The most fundamental function of our government is keeping us safe and, as Partnership for Public Service CEO Max Stier has said, doing so “requires extensive and thoughtful transition planning” during presidential election years.
On July 12, the Partnership for Public Service’s Center for Presidential Transition® hosted a bipartisan discussion focused on how federal agencies can maintain security and continuity during periods of uncertainty, and the importance of responsibly sharing national security information when there is a change of administrations. The conversation led all four officials to offer deeper advice about leadership in government.
The panel consisted of Elaine Duke, the former deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Karen Gibson, the current Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate, Susan Gordan, the former principal deputy director of National Intelligence, and Essye Miller, the former acting chief information officer at the Department of Defense.
Key themes
An important theme of the event was the dynamic between the experienced career civil servants and the political appointees they serve alongside. Gordan framed the distinction as political appointees carrying out the “will of the people,” and the career officials possessing the fundamental knowledge about how to implement new policies.
To be prepared for surprises, Gibson recommended making the establishment of good relationships and linkages across agencies a top priority, stating that “even if you’re handed all the information on a platter, the toughest part is cohering as a team to deal with the crises.” Miller emphasized that career officials provide continuity in the government and she stressed the importance of establishing trust between career and political officials as early as possible.
Duke acknowledged that, even when the political climate creates barriers, civil servants “can take the first step to building that trust” and are well-qualified to do so.
Gordon said that civil servants are committed to making the government better. She emphasized that new leadership can be unnerving for career employees, but bring “real opportunity for change” and that change can be extremely positive for a new administration and the institutions of government.
The event served as a reminder of the importance of having a skilled civil service prepared to coordinate within and across agencies, and to work hand-in-hand with political leaders to help implement the policies of a new administration.
Check out the recording of this bipartisan discussion here on the Partnership’s website.
This blog post was authored by James Passmore, an intern with the Center for Presidential Transition
By law and tradition, the creation of agency briefing materials for an incoming administration is one of the critical parts of a presidential transition.
However, federal law does not specify what contents should be included in these materials. The tips below—informed by best practices and advice from career leaders and teams involved in previous transitions, including those summarized in our agency transition guide—are designed to help agencies make these materials as useful as possible.
An overview of agency transition requirements
During an election year, much of the nation focuses on presidential campaigns.
Behind-the-scenes, however, career civil servants must manage and carry out an agency’s transition activities. According to the federal transition law, this means completing several major tasks prior to Election Day:
Naming a point of contact to assist with agency transition efforts by May of an election year
Creating a succession plan for senior leadership positions by Sept. 15
Compiling agency briefing materials by Nov. 1 to assist new administration officials or second-term leadership
To date, around 155 agencies, boards and commissions have established transition leads—a senior career official— supported by career employees, to lead this work.
4 tips to maximize the effectiveness of agency briefing materials
The briefing materials noted above are especially important. They function as the “agency 101” of key facts, figures and issues, enabling new leaders to get up to speed on their organizations quickly and hit the ground running.
Here are four key recommendations for creating helpful content.
Tip 1: Provide a baseline understanding of the agency
Recipients of briefing materials—whether they are review teams for an incoming administration or newly appointed leadership for a continuing administration—will have varying degrees of familiarity with the agency before arriving. Some may have prior experience with an agency’s operations, while others may be experts in policy or program areas.
Briefing materials should provide appointees with a summary of the agency, including:
Organizational charts that include key positions
Recent budget history and current budget proposals
Top issues and challenges, including policy and internal operations
Congressional oversight committees and issues
Tip 2: Be succinct
Agencies should focus on the top issues and most relevant data. Recipients of briefing materials are busy individuals who may not have time to read lengthy reports.
Many agencies have begun streamlining information to produce crisp, informative and digestible briefing materials that reflect the transition team’s time-sensitive mission. During the 2020-21 transition, Federal Transition Coordinator Mary Gibert recommended that agencies develop materials to be timely, concise and answer a single question: “What does the incoming team need to know and do when they walk in the door on Day 1, and what is coming up in 30, 60 or 90 days?”
Tip 3: Include key insights
Excellent materials go beyond agency statistics and conventional issues to provide insights into challenges and opportunities facing new leaders.
