Political appointments in the United States

According to the United States Office of Government Ethics, a political appointee is “any employee who is appointed by the President, the Vice President, or agency head”. In the United States, political appointees are subject to heavy ethical restrictions, more so than their elected counterparts. One of these restrictions requires political appointees to take an ethics pledge, in which they pledge not to accept gifts from lobbyists. This is because of Executive Order 13490 Under Section 102 of Executive Order 12674, political appointees who are appointed by the president are not allowed to receive any income from outside employment or activities.[1]

Exceptions to the gift rule include:

History

In the politics of the United States, the system of political appointments comes from a history of the spoils system (also known as a patronage system) which is a practice where a political party, after winning an election, gives government jobs to its supporters, friends and relatives as a reward for working toward victory. The term was derived from the phrase "to the victor belong the spoils" by New York Senator William L. Marcy, referring to the victory of the Jackson Democrats in the election of 1828, with the term "spoils" meaning goods or benefits taken from the loser in a competition, election or military victory. Though it is commonly assumed that the patronage system in the United States first came into general use during Andrew Jackson's presidency, it actually has an older history. President Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, favored a policy of keeping rival Federalists out of government.

The patronage system thrived in the U.S. federal government until 1883. In 1820 Congress limited federal administrators to four-year terms, which led to constant turnover; by the 1860s and the Civil War, patronage had led to widespread inefficiency and political corruption. Although it used to be confined to cabinet positions, department heads, and foreign ambassadorships, by the 1860s patronage had spread to low-level government positions. This meant that when the incumbent political party lost a presidential election, the federal government underwent wholesale turnover.

On July 2, 1881, Charles J. Guiteau, a disaffected and mentally unstable political office seeker, assassinated President James Garfield. This highlighted how much the patronage problem had gotten out of control, and shifted public opinion, convincing the United States that the President of the United States had more important things to do than to engage and patronage. Congress was eventually spurred to pass the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883,[4] which created a Civil Service Commission and advocated a merit system for selecting government employees.[5]

In addition, passage of the Hatch Act of 1939 forbade the intimidation or bribery of voters and restricted political campaign activities by federal employees. It prohibited using any public funds designated for relief or public works for electoral purposes. It forbade officials paid with federal funds from using promises of jobs, promotion, financial assistance, contracts, or any other benefit to coerce campaign contributions or political support. Which restricted most partisan political activities of federal employees. By 1980, 90% of federal positions had become part of the civil service system. Which lead to state and local governments to employed large patronage systems. Big-city political machines in places such as New York, Boston, and Chicago thrived in the late nineteenth century. Being as a patronage system not only rewarded political supporters for past support, it also encouraged future support, because persons who have a patronage job would try to retain it by campaigning for the party at the next election. Large-scale patronage systems declined steadily during the twentieth century. During the Progressive Era (1900–1920), "good government" reformers overthrew political machines and installed civil service systems. Chicago, under Mayor Richard J. Daley, remained the last bastion of patronage, existing in its purest form until the late 1970s.[6] In today’s more observant standards, politicians wanted to pull away from the negative intonation of the name casting of Patronage, and Spoil system which led them to rename the process “Political Appointments”.

Status of appointments

The United States has the most political appointees in government than any other industrialized democracy in the world. Even though the United States has one of the largest populations of political appointees in the system, the efficiency of political appointees is constantly shifting. Political appointees are engraved in everyday decisions even making the final call on major events. President Barack Obama has been criticized for his controversial appointments throughout the years and has also been criticized for not filling appointments. As of 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was lacking a Senate-confirmed administrator since 2006 when Marilyn Tavenner was acting administrator.[7] At least 60 positions for appointment remain vacant and 45 positions have remained vacant for more than a year.

Judicial vacancies have also become a problem as well with numerous open seats for circuit and district judges left to be filled.[8] At the end of President Obama's first term, thirteen percent of presidential-appointee positions had not been filled.[9] Political appointees also come under heat for their own actions including Ben Bernanke's involvement with private banks and also Michael Brown's involvement in Hurricane Katrina.[10] One study published in the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory by Nick Gallo and David Lewis evaluated more than 350 managers with a program assessment rating tool ("PART") to determine efficacy and found that programs run by political appointees tended to be less effective.[11] Furthermore, those with previous government experience or appointees who had not worked for a political campaign tended be more effective than appointees with experience in the business or non-profit sectors. Gallo and Lewis stated that they thought careerist and appointees should work in a balanced atmosphere to be more productive and share skills. Professional rapport between careerists and appointees is considered in a study of presidential environmental appointees by Matthew Auer.[12] Auer found that oft-mentioned problems in the appointment system, such as short time-in-office and lack of government experience were less pronounced among top federal environmental appointees, across both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Comparisons between the political appointee system, the spoils system and the merit system

Political appointees

Political appointees, referring broadly to anyone appointed by the President, the Vice President, or agency head, are subject to more ethics restrictions than regular executive-branch employees. There are two categories of appointees, and each category is subject to additional and slightly different ethics restrictions.[1]

Spoils system

Main article: Spoils system

The spoils system/patronage system is a practice where a political party, after winning an election, gives government jobs to its supporters, friends and relatives as a reward for working toward victory, and as an incentive to keep working for the party as opposed to a merit system, where offices are awarded on the basis of some measure of merit independent of political activity.

Merit system

Main article: Merit system

The merit system is the process of promoting and hiring government employees based on their ability to perform a job, rather than on their political connections. It is the opposite of the spoils system. A common conception of the federal government's merit system principles is that they are designed to ensure fair and open recruitment and competition and employment practices free of political influence or other non-merit factors. Although that is certainly true, a closer reading of those principles suggests a much broader policy objective that relates directly to managing the ongoing performance of the federal workforce.

See also

References

  1. 1 2 "Political Appointees". U.S. Office of Government Ethics. Retrieved 2013-11-11.
  2. ↑ "3 U.S. Code § 105 – Assistance and services for the President". Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Retrieved 25 July 2014.
  3. ↑ "3 U.S. Code § 107 – Domestic Policy Staff and Office of Administration; personnel". Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Retrieved 25 July 2014.
  4. ↑ "Patronage". Rice University. Retrieved 2013-11-11.
  5. ↑ Peskin, Allan (1976). Garfield: A Biography. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. p. 591. ISBN 978-0873382106.
  6. ↑ "Anti- Corruption Report" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-11-11.
  7. ↑ Meyer, Theodoric. "Under Obama, More Appointments Go Unfilled". ProPublica. Retrieved 18 November 2013.
  8. ↑ Bendery, Jennifer (2012-12-02). "Judicial Vacancies Skyrocket During President Obama's First Term". Huffington Post. Retrieved 15 November 2013.
  9. ↑ Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (2012). Plum Book (PDF). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  10. ↑ Vedantam, S. (2008-11-24). "Who are the Better Managers -- Political Appointees or Career Bureaucrats?". Washington Post. Retrieved 2013-11-11.
  11. ↑ Gallo, Nick; David Lewis (16 May 2011). "The Consequences of Presidential Patronage for Federal Agency Performance". Public Administration Research Theory 22 (2): 219. doi:10.1093/jopart/mur010. Retrieved 2013-11-11.
  12. ↑ Auer, Matthew (7 January 2008). "Presidential Environmental Appointees in Comparative Perspective". Public Administration Review 68 (1): 68–80. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00838.x. Retrieved 2013-11-21.

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Thursday, February 25, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.