Home / Political Appointments

By Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton

Presidential transitions are a time of great vulnerability for our nation, with a significant turnover in national security personnel occurring when the nation may be facing a foreign policy crisis or an adversary willing to cause significant trouble. Many of the laws and norms that presidential transitions follow today were put in place based on lessons learned in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. 

The independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which we headed, examined the transition of power in 2001 from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush. We found, among other things, that the Bush administration, like others before it, did not have its full national security team on the job until at least six months after it took office.

Since a catastrophic attack can occur with little or no notice as we experienced on 9/11, we concluded that the government must seek to minimize disruption of national security policymaking during the change of administrations. In exploring this issue, our report made a series of recommendations to protect the nation from national security threats during a presidential transition.

Our proposals were adopted by Congress largely through the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The post 9/11 provisions have been integrated into the process for all transitions since and include:

To be truly effective and help protect our nation from national security threats during and soon after a presidential transition, our outgoing and incoming leaders must be cooperative, take these requirements and best practices seriously, and act in the best interests of the nation.

Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, and Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

By Christina Condreay and Alex Tippett

The winner of this November’s presidential election will face daunting challenges—a devastating pandemic, a major economic crisis, civil unrest stemming from racial inequality and a long list of pressing domestic and national security issues. These are momentous times that accentuate the need for presidential transition planning, whether it’s a first term for Democratic candidate Joseph Biden or a second term for President Donald Trump.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its fallout will impact presidential transition planning in four key areas:

Additionally, a first-term Biden administration will have to consider a fifth area–the preparation for “landing teams” that are deployed by incoming presidential administrations to review agencies operations and policies.

The president’s budget must balance the immediate needs stemming from the pandemic and the economic crisis along with the long-term policy agenda

The president’s budget is an important opportunity to signal the priorities of an administration, shape the congressional debate and shore up alliances.

In 2021, the president’s budget will come on the heels of congressional approval of several trillion dollars in stimulus spending in 2020 and will involve weighing trade-offs between the administration’s long-term policy agenda and the requirements dictated by the current crises. This will necessitate a high-stakes appraisal—the funding choices in this budget could shape the economic and political landscape for the next four years. Due to these challenges, work on the budget should begin early and be given greater attention and resources than in previous election cycles. 

Chris Lu, the executive director of the President Barack Obama’s 2008-2009 transition, said the severe financial crisis occurring when Obama took office pushed many policy concerns “to the backburner.” Transition planners should develop the budget to highlight major policy goals for the year ahead even if the immediate crisis remains the top priority.

Staffing the government during a crisis requires focusing on both immediate needs and second-order issues

Presidents are responsible for appointing about 4,000 officials throughout the federal government. A new president must fill these positions from scratch while second-term presidents often face significant staff turnover. According to previous research by the Partnership for Public Service, the first year of a second term coincides with an average turnover rate of more than 40% for senior leadership positions. Both before and after the Nov. 3 election, it is critical for transition planners to focus on public health and economic policy appointees who will be responsible for overseeing the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the sagging economy.

The specific priority positions will depend on how a new administration structures its response, while a second-term administration may take the opportunity to reshape its efforts. A Cabinet-led response will require the administration to prioritize agency leadership positions while a response driven by the White House will call for a different staffing structure. Transition planners should develop a clear picture of what the post-election COVID-19 response will look like and identify key personnel for this effort.

The pandemic also has created several second-order threats such as increased cybersecurity risks with a remote workforce as well as greater global instability. The next administration should recognize that successfully navigating the current crises will require filling positions without traditional “pandemic-response” roles in agencies throughout the government.

The pandemic also will create operational challenges for presidential appointees. Procedures will have to be developed for previously routine issues, ranging from how to conduct safe and secure briefings with new appointees to the best way to work with a potentially remote Senate. The challenger’s transition team will need to closely coordinate with the General Service Administration (GSA), which provides the transition with office space, IT equipment and other support.

According to Mary Gibert, the federal transition coordinator at GSA, the groundwork for a virtual transition, however, has already been laid. In the last transition, much of the work was already conducted virtually, with many of personnel choosing to work on GSA-provided devices rather than come into the office. “COVID has not impacted our transition planning,” Gibert says. “We haven’t missed a beat. We’ve kept up with all our statutory requirements.”

