[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The Civil Service is a professional force of experts, but ones who are supposed to defer to elected and politically appointed officials on the questions on policy. It is not a pure government by experts, but nor is is a purely political system. It's a compromise that gives room for expertise where needed, but also gives a nod to accountability. And that means ultimately, the people - through their elected representatives -- decide. Not unelected civil servants.

I'm in total agreement. I think you misunderstand me.

I'm not advocating that scientists at the EPA, or generals in the Pentagon or economists at the Federal Reserve be given free-reign. On the contrary, that is exactly why they have managers that are accountable to the public. Managers who are supposed to represent the public interest.

The problem lies in conflict resolution--when the managed or the manager disagree on which course of action is the correct one.

You seem to advocating that in such conflict, the managed have no right to take their side of the argument to the public arena. You called this "undermining" and suggested it was some kind of unthinkable act of disloyalty.

I think that any disagreement between the professional technocrats and their politically appointed managers about any matter of how policy should be enacted or enforced should absolutely be aired in the public arena. I utterly reject the notion that in such a conflict that the manged need automatcally unflappingly yield to the opinions of their managers.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm in total agreement. I think you misunderstand me.

I'm not advocating that scientists at the EPA, or generals in the Pentagon or economists at the Federal Reserve be given free-reign. On the contrary, that is exactly why they have managers that are accountable to the public. Managers who are supposed to represent the public interest.

The problem lies in conflict resolution--when the managed or the manager disagree on which course of action is the correct one.

You seem to advocating that in such conflict, the managed have no right to take their side of the argument to the public arena. You called this "undermining" and suggested it was some kind of unthinkable act of disloyalty.

I think that any disagreement between the professional technocrats and their politically appointed managers about any matter of how policy should be enacted or enforced should absolutely be aired in the public arena. I utterly reject the notion that in such a conflict that the manged need automatcally unflappingly yield to the opinions of their managers.

I don't understand, which "managers" are you talking about?

The Civil Service has plebs like me in the GS grades. Above me there are Senior Executive Service people. The SES is promoted from the GS grades (above GS-15). They are managers, but they are just as much Civil Service as me. They are just a lot more senior and they get windows.

Above them is the political level. There are the appointed office holders at the deputy assistant, assistant, and deputy secretary level. Above them is the secretary. All of those people are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. They are there to control the agency, make sure it is responsive to the president and to be a conduit for congressional oversight (BTW, I am assuming an executive, not independent agency here).

Also floating about the political level are Schedule-C appointees. They do jobs not dissimilar to the jobs at my level (with a bit more pay, but no job security). The difference is that they work for the political appointees rather than for civil servants. They aren't considered career and serve at the pleasure of the White House. In practice, they work for the appointees.

That's it. There is no other group of "managers" here. You have permanent civil servants, and you have political appointees. The pols give the policy direction, but in practice they also do quite a bit of rubber stamping of routine matters (which is, of course, not what we are talking about here).

The reason career people aren't supposed to go over the heads of the political people is that it isn't their (our) place to do so. We are supposed to be impartial and above the political fray. The idea is that when a new administration (be it Republican or Democratic) comes in, we respond to the new policy direction impartially. We aren't here to be Fifth Columnists within the Executive Branch for either party. Nothing could be more corrosive to the government than a war of trust between the executive and the civil service that staffs its agencies.

It's not that we are supposed to be loyal to the president of the day. That's the political people's loyalty, not ours. Civil Servants are supposed to be loyal to the public -- which means putting our own party political views aside and doing what the public's representatives decide.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's not that we are supposed to be loyal to the president of the day. That's the political people's loyalty, not ours. Civil Servants are supposed to be loyal to the public -- which means putting our own party political views aside and doing what the public's representatives decide.

I think we're talking past each other and saying the same thing.

I agree with what you are saying with the sticking point being the very last sentance:

What happens when you think the decision of the public's respresentative is counter to the public interest?

You seem to be saying that these disgruntled civil servants are making waves because of party politics, not because they sincerely believe a public trust has been violated.

I would never argue that civil servants should place party loyalty or talking points ahead of doing their job and respecting the system that might elect someone they disagree with. Hell, I happen to think party loyalty is particularly sickening notion which is mostly to blame for what's dysfunctional about our government. I find the concept utterly foreign and completely despicable.

