Dear Mr. Barr,
On behalf of the United Defense Workers Coalition (UDWC), we thank you for your reporting on the problem-plagued National Security Personnel System (NSPS). As you are well aware, there are any number of factors concerning the NSPS that the unions have found deeply disturbing. However, one of the issues that I believe has not been fully reported on is the real facts and background of the so-called “personnel reforms” by the Administration (NSPS, DHS and the “Working for America” proposal).
I am sure that many of your readers regularly inform you that they do not understand what these proposals seek to address, and what the goals of the legislation really are. Please allow me a few moments to guide you through the convoluted history of these “reforms,” which should clarify why these proposals have been brought forward, and what they intend to accomplish. As the NSPS is the “reform” that most directly impacts us, it will be the focus of this message, though in many places, you could substitute the name of any of the “personnel reforms” proposed by the Administration.
One of the great myths of the NSPS that the DOD and the Administration have gone to great lengths to present is the claim that the NSPS was developed in the aftermath of 9/11 as a vital tool in defending our national security. Indeed, when the DOD advanced the original legislative proposal to Congress in April 2003, the NSPS was wrapped in the trappings of “national security,” making the claim that the DOD civilian personnel system was outdated for the war. However, the more disturbing truth is that the NSPS did not arise from national security concerns, but from a political management agenda document published by the Heritage Foundation before this Administration even took office.
I would direct your attention to a Heritage Foundation document titled “Taking Charge of Federal Personnel,” which was published in early January 2001. Please find a link to this document attached to this message. This document was co-authored by George Nesterczuk, Donald Devine and Robert Moffit. This document provided the blueprint for the NSPS, as well as the DHS and “Working for America” systems, which have been proposed by the Administration. The document advocated for the new President to restore the long-discarded “Spoils System” as the means of “managing” the federal civilian workforce, though it carefully avoided ever using the term. The document first explains the rationale for the return of the “spoils system,” then it explains how it should be implemented:
“Political Appointees, personally loyal to the President and fully committed to his policy agenda, are essential to his success, especially in the crucial first months of his Presidency. No President can or will advance his agenda alone or with a small handful of staffers in the White House or the federal departments. The President needs a full cadre or personnel committed to him and his agenda in the federal agencies that execute the details of national policy.”
Just in case the reader missed the intent stated in the above paragraph, the document defines the personnel system sought in even more stark terms later:
Advocated in recent years by Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, this model was the norm for presidential government throughout most of American history. It emphasizes political responsibility—providing presidential leadership to committed top political officials and then holding them and their subordinates personally accountable for achievement of the President’s election-endorsed and value-defined program.”
Put in its most simple terms, the document is calling for the President to place political loyalists and cronies in all corners of the federal government, and placing loyalty to the Administration above every other consideration (including competence). These loyalists are then to single-mindedly focus on the President’s “agenda” to the exclusion of all other voices (including Congress and their competent and experienced employees) and enforce top-down control of the government by the Executive branch.
The “spoils system” was indeed the manner in which the federal bureaucracy was originally designed. However, the system became too unstable, with political abuses and political appointees having too much power. The event that probably led to the end of the “spoils system” was a disappointed office seeker assassinating President Garfield. Congress was then forced to exercise its Constitutional power to set the rules of the federal bureaucracy. The Congress passed the Pendleton Act in the 1880’s, and has subsequently modified and added changes to the base system designed by this Act in the years following. Through these reforms, Congress created an agency, today called the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), to ensure that hiring and management of the workforce was based on merit, not patronage.
Nonetheless, the lure of patronage and unfettered control of the agencies of government is a tempting lure for any Administration. However, Congress had added a number of features and laws governing the federal personnel system that limited the ability of any Administration to run the bureaucracy on its own. For example, the General Schedule (GS) is designed to ensure that federal workers are not subjected to favoritism in their pay. The growth of unions in the federal workforce has also given the workers a say in their working conditions and their rights in the workplace.
In light of the above, it is perhaps not surprising that the Heritage Foundation document calls for a drastically reduced role for labor relations in the federal government. In fact, since the “spoils system” is based around political control of the government, effective labor relations that involves collective bargaining would hinder the effectiveness of the “spoils system.”
That is the thumbnail sketch of the Heritage Foundation document, the goal of that document, and the historical background concerning the motivations for the document. However, it is the subsequent events that reveal the lengths the Administration has gone to in order to implement this outline.
Once DOD achieved passage of the NSPS statute, the DOD did not hesitate in defining a system that closely mirrored the goals of the Heritage Foundation document. In fact, despite the Congressional requirement in the statute that OPM and DOD jointly draft these any NSPS regulations, OPM was not even consulted until the process of creating the NSPS was under way.
When the Congress put DOD on notice of this problem, the cynical response of the Administration was to give George Nesterczuk a special OPM appointment that effectively made him the OPM point person for the NSPS. This is the SAME George Nesterczuk who co-authored the Heritage Foundation report that provided the NSPS blueprint! Please keep in mind that OPM was created to protect the merit system, and prevent the return of the “spoils system.” Yet the Administration had successfully managed to appoint the co-author of the blueprint that would eviscerate OPM to be in charge of the OPM team handling the NSPS!
