|
Federal Diary Live
With Stephen Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2002; Noon ET
What's at stake for the new Department of Homeland Security? What
challenges will face the nearly 170,000 federal employees caught up in the
reorganization?
Paul C. Light of the Brookings Institution joins The Post's Stephen Barr,
who writes the Federal Diary column, to take your questions and comments on
legislative proposals to create the new department to protect the homeland
and thwart terrorist efforts.
Light is a senior fellow at Brookings and director of its Center for the
Public Service. He also serves as a senior adviser to the National
Commission the Public Service, chaired by former Federal Reserve chairman
Paul Volcker.
Light has written 13 books, including "The New Public Service," "The True
Size of Government," and "The Tides of Reform: Making Government Work." He
is a former director of the public policy program at the Pew Charitable
Trusts and worked on Capitol Hill as a staff member of the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee. He is a fellow of the National Academy of
Public Administration.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests
and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Stephen Barr:
Thanks to all of you for joining us today, and a big thanks to Paul Light of Brookings, who has been a guest before and always helps steer us through civil service issues.
Paul, a number of federal employees ask me what they should make of plans to create a new Department of Homeland Security, in the sense that they suspect such a large reorganization could eventually lead to reorganizations elsewhere in the government. We saw a hint of that earlier this month, when the Treasury Department said it was willing to transfer the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms over to the Justice Department. What's your take -- will there be a ripple of reorganizations?
Again, thanks for taking time to join us today.
Paul Light: I think government reorganization will be the flavor of the month for a while. We've got proposals for a food safety reorganization, an intelligence gathering reorganization, and a number of committees thinking about how they might make things add up a bit better. We've also got the president's own request, buried in the homeland security plan, for a restoration of presidential reorganization authority, and some interest among some members of Congress in giving the president some freedom to reduce duplication and overlap. From my perspective as a "structuralist," meaning that I love to move boxes around organization charts, the focus on reorganization couldn't come soon enough. We have reconciled organizations with missions for the better part of a half century now. But we shouldn't oversell the gains from reorganization. Organization is just a means to some end, not an end in itself. Anyone who thinks that hoisting a Department of Homeland Security flag above these agencies will somehow be enough is mistaken. The new secretary has a very rough time ahead, in part because of the current dispute over civil service protections.
Washington, D.C.:
If the Homeland Security Department receives final approval, where will the new headquarters department be located?
Paul Light: I'd put my money on Crystal City, but who knows? Everyone says the headquarters staff will be relatively small, but don't bet on it. Past reorganizations have produced very large headquarters--the pressure on a new department is to look at thick and cumbersome as all other departments so that people take it seriously. Moreover, this one already has about twice as many proposed political appointees in the Education and Energy departments had at their start. Every Senate-confirmed appointee brings other non-Senate-confirmed appointees with him or her--roughly 3 on average by my last count. When you throw in the career people, you're talking about a substantial staff. I was hoping that the Senate might consider some brakes on the number of appointees, or at least on the number of hangers-on that many bring into office, but it seems like a "no go" on that. You'd think that with all the conversation about protecting civil servants from interference that the Senate might ask about the need for so many positions at the top.
Boston, Mass.:
Is it your position that the Homeland Security Department push by Republicans has its first mission, to protect American lives and property, and, as its second mission, to force the natural breakup of 170,000 unionized federal workers so they lose their presently held union representation, employee protections, higher pay scales and political clout?
Paul Light: I don't think the Bush people ever intended to have this debate about unionization or civil service protection. I just think they were laboring under the notion that presidents should have unfettered authority to run departments--a classic private-sector mentality. The initial bill was quite short, and gave the benefit of the doubt to the president every time on almost every management issue. That's to be expected when the president drafts a bill, no matter what party they represent.
I do think the White House over-reached on the civil service issue. The drafters could have been much more careful about defining terms such as "flexible and contemporary," and surely could have brought the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee into this much earlier. But they didn't. As a result, this bill has become a lightning rod for every worst fear that managers have about employees and employees about managers. The secretary is going to have calm the waters right away--lots of pepper spray in the air, and not just at Fed-Ex Field!