For the 2020-21 transition, the Treasury Department held more than 100 virtual briefings where agency review team members could assess how specific information might impact policy priorities and other governing issues, enabling officials to focus and process information incrementally.
Key insights should include:
The agency’s current top priorities
The parts of the agency’s budget most impacted by major events (e.g., global pandemics)
Significant changes in workforce demographics such as the number of employees eligible for retirement
Tip 4: Use digital formats
Historically, briefing materials have been delivered as paper reports in thick binders. However, developing briefings in digital formats make it easier to distribute highly detailed and specific information to intended recipients, especially when many federal officials and transition leaders work remotely and employ different technology tools to communicate.
For example, the increase of virtual meeting platforms available in 2020-21 meant agency transition teams could engage more easily with staff across their department and with incoming agency teams.
To learn more about briefing materials and other aspects of the federal agency transition process, check out our Agency Transition Guide. For additional information on the transition process as a whole, see our Presidential Transition Guide.
This blog post was authored by Chantelle Renn, a senior manager at the Center for Presidential Transition®, Troy Thomas and Ryan Ordway, managing directors and partners at the Boston Consulting Group and Isaac Silberberg, a consultant at Boston Consulting Group.
Among the broader public, the process and the importance of presidential candidates preparing for a first or second term is poorly understood, but transition planning is not only critical for the winner of the election in terms of being ready to govern, but for the safety and welfare of the country.
On June 17, the Partnership for Public Service, the Georgetown University McCourt School, Harvard Kennedy School and the University of Chicago Institute of Politics hosted a panel discussion on the importance of presidential transition planning and provided an information session focused on 2024 election readiness and opportunities for recent college graduates to get involved in public service.
The panel consisted of Josh Bolten, the former chief of staff to President George W. Bush, and Jonathan McBride, the former director of the Office of Presidential Personnel for President Barack Obama, and was moderated by Valerie Boyd, the director of the Center for Presidential Transition. The audience was comprised of students affiliated with the three partner universities.
There were three main topics covered by the panelists.
Bolten described the important steps that were taken as Bush prepared for his first term as well as the planning that took place for his second four years. He also discussed the careful transition planning that set the stage for the eventual transfer of power to the Obama administration. McBride spoke about how the Obama team handled the process of selecting political appointees to fulfil the president’s campaign promises.
Bolten and McBride spoke about their journey to government service and how a career that weaves private and public roles can offer critical learning opportunities.
The panel concluded by discussing the current state of distrust in government and offered recommendations for pursuing a public service career during these turbulent times.
Following the panel discussion, Michelle Amante, the vice president for Workforce Programs at the Partnership for Public Service, shared information from the Partnership’s “Call to Serve” program about how to navigate USAJobs, the Partnership’s GoGovernment website and how to pursue a job in the federal government.
After the event concluded, the attendees had the opportunity to network with their peers as well as connect with our “Call to Serve” team to learn more about federal opportunities and navigating the internship and early career hiring environment in the federal government.
For more information on Call to Serve or to learn more about the federal hiring process, visit the Partnership’s gogovernment.org website.
This blog is authored by James Passmore, an intern at the Center for Presidential Transition.
Given the increasing delays presidents face in getting senior leaders confirmed by the Senate, it is important to understand how long those officials remain in their roles once confirmed. While our previous analysis highlights year three as a time of high appointee turnover during a president’s first term, incumbent presidents entering a second term face even greater challenges.
Incumbent administrations transitioning to a second term have historically confronted significant headwinds. The fifth year can be encumbered by political opposition in Congress, and the departure of knowledgeable officials can make it even more difficult for an administration to achieve its policy goals. Without sufficient personnel and resources dedicated to second term personnel planning, two-term administrations will miss an important opportunity to gain early momentum following reelection.
Our analysis examines the turnover of Senate confirmed presidential appointees during the second term of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama in major departments and agencies, excluding ambassadors, U.S. marshals and attorneys.
Turnover across terms
In year five, Bush and Obama experienced average annual turnover rates of 38% and 28% respectively, the highest in their entire presidencies. For context, Bush had 135 departures out of 353 tracked positions and Obama had 101 departures out 359 positions. For Obama, this was more than doubled the peak annual turnover in his first term (13%); for Bush, the second-term peak was nearly double the first term’s (20%).
