Report calls for overhaul of presidential transition process

A Washington nonprofit group on Wednesday recommended wide-ranging reforms to the presidential transition process, but veterans of the 2009 changeover said during a panel discussion that some of the suggestions might not be feasible politically.

In a report based on a study of the transition between the Bush and Obama administrations, the Partnership for Public Service said presidential candidates should appoint someone to oversee their transition planning efforts within two weeks of their party's national convention, and should choose someone to vet and oversee nominees who will stick with the job, rather than depart for a position in the new administration.

Chris Lu, secretary to President Obama's Cabinet and the former executive director of Obama's transition team, agreed it would be a good idea for campaigns to appoint transition directors before Election Day. But he noted it would be difficult to encourage both parties to do so because of the political implications. He said the Obama campaign likely would have rejected congressional offers for transition funding in exchange for appointing a transition director before the election was over.

"Any campaign is solely focused on winning, and you don't want to do anything to create a target for what you might do after the campaign," Lu said. "We could never, ever say anything about the transition because it fed into a broader narrative that we were being presumptuous."

Russ Gerson, who served as the personnel director for Sen. John McCain's, R-Ariz., Transition Planning Committee during the 2008 presidential campaign, added that a transition director named during the campaign could become the target of political criticism.

A recommendation to reduce the number of political appointees subject to Senate confirmation also is likely to encounter political resistance, said Martha Kumar, director of the White House Transition Project, a program that brings together academics and administration officials to improve presidential transitions. Congress already has shown reluctance to cut back Senate-confirmed positions, she noted. Members of the Bush administration's transition team proposed removing 150 positions from the list of jobs requiring confirmation, in exchange for making the candidates available for questioning by senators. Senate leaders agreed to remove just eight of those officials, Kumar said.

"They didn't want to give it up because [the process is] their chance to get something," she said.

Lawmakers already are disputing the Partnership's contention that the nomination process has become too cumbersome. In response to Wednesday's report, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, ranking member of the Finance Committee, issued a statement defending the panel's requests for nominees' financial records.

"We don't do tax audits," Grassley said. "Occasionally a nominee delays giving responses to the committee's questions, or gives responses that generate more questions. That stretches out the vetting process."

Some of the Partnership's recommendations were less contentious. Lu praised the group's advice that funding for transitions come entirely from congressional appropriations. Lawmakers allotted $5.3 million for Obama to spend on the transition once he was elected, but the new administration raised an additional $4 million from donors.

"For a candidate who prides himself on high ethical standards, it was a problem for us to raise money for a transition where you're discussing policy and people to appoint to positions," Lu said.

Max Stier, president of the Partnership, said attitudes about transitions must change to spark reforms.

The long confirmation process "should not be acceptable," he said. "It should not be acceptable to the American people, it should not be acceptable to the Senate and we need to see that change. We believe we have to take this [transition] process out of the shadows. We have to change the political norm."