I'm talking about a principled objection to a proscribed course of action, not a partisan objection.

When you think your politically appointed directors are violating either the law or the public trust, are you still obligated to shut up or quit? Are you not entitled to take the matter to the public?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think we're talking past each other and saying the same thing.

I agree with what you are saying with the sticking point being the very last sentance:

What happens when you think the decision of the public's respresentative is counter to the public interest?

You seem to be saying that these disgruntled civil servants are making waves because of party politics, not because they sincerely believe a public trust has been violated.

I would never argue that civil servants should place party loyalty or talking points ahead of doing their job and respecting the system that might elect someone they disagree with. Hell, I happen to think party loyalty is particularly sickening notion which is mostly to blame for what's dysfunctional about our government. I find the concept utterly foreign and completely despicable.

I'm talking about a principled objection to a proscribed course of action, not a partisan objection.

When you think your politically appointed directors are violating either the law or the public trust, are you still obligated to shut up or quit? Are you not entitled to take the matter to the public?

I'm sure they sincerely believe that they are right and what they want is in the "public interest". But they also sincerely took a oath, and the public sincerely has a right to get the Civil Service they are paying for. It comes right back to what I said initially. The Civil Service is supposed to be apolitical, and in exchange for that, we get job protection. That's designed to save us from politics as much as the other way around.

If Civil Servants want to enter the political arena, they can do so. But they have to do so after separating themselves from the Civil Service. If they want, they can resign, say whatever they want in public (as long as it isn't classified or confidential) then reenter the government as political appointees, run for office, or go work in the private sector.

But what you can't do is sneak about playing politics using your public office for political purposes even if you think it is in the "public interest" to do so. Using your office in that way is itself a violation of the public trust.

But again, just to draw a line here. We are talking about policy differences, which is what is going on up at EPA. That's not the same thing as reporting crimes, fraud, waste, abuse, etc. That's where whistleblower protection kicks in -- and properly so.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But again, just to draw a line here. We are talking about policy differences, which is what is going on up at EPA. That's not the same thing as reporting crimes, fraud, waste, abuse, etc. That's where whistleblower protection kicks in -- and properly so.

I guess I would consider the example of the EPA enforcement staff to fall under the category of reporting crimes, fraud, waste or abuse.

Maybe that is the only real difference in our positions.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I guess I would consider the example of the EPA enforcement staff to fall under the category of reporting crimes, fraud, waste or abuse.

Maybe that is the only real difference in our positions.

Well , now you are just being extreme. Regulatory enforcement is clearly subject to policy. It's not a criminal offense to decide policy A rather than policy B. Neither is it waste, fraud, or abuse.

Not even Democrats can put you in jail for not agreeing with them. But it is scary when you make that argument.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well , now you are just being extreme. Regulatory enforcement is clearly subject to policy. It's not a criminal offense to decide policy A rather than policy B. Neither is it waste, fraud, or abuse.

Not even Democrats can put you in jail for not agreeing with them. But it is scary when you make that argument.

Underfunding, understaffing or de-emphasizing enforcement of pollution laws falls under waste and/or abuse at the EPA in my book.

But I'm perfectly willig to let the matter be decided in the public forum. Luckily, for these whistleblowers we can know what has happening behind closed doors at the EPA. Otherwise we might have just assumed that since we had passed strict clean air and water laws that the EPA was actually enforcing them.

Their mandate is to enforce the law. If they aren't doing that, I consider it a breach of public trust, waste and/or abuse. And if the allegations that the agency has been undermined by former industry hacks being soft on the companies they used to work for turns out to have merit, then there might even be criminal charges.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Underfunding, understaffing or de-emphasizing enforcement of pollution laws falls under waste and/or abuse at the EPA in my book.

That's not the definition of waste, fraud and abuse. Waste, fraud and abuse is more like things like people flying government helicopters to go golfing and so on. It's to do with misuse of government money for personal purposes.

Deciding the direction of government regulation is clearly policy. How do you think that anyone could decide what is "underfunded, de-emphasised" or underenforced? Those are policy questions for politicians.

By the way, if this were the Department of Transportation building too few highways, or the Department of Energy building too few dams, would that change your answer? Roads and dams are in the "public good."