Those involved in overseeing a second Trump term will have to ensure the Office of Presidential Personnel can ramp up its efforts to meet an expected turnover of political appointees on top of a high level of current vacancies, and determine where it can improve operations and procedures to better deal with the challenges resulting from the pandemic.

Prioritizing key executive actions will advance policy goals

Executive actions are one tool presidents can use to enact significant change–and do so quickly. Effectively using executive orders for achieving policy goals may be more challenging in 2021 because so much attention must be devoted to dealing with the immediate crises. Transition planners for both first- and fifth-year administrations should take time to develop executive orders and anticipate potential operational and legal challenges well before Jan. 20.

First-year administrations face a two-pronged challenge. They must advance the new president’s agenda while evaluating previous executive actions and rules they want to change. This can be a huge undertaking even under normal conditions. Resource constraints created by the pandemic will make it difficult for a new administration to accomplish all its goals. An incoming administration should concentrate on the most critical subset of issues. Doing so will prevent it from spreading itself too thin and increase its chances of success. Historically, there has been a decline in the number of executive orders issued by a president during the fifth year in office compared with the first term. In interviews with the Partnership for Public Service, former senior White House officials suggested the focus on re-election often limits formal planning for a president’s fifth year. If an administration is facing both a crisis and a re-election campaign, as is the case today, developing fifth-year executive orders may well fall to the bottom of the agenda. Investing time and resources in planning an executive agenda now, however, may allow the president to start the fifth year more effectively and set a productive tone for the rest of their presidency.

The White House structure must be equipped to respond to the current and future crises

All presidents seek a White House organizational structure that will lead to a smooth functioning operation and enable them to achieve their key policy priorities. New administrations must create this structure from scratch while a second-term administration has the opportunity to reexamine its White House design and improve areas of weakness. Any such redesign, however, will need to be attuned to the demands of the current crisis.

Different presidents have relied on a variety of organizational structures to address crises. During Harry Truman’s presidency, Congress created the National Security Council in 1947 to help the president coordinate national security policy. In 1993, President Bill Clinton created the National Economic Council by executive order to help coordinate the economic policy-making process and provide economic policy advice.

These entities centralized decision-making and the flow of information. Other presidents have relied on temporary arrangements such as President Obama’s appointment of an Ebola czar in 2014 to coordinate what was then the world’s biggest health threat. This type of temporary structure can be valuable but cannot provide the same institutional knowledge offered by a more permanent organization. Both first- and fifth-year administrations should use the transition period as an opportunity to evaluate the current pandemic response structure and determine if changes are needed. The next administration also should assess how to operate in a partial virtual work environment. A new administration should seek expert guidance and develop contingency plans while the current administration should identify problem areas that need to be resolved. Identifying and resolving these issues long before Inauguration Day will ensure a smooth start for a new administration or lead to improved conditions for a second term. Lessons could be learned from the agencies across government who are currently operating partially or totally virtually. Despite working virtually, agencies like the IRS and FEMA have managed to fulfill their normal mission requirements in addition to the new demands created by COVID-19. A new administration will have to demonstrate a similar level of agility.

A new administration must understand how agencies operate

A new administration must have a thorough understanding of every federal agency’s capabilities and responsibilities. To do this, presidential transition teams traditionally create landing teams that enter agencies following the election and gather relevant information. The roles of various agencies can change rapidly during a crisis. The transition landing teams must flag challenges related to the pandemic so that those issues can be evaluated and resolved.

Landing teams should also map the statutory landscape for each agency. Do agencies have emergency powers they are not taking advantage of? Are agencies exceeding the legal limits of their authority? An incoming administration must be aware of all these issues to mount an effective COVID-19 response. In addition, federal agencies must coordinate with one another, the private sector, state and municipal governments, and international partners during a crisis such as a pandemic. Landing teams should document these relationships so an incoming administration can take immediate control and identify potential pain points that need to be resolved.

Conclusion

Whether it’s a second Trump term or a first term for Biden, our government must be prepared to tackle the pandemic and the nation’s economic problems in addition to the challenges associated with any presidential transition. This will require thorough transition planning that accounts for the uniqueness of the current crises.

