The civil-service system exists to prevent all the jobs in the bureaucracy from being doled out as political patronage in a spoils system. That is a good thing, I suppose. But this situation is going to be a problem for Obama: The upper reaches of the “permanent government” are going to be packed with persons who are not only undeserving, incompetent ideologues, but might actively obstruct whatever he tries to do. In particular, they might drag their feet on the indispensable effort to reverse Bush’s 11th-hour rulemaking.
So, what, if anything, can Obama do to root them out, without compromising the civil-service system?
The people highlighted in the Washington Post article all seemed to have been chosen for Senior Executive Service positions, which are somewhat different than the “GS” (General Schedule) positions that most civilian employees work in. The SES positions were developed to allow upper level agency executives to move them around, similar to the ways in which corporate upper managers are moved. That means that agency executives can require SES staff to change locations and positions, something that is much more difficult to do with GS staff. So if an SES person is not performing and carrying out the policies of the political appointees, they can be moved to somewhere less enticing than the SES person may have anticipated. DOE, NOAA, and DEA all have operations across the country, many of them quite some distance from DC. Even if agency execs don’t want to move them out of DC, they can certainly move them into positions that are essentially dead ends with no meaningful responsibility. And as Enginerd pointed out, they could be given positions with real responsibility and be allowed to fail themselves out of a job. If they succeed, then great. If not, they won’t have much in the way of support from above to make sure they get a soft landing on the way out.
Also, as US military involvement is reduced, administrative processes to effect that change are still required. So possibly Iraq as well.
The best position is to keep them physically where they are and change, if not eliminate, any duties that would be seen as detrimental to civil service, if not the new administration. Then it becomes relatively “easy” to discipline, if not terminate for cause.
What Bush is actually doing is attempting to undermine the efficient and objective administration of the US government. In the old days, they were called moles or spies. Today we could use Bush’s own words and call them terrorists.
When I worked in state government, in a regulatory agency, an incoming administration swept most of the holdover incompetents into a newly created division with limited duties and little ability to interfere with the smooth running of the department as a whole.
What happened in 2000 / 2001 with Clinton’s appointees? Did they ‘burrow’? If so, then I expect nothing much will happen because Obama’s appointees may need to do the same in 2016.
Who cares if Clinton did it or if Obama might have to do it (why, and according to who?) if the practice is unethical? Two or three or four or a hundred wrongs, by Republicans or Democrats, don’t make a right. It’s about time this despicable practice came out into the open.