Years six through eight for both presidents exceeded or were comparable to their third-year turnover levels, highlighting the sustained volatility in personnel departures throughout the second term.
Personnel turnover in the fifth year is an early management obstacle for administrations starting a second term. These findings demonstrate the urgency of second term planning if incumbent administrations are to expeditiously fill senior leadership positions as they become vacant.
Note: Data includes Senate-confirmed positions excluding ambassadors, U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. Yearly average turnover is weighted by the number of positions tracked for each president.
Second-term turnover by department
In every department, the Bush and Obama administrations experienced significantly higher turnover during the second term compared to the first. The highest turnover rate was at the Department of Education under Bush at 128%, meaning that there were 23 departures for 18 tracked positions during his time in office. Several other departments under Bush also experienced turnover rates that exceeded 100%, including the departments of Housing and Urban Development (109%), Justice (104%), Transportation (113%) and State (115%). These departments experienced several departures from the same position within one term. Departures at assistant secretary level at Bush’s Department of Education were frequent, as officials rarely remained for more than two years.
While the Obama administration had relatively lower levels of turnover, all departments exceeded 50% turnover except for the Department of Labor (47%). For Obama, the Department of Transportation had a peak turnover rate of 100%, nearly 10 times the turnover compared to his first term (13%).
Note: Data covers Senate-confirmed positions in executive CFO Act agencies, excluding ambassadors, U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. The time period covered in the first term is from the beginning of the administration through April 1 of the fourth year.
An incumbent administration must balance the difficult tasks of managing ongoing government operations while preparing prior to the election for a transition to a possible second term. The rigor and planning needed to successfully staff some of the highest-ranking positions in the executive branch is critical for a successful second term administration.
This blog post was authored by Husam AlZubaidy, an associate at the Partnership’s Center for Presidential Transition.
Given the long hours and tough responsibilities at Cabinet agencies, presidents can expect departures among Senate-confirmed leadership. While turnover is expected, high departure rates can pose significant challenges for day-to-day agency operations and long-term planning.
Turnover in the modern context is more troublesome than ever before. Our research shows that Senate confirmation times have grown for each subsequent administration while nomination success rates have progressively declined. This means that, when agency leaders depart, it will take significantly longer to replace them than it did for previous presidents. As a result, many positions remain vacant for extended periods of time.
Using our political appointee tracker and other data sources, we have examined the rates of Senate-confirmed appointee turnover during the four most recent administrations. As we look to personnel changes following the November election—whether it be a second term for the incumbent or a new administration—a retrospective on turnover helps put recent personnel challenges in context.
We analyzed turnover among presidential nominees in major departments and agencies,1 excluding U.S. marshals and attorneys. To make an equivalent comparison with the ongoing Biden administration, we looked at each president’s first term up until April 1 of their fourth year in office.
Administration
Bush
Obama
Trump
Biden
Total Departures
105
73
94
34
Tracked Positions
353
359
385
392
Total Turnover Rate
30%
20%
24%
9%
Note: Data covers Senate-confirmed positions in executive CFO Act agencies, excluding ambassadors, U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. The time period covered is from the beginning of the administration through April 1 of the fourth year.
The Bush administration experienced the highest total turnover at 30% during this period of time. Trump and Obama had lower and more comparable turnover rates at 24% and 20%, respectively. Biden experienced significantly less turnover than his predecessors at 9%.
Note: Data includes Senate-confirmed positions excluding ambassadors, U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. The time period from the beginning of the administration through April 1 of the fourth year.
Looking closer at these departments by president, the total turnover rates during the Bush and Obama administrations (59% and 30% respectively) were greatly impacted by Treasury Department departures. As for the Department for Veterans Affairs, Bush and Trump received the highest rates of turnover (50% and 33% respectively). The Department of Commerce—despite undergoing some of the highest rates of turnover on average—did not experience any turnover during the Biden administration through this past April. Moreover, there were no departures of Biden appointees during this period at the Environmental Protection Agency, or at the departments of Education and Energy. Similarly, the Trump administration had no turnover of its appointees at the Department of Agriculture despite turnover rates at other departments.