By Jeffrey Neal

This post is part of the Partnership’s Ready to Serve series. Ready to Serve is a centralized resource for people who aspire to serve in a presidential administration as a political appointee.

Being offered a political appointment can be exciting. You have an opportunity to serve the public and the president, do meaningful work and make a difference. But after the excitement fades, it is time to get into the details, including one of the most important considerations for many people—the pay.

Salary is an important consideration for the majority of appointees, particularly those in Schedule C or noncareer Senior Executive Service positions. Does the agency have flexibility in setting your pay? Can you negotiate? How about pay raises or performance bonuses?

Agency flexibility in setting pay depends on the job. For many positions the answers are yes, they have options. Keep in mind that pay for political appointees is a political issue. That means an administration may choose not to use all the flexibility the law allows and that may limit your pay.

The government does not pay senior officials the kind of money typically found in the private sector. In the government, you may run a multi-billion-dollar program with thousands of employees and make less (sometimes much less) than $200,000 per year. You should also not be surprised if you receive a political appointment and have subordinates who make more than you. Career employee pay is much more controlled by statute and regulations, and is not connected to the pay of political appointees.

Political positions are listed in the Plum Book, which is published in late November or early December of a presidential election year. Here are the six most common types of political jobs and how their pay is set:

Executive Schedule Positions. These are the big jobs, such as Cabinet secretaries and other agency heads, deputy secretaries, undersecretaries and some assistant secretaries. The positions are listed in the PLUM Data as Pay Plan EX. Pay for these positions falls into one of five pay grades from I to V, with EX-I being the highest. There is no locality pay and there are no bonuses. The pay tables show a higher level of pay than what is payable for many jobs due to a political appointee pay freeze (see the pay table for details). There are instances when an Executive Schedule appointee in levels I — IV can get higher pay, but they are rare and require approval by the Office of Personnel Management and the White House.

Noncareer SES Positions. hese are senior positions that usually run major programs. The number is capped at 10% of the number of SES positions government-wide. Pay is listed in the PLUM Data as Pay Plan ES. Pay varies widely, starting at $131,239 and topping out at $197,300. Agencies have broad discretion on setting pay with White House approval typically required. There are some cases where pay can be set higher, such as in financial regulatory agencies or when an agency can get OPM and White House approval for critical position pay, but that is rare. Pay for these positions is often negotiable within the pay range. The time to negotiate is before you are appointed. Once you are appointed, big changes in pay are much harder to receive. The strongest case for your pay is one based on current pay. If you are in a job that pays $100,000 per year, it is unlikely an agency will pay you $197,300. Noncareer SES do not receive locality pay or bonuses.

Senior Level Positions. These positions are not SES positions, but are paid using the same pay scale. Pay is often negotiable within the pay range. The pay plan is listed in the Plum Book as SL.

Administratively Determined Pay Positions. These positions, designated in the Plum Book as Pay Plan AD, are in agencies with independent authority to determine the rates for any group or category of employees. Examples of AD political appointments are U.S. attorneys. Agencies must follow their unique statutory authority to set or adjust pay under an AD pay system.  Although there are AD positions where pay is negotiable, many are not.

Schedule C Positions. These comprise the largest number of political positions (about 1,400). “Schedule C” is a technical term that refers to the statutory authority for the appointment. Most Schedule C positions are paid using the same General Schedule or equivalent pay levels (including locality pay) that agencies use for their career workforce. Schedule C employees can be promoted. Step increases, bonuses and “quality step increases” (QSIs) are authorized by statute. Bonuses and QSIs are optional and have been restricted by administrations in prior years. You can negotiate pay and grade within reason, based upon your qualifications and salary history.

Boards and commissions. Many political appointments are as members of boards and commissions. Pay for those positions depends on many factors, including whether the position is full-time or part-time. Check the PLUM Data for more details on specifics.

The PLUM Data will contain more information on other, less common pay plans and types of positions. Keep in mind that the PLUM Data is published every four years and many positions are created at the discretion of the administration. The 2024 Plum Data includes positions that exist in the Biden administration. The next administration (whether the president is reelected or not) may choose to change many of the positions that are not mandated by statute.