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm in total agreement. I think you misunderstand me.

I'm not advocating that scientists at the EPA, or generals in the Pentagon or economists at the Federal Reserve be given free-reign. On the contrary, that is exactly why they have managers that are accountable to the public. Managers who are supposed to represent the public interest.

The problem lies in conflict resolution--when the managed or the manager disagree on which course of action is the correct one.

You seem to advocating that in such conflict, the managed have no right to take their side of the argument to the public arena. You called this "undermining" and suggested it was some kind of unthinkable act of disloyalty.

I think that any disagreement between the professional technocrats and their politically appointed managers about any matter of how policy should be enacted or enforced should absolutely be aired in the public arena. I utterly reject the notion that in such a conflict that the manged need automatcally unflappingly yield to the opinions of their managers.

*clap clap clap*

Very well said - I wish I had the time and skill to say it as well.

The only person who wants a partisan civil service is President Bush - the rest of us are merely pointing out that those in the civil service have all of the political rights every other citizen has. As long as they do their job effectively as proscribed, I frankly don't care if they "undermine" their bosses - it's their right as citizens.

You could almost say that there's something sinister about Bush's attempts at making the civil service partisan: they're somewhat akin to supreme court appointments in that they're hard to get rid of, and having a partisan civil service hostile to one's opponents reduces their ability to be effective if and when they win.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
the rest of us are merely pointing out that those in the civil service have all of the political rights every other citizen has.

Which actually isn't factually correct. Obviously, you have never held a civil service position or you would know that we are subject to special rules on political involvement and advocacy. The rules are a little less restrictive than they used to be, but they are still quite restrictive.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Which actually isn't factually correct. Obviously, you have never held a civil service position or you would know that we are subject to special rules on political involvement and advocacy. The rules are a little less restrictive than they used to be, but they are still quite restrictive.

Advocating a policy is not automatically political.

I can understand restricting them from advocating candidates or political parties, but policy, in an ideal world, is not tied to those.

Not to mention that what we're talking about is calling attention to how these places are run - AFAICT, they aren't even advocating policies.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I can understand restricting them from advocating candidates or political parties, but policy, in an ideal world, is not tied to those.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but we don't live in an ideal world.

And I don't believe we could ever agree on what an ideal world is. That's why we run our government according to the principles of public accountability through elections and constitutionally-appointed officials not through the agendas of the unelected (no matter how well meaning).

How about taking a go at the question I asked T_F: what if these employees were upset that the govenment wasn't building enough dams and highways? Would you still want to give them their way then?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
what if these employees were upset that the govenment wasn't building enough dams and highways? Would you still want to give them their way then?

Its not a question of "giving them their way". You seem to be arguing that they should just shut up or get out. I'm arguing that they have a right to take their POV to the public forum and let the people decide.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Its not a question of "giving them their way". You seem to be arguing that they should just shut up or get out. I'm arguing that they have a right to take their POV to the public forum and let the people decide.

And I'm saying once they do that, BOOM! Say goodbye to the impartial, serves-all-presidents-equally civil service.

If you want to do that, fine. Take away job protection for civil servants. When a Democrat comes into office he can then fire all the employees and appoint Democrats. Then when a Republican comes into office he can fire all the Democrats and appoint all Republicans. That way, at least the president of the day won't have to contend with millions of little fifth columnists intent on taking their personal political agenda to work. Or at least, he could be reasonably sure that their agendas and his would be aligned.

I swear, Democrats do not understand government ethics. Whatever promotes your policies is OK with you. Don't you understand that sooner or later the shoe will be on the other foot? It will be a Democratic president being sniped at by his own "professional" workforce.

[thunderous_funker]

After all, nothing could be worse for American than the damned dirty public hearing that so and so aren't doing their job right. It would be pandalerium!!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
After all, nothing could be worse for American than the damned dirty public hearing that so and so aren't doing their job right. It would be pandalerium!!

It isn't that the public will hear that the job isn't being done in some objective "right" way. There is no objective right way. It is that policy will start being influenced by the partisan subjetive interests of employees who are not the people who are supposed to make those decisions.