Washington, D.C.:
The problem at our Cabinet agency is that political appointees are highly unqualified to be managers. Yet I hear that the Homeland Security agency is going to be chock-full of political managers. What can be done to limit the number of political appointees, reward excellence in career employees and create opportunities for advancement for career employees at the new department?
Paul Light: I have argued that the new department should have some statutory caps on the number of appointees, but to no avail. I do think we see some political appointees involved who will do a very good job--Loy at TSA is terrific and has a very good team around him; certainly the administration will give close consideration to the other top jobs. There have been some bad appointments in the Bush administration, just as there were in the Clinton administration. But I know that Clay Johnson and the White House Office of Presidential Personnel takes this very seriously. Nonetheless, I think we'd all be better off if we trimmed the number. Why does Homeland Security need twice as many appointees as Veterans Affairs, for example? VA has 250,000 employees spread across hundreds of hospitals, clinics, treatment centers, and benefits offices.
Arlington, Va.:
What do you think about the civil service brouhaha in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security? Although I haven't had much opportunity to observe an attempted firing in my current Department (Justice), I recall the arduousness of doing so in another department I once worked for (Treasury).
And that's another question: Are firing procedures different across agencies (but equally difficult)?
Paul Light: There is more heat than light coming out of the current debate about poor performance. Our surveys of federal employees suggests that we have some problems here. Yes, we can fire poor performers. Yes, we can discipline them. But the vast majority of federal employees are rated as either "outstanding" or "exceeeds fully satisfactory" in the annual five-point ratings, and the vast, vast, vast majority who are under a pass/fail system obviously pass. The incentives for employees to appeal a disciplinary action to the nth degree are quite robust, especially if they've been rated at least "minimally successful" in the past. So, even though it's possible to discipline and fire, many managers won't do it. Far better to focus on the high performers and just move on. FYI, 67 percent of the random sample of federal employees we interviewed in 2001 said their organizations did either "not too good" or "not good at all" at disciplining poor performers. That perception is arguably worse than the reality. The perception that poor performers get away with it has a serious impact on morale and job satisfaction. At a minimum, we need to streamline the appeals process so that the process comes to a close much sooner.
Alexandria, Va.:
Given that Homeland Security is going to comprise so many agencies with different HR systems, how do you think they'll manage under one roof? Which agency do you think will take the lead?
Paul Light: This is the primary reason the administration is pushing so hard for some flexibility. It really is a nightmare of conflicting systems. Just look at the movement of law enforcement officers from Border Patrol, INS, and Customs to the Air Marshals Program, which my friends at Government Executive say number in the 1,500 range. The new secretary has to have some way to smooth the edges of these very different systems, many of which are the product of escape attempts over the years. Think of the federal civil as a prison of a sorts. You've got agency after agency tunneling out. At some point, you've got a system of haves and have-nots that just isn't fair. I think we're well past that point.
Stephen Barr:
Paul, let's assume that, at the end, Congress decides the president should have substantial flexibility to design a new pay and personnel system for the Department of Homeland Security. What's your idea of a good model?
Paul Light: The Defense Department has designed an alternative personnel system that looks pretty interesting at first blush, and would love to have the flexibility therein. It's got broad-banding, more recruitment flexibility, critical pay authority, buyouts, flattening, and workforce planning. All in all, a pretty good design based on some very deep research by RAND among others. But the Armed Services committees don't appear to be interested.
I've argued that the Senate and House should give the president the flexibility to design a "flexible and contemporary" personnel system, but require the administration to submit that system for review by GAO and expedited up-or-down approval by Congress. That would remove some of the mystery surrounding the authority. The White House is saying "trust us," but it's an uneven message. Just look at yesterday's reports about the outsourcing initiative. On the one hand, the Bush people want every to relax about the Homeland Security Bill; on the other, an OMB Office of Procurement Policy official threatens to order agencies to compete every last job if Congress orders an end to the arbitrary targeting system. Those OMB folks need to talk to the White House before pounding the table on outsourcing. No wonder feds are nervous.
Clifton, Va.:
For the rank and file employee transferred to the Homeland department, the transfer will have very little real effect on them. An employee who does is job and gets satisfactory or above on their PA's has little to fear even if the unions go bye bye. It is similar to the difference between exempted and competitive service. On a daily bais, there isn't any real difference. I have been on both sides. (There should not be any union representation in the federal government at all--we can't strike.)
