government.

Although Light gives Hamilton a place of honor in the book's analytical framework, he still acknowledges Jefferson's contributions and includes them where he thinks appropriate, e.g. a simpler civil service and a greater sense of civic duty.

A book we're reading (A Government Ill Executed 1)

One of the many books we're reading at TPB is Paul Light's A Government Ill Executed. The title, and much of the book's framework, is derived from Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper essays concerning the Constitution's provisions on the executive branch of the federal government:

A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory must be in practice, a bad government.

The Federalist Papers, you'll recall, was a series of newspaper articles written in support of the new Constitution to help persuade delegates to the New York ratifying conventions to support it. Penned primarily by Hamilton and James Madison (with a few by John Jay) The Federalist Papers are still must reading for those who wish to understand our system of government.

Whether its one of the many security breaches, loss of private information about its citizens, the breakdown in our response to Hurricane Katrina, public health scares from imported toys and food, etc., there have been numerous examples of government's failure to perform its most basic function. The most notable in my view is the intelligence failures that led us to our failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks and then misinformed our debate over whether to invade Iraq. This isn't a partisan problem and many of the issues Light discusses have been around for a long time.

Light proposes that we dust off The Federalist Papers, particularly those Hamilton wrote numbered 70-77 on the functioning of the executive branch and see if there are lessons that can be applied today to restore the competent execution of government. This is an important task. All too often we ask whether Congress has past a law to address a problem, and forget that without competent enforcement what Congress has done is meaningless. We need to go beyond the passage of the law and look at its execution to see if something has really been done to address the problems we set out to solve.

Although this seems to be such basic, common sense, it seems we take it for granted that Congress's will expressed in legislation will operate as intended. As Light illustrates, too many recent events show we can no longer do so. It is time that we reexamine the day to day operations of our federal government "in the trenches" to find what's wrong with our governent's performance and how we can solve it. Despite having worked in Congress for 10 years, I'm convinced that the answer isn't simply passing more laws, but rather rolling up our sleeves and doing the sort of boring "housekeeping" necessary to enjoy, once again, the benefits of a government will executed.

In short, as I work through the book, I'll post short summaries and my own thoughts from having worked on these issues in Congress and now from my perch outside government. I can tell you from reading the first few chapters and a speech Light delivered on the same topics that it will be highly instructive and always thought provoking.