Jeffrey Neal is the author of the blog ChiefHRO.com and previously served as chief human capital officer for the Department of Homeland Security.

By Heather Samuelson

This post is part of the Partnership’s Ready to Serve series. Ready to Serve is a centralized resource for people who aspire to serve in a presidential administration as a political appointee.

The vetting process for senior presidential appointees can be opaque even for long-serving government officials. What an administration is looking for in a candidate is not always clear, and there’s always the fear of something disqualifying coming up during the process.

While the vetting process varies based on the administration and the position an individual is seeking, there are three key components for almost every political appointee. 

The security clearance process. All Senate confirmed roles, and a large number of non-Senate confirmed ones, require a security clearance.

The ethics clearance process. Jobseekers must complete a financial disclosure form that is reviewed by ethics officials to determine if their financial holdings conflict with the position they are seeking. In some cases, nominees may need to divest or place assets in a blind trust in order to assume the position.

Public records review and vetting interviews.  Administration officials, including the White House Office of Presidential Personnel, the White House Counsel’s Office and White House liaisons all have a role in the review process. 

During my time in the Obama administration, I oversaw the vetting of hundreds of appointees. Here is the advice I gave candidates before starting the process:

  1. Do your homework. The security clearance form (SF 86) and financial disclosure form (OGE 278e) can be found online. Review these forms early while you are still interviewing for the position. See if there are questions you are concerned about or if there is information that will be difficult to compile. If so, seek advice from PPO or the White House liaison.
  2. Disclose information early and truthfully. The vetting process is a two-way street. You have been selected for this role by the president, and the administration wants to see you succeed.  You should disclose anything you are concerned about early in the process, from that quirk in your taxes to any issues that may have landed you in court. Worse than failing to disclose, do not lie or gloss over difficult facts during the vetting process. The administration cannot help you if you don’t provide a full and accurate picture. Once you are nominated, the Senate, the press and the public will all do their jobs of reviewing your personal and professional record. At this point even seemingly small issues could become very public concerns for you and the administration.
  3. Be ready to answer questions about your personal and professional life. You will get asked detailed questions about your professional and personal life. Your finances will also be scrutinized. Some questions are designed to ensure you are not susceptible to blackmail. Others are to determine whether anything in your background could be disconcerting or embarrassing to you or to the administration.

Sometimes people who would be extraordinary public servants do not get through the vetting process.   It does not mean they are horrible people. It may be that their financial holdings caused too many conflicts for them to fully serve in the role, or that they had elements in their private life (or a close family member’s private life) they wanted to stay private.

The spotlight can be harsh for nominees and their loved ones. Making sure you and the administration can identify potential vulnerabilities before you are nominated is key—and why the vetting process exists.

Heather Samuelson serves as general counsel for the National Domestic Workers Alliance. She previously served as chief counsel for the Clinton-Kaine Transition Team, as an assistant counsel in President Obama’s White House and as White House liaison for the Department of State.

By Ed Moy

This post is part of the Partnership’s Ready to Serve series. Ready to Serve is a centralized resource for people who aspire to serve in a presidential administration as a political appointee.

You want to join an administration as a political appointee, but you don’t know where to start. You are not alone. Here are some tips that will give you a leg up.

It’s not about you. It’s about serving your country. The gold standard that each administration strives for are appointees who want to serve the public with honor and distinction, not for personal ambition or gain. President John F. Kennedy said it best: “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”

Do your homework. The political appointments process is certainly different, maybe even mysterious to most of us. The more research you do on where you might fit, the better your chances for being considered. What substantive (education, agriculture, diplomacy, energy) and functional (public affairs, legal, running programs, budget) expertise do you have? How does that translate into specific departments, agencies and positions? What level (Schedule C, Senior Executive Service, presidential appointment, presidential appointment with Senate confirmation) is appropriate for you? A helpful resource is the Plum Book, which is produced by the Government Publishing Office and offers a snapshot of all political appointments.

Understand the roles of the Office of Presidential Personnel and the White House liaisons. The White House personnel office and the White House liaisons in departments and agencies work together and function like executive recruiters on behalf of the president. The PPO leads the search for all appointments that require the president’s direct approval. The White House liaisons lead the search for all other appointments in their departments or agencies. And like an executive recruiter, the goal is to find the best candidates, not to find a job for every applicant or provide career counseling for each candidate.

