GovernmentExecutive.com

A panel of public policy experts on Wednesday debated whether establishing a bricks-and-mortar undergraduate academy would be the solution to the federal government's looming workforce challenges.

At a forum sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, panelists expressed support for or suggested alternatives to creating a U.S. Public Service Academy, on par with the nation's military academies, to inject prestige into federal service and highlight the importance of government work.

Panelists noted that the government faces myriad personnel challenges over the next decade as 60 percent of the federal workforce and 90 percent of senior executives become eligible to retire. Chris Myers Asch, one of the architects of the academy proposal, noted that establishing a national academy would create a cadre of talented individuals to help fill the void and make federal service a more noble career path.

"George Washington expected a national university to be a useful instrument in the shaping of patriotic citizens and of able civil servants," Asch said. "The academy will help reinvigorate our sense of public service and help revitalize the work of our public sector."

Legislation that would establish a national public service academy was introduced in both chambers of Congress in March by Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Reps. Jim Moran, D-Va., and Chris Shays, R-Conn. It has since acquired 16 Senate co-sponsors and 87 in the House. Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee also has expressed support for the effort.

The proposal would establish a 5,000-member undergraduate academy that would be free to students in exchange for a five-year service commitment to the government at local, state or federal levels. Students would be nominated by members of Congress in a process much like that at the military service academies, and would be required to study abroad and complete internships with nonprofit and military organizations.

A major subject of concern among panelists, however, was the proposal's estimated price tag of $205 million. "We see big challenges, and we rise to them," Asch said. "It's expensive, but it's going to change this country."

Still, some panelists noted that simply creating such an institution would not begin to address the government's challenges, which do not necessarily stem from a lack of interest in public service among young people. Philip Levy, who studies international trade and development at AEI, said the problem lies more within the government itself, where the hiring process is lengthy and difficult, and the system is based heavily on seniority. Ultimately, the academy proposal would be expanding a government that is not an attractive place to work, he said.

Levy and Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, president emeritus and a professor of public service at The George Washington University, noted that offering scholarships to students in a format much like the military's Reserve Officers' Training Corps would be a more cost-effective solution to the challenges of attracting top talent to public service.

"The academy is an answer in search of a problem," Trachtenberg said. "There really is an issue, but I think this is the wrong solution."

Robert Tobias, director of public sector executive programs at American University, noted that the creation of an ROTC-like program would not be nearly as effective as the academy proposal in preparing a cadre of talent to enter the federal workforce. "The idea that people would be together for four years creating a culture that will support them from there on is what distinguishes this from other universities," Tobias said. "It's created by people working together on the same kinds of projects with the same goal in mind, and that is public service."

John Bridgeland, CEO of Civic Enterprises, a public policy firm in Washington, said he is working with government and nonprofit organizations to create national public service legislation with the goal of getting such a bill passed and signed into law by September 2009. The public service academy proposal would be a part of the legislation, he said.

"I think [the academy] is one of the most transformative and boldest ideas from the perspective of igniting a culture of service in a generation," Bridgeland said. "[It] would give civilian service an equal standing to military service and might even infuse in the broader culture a stronger sense of giving back."

COMMENTS

• Implement the draft, and this idea and discussion would be moot. This proposal is an attempt by our most hawkish leaders to give our young a politically correct way of avoiding military service. Are the sponsors of this proposal thinking about their own children and grandchildren? Is this their way of creating an easy way of avoiding military service, so they can run for office in the future and not suffer the embarrassment of explaining why they never served in the military? Let's kick this proposal to the curb -- implement the draft, and separate the men from the boys! frank Posted January 19, 2008 9:55 AM
• Dan Ketter knows not of what he writes. But he is most likely a beneficiary of the rampant self-serving driven inbreeding that takes place at the public troth which permeates almost every corner of DoD in the general and financial admininstative fields in the mid and upper pay ranges. Even when DoD, purportedly, recruits outside of itself via federal-wide and/or DEU recruitments the only people that are ever hired ALMOST EVERY SINGLE TIME are only and merely current or prior DoD staffers (e.g., DoD GS, or recently retired military members who sat in the literal very same chair before being self-financial gain driven 'converted' into a GS appointment post retirement [an act that has nada to do with veterans preference], or DOD contractor). Again, this occurrs almost EVERY SINGLE TIME. And no, Danny Boy, don't even try to rationalize this transparent abuse of the federal hiring process and adulteration of the Merit Systems Principles as DoD's good hearted attempt to enforce veteran's preference. Don't even go there. This utter fiasco of self-interest driven double-dipping dregs of public administrative management practice is self evident and obvious: Lackeys taking care of like-minded lackeys and toadies, most of who who could not legitimatley compete for the position wuith tehir peers across the federal goverment or the proivatre sector - viola sham external recruitments - almost all of who are one agency careerists to the person/bone. The mere notion of defining excellence as existing only among current or prior DoD staff is preposterpous and it is pathetic. And it is surely indicative of the 'we take care of our own (via sham external recruitments) culture that permeates this aspect of the DoD workforce. Michael J. Smith, M.P.A. Posted January 14, 2008 6:46 PM
• 14 Jan 08 A lot of the preceding comments captured the essence of the problem. This is a bad idea! A major problem within government now is the rash of political appointees who have their job because of political connections. This also undermines the merit promotion process and erodes competency. Making appointments to the Governmental Service Academy through a politician compounds the problem. We need less (a lot less) political appointees and more people dedicated to serving for the long haul. R. David Fischer Posted January 14, 2008 2:54 PM