Paul Light: Good point. I think this debate reached Chernoyble status with little justification, in part because the White House seized on the department as THE answer at a time when the hunt for al Qaeda wasn't going well, Ridge was under fire, and the homeland security agencies were coming apart. The issues at hand are perfectly suited to compromise. Having been a staffer with the Governmental Affairs Committee, I can attest that Congress does many things poorly, not the least of which is getting the appropriation bills done on time. But what Congress really does well is taking two very, very similar bills to conference and finding mid-point compromises and acceptable trade-offs. I was stunned when Bush threatened a veto on the union issue--totally inappropriate to the very serious nature of the Senate's work. The more he talks about a veto, the more federal employees worry that they're right about some hidden intent here.
Derwood, Md.:
Just a comment about one of your earlier answers: You called Loy a political appointee. That may be technically true, but he is a recently retired Coast Guard Admiral. His past career, as a federal employee in the Coast Guard, is why he is being so successful at TSA.
Paul Light: That's correct. But he is subject to Senate advice and consent, and will sail through (no pun intended). He's a perfect example of the kind of public servants we need in government--dedicated to the mission, highly qualified. I think that goes for many of the Bush and Clinton appointees, incidentally. But that doesn't mean we must accept the steady increase in layers of political people. I'm a firm believer, for example, that we ought to create some kind of undersecretary for management, an issue that Comptroller General Walker is working on, but that it should at least carry a term of office. We've got to have some institutional memory in these agencies, and some high level commitment to the management improvements needed for continued success.
Arlington, Va.:
Thanks for addressing my prior question. I understand your point that perception is a big part of workers' dissatisfaction that poor performers don't get fired. I just have burned in my brain a situation in Treasury where an employee went AWOL for four or five months, with no disciplinary action. Finally, this employee was "disciplined" with one DAY's suspension without pay. I asked why they didn't fire him at once. (I saw the memo.) I was told that they first had to suspend him for a day, then a week, then a month, and then fire him. He could appeal at any time, halting the process. I'm sorry, but if I went AWOL for a week when I was in my private sector job, I'd be on my bum out the door.
The poor performers are rare, but we have to have ways to get rid of them effectively. Good workers have rights, too. (And given that there are almost zero rewards for doing good work -- heck I got no bonus along with the vast majority of my hard-working office this year -- the inability to fire these idiots grates even more.)
Paul Light: Agreed. There's nothing worse for morale than working with someone who is dogging it. Most employees feel that way. One of the isssues in this debate is how to discipline poorly performing managers. We've talked a lot about how we fire the baggage or passenger screener who messes up on the front-line, but what about the immediate supervisor who wasn't paying attention, and the airport director who didn't provide access to training, or the private contractor who managed the hiring process? It's an important problem.
Washington, D.C.:
The Administration claims its proposal (and the House bill) maintains whistleblower protections rights, but in reality it allows the secretary to suspend all the provisions that permit employees to exercise those rights -- in MSPB appeals or through the courts. So if the House version passes, employees will have a very nice right to blow the whistle, but won't be able to get any redress when they are retaliated against. Do you have any comment about that? Won't that make it easier for management to cover up problems that could lead to tragedies?
Paul Light: This is precisely the kind of department where you will need strong whistleblower protections. Large vulnerability, large front-line workforce. We should make sure that anyone who sees something wrong at the bottom feels maximum protection to raise a warning flag. The last thing we need is to create a culture of fear in this department--employees need access to the training, resources, and confidence of their managers, and also need to know that they can raise concerns without fear of retribution.
Fairfax Station, Va.:
Reorganizations take many months if not years to become efficient. What happens to these security functions/missions in the meantime?
Paul Light: We need to give the department two or three years before we judge its success or failure, and even that timeline will be tight. In the meantime, we know that some of the agencies such as Coast Guard will continue to do a terrific job, while others such as INS will need a dramatic turnaround. The real trick here is to create a sum that is greater than the parts. The Department of Energy was the last big merger, and remains no more than a sum of its parts, if that.