Personnel is policy. Presidents have the ability to appoint people into leadership positions throughout the federal government to implement their policies. Ideally, administrations are looking for candidates that meet three criteria:

If you meet all three criteria, you greatly improve your chances of being considered.

Follow the administration’s application process. Every administration determines its own unique process for hiring. A fair number of candidates think these processes don’t apply to them – they are just for the “unimportant people.” For the administration, this says a lot about the applicant. Whether it is applying through the transition team or White House websites, or sending resumes directly to a department, agency or the White House, follow the process.

Use recommenders judiciously. A few quality recommenders can be helpful, but only if you have done your homework and meet the three criteria mentioned above. But having too many recommendations can work against you. (I recall having one candidate having 200+ individuals send me letters or call me.)

Be patient. A new administration has approximately 4,000 jobs to fill immediately and between 100,000 and 250,000 applicants. This means the personnel office will not be able to provide frequent or timely updates. Similarly, there isn’t time to answer questions one by one as they come to you. However, a judicious “check in” from time to time is appropriate. On the other hand, calling, texting and emailing a couple of times a day is not. 

Staffing the government is hard and complex work, and there are many reasons why an applicant may not be asked in for an interview or selected. Don’t be discouraged. It is routine practice to hold on to applicants’ resumes for duration of an administration and to approach individuals for a position they may not have been seeking. To that end, it behooves you to stay in touch with the White House liaisons and the personnel office and to express your willingness to be flexible regarding future consideration.

Follow these tips and you will have an advantage over the others clamoring for a political appointment. Doing so will reflect well on you as an applicant and increase your odds. Being selected to serve as a political appointee is a complex process that takes time. But hang in there – having an opportunity to serve your country is worth it.

Ed Moy serves as a corporate director or advisor for both publicly and privately held companies, and in the nonprofit sector. He served as the special assistant to the president for presidential personnel from 2001 to 2006 and later served as the director of the United States Mint from 2006 to 2011.

By Tina Sung

This post is part of the Partnership’s Ready to Serve series. Ready to Serve is a centralized resource for people who aspire to serve in a presidential administration as a political appointee.

Every aspirant for a federal political appointment faces a chicken and egg problem. Should you begin working on your security and financial disclosure forms before you are offered a position or should you wait until you are offered a job? Does it seem presumptuous to fill out the forms too early? What if you never get an offer? Are you wasting your time?

At a minimum, one should become familiar with the forms. While you can’t complete and submit your information online until after you receive an offer, you can download or print the forms you will likely need, and begin filling out copies in advance of the election. If you wait until after the election to start the process of researching all your necessary personal and financial records, you may slow yourself down, and more importantly, you may be slowing down the administration you want to serve.

Filling out these forms can be tedious. Government experts estimate that it takes two to three hours to fill out the Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86),  but in truth it will probably take much longer. This particular disclosure form is more than 100 pages. You will need to list every country you have visited for the past seven years (longer for certain positions). You will need to list every address you have had over the past seven years (again, possibly more), as well as contacts who knew you at each address. If you are appointed to one of the top positions in the government, you may need to go all the way back to when you were 18 years old. Don’t wait until the last minute – get a head start on this form.

What other forms should you prepare for in advance?

Unfortunately, there is not simple answer. The precise forms you need to fill out will depend on the type of position and the agency in which you will work. For example, even if you do not seek a position in an intelligence or national security-related agency, you likely will need to fill out the SF-86 if you are being considered for a Senate confirmed position.  Even thought you may not use a security clearance for such positions, the form (and the related FBI background investigation) will be part of the process.

Once you receive an official offer, either the White House or your hiring agency will confirm which forms you need to submit and give you the access to the online systems where you will input the information.

In an effort to make it simple, there are three types of forms:

  1. Background investigation and security clearance forms.
  2. Financial disclosure forms.
  3. Political and vetting forms.

