Bureaucratic Renaissance

When the then “new” administration took control of the Executive Branch of the federal government in 2000, they inherited one of the largest bureaucracies on earth. Most civil servants (who operate under a strict set of laws and restrictions very different from those that apply to political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President) have long since learned that whatever their political leanings, work is not the place for passionate politics. Invariably, Democrats trump Republicans, and Republicans trump Democrats. It’s the inevitable cycle of politics. To work in that bureaucracy requires professional neutrality.

“Bureaucrat” has become a pejorative term to most Americans, and the term “Washington bureaucrat” sends shudders of resentment down our spines. We equate paying our taxes with government “waste,” which inevitably is spun into those “damned bureaucrats.” I was born and raised in D.C., and strangely, most of those “bureaucrats” (like my mom and step-dad) worked like dogs and were profoundly proud of what they did. They had to keep our nation on a steady course with every new political election that always promised to trim their jobs and “change course.” Many of those “bureaucrats” are highly educated people for whom serving their country is more important than earning the clearly higher pay available for comparable jobs in the business world. In 2000, the Washington civil servants were moved into the back room.

Unlike any administration in recent history, even before the Iraq War, the Bush Presidency pulled all material decisions into the central political establishment, and even the ordinary operations of long-standing government processes, the simple carrying out of statutory functions, rule-making, implementation of existing Congressional mandates and even whether or not to enforce clearly defined statutes became political choices.

Statutory and administrative enforcement was often ignored for ideological reasons. Even in the Civil Service itself structure became politicized – a criminal act under applicable statutes – provoking scandals and occasional judicial review and reversal. Notable moments include the federal courts’ reversing the Administration’s policy of not enforcing environmental laws, the wide use of Presidential “signing statements” when signing bills into law (often explaining which sections would not be applied and/or exempting the President himself from the very law), the Supreme Court’s consistent determination that the President was not empowered under law to interpret the meaning and applicability of the Constitution, and, at the Department of Justice, the overt and clearly illegal ideological bias in selecting civil servant lawyers – many graduates of poorly regarded law schools who would otherwise have struggled to find high level work in the private sector (and therefore be more willing to follow a political agenda to keep their job) – became standard practice.

This politicization of purportedly neutral bureaucrats will, one would hope, end with the changing of the guard. It might not, and that would be a shame. It’s time to let civil servants… well… be our civil servants. The clearly “ideologically-directed” (by political appointees) civil servants have not been permitted to do their jobs in the past few years; even their ministerial decisions were passed to the ideologs. Morale in Washington plummeted. Many of the “best and the brightest” just left the government, which allowed the less qualified, but highly politicized newbies to move up the ladder.

What’s worse, under the guise of “cost savings,” the current Administration resorted to allowing ideologically suited contractors to compete for bureaucrats' work – a practice euphemistically known as "competitive sourcing." But the fed’s own, nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (the watchdog agency), issued a report on November 24, 2008 that challenged the reliability Department of Labor’s analysis of this practice: “DOL's savings reports are not reliable: a sample of three reports contained inaccuracies, and others used projections when the actual numbers were available, which sometimes resulted in overstated savings… Because of these and other weaknesses, DOL is hindered in its ability to determine if services are being provided more efficiently as a result of competitive sourcing.” “Competitive Sourcing” not only failed to live up to its name, according to the GAO, it also served to demoralize those who watched their jobs drift to these external, and obviously more expensive, vendors.

How do government workers view the upcoming Administration? The November 17, 2008 Washington Post provides this example: " ‘Many we talk to are wary but cautiously optimistic that with this change in administrations they will get to do their job again,’ said Jeff Ruch, executive director of the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. ‘In the environmental agencies we deal with, they weren't allowed to do their jobs because the Bush White House operated on a very centralized basis. The rule was: That which the White House doesn't want to hear shall not be said.’ "

The revitalizing of the civil service workforce is essential. The best and the brightest should be encouraged to choose public service as their careers. The unqualified and unproductive need to be weeded out to meet the public’s most reasonable expectation as to the use of their tax dollars. Unfortunately, given the extent of the past practices, this goal will require much time and more effort. I don’t know about you, but if I am paying someone to do a job, I really expect them to do that job to the best of their abilities.

I’m Peter Dekom, and I approve this message.