What the government does is between the people and their government representatives properly appointed by the president and confirmed with the advice and consent of the senate. That's what the Constitution provides for and it does not include the freelance interests of a bunch of activists in the lower ranks. They (and I) act like professionals and do as they are f*cking told. If they don't like it, and feel really strongly about how their agency is run, they are welcome to resign in protest.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Maybe you haven't noticed, but we don't live in an ideal world.

And I don't believe we could ever agree on what an ideal world is. That's why we run our government according to the principles of public accountability through elections and constitutionally-appointed officials not through the agendas of the unelected (no matter how well meaning).

How about taking a go at the question I asked T_F: what if these employees were upset that the govenment wasn't building enough dams and highways? Would you still want to give them their way then?

Yes, I'd want to hear them out. I'd want them to back up what they were saying, but I wouldn't try to muzzle them.

It's a good thing I'm only advocating that the public be permitted to weigh their opinions on how they can be most effective, what policies will aid them in their jobs, and, neither last nor least, whether or not their superiors are actually having them do the job they were hired to do.

So, rather than turn against Bush you'd join with him in a desire for a return of the spoils system, eh? Great idea . That, or completely muzzle the people who, by all rights, should know how best they can accomplish what they were hired to do.

There's a middle ground in there, simey - somewhere between the idiocy of the extremes that you see as the only viable options, there's a balance that is most beneficial to our society. Of course, you'd rather bicker, or support the extremes that make your boy Bush Jr. come out looking the best: ie, "They should just shut up and do their jobs," or, "If they want to talk, then we have to return to the spoils system, like Bush the second has been doing covertly."

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Yes, I'd want to hear them out. I'd want them to back up what they were saying, but I wouldn't try to muzzle them.

It's a good thing I'm only advocating that the public be permitted to weigh their opinions on how they can be most effective, what policies will aid them in their jobs, and, neither last nor least, whether or not their superiors are actually having them do the job they were hired to do.

So, rather than turn against Bush you'd join with him in a desire for a return of the spoils system, eh? Great idea . That, or completely muzzle the people who, by all rights, should know how best they can accomplish what they were hired to do.

There's a middle ground in there, simey - somewhere between the idiocy of the extremes that you see as the only viable options, there's a balance that is most beneficial to our society. Of course, you'd rather bicker, or support the extremes that make your boy Bush Jr. come out looking the best: ie, "They should just shut up and do their jobs," or, "If they want to talk, then we have to return to the spoils system, like Bush the second has been doing covertly."

BlackGriffen

You really don't get it, do you? It's not about who the president of the day is. I could give a damn about that in this context. It's about maintaining the integrity of the civil service. If Kerry wins in November, I would expect the same professionalism toward his administration as I demand now toward this one. And speaking personally, I would give it.

Unfortunately, it seems that some liberals can't put anything ahead of their politics. Fortunately, most of the ones I work with understand the concept of duty.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You really don't get it, do you? It's not about who the president of the day is. I could give a damn about that in this context. It's about maintaining the integrity of the civil service. If Kerry wins in November, I would expect the same professionalism toward his administration as I demand now toward this one. And speaking personally, I would give it.

Unfortunately, it seems that some liberals can't put anything ahead of their politics. Fortunately, most of the ones I work with understand the concept of duty.

Like I said, Bush is the only one using a litmus test for civil servants' loyalties. I only insist that the civil servants be allowed a voice in the process just like everybody else.

It seems you're the one with the shallow sense of duty. You just can't seems to fathom someone being able to do their job under protest. I've got news for ya, people do it all of the time, and it doesn't matter the the protests is muzzled or not, because it will still have the same effect, if any at all, on their productivity. Hell, permitting them to vent their concerns may even increase their ability to do their job, relative to being muzzled, because at least then they can say, "I took my case to my ultimate boss (the people), and they decided otherwise."

Again, though, I would not want them doing things like participating in fundraisers, endorsing candidates, etc. Anyone who wants to get overtly political knows where the exit is. If all they want to do is recommend policy, which because either party can implement it makes it apolitical by nature (though parties like to politicize them), or just report on whether or not they're allowed to do the job the taxpayers are paying them to do, I'm all for it.

Bush, on the other hand, wants them all to be loyal to him, first and foremost. Letting any politician get away with that, my friend, is a recipe for disaster.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Like I said, Bush is the only one using a litmus test for civil servants' loyalties.