The departments of Transportation and Homeland Security also highlight differences. Trump experienced roughly five times more turnover than previous administrations at DHS (53%), the second highest rate of any other department. As for Biden, the DOT experienced the second highest rate of total turnover so far during his presidency (17%), exceeding two previous administrations but trailing the Bush administration (38%). For context, DHS had an average turnover rate of 21% while DOT’s rate was 20% during the past four administrations. While Trump had more than double the average turnover at DHS, Biden remains below the DOT average.
Note: Data covers Senate-confirmed positions in executive CFO Act agencies, excluding ambassadors, U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. The time period covered is from the beginning of the administration through April 1 of the fourth year.
For each administration, turnover peaked during year three with relatively low turnover in other years. Compared to recent presidents, Biden has maintained low turnover, rising only to 6% during his third year. Obama was the next lowest in year three turnover, but the rate was nearly double at 13%. The second year of administrations has had low turnover in general, with the highest turnover occurring during the Trump administration (6%). For all four presidents, the first year had turnover rates at or below 1%.
Recent success during the Biden administration at limiting turnover rates is an important development in light of increasing confirmation delays. Even as turnover appears to have tempered during the current administration, there are greater ramifications for each departure as it becomes more difficult to confirm a replacement.
The challenger candidate in the 2024 election must consider how to staff an entire administration, but even the incumbent candidate must take proactive steps to avoid trends from previous second term presidents to retain leaders in key positions in order to achieve policy goals.
1 As defined by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–576).
This blog post was authored by Husam AlZubaidy, an associate at the Partnership’s Center for Presidential Transition.
The Senate confirmation process for executive branch nominees has become more difficult during the last 40 years.
President Joe Biden’s nominees have taken nearly three times longer to be confirmed during his first three years compared to the nominees in the George H.W. Bush administration.
Confirmation delays continued to grow under the Trump administration and have worsened further under Biden. Delays faced by Biden’s nominees in the first three years were 13% longer than Trump’s nominees.
Beyond confirmation times, presidents during the last 40 years have seen fewer and fewer of their nominees confirmed by the Senate. Through year three, Presidents Donald Trump and Biden each had approximately 150 fewer nominees confirmed compared to President Barack Obama and 250 to 300 fewer nominees confirmed compared to Presidents H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
The broken process leaves critical positions vacant for long periods of time, which is a disservice to the public in carrying out the fundamental roles of government, from national security to infrastructure to health and safety.
Using an analysis of our Political Appointee Tracker, we have been able to gain a clearer view of vacancy rates under the Biden and Trump administrations.
From our analysis of the state of vacancies in Cabinet Departments as of March 19th in the fourth year of the last two administrations, we found that:
Vacancies are widespread across Cabinet departments
As of March 19, 2024, 98 of 547 Cabinet department positions (18%) followed on our tracker were vacant in the Biden administration. At the same point in time, 157 of 526 Cabinet department positions (30%) followed on our tracker were vacant during the Trump administration.
Some Cabinet departments have alarmingly high rates of vacancies
Four Cabinet departments had 30% or more of their positions vacant as of March 19, 2024. At the equivalent date during Trump’s fourth year, nine Cabinet departments had 30% or more of their positions vacant. For both administrations, the Department of Homeland Security had the highest vacancy rate at 35% in the Biden administration and 65% in the Trump administration. The departments of Housing and Urban Development and Justice also have consistently had high rates of vacancies, totaling more than 30% across the last two administrations.
Note: Excludes U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals
Many Cabinet positions have yet to be filled more than three years into last two administrations
As of March 19, 2024, 50 Cabinet positions (9%) had never been filled with a Senate confirmed appointee since the beginning of the Biden administration. At the same point in time, 66 Cabinet positions (13%) had never been filled with a Senate confirmed appointee since the beginning of the Trump administration. The Department of Justice has been particularly affected by this problem, with over 25% of Senate confirmed positions never having someone confirmed by the Senate through March 19 of the fourth year of the last two administrations.
