Should civil service rules apply to the Department of Homeland Security?

Great Debates
1

Phillip K. Howard (author of The Death of Common Sense) argues in the WaPo that civil service rules should not apply:

OTOH supporters of civil service point out that eliminating civil service rules could bring back the Spoils System, where jobs go to political supporters or even political contributors. This could lead to a less capable government workforce.

Finally, some people oppose the whole idea of a Department of Homeland Security. Generally, these are libertarian types who basically believe it will become a big boondoggle by-and-by.

I would go with Phillip Howard. The terrorism threat requires the ability to be flexible. Flexibility is inconsistent with civil service rules. However, I am quite sympathetic to the third group. If the struggle over civil service rules prevent the Dept. of HS from being formed, it wouldn’t break my heart.

2

Do civil service laws not apply to the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, or Department of Defense? It is my understanding that they do. As such, I see no reason to make an exception for a new agency.

3

IIRC, there are special provisions in the laws for agencies, sections of agencies, and people in “sensitive duties”. This is analogous to how the police in your city or state are a special category of civil servant; special because lives depend on their actions and they can be ordered to put their own lives on the line.

So HSD could be exempted or given a special status in some field operations branches and at the policymaking levels. But unless we want to claim that everyone in HSD right down to the janitor is a “special agent” who may be called to the front lines, why insist in a total exemption? This can create a compounded fear for those people in december’s “third group”: an additional Department of Intrusive Boondogglery AND on top of it one where every last employee can be hired, fired, assigned, changed in duties and transferred “at will” without any explanation being owed to anyone.

Heck, not even the military has true “employment at will”. Sure, a serviceperson who is making bad calls and futzing up the operations can be relieved on-the-spot, but discharge and disciplinary action require some sort of public due process.

4

Also, as far as I can tell, the Homeland Security Department largely is going to be made up of agencies that are transferred to it. So, for those agencies, shouldn’t things stay the same as they are now?

5

My recollection is similar. I think Bush asked that the same personnel rules that apply to FBI and CIA should also apply to DHS. I looked a bit, but didn’t find a cite.

That’s a good point. I am not certain whether the FBI and CIA have two sets of personnel rules. I suppose poor performance by an FBI janitor wouldn’t harm their mission, but even a janitor could conceivably interfere with flexibility.

That’s a good point, if it’s accurate. I was assuming that Bush wants some set of rules to apply to DHS, but not as onerous as the civil service rules. I will keep searching for a cite on this.

6

Since we already have a National Security Agency (NSA), what on Earth do we need a separate Department of Homeland Security for?

7

“The National Security Agency is the Nation’s cryptologic organization. It coordinates, directs, and performs highly specialized activities to protect U.S. information systems and produce foreign intelligence information. A high technology organization, NSA is on the frontiers of communications and data processing. It is also one of the most important centers of foreign language analysis and research within the Government.”

Source: http://www.nsa.gov/about_nsa/index.html

"The mission of the Department of Homeland Security would be to:

  • Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States;
  • Reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism; and
  • Minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur."

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/

Two entirely different animals.

For example, if two or more people meet face to face to plan and carry out an act of terrorism, using no means whatsoever of electronic communications, the NSA is useless.

SIGNET only goes so far. HUMNET is still needed.

Having said all this, I still have deep reservations about the Dept. of Homeland Security. And when it comes into existence, civil service rules must apply. Otherwise, the president effectively has his own secret police, accountable to no one except the power brokers in the Administration.

8

Without civil service rules, Bush can stack the offices with executives from Enron.

Good enough reason to aply civil service rules to it.

9

Good point. I see no harm in modifying the civil service rules somewhat. But it would be a disaster to make all of the homeland security jobs political patronage jobs. which is what Bush is currently asking for.

Back before the civil service rules were enacted, nearly all goverment jobs were patronage jobs, which, as you might guess, worked even less well than the current system. Nothing like a political spoils system to make for massive systemic corruption…

It’s a shame that this is what Bush is asking for under the guise of wanting ‘management flexibility’, but it’s hardly a surprise. Spoils is what he and his cronies are all about… :<

10

Civil service rules don’t apply to the FBI and CIA, yet those agencies haven’t become sources of patronage jobs. Why would Homeland Security be different?

11

Sure they do. Not the same rules perhaps, But he hasn’t got management flexibility of the sort he’s asking for in the new department.

The ability to fire at will without having to show cause is what distinguishes political patronage jobs from civil service jobs.
It’s also what Bush is asking for under the heading of ‘management flexibility’.

12

I had heard Bush or one of his spokesmen argue that DHS needed the same flexibility as FBI and CIA, so I asssumed they wanted the same rules. Do you have a cite on this?