There is no hard or fast rule. If you take a Cabinet or another very senior job, you should expect to fill out all of the forms – the SF-86, the SF-86 Supplement (which varies by administration), the Public Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 278e) plus White House and Senate questionnaires. Visit Ready-to-Serve.org for examples of these documents.

If you take a more junior, less sensitive position, you might not have to fill out the SF-86 or OGE Form 278e. Instead, you will likely need to fill out the Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions (SF 85P) and the Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (Form OGE 450), which does not require public disclosure of your personal financial information.

Sound hard? It is a bit of work, but tens of thousands of appointees have successfully prepared these forms in the past. The key is to get ready – and plan ahead. This website will help you be Ready-to-Serve.org.

Tina Sung is a Partnership for Public Service vice president who brings together and champions government leaders at the highest levels of the executive branch to maximize their impact and success in government.

The Office of Presidential Personnel faces the herculean task of helping a president select about 4,000-political appointees at the beginning of a new administration and throughout a president’s four-year term. Jonathan McBride and Liza Wright, former directors of the PPO under Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, respectively, join host David Marchick on Transition Lab to share their advice on how to land a political appointment and some of the challenges they faced managing the personnel operation.

[tunein id=”t154905350″]

Read the highlights:

Marchick asked the two former PPO directors about the best way to apply for a politically appointed job. 

McBride: “To put it in a frame of reference, in the couple of days after the election in 2008, 253,000 people submitted resumes into the resume database. That’s not including people that already had been submitting during the campaign…Being in the database is particularly important, but people who have worked on the campaign and built relationships and have had some visibility and are known to be expert on something (have an advantage.) Raising your hands through whatever connection you have to the White House is also a good thing.” 

Wright:  “I always tell people to do your homework…It’s so helpful if they have taken the steps to really research what positions in the government they’re interested in, that they believe they’re qualified for…I think the more they can kind of help the process, the better. Because, it’s like the flood gates open in the beginning of any administration and the PPO office is overwhelmed.” 

Marchick asked if there are other ways to expedite the sometimes-lengthy appointment process?  

McBride:  “I would also visit the Partnership for Public Service’s (Center for Presidential Transition) website and find out about the things you can do in advance to prepare for the vetting process at different levels. One of the things you can do to speed your process is to have done a lot of work ahead of time, especially for Senate confirmed jobs. Having the paperwork and information available saves a lot of time because if you start that when you meet us, it adds a lot of time.” 

Marchick asked the former PPO directors about the scope of the work and the difficulties they faced.  

Wright: “When you’re in the White House, it is one massive succession planning exercise on steroids. Not only are you bringing in essentially 4,000 people within the first few months of (a new) administration, but you’re also having to plan because the people are not going to stay. The average tenure is around 18 months. By the time you are placing the first round of people, it’s not too much longer until you’ve got to start thinking about the succession planning exercise all over again.”  

McBride:  “We had just over 50 people working kind of full time in our personnel office, but we also had people distributed throughout the agencies called White House liaisons…By comparison, we hired about as many people per year as my former employer BlackRock did, and their HR department is over 400 people…I think if you want to be able to search the whole country and find nontraditional candidates and convince them to come in and serve their government,…you need a broader reach and you have to come up with ways to do it, and it’s hard to do that with 50 people.”

Marchick asked about the most difficult jobseekers they encountered and how certain approaches can backfire. 

Wright: “There was one person that launched a campaign…I had literally 50 or 60 phone calls that were coming and letters being faxed in….One of my responsibilities was to handle the ambassadors. One time I had a husband and wife that came into the office and tried to pitch me on the idea of being ambassadors of neighboring countries… So, when I think about annoying, it just shows kind of a lack of judgment.” 

While a new president must fill some 4,000 political positions, a second term president faces a high turnover of personnel, including in top-tier jobs. Wright talked about her experience during President Bush’s second term. 

Wright: “I remember before the 2004 election I got called into the Oval Office and President Bush and I had a conversation with (Chief of Staff) Andy Card because there were about eight or nine Cabinet members that we were going to be replaced. That’s a lot. Two months before that election, we basically ramped up a kind of a transition effort. We had our lists ready to go so that right after the election we could…announce who those Cabinet members. We really treated it as a big transition…We went through all of the Senate confirmed positions.” 

Marchick asked if the job brought any major surprises. 