Bull

I wish I still had a copy of the oath I swore to, but it said nothing about loyalty to Bush. And the regulations on the civil service preexist his presidency. You simply don't understand the concept of loyalty to a higher ideal than partisan politics. Well, fortunately, most of the Democrats I work with do understand that. That's why they would never put their personal views above their duty to the public.

That's why these "record" numbers reported by this activist group are negligible compared to the millions of federal workers who do their jobs with professionalism and pride regardless of which party is in the White House.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Bull

I wish I still had a copy of the oath I swore to, but it said nothing about loyalty to Bush. And the regulations on the civil service preexist his presidency. You simply don't understand the concept of loyalty to a higher ideal than partisan politics. Well, fortunately, most of the Democrats I work with do understand that. That's why they would never put their personal views above their duty to the public.

That's why these "record" numbers reported by this activist group are negligible compared to the millions of federal workers who do their jobs with professionalism and pride regardless of which party is in the White House.

You would lecture me about putting loyalty to the American people above partisan politics? Hell, loyalty to anything above partisan politics? You're funny, but I don't want to drag this thread down in flames.

I remember vividly reading and account of an applicant for a science related position was asked the question, "Do you support President Bush?" in the interviewing process. I'm having difficulty finding the quote now, unfortunately, so until I run across it or something equivalent again, I'll let that point be.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I remember vividly reading and account of an applicant for a science related position was asked the question, "Do you support President Bush?" in the interviewing process.

That would be improper, if the position is a civil service one. There are extensive regulations that cover the hiring process, and a violation of those regulations would be a proper subject for a complaint. They are allowed to ask about citizenship and loyalty to the United States, but not personal politics, marital status, sexual orientation, and so on. Every office maintains an office that would investigate that. Heck, the person who did part of my background investigation was fired for doing things somewhat similar.

However, policy direction by lawfully appointed officials is not a proper subject for complaints -- even if subordinates don't personally agree with them.

[thunderous_funker]

The fundamental problem in this conversation is that you continue to insist that these objections amount to nothing more than "partisan politics".

We are talking about serious charges about the how the agencies are being run. Serious charges about public trust and accountability.

By arguing that civil servants must shut up and obey no matter what they are told to do (or quit), you are the one bringing politics into it.

The decision to not enforce the laws of the land is not a question of partisanship. It is a serious question of stewardship.

What you seem to fear most is that the decisions of political appointees become subject to public scrutiny because of dissent in the ranks. Why on earth is that something to fear? Is the notion of public oversight suddenly null and void in between elections?

If the director of the EPA is doing his job right, he or she will have nothing to fear from public scrutiny.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The decision to not enforce the laws of the land is not a question of partisanship. It is a serious question of stewardship.

Of course it is political. Enforcement regulations (based on fairly broad statutory provisions) aren't written in mandatory terms. It's a resources and emphasis decision. They are written so that they can be enforced subject to the discretion of the agency according to policy determinations made politically. You seem to assume that the dicision whether to use a statutory and regulatory mechanism is some black and white issue, when it isn't. That's why I initially used a law enforcement analogy and prosecutorial discretion. The two concepts are legally very close.

The minute you start saying "I think we should enforce in X situation, not Y situation" you are crossing over from ministerial functions into the policy realm. It's not the proper place for civil servants to be contravening the lawful decisions of those placed within agencies to provide that policy direction.

Policy, in this situation, is indistinguishable from partisanship. It isn't necessarily party politics because a lot of agency positions don't neatly divide by party lines. Nevertheless, beaurocrats develop certain policy preferences. They are subject to political oversight and control precisely to constrain those enthusiasms and temper them with a little political control and accountability.

Basically, what you are arguing for is for unelected officials to have the right to undermine elected government and then hide behind the veneer of impartiality by hiding behind their statutory protections against firing. But as I have tried to explain to you, those statutory protections were only passed as part of a quid pro quo. In exchange for job protection, you are supposed to serve impartially. That means sometimes accepting directions you don't like. If a person can't live with that requirement, then the civil service is the wrong choice of career.

As much as you don't understand this, I have to tell you that the vast majority of civil servants I have met have no problem with this. In fact, most of us take our professional detachment with a degree of pride. It's a badge of honor to serve administrations faithfully regardless of party. It's what separates us from the political types who come and go.