Indeed, throughout the “meet and confer” process, George Nesterczuk played a prominent role. He has also been a regular in speaking out in support of the NSPS, as well as writing media articles in support of the NSPS regulations.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the portion of the NSPS regulations recently stuck down by Judge Sullivan provided almost exactly what the Heritage Foundation document called for. Under those portions of the NSPS regulations that Judge Sullivan barred from implementation, all “implementing issuances,” as well as “issuances” would have been made by the politically appointed leadership of DOD. Furthermore, all major decisions would be made “at the discretion of the Secretary (of Defense).” Moreover, since the final NSPS regulations would have effectively eliminated collective bargaining, there would have been no meaningful input by anyone outside of the political appointees in the Department. In other words, the DOD political appointees would make all decisions, operating in a political vacuum independent of the will of Congress and that minimizes the involvement of its employees.
As you can now see, the NSPS was not designed to protect the national security of our nation. It was instead to implement the blueprint for re-taking Executive Branch control of the government (re-implementation of the “spoils system”), wrapped up in the guise of national security. It was not by accident that the Administration chose DOD to advance this cause. The DOD stood in the best position to defend the changes under its critical mission, but also because it has over 700,000 civilian employees, who make up a large section of the federal workforce. The calculation by the Administration appears to have been that if they could push NSPS through the DOD, it would be able to easily apply the changes to the rest of the federal government.
Our nation has already experienced the disastrous consequences of placing loyalty above competence and experience in political appointments, as our experiences in the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, particularly in FEMA and DHS demonstrated. Indeed, any further reforms should be directed AWAY from providing any Administration with more latitude to strengthen the authority of its political appointees.
In light of the above, I would ask that you please consider examining the real background of the NSPS and these other “reforms.” I believe that it is vital that your readership understand that these “personnel reforms” are not made in the name of modernization, national security, or any other justification that the Administration has offered. Instead, these have been offered for purely political reasons- to return control of the federal bureaucracy to the era of the “spoils system,” where the President can use the powers of political appointment to make sure that the President’s political agenda is advanced. I believe that this reporting would help clarify the debate, as well as inform what is really being sought by the Administration.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at my office (202) 974-8030 or my cell phone at (XXX-XXX-XXXX). Thank you.
Ron Ault
President
Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO
888 16th Street, NW
Suite 690
Washington, D.C. 20006
On behalf of the United Defense Workers Coalition (UDWC), we thank you for your reporting on the problem-plagued National Security Personnel System (NSPS). As you are well aware, there are any number of factors concerning the NSPS that the unions have found deeply disturbing. However, one of the issues that I believe has not been fully reported on is the real facts and background of the so-called “personnel reforms” by the Administration (NSPS, DHS and the “Working for America” proposal).
I am sure that many of your readers regularly inform you that they do not understand what these proposals seek to address, and what the goals of the legislation really are. Please allow me a few moments to guide you through the convoluted history of these “reforms,” which should clarify why these proposals have been brought forward, and what they intend to accomplish. As the NSPS is the “reform” that most directly impacts us, it will be the focus of this message, though in many places, you could substitute the name of any of the “personnel reforms” proposed by the Administration.
One of the great myths of the NSPS that the DOD and the Administration have gone to great lengths to present is the claim that the NSPS was developed in the aftermath of 9/11 as a vital tool in defending our national security. Indeed, when the DOD advanced the original legislative proposal to Congress in April 2003, the NSPS was wrapped in the trappings of “national security,” making the claim that the DOD civilian personnel system was outdated for the war. However, the more disturbing truth is that the NSPS did not arise from national security concerns, but from a political management agenda document published by the Heritage Foundation before this Administration even took office.
I would direct your attention to a Heritage Foundation document titled “Taking Charge of Federal Personnel,” which was published in early January 2001. Please find a link to this document attached to this message. This document was co-authored by George Nesterczuk, Donald Devine and Robert Moffit. This document provided the blueprint for the NSPS, as well as the DHS and “Working for America” systems, which have been proposed by the Administration. The document advocated for the new President to restore the long-discarded “Spoils System” as the means of “managing” the federal civilian workforce, though it carefully avoided ever using the term. The document first explains the rationale for the return of the “spoils system,” then it explains how it should be implemented:
“Political Appointees, personally loyal to the President and fully committed to his policy agenda, are essential to his success, especially in the crucial first months of his Presidency. No President can or will advance his agenda alone or with a small handful of staffers in the White House or the federal departments. The President needs a full cadre or personnel committed to him and his agenda in the federal agencies that execute the details of national policy.”
Just in case the reader missed the intent stated in the above paragraph, the document defines the personnel system sought in even more stark terms later:
Advocated in recent years by Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, this model was the norm for presidential government throughout most of American history. It emphasizes political responsibility—providing presidential leadership to committed top political officials and then holding them and their subordinates personally accountable for achievement of the President’s election-endorsed and value-defined program.”