McBride: “The first [surprise] for me was the idea that on January 20th, somebody blows a whistle and everybody from the CEO to three levels down leaves an agency…It was really surprising to me how many people didn’t pay their taxes.” 

The two former PPO directors reflected on some of misconceptions about their job. 

Wright: A lot of people would say to me, `Wow, you’re the head of presidential personnel. You’re pretty popular.’ And I would say the exact opposite. Because at the end of the day, for every one position, there could be 20 or 30 plus candidates that all want the job…My mission was to find the very best people to serve this president who are the most qualified…It’s not always easy to do in such a highly political environment.” 

McBride: “You are delivering way more disappointment than you are happiness in a job like this. There’s an added element because we put people through a rather rigorous vetting process. There are plenty of times when you have to call somebody up and explain that they’re not going forward in the process, but you can’t tell them why because the FBI, IRS, all these people are involved (in the decision-making process).” 

By Paul Hitlin

Temporary leaders – commonly referred to as acting officials – have been used by all recent administrations to fill important positions atop federal agencies. Many questions surround their use and power. How long can acting officials serve? Who is eligible? What happens when the time limit for an acting official runs out? Most of the rules are governed by the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998. However, the law gives presidents a fair amount of flexibility and many details are open to interpretation.  

Little research exists on the subject, but a new scholarly article examines the issue in depth and provides important considerations and recommendations. The piece by Anne Joseph O’Connell of Stanford Law School published in the Columbia Law Review includes data from 1981 through President Trump’s third year in office, and discusses many impacts of temporary leadership.

Among the major findings:

O’Connell offers recommendations for clarifying the Vacancies Reform Act.

O’Connell points out that acting officials have become a fixture of modern presidencies despite receiving little attention, and that Congress has abdicated some of its advise and consent role by accepting increased reliance on interim leadership. To balance concerns over accountability and the need for the government to function, O’Connell argues that it is time for Congress to clarify the rules governing the use of acting officials.  

The vetting process for individuals seeking a political appointment can be long and difficult. And the more senior the position, the more scrutiny appointees receive. Powerhouse attorneys Leslie Kiernan and Robert Rizzi have helped political appointees navigate the vetting process, and share their expertise with host David Marchick. They describe the appointment process, what might disqualify an individual and how the rules change with each administration. 

[tunein id=”t148232873″]

Read the highlights:

Marchick: “What are the most common issues that arise during the vetting process?” 

Rizzi: “There are often tax issues that trip up nominees, classically nanny taxes. Those and other kinds of unpaid taxes are a constant problem. Taxes are complicated. People make mistakes. They find those mistakes during the vetting and that creates some significant issues.  

One of the other problems that we deal with constantly is financial conflicts of interest. There is a criminal statute that prohibits financial conflicts of interest. Many of the investment products that exist today did not even exist when the statute was enacted. And so how those standards applied to these kinds of investment products is very, very complicated, and those are often significant impediments to nominees. The best thing that people can do…is to try to anticipate some of those problems in advance. Because once you get into the vetting pipeline, it becomes much more difficult.” 

Marchick: “Laws around marijuana are changing state by state. How does this apply now when working for the federal government?” 

Rizzi: “Drug use is tested under the national security questionnaire, which has detailed questions concerning different kinds of drugs…It’s interesting because when we have clients who are relatively young, they’re sort of aghast that these are the issues that they’re being questioned about.  

The national security questionnaire focuses on federal law, not state laws. So even if marijuana use is legal in a state, that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem for the national security questionnaire… 

What has changed to some degree is the lookback rule. In the Bush 40 administration, there was a general understanding that if marijuana had been used more than seven years earlier, it could be disregarded. The Obama administration shortened that look back rule. There is a view that there is some period of forgiveness and that it is something that can be overcome. 

Kiernan: “It depends upon the position. I think that issues in that space also vary differently depending upon the committee [that is hearing the appointees’ confirmation]. So, it is something that, as Bob said, has evolved to some extent over time, but I don’t think that there is a single rule that governs this particular issue.” 

