Vultures and 19th Century Civil Service Reform

This is the first of a series of posts on the history and future of the civil service.

We talk a lot about the merit system and its importance to the integrity of the civil service, and also complain about its flaws. Before addressing some fixes, I thought it might be useful to share a bit of the history of the civil service and how we got where we are today.

President George Washington hired the first government workers based on merit. President Washington’s belief in good government as a basis for hiring  did not survive long past his Administration. The system quickly devolved into a spoils system with patronage rather than merit-based Federal employment.  Federal workers served at the pleasure of the administration and could easily be dismissed. The ability of a President to fill patronage jobs might have been a means of influencing policy, but it was terribly flawed. It caused wholesale turnover in government with every Administration, with rapid and unexpected firing. Henry Clay described Federal employees as being “like the inhabitants of Cairo when the plague breaks out; no one knows who is next to encounter the stroke of death.”  Job seekers actually advertised their interest in Federal employment, along with their willingness to pay for an appropriate position.  President James Garfield described them as “vultures lying in wait for a wounded bison.” One vulture was Charles Guiteau, the man who shot and killed President Garfield in 1881 after failing to secure an appointment in the Garfield Administration.

Reformers, including Senator George Pendleton (D-OH), used the Garfield assassination to press for civil service reform.  The merit-based civil service began in 1883 with the passage of the Pendleton Act.  Intended to rein in the political spoils system, it created or affirmed many requirements that we take for granted today:

  • Open, competitive examinations
  • Establishment of job classes and grades
  • Ban on appointments based on political activity or lack of it
  • Probationary periods
  • Ban on use of official position for political gain
  • Provision for exceptions to the competitive process
  • Veteran preference

The number of competitive civil service positions was only about 10% of the total civil service. The number grew rapidly with a succession of Presidents who turned over every four years or less (Arthur (R), Cleveland (D), B. Harrison (R), Cleveland (D), McKinley (R), then grew rapidly under President Theodore Roosevelt (R). Roosevelt’s history as a member of the Civil Service Commission and his opposition to the spoils system made him an effective reformer. As a Civil Service Commissioner, Roosevelt was a strong, loud and effective voice for reform.

Following his 6 years as a Commissioner, Roosevelt published a summary of his views on the progress of civil service reform. His words from 1895 still ring true today. Here are a few excerpts:

“The man who is in politics for the offices might just as well be in politics for the money he can get for his vote, so far as the general good is concerned…The worst enemies of the Republic are the demagogue and the corruptionist. The spoils-monger and spoils-seeker invariably breed the bribe-taker and bribes-giver, the embezzler of public funds and the corrupter of voters. Civil service reform is not merely a movement to better the public service. It achieves this end too, but its main purpose is to raise the tone of public life, and it is in this direction that its efforts have been incalculable good to the whole community…. Undoubtedly, after every success there comes a moment of reaction. The friends of the reform grow temporarily lukewarm, or, because it fails to secure everything they hoped, they neglect to lay proper stress upon all that it does secure. Yet, in spite of all disappointments and opposition, the growth of Civil Service Reform has been continually more rapid, and every year has taken us measurably nearer that ideal of pure and decent government which is dear to the heart of every honest American citizen.”

(Theodore Roosevelt, “Six Years of Civil Service Reform,” Scribner’s Magazine, XVIII, No. 2, August 1895)

Mr. Roosevelt was so influential in establishing the modern civil service that the building that houses the US Office of Personnel Management (the successor of the US Civil Service Commission) is named for him.

The next post in this series will address reform in the 20th century.

Shutdown Whack-a-Mole and The Interagency

Since the shutdown began there has been a lot of press talking about efforts to open parts of some agencies or specific programs. Great examples are the death benefits for families of fallen troops, continuation of other benefits for veterans, opening national monuments, and others. The common thread driving them  is public outcry over the effects the shutdown is having on programs people care about. Expect to see more now that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is sending most of its staff home. Every day we will read more stories about the newest part of government to run out of money or the previously unknown effects the shutdown is having.

Much like playing whack-a-mole, the effort is unsustainable. The bad press will be coming too fast for the Congress to react to each problem individually. Part of the problem is that every program has a constituent somewhere. Another equally big problem is the nature of government itself.

One of the lessons government employees have to learn as they move up the ladder is how to operate in what is often referred to as “the interagency.” The interagency is that realm between agencies where you have to work to get things done. Government issues are often so complex that it is common to see them cross agency lines. The only way to get the job done is for multiple organizations to come together. The interagency is particularly critical in the national and homeland security world. That world is made up of hundreds of thousands of people in the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security and State, along with others from the CIA, the White House, the Treasury and more. Being able to operate in the interagency is absolutely essential if you want to get something done. We train people on the interagency. We stress the need to network, develop contacts, and learn how to operate when more than just your agency is involved. We do that because it is the only way to get big things done. Much of my work at the Department of Homeland Security involved working with other agencies. Operating entirely within your department is not possible for a great many people.

Imagine what happens when parts of the interagency are shut down. What happens when you need essential information to get your job done, and the only person who has the information you need is not there because they are shut down? Much like taking one wheel off a car, the ability to get big things done is hampered or brought to a halt. Opening parts of the government here and there may end the public uproar over them, but it still doesn’t solve the problem of the consequences of shutting down the interagency. We will see crucial issues where the right people to solve the problem simply are not available when we need them.

Whack-a-mole is a fun game, but it is not a strategy for governing.