Hold On For One More Day
The New York Times is inveighing against Senatorial holds on Obama administration nominees today, thundering that "Good governance requires Republicans to drop groundless holds." I think there's no question that Senatorial process is, um, deeply if not irretrievably broken, and holds on nominees does gum up the works a lot. But there's a far bigger problem here: many of the officials who are going to do the actual management work, in other words, who are going to be doing the actual "good governance" at the agencies, haven't been nominated. And some critical nominees who have been selected haven't gotten Senate hearings.
The Washington Post's very valuable Head Count tracker has a list of 241 jobs the president hasn't even tapped people for yet--and it doesn't even include CXOs! Christine Griffin, the president's nominee to be deputy director of the Office of Personnel Management, has been languishing for months without a confirmation hearing. I realize that the Senate calendar is packed, especially with the House on overdrive passing legislation. But frankly, when it comes to management confirmation hearings, it doesn't exactly seem like Senators are busting down the doors to attend. So the Senators who are interested should prioritize getting nomination hearings moving. And if President Obama is super-concerned about governance, he should send them management nominees to question. Holds are one problem, but they're not the only issue here.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Staff Correspondent Alyssa Rosenberg takes a look at news affecting the management and operations of the massive federal bureaucracy.
Perhaps the Executive Branch could help prioritize by submitting a brief historical analysis of each PAS job for which it is submitting a nominee. Thus, priority could possibly be established based on the historical analysis and length of time in existence of the postion. My theory is that longevity of the job may well equate to its gravitas in the system with older created positions going first in line. In many cases the Senate is immune from pressure because the interested public cannot learn of the real significance of the job. Also a list of legal authority delegated to the position should accompany the Executive Branch submission so the Senate can be assisted in analysis of the positon's import to our scheme of government.
William R. Cumming Posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:17 PMRE: quote: The New York Times is inveighing against Senatorial holds on Obama administration nominees today, thundering that "Good governance requires Republicans to drop groundless holds." I think there's no question that Senatorial process is, um, deeply if not irretrievably broken, and holds on nominees does gum up the works a lot. End quote.
No question, you say? Irretrievably broken, you say while assuming all informed and sophisticated readers are applauding? Oh come, come Ms. Rosenburg - you achieve a slam dunk with a technical, good government, MPA efficiency argument in attacking or dismissing holds: but, really, Senatorial holds are a political technique with a long and honorable history, even Democratic Senators have used them, and won NYTimes praise for same. Efficiency measuring is for the Senate staffers, the grad student interns, worry bead think tanks, and the summer visitors agog at the intense politics of the capital, so divisive they report later to the home town folks. Equally, as so often in the past, I’m agog at the shyness or distaste of GovExOnline and FedBlog to confront head on the political elements of any issue, but, instead to settle for examination of the timing, expense, budget and other safely quantifiable elements of the burning issues of the day. Depending on your audience, failing to assess the political effectiveness of a particular Senatorial hold would strike some -- like me-- as playing willfully naive - especially when you're playing in the big leagues of Washington town. Plus ca change.
Concerned Retiree Posted Wednesday, July 1, 2009 3:44 PM