Note: Excludes U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals
Nineteen Cabinet positions were not filled by either the Trump or Biden administration by March 19 of their fourth year
Across the Trump and Biden administrations, there are 19 positions in common that remained vacant during the first three years of each administration. Four of these positions are the chief financial officers at the departments of Agriculture, Homeland Security, State and Treasury. The list also includes high-level positions like the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Positions Not Filled by the Fourth Year of Each of the Last Two Administrations
Position
Agency
Chief financial officer
Department of Agriculture
Assistant secretary for civil rights
Department of Agriculture
Assistant secretary for communications and outreach
Department of Education
Assistant secretary for planning and evaluation
Department of Health and Human Services
Chief financial officer
Department of Homeland Security
Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Department of Homeland Security
Assistant attorney general for the tax division
Department of Justice
Deputy administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration
Department of Justice
Commissioner, U.S. Parole Commission (2)
Department of Justice
Special counsel for immigration-related unfair employment practices
Department of Justice
Chairman, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Department of Justice
Chief financial officer
Department of State
Coordinator for threat reduction programs
Department of State
Ambassador, Bahamas
Department of State
Ambassador, Cuba
Department of State
Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
Department of the Interior
Special trustee for American Indians
Department of the Interior
Chief financial officer
Department of the Treasury
These findings highlight the challenges in filling certain key roles in government. Reform of the confirmation process is urgently needed, starting with a reduction in the number of appointments subject to Senate approval.
Chris Piper is a manager at the Center for Presidential Transition.
The White House Transition Coordinating Council was formally mandated in 2016 by Congress as part of the “Kaufman-Leavitt” law updating amendment to the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 to help ensure continuity of government operations and the smooth transfer of power.
Even when an incumbent president is running for re-election, the White House is obligated by law to plan and coordinate activities to ensure a smooth and efficient transfer of power to a possible successor. This includes convening the White House Transition Coordinating Council.
Prior to passage of the 2016 amendments to the transition law requiring creation of the council, White House transition activities occurred through executive orders. President Bill Clinton established a White House council in the fall of 2000 as an executive order to assist in the transition, as did President George W. Bush in 2008. In 2010, Congress authorized but did not mandate the creation of a White House transition council.
The WHTCC helps jump start transition planning and provides transition guidance to the federal transition coordinator at the General Services Administration and the agency career leaders of the Agency Transition Directors Council, who carry out much of the day-to-day work of transition planning.
The WHTCC is chaired by a senior employee of the Executive Office of the President selected by the president and also includes the GSA federal transition coordinator. Other members are the senior employees of the executive branch selected by the president, which may include the chief of staff to the president, any Cabinet officer, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the administrator of the GSA, the director of the Office of Personnel Management, the director of the Office of Government Ethics, and the archivist of the United States.
In addition, the council includes transition representatives for each eligible presidential candidate who serve in an advisory capacity.
This council is one of several reforms to the presidential transition act designed to support the orderly transfer of power and recognizing the increasing complexities of presidential transition planning. By law, it is required to meet not later than six months before the date of a presidential election. The White House chief of staff is serving as chair of the WHTCC this transition cycle, which hosted its first session in early May.
While election years bring uncertainty for the government and the public, bodies like the White House Transition Coordinating Council are designed to help agencies, the White House, candidates and their teams prepare for what’s next.
Khushi Parikh is a communications associate at the Partnership’s Center for Presidential Transition
As we celebrate Women’s History Month both in the U.S. and worldwide, it’s a good time to examine the contributions women have made in the federal government. The Biden administration has seen a number of historic firsts for women: In 2021, Kamala Harris became the country’s first woman vice president, Janet Yellen became the first woman secretary of the Treasury and Avril Haines became the first woman director of National Intelligence.
Despite these wins, there’s still a long way to go. There are still important leadership positions that have never been held by a woman. For example, not only has no woman ever been president or chief justice of the Supreme Court, but two Cabinet agencies have never had a woman secretary: the departments of the Defense and Veterans Affairs.
The following are 10 important positions in the federal government that have never been filled by a woman.
1. President – None of the 45 individuals who served as president have been women. Hillary Clinton was the first woman to be nominated by a major political party in 2016.
2. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – Twenty-one men and no women have filled the most senior position in the U.S. armed forces since its creation in 1949.