Put in its most simple terms, the document is calling for the President to place political loyalists and cronies in all corners of the federal government, and placing loyalty to the Administration above every other consideration (including competence). These loyalists are then to single-mindedly focus on the President’s “agenda” to the exclusion of all other voices (including Congress and their competent and experienced employees) and enforce top-down control of the government by the Executive branch.
The “spoils system” was indeed the manner in which the federal bureaucracy was originally designed. However, the system became too unstable, with political abuses and political appointees having too much power. The event that probably led to the end of the “spoils system” was a disappointed office seeker assassinating President Garfield. Congress was then forced to exercise its Constitutional power to set the rules of the federal bureaucracy. The Congress passed the Pendleton Act in the 1880’s, and has subsequently modified and added changes to the base system designed by this Act in the years following. Through these reforms, Congress created an agency, today called the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), to ensure that hiring and management of the workforce was based on merit, not patronage.
Nonetheless, the lure of patronage and unfettered control of the agencies of government is a tempting lure for any Administration. However, Congress had added a number of features and laws governing the federal personnel system that limited the ability of any Administration to run the bureaucracy on its own. For example, the General Schedule (GS) is designed to ensure that federal workers are not subjected to favoritism in their pay. The growth of unions in the federal workforce has also given the workers a say in their working conditions and their rights in the workplace.
In light of the above, it is perhaps not surprising that the Heritage Foundation document calls for a drastically reduced role for labor relations in the federal government. In fact, since the “spoils system” is based around political control of the government, effective labor relations that involves collective bargaining would hinder the effectiveness of the “spoils system.”
That is the thumbnail sketch of the Heritage Foundation document, the goal of that document, and the historical background concerning the motivations for the document. However, it is the subsequent events that reveal the lengths the Administration has gone to in order to implement this outline.
Once DOD achieved passage of the NSPS statute, the DOD did not hesitate in defining a system that closely mirrored the goals of the Heritage Foundation document. In fact, despite the Congressional requirement in the statute that OPM and DOD jointly draft these any NSPS regulations, OPM was not even consulted until the process of creating the NSPS was under way.
When the Congress put DOD on notice of this problem, the cynical response of the Administration was to give George Nesterczuk a special OPM appointment that effectively made him the OPM point person for the NSPS. This is the SAME George Nesterczuk who co-authored the Heritage Foundation report that provided the NSPS blueprint! Please keep in mind that OPM was created to protect the merit system, and prevent the return of the “spoils system.” Yet the Administration had successfully managed to appoint the co-author of the blueprint that would eviscerate OPM to be in charge of the OPM team handling the NSPS!
Indeed, throughout the “meet and confer” process, George Nesterczuk played a prominent role. He has also been a regular in speaking out in support of the NSPS, as well as writing media articles in support of the NSPS regulations.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the portion of the NSPS regulations recently stuck down by Judge Sullivan provided almost exactly what the Heritage Foundation document called for. Under those portions of the NSPS regulations that Judge Sullivan barred from implementation, all “implementing issuances,” as well as “issuances” would have been made by the politically appointed leadership of DOD. Furthermore, all major decisions would be made “at the discretion of the Secretary (of Defense).” Moreover, since the final NSPS regulations would have effectively eliminated collective bargaining, there would have been no meaningful input by anyone outside of the political appointees in the Department. In other words, the DOD political appointees would make all decisions, operating in a political vacuum independent of the will of Congress and that minimizes the involvement of its employees.
As you can now see, the NSPS was not designed to protect the national security of our nation. It was instead to implement the blueprint for re-taking Executive Branch control of the government (re-implementation of the “spoils system”), wrapped up in the guise of national security. It was not by accident that the Administration chose DOD to advance this cause. The DOD stood in the best position to defend the changes under its critical mission, but also because it has over 700,000 civilian employees, who make up a large section of the federal workforce. The calculation by the Administration appears to have been that if they could push NSPS through the DOD, it would be able to easily apply the changes to the rest of the federal government.
Our nation has already experienced the disastrous consequences of placing loyalty above competence and experience in political appointments, as our experiences in the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, particularly in FEMA and DHS demonstrated. Indeed, any further reforms should be directed AWAY from providing any Administration with more latitude to strengthen the authority of its political appointees.
In light of the above, I would ask that you please consider examining the real background of the NSPS and these other “reforms.” I believe that it is vital that your readership understand that these “personnel reforms” are not made in the name of modernization, national security, or any other justification that the Administration has offered. Instead, these have been offered for purely political reasons- to return control of the federal bureaucracy to the era of the “spoils system,” where the President can use the powers of political appointment to make sure that the President’s political agenda is advanced. I believe that this reporting would help clarify the debate, as well as inform what is really being sought by the Administration.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at my office (202) 974-8030 or my cell phone at (XXX-XXX-XXXX). Thank you.
Ron Ault
President
Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO
888 16th Street, NW
Suite 690
Washington, D.C. 20006
Metal Trades Department, AFL-CiO • 815 16th Street, NW •Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-508-3705 • Fax: 202-508-3706 • email: metaltradesweb@gmail.com