Washington, D.C.:
Given the slow moving Senate debate, would not Bush have been better off with an OMB-like organization inside the White House than this scheme, where Congress will constantly interfere with his plans and ideas?
Paul Light: Nope. One of the reasons reinventing government has come and gone with the wind is that so little of it was enshrined in statute. The pieces of the effort that did make it into law, such as procurement reform, have had lasting effect. Laws do matter here. Several of these agencies also needed the kind of shake-up they've gotten in the hearing process. I'm thinking specifically of Consular Affairs, which went through a very tough review by Rep. Weldon's civil service subcommittee in the House, and Customs, which received a good inspection by Sen. Baucus's
Finance Committee in the Senate. It may well turn out that the hearings leading up to passage will be more important to the nation's homeland security than the reorganization itself. I think both chambers took this issue very seriously, and had an awakening about the importance of management to programmatic success. Let's hope the awakening is permanent.
Washington, D.C.:
Is the president being too ambitious by lumping together 22 agencies? Why not just a Border Patrol-Customs-TSA merger and leave it at that? Thank you.
Paul Light: My colleagues here at Brookings and I certainly think the reorganization is too broad. Take a look at our July report on the Brookings website at www.brookings.edu.
Riverdale, Md.:
My agency--APHIS is the one agency that is really being carved up in the Homeland Security Department move. What's puzzling is that although half the total workforce is going to HSD--we are being told that only about 1/7th of the people in the support units will be affected. Does not make sense--wouldn't that leave HSD understaffed in the support, LPA, management, budget, etc., areas?
Paul Light: I don't know what to think about the APHIS move. Carved up isn't quite the word, is it? More like being dismantled. Much of the more general reorganization is based on the notion that there will be huge economies of scale in the new department; hence, no need for additional money or staffing. I just don't believe it; moreover, I think that Congress and the president should take the pledge to provide adequate resources to the task whatever they might be.
Arlington, Va.:
As a general rule in large reorganizations, who benefits the most -- management or the employees?
Paul Light: It might be better to rephrase the question as "who benefits most: the top, middle, or front-line?" The answer appears to be the top and the middle. Headquarters grows, the middle grows, but the front-line staff can often find that they're the ones to absorb the inevitable trimming that comes with surprising new costs. That might well be the story at SSA, which became an independent agency in 1993 or 1994. Big cuts soon followed, many of which came on the front-lines, and the agency has a very significant retirement problem just over the horizon.
Alexandria, Va.:
Mr. Light, for federal employees in the civil service/GS system, do you anticipate a change in employment security?
Paul Light: I don't think it means a change in security, but I do hope that we are able to make some changes in how we manage our human capital. I'm delighted that Sen. Voinovich persuaded his colleagues on Governmental Affairs to put some long-overdue civil service reforms into the bill, and hope the Senate will do something to help ease the presidential appointments process for the government in general, and certainly homeland security in particular. The nation can't afford to wait months and months for its senior homeland security team to fill out these ridiculous financial disclosure forms, nor should the department's employees have to do it. You want a big productivity saver? Streamline those forms.
Alexandria, Va.:
You are right. The FAIR Act and other competitive sourcing issues keep popping up in the news. Do you think it possible to outsource the HR and other functions in Homeland Security?
Paul Light: Great way to end the chat. Here's how to do the competition: take up the current HR functions inside government and compare their performance with the HR functions that we contracted out for hiring the baggage and passenger screeners at the Transportation Security Administration. I'll bet the feds win hands down.
Stephen Barr:
Paul Light, thanks for sharing your time and insights with us. You bring a whirlwind of energy to these discussions. My thanks to all of you who sent in questions and have taken the time to read this transcript. We'll be back at noon next Wednesday.
Stephen Barr:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
Stay tuned to Live Online:
Author
Bruce Feiler on Abraham at 1 p.m. ET
Cybersecurity:
SANS Institute at 1 p.m. ET
Classical
Music: Tim Page at 2 p.m. ET
The
Psychology of The Sopranos at 3 p.m. ET
Mr.
Show's Bob Odenkirk at 4 p.m. ET
Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at
the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and
forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live
Online transcripts.
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com.
Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