3. Chief Justice of Supreme Court – Only six justices in the more than 230-year history of the Supreme Court have been women, and none have been appointed chief justice.
4. Chief of Staff to the President – Since President Harry Truman appointed the first chief of staff in 1946—called the assistant to the president at the time—none of the 31 people to hold this position have been women.
5. Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation – The first leader of the FBI was appointed in 1908, and none of the 20 directors (including those in an acting capacity) have been women.
6. Director of the National Security Agency – Women have never held the highest-ranking position in the NSA since the intelligence agency was founded in 1952.
7. Secretary of Defense – The Department of Defense has never been led by a woman since its inception in 1947.
8. Secretary of Veterans Affairs – The Department of Veterans Affairs was formed in 1989, and all 11 of the Senate-confirmed officials who led the agency have been men.
9. Senate Majority Leader – No Senate majority leader has been female since that role was created in the 1920s.In fact, no Senate minority leader has been a woman during that period either.
10. NASA Administrator – None of the 14 people who have been confirmed to lead the agency since its founding in 1958.
This list is not exhaustive. Other important positions, such as the ambassadorships to China, Israel, and Russia have not been held by a woman. Other positions have only had a woman official recently.
As the country honors women’s history, those who have served as leaders of our democracy deserve recognition and appreciation. At the same time, their absence from key positions in government, and thus from critical conversations in domestic and foreign policy, is worth highlighting. As President Joe Biden proclaimed, “Throughout history, the vision and achievements of powerful women have strengthened our Nation and opened the doors of opportunity wider for all of us.”
Extensive research indicates diverse and inclusive teams produce better outcomes, and that well-qualified women are ready to lead. While we have made progress in the last 100 years, more work needs to be done to ensure the top levels of our government resemble the country they serves.
Benjamin Franklin once said, “By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”
Following the last four presidential elections, the Partnership for Public Service and our Center for Presidential Transition have collected lessons learned on transition activities, which have helped inform four rounds of bipartisan laws passed to bring the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 in line with modern transition practices.
The transition law requires the General Services Administration to provide office space and other core support to presidents-elect and vice-presidents elect, as well as pre-election preparation space and support to major candidates. It also provides a framework for GSA, the White House and federal agencies to coordinate transition planning.
The updates to the law have had a profound impact in shifting the narrative around transition planning. Presidential candidates used to shy away from transition planning, worried that the public would see them as prematurely “measuring the drapes” of the Oval Office. Congress has helped change that perception and, through its oversight and legislation, has emphasized the importance of early planning by the transition teams of candidates as well as by agencies across the government. This tradition now continues with a new bill, the Agency Preparation for Transitions Act, sponsored by Sens. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).
Highlights include:
Establishing an election year kick-off at least nine months before an election of both the White House-led transition council and the council of agency career leaders responsible for transition planning. (These councils were officially created by legislation signed into law in 2016.)
Requiring agencies to prepare transition briefing materials by October 15 of the presidential election year (moving up the deadline from November 1).
Creating a forum for GSA’s federal transition coordinator to give guidance to small agencies on government-wide transition planning activities.
Ensuring that transition planning will envision how equitable transition services will flow to candidates if there is a delay in determining the winner (consistent with the bipartisan Presidential Transition Improvement Act, signed into law in 2022).
While candidates in recent elections have begun transition planning well before the election, the roughly 75 days between Election Day and Inauguration Day is a crucial period for an incoming president, during which agencies begin to brief the transition team on major policy issues and decisions that will confront the incoming administration on Day One. The bipartisan work of Congress over the years in fine-tuning the Presidential Transition Act has made the run-up to
Inauguration Day much less complicated and has enabled presidents-elect to take maximum advantage of the short post-election transition period.
Even if a sitting president wins re-election, the transition planning is not all for naught. The Center’s research has shown a high turnover rate of appointees as presidents move from a first to a second term. As first-term presidents plan for a second term, the briefing materials prepared by agencies are valuable alike to incoming appointees of a new president and for a second-term president. Under either scenario, the Presidential Transition Act allows the winner of the election an opportunity to heed Ben Franklin’s advice and prepare for success.