13

You know, we may be on to something here… Has GWB * officially explained* what he means by “flexibility”, at all? Public statements have made it sound like he wants total no-questions-asked decisional freedom, BUT: ** this may be a political tactic from both sides** – Shrub making it sound like it’s going to be a lot more agile than it really will turn out, playing the “don’t let 'em whiny libs weaken us” card, supporters opponents making it sound a lot more ominous than it’ll turn out, playing the “the Man is getting another way to put us down” card.

Drat, we’re going to have to read the darned Bill…

14

Which Bill?

I went to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and searched under homeland security.

There are a half dozen or more Bills establishing the Department, all just mere shells at this point.

No details about employment by the Department just yet.

15

I bielive the House of Representatives already passed a version that was what Bush wanted.

16

Should civil service rules apply to the Department of Homeland Security?

The process of dismissing a worker who is incompetent or worse can take years. (The minimum generally is 18 months.) Getting rid of someone who has bad judgment is basically impossible:

This sounds like more urban legends at work here. Depending on the union contract the new hire are not in the union and under union protect on the first day of work. There is a waiting period normally it is 60 days after being hired to be in the union. Time enough to be fire before they become a member of the union, the company may start taking money out for the union before you become a member so when the waiting period is over the insinuation fee is paid in full. But for the most part the union wait until the waiting period is over before they take out insinuation fee and dues out.

To fire a union worker it’s not that hard normally it is two verbal warning and 3 write up and you are out the door. Yes you can appeal it but you will probably loss the appeal if you are not doing your job. A teacher that has made tenure can be fired. But it is harder to fire a teacher that has made tenure then the normal union worker. Not all unions have a tenure level as far as I know; teacher union is the any union that has tenure.

Bush wants the power to fire someone at their will without a recourse to help the person from being fired. Like the case in Texas when Bush was governor he fired Eliza May for doing her job.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/08/20/timeline/

Bush had been subpoenaed by attorneys for Eliza May, the former executive director of the Texas Funeral Service Commission, which had been investigating Service Corporation International of Houston, the world’s largest funeral company, whose chief executive, Robert Waltrip, is a close political ally of the Bush family. May, who was fired in February, is suing SCI, Waltrip and the state of Texas, alleging that Bush and other state officials pressured her agency to stop the investigation

http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=216

Eliza May was head of the Texas Funderal Services Commission when it began receiving complaints about unlicensed embalmers being used by Service Corporation International (SCI), the world’s largest funeral services company.
In one case, the mother of a popular newscaster went to lay flowers at her son’s mausoleum. She was horrified to find it was “infested with gnats, and a malodorous maroon-colored fluid oozed out of her son’s crypt,” according to Newsweek.
May launched an investigation of SCI. But instead of receiving praise for defending the interests of Texas citizens, she was called into the Governor’s office where Joe Allbaugh, Bush’s Chief of Staff, was waiting with Robert Waltrip, the owner of SCI - and major Bush campaign contributor. These officials tried to pressure May into stopping her investigation - and George W. Bush stopped in to help them.
May refused to buckle under, and ultimately imposed a $445,000 fine. Soon thereafter, May was fired. May then filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against Bush, Waltrip, and SCI.
To avoid being named as a defendant, Bush gave a sworn affidavit. That affidavit has since been contradicted at least four times. In other words, Bush lied under oath.
In the Paula Jones case, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that a President can be compelled to testify in a civil case stemming from actions taken before he became President. Eliza May plans to depose Bush sometime this year. If Bush lies under oath, he could be impeached.

What Bush reason again?

For personnel decisions, the civil service rules operate as a kind of legal air bag, allowing a disgruntled worker to force the supervisor to prove the wisdom of an adverse decision, even a negative comment on an evaluation form. The process of dismissing a worker who is incompetent or worse can take years. (The minimum generally is 18 months.) Getting rid of someone who has bad judgment is basically impossible: How would a supervisor prove bad judgment? Last year, according to the Office of Personnel Management, out of an estimated 64,000 federal employees who were designated “poor performers,” only 434 were dismissed through these legal hearings: That’s seven out of 1,000…

Do you really believe it?

17

A Department of 170,000 employees without Civil Service protection? Bush won’t have to worry about any pesky whistle-blowers that way.:rolleyes:

18

Of interest may be that in the DoD, not everyone has unions. Union representation can be at some locations, but not others, even when both locations can have people working in the same division. Either way, to actually fire someone from the DoD is next to impossible, but it is extrememly easy to remove someone from position or even a division. It only takes a decision and a phone call.