Seeing Red

You won’t see a lot of visual cliches on the covers of Government Executive. We try to avoid overusing the flag, Uncle Sam and other images indelibly associated with government simply because they’re too familiar and it’s too easy. 

Sometimes, though, we just can’t resist. That’s the case with this issue’s cover, featuring something frequently associated with government, especially at the federal level: red tape. It’s an arguably overused image and expression to characterize all manner of government rules and regulations. 

In certain circumstances, though, it just fits. We think that’s the case with this issue’s package of feature stories on systemic problems with the federal personnel management system, particularly in two key areas: hiring and firing. 

In the feature articles, Kellie Lunney and Eric Katz note there are good reasons why these two aspects of the federal human resources system are swathed in red tape. They are, after all, the two areas where government really needs to get it right, and where we as a nation have decided to place a high value on fairness, due process and broader societal goals such as encouraging diversity and the employment of military veterans.

Still, some of the country’s leaders see little value in civil service protections, particularly when it comes to dismissing employees. Last year, in arguing for legislation to give the Veterans Affairs secretary more leeway to fire poor-performing senior executives, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said: “This bill gets rid of these hurdles in order to give the VA secretary authorities similar to those members of Congress have to fire employees from their staffs.”

The comparison to congressional staff raised the specter of creating a senior executive cadre-—and potentially an entire civil service—that could be fired at will. The United States tried that for almost 100 years, and it didn’t work out well. Indeed, after President James
Garfield was assassinated in 1881 by a disgruntled office-seeker, Congress wisely decided that relying on a professionalized civil service insulated from political pressure was the best way to run a country.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the American political and governance structure was expressly designed to be inefficient. The checks and balances built into the system are a gift from the Founding Fathers, meant to ensure that it was never too easy to do anything as a government. That spirit has extended from the political sphere into the day-to-day operations of federal agencies—which in turn means the federal personnel system will never be as efficient as world-class private sector systems. 

Despite all those caveats, however, it’s difficult to look at  what the federal hiring and firing process has become and not conclude that some major changes are in order. It’s been a long time since we re-examined government’s personnel system, and the sheer amount of time and paperwork it takes both to hire qualified employees and dismiss those who don’t measure up is evidence of the need for reform.

Instituting changes, however, will require lawmakers to devote some of their precious time and attention to a nuts-and-bolts issue that doesn’t hold out the promise of scoring a lot of political points. It also requires federal managers to step up to the plate. They may be overburdened with regulations and procedural requirements when it comes to personnel issues, but they also must take responsibility for taking decisive action and defending their decisions, even in the face of challenges. 

The question is, are the key players prepared to do what it takes? Public confidence in government may depend on the answer.