I’m having a hard time not coming to that conclusion, too.
Most governed in most countries have that situation. Democracy is the worst form of government ever invented, except for all the others. I believe Churchill normally gets credit for that bon mot. On a very rare occasion a country will have a benevolent tyrant/monarch like Elizabeth I or Ludwig of Bavaria. One lout is a disgrace, three a law firm, and more a Congress, the opposite of progress.
And Congress is another word for screwing.
Could not legally be a volunteer.
Those tasks are performed by contractors, not federal employees.
That’s true with respect to the WWII memorial. What about the Vietnam Wall? It existed during the last shutdown, but was not closed to the public.
Is the budget for contractors not frozen just the same as that for employee salaries ?
Right - which is why I phrased it as “this sort of thing”.
So is Bricker correct that the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial was not closed in a previous shutdown? If so, why this time?
Critical law enforcement personnel are still on duty with the hope of being paid retroactively. The bullshit that came out of the House the other day saying that all federal workers would be paid retroactively was a real slap in the face to these critical personnel, essentially saying that the House has thought so hard about expenditures that all non-critical personnel are getting paid vacation during the shutdown while those LEOs putting up barricades have to work extra hours with skeleton crews.
I have a client that is a federal LEO who has been explaining this to me.
Great civil discourse there.
911 has changed a lot of things since 1996.
Not saying that I like these changes or even feel like most of them are necessary. But I’m not seeing how this is political motivated at all.
But private employers are magical! They do EVERYTHING better than government workers, and the money to pay them- it just APPEARS!
Heh. I’m sure they are, but for once it was not snark on my part - I’m genuinely curious.
Of course, I’m only curious because I relish the entertainingly Kafkaesque prospect of the US government still paying full time park cleaning crews for closed parks because byzantine bureaucracy, but that’s beside the point 
Contracts may, or may not, be issued “stop work,” orders for a variety of reasons related to a shutdown. But it’s by no means automatic.
And if the funding for the contract is both committed and obligated, both of which are terms with peculiar meaning in the world of government contracting, then BobLibDem’s woeful attempt at sarcasm falls flat. Plenty of government contractors continue to work during this shutdown – how does he reconcile that obvious fact with this sarcastic rejoinder?
If there is interest in hearing the various factors in play in determining when a federal contractor is ordered to stop work as a result of a lapse in appropriations, I will be happy to go into detail.
Sure, go ahead.
“With the hope,” is a deceptive phrase. By law, agencies incur obligations to pay for services performed by excepted employees during a lapse in appropriations, and those employees must be paid after Congress passes and the President signs a new appropriation or continuing resolution.
Furloughed employees – those not working – must indeed hope that Congress passes a bill allowing them to be paid retroactively. But excepted employees, those who are required to continue working, are guaranteed payment.
So in your view, the closures are based on 9/11 type concerns?
If that’s the case, can you offer some explanations of how those same concerns are handled during the ordinary – that is, funded – operations of the monuments?
For example, if you were to learn that the Park Police are assigning more police now to cover the monuments during the closure overnights than they normally do overnights, would that change your mind?
OK, so… are National Mall janitorial crews both *committed *and *obligated *?
[QUOTE=Xema]
So is Bricker correct that the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial was not closed in a previous shutdown? If so, why this time?
[/QUOTE]
Search me. I just snark here.
OK:
Federal contracts have a period of performance. Often, but not always, that period of performance is tied to the government fiscal year, which begins on October 1st of the prior calendar year – that is, FY 2014 began on 1 October 2013.
Agencies award contracts with particular types of money (sometimes called different “colors,” of money.) Money is divided into pots that are intended for O&M (operations and maintenance), procurement, and research, to name a few. It’s not generally legal for an agency to use procurement money to fund ongoing operations, and so the “color” of money used to fund a given contract is important to know.
Apart from the color of money mentioned above, agencies also have some money that is “no-year” money: money not tied to expenditure from appropriations in a given fiscal year.
With those basic concepts in mind, we now reach the point of examining a multi-year contract. This is a contract in which the government “bona fide” needs require performance over multiple years AND represents needs over multiple years. (Note, by the way, a key and somewhat puzzling difference: if the government wants to buy a fighter plane, they can fund it now, with this year’s money, even if the fighter plane will take four years to build. On the other hand, perhaps they need four fighter planes, one each year. That’s the kind of contract that can be multi-year; they certainly aren’t going to re-compete every year and end up with four different plane designs. Allowing a single contract to span multiple years allows cost savings because the contractor can amortize nonrecurring initial kick-off costs over the life of the contract. In other words, the contractor can spread the cost of building his plane assembly line over four years, as opposed to charging the government that entire cost in year one.
An agency must have either specific legal authority to contract for multiple years, or multi-year or no-year money, to be able to award such contracts; otherwise the agency violates the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a) et seq. One option to get around these restrictions (sort of) is the use of option years: a year-to-year contract with renewal options. Each renewal option must be contractually contingent on the availability of future appropriation funding. Also, the contract must specify that each option can be exercised only by affirmative action on the part of the government. (No “automatic” renewals.)
I realize this is bizarrely complicated, but it lays out all the factors in play.
So – if a contract’s period of performance is tied to the fiscal year, and the contract uses operations and maintenance yearly appropriations funding and is thus subject to the availability of future funding, then indeed the lack of government funding will stop performance of the contract.
But if the contracts in question run calendar year to calendar year, or indeed any period other than fiscal year to fiscal year, which happens with some frequency, and the funds for the contract were committed and obligated from the prior fiscal year, then the government has already obligated itself.
In simpler terms: many government contracts don’t expire at the end of September, and were fully funded with money from fiscal year 2013. Those contracts can continue, with the contractors getting paid.
Next up: the role of Contracting Officers and Contracting Officers’ Technical Representatives in contract performance, and how the lack of a CO or COTR could force a stop work order even if the contract is fully funded, committed, and obligated.
(If anyone cares…I know this is esoteric and boring)
You don’t feel any particular need to get facts straight before snarking?
Your question is a good one – and I have no idea. If I had to guess, I’d say those contracts were funded with yearly appropriations, and FY13 money was committed and obligated, but FY14 money (obviously) not. What I can’t even hazard a guess on is what the period of performance is – in other words, did that contract end on September 30th and an option year begin?
That’s what that kind of contract should do, but agencies will often fund contracts with FY13 money where the period of performance goes into FY14. That’s perfectly legal.
I assure you, there is a lot of illegal “volunteering” going on, at least in the DoD.