In reflecting on her experience vetting appointees and helping people through the process, Kiernan said: 

“I think it is incredibly important for candidates to be forthcoming in the vetting process. The worst place for a candidate to be is in a hearing where something comes up, and the candidate is being attacked for it. And either the White House or supportive senators are caught off guard. The idea that… nobody will find out is a very poor approach.” 

In discussing the recent restrictions on corporate lobbyists, Marchick pointed out that since the Clinton administration, the view on lobbyists coming in and out of government has changed. 

Rizzi: “Lobbyists had been a special target for a lot of the vetting issues that have come along. We haven’t really talked yet about the so-called ethics pledges that every administration since the Clinton administration has had, but those have special constraints on lobbyists going into government and…  after they get out of government. I was just talking to somebody today about a lobbyist for what everybody would regard as a public interest organization who was banned from going into the government because of these restrictions.   

Marchick: “Let’s say you were an advocate for the homeless… or some other disadvantaged group and you were doing the Lord’s work. If you happen to be registered a lobbyist, you were just ineligible under the former administration’s rules?” 

Rizzi: “Yes. We used to sort of kid that… all of the people who had been lobbyists for Friends of the Earth couldn’t work for the EPA. That was true in some cases. That was a judgment that was made, and I totally understand why given some of the things that we’ve seen.  

Marchick: You have said government ethics has become weaponized. What do you mean by that? 

Rizzi: “When I speak about weaponized ethics, what I mean is that the government ethics system, which is basically a set of filters to decide who should go into the government and who should not… has morphed into a system of using the process to try to achieve policy goals…The idea is that if we can block certain individuals from going into the government, we can affect policy. So one of the ways of blocking people is by emphasizing violations of some of these rules. And obviously that’s quite destructive and it deters people from going into the government.” 

Marchick: “What suggestions do you have to make the vetting process as smooth as possible should Vice President Biden win?”  

Rizzi: During the transition, the biggest problem is the clock is running. There’s a limited amount of time to get everything done…I think they need to be much more ruthless about making decisions quickly. We call it getting fast to know, and that is something I think they’re going to really have to have to think about.  

By Jaqlyn Alderete

The Senate now takes 115 days on average to confirm presidential appointees, twice as long as during the Reagan administration.[1] Given the length of time it can take to get nominees confirmed, a new administration or second-term administration must prepare to face the reality of having vacant positions and identify their options for filling those roles.

In the beginning of a new administration, it is common for most presidentially appointed Senate-confirmed positions to be filled by acting officials while the nomination and confirmation process plays out. Second-term administrations typically experience significant turnover in critical leadership roles following re-election. According to the Center for Presidential Transition’s report on turnover during the previous three administrations, 43% of key leadership positions were left vacant within six months of the start of a president’s second term, either by personal choice or because the president wanted a change and fresh ideas. Given the high turnover rate, second-term administrations must plan for how they will fill these roles while waiting for the Senate confirmation process to play out.

The Federal Vacancies Reform Act outlines limitations to who can serve in acting roles and for how long. Under the Vacancies Act, there are three types of officials who may carry out the duties of the vacant position in an acting capacity without Senate confirmation.

  1. The “first assistant,” interpreted to be the top deputy position, becomes the acting officer unless the president designates another individual from the other two eligible classes of officials. The Vacancies Act does not specifically define “first assistant.”
  2. The president may designate an individual who serves in another presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed position elsewhere in the federal government as the acting official.
  3. The president may designate a senior employee of the same agency as the acting official if that person has served in the agency for at least 90 days during the year preceding the vacancy and is paid at a rate equivalent to at least a GS-15.

The Vacancies Act limits an individual serving in an acting role for 210 days. However, this period is lengthened to 300 days if a vacancy exists on the new president’s inauguration day or occurs within 60 days after the inauguration.

While these all are helpful ways to manage vacancies, they are temporary placeholders for long-standing leadership positions, as acting officials lack the authority that comes with a presidential appointment and Senate confirmation process. It is imperative that administrations develop efficient procedures for sending nominees to the Hill and that they prepare to manage vacancies within the limits of the Vacancies Act.

[1] Center for Presidential Transition, “Senate Confirmations Process Slows to a Crawl,” Jan. 2020. Available at https://presidentialtransition.org/publications/senate-confirmation-process-slows-to-a-crawl/