GovernmentExecutive.com

This morning brought news that President Obama had nominated Congressman John McHugh (R-NY) as the next Secretary of the United States Army.

Now, as the old saying goes: One is a fluke, two is a coincidence, three is a trend. So this may just be a coincidence at this point, but this morning's news reminded me of Obama's choice to be Secretary of the Navy: Former Mississippi Governor Ray Mabus.

Bracketing the remote possibility that Mabus is in fact Nostradamus' third antichrist, this is still a fairly interesting trend, because what McHugh and Mabus have in common is that they're both former politicians. This may seem mundane, but it's actually fairly uncommon for either service secretary to be a former politician. Don't believe me? See here and here: Post-war, Army has had only three pols take the helm, and Navy hasn't had any (though plenty of Navy Secretaries -- Chaffee, Warner, Webb -- have gone on to become pols).

This points at the broader point that the White House seems to be taking a fairly enlightened view of politicians. We tend to think of "politician" as a type of person rather than a skillset, but the word really does describe a demeanor and skillset that is highly applicable to jobs other than holding elected office. Recognizing and drawing on the talents that successful politicians have, particularly for building coalitions (note that McHugh and Mabus both hail from places where the opposite party is arguably politically dominant), is an interesting management insight from our Administrator-In-Chief.

Alyssa herself may be away, but that's no reason that her ongoing quasi-obsession with new OPM Director John Berry has to go with her!

As fate would have it, I was fortunate enough to hear Director Berry speak to an intimate group this past Friday at the National Academy of Public Administration (a.k.a., my employer) at an event convened by government IT legend Alan Balutis. (Here's a blurry iPhone picture of them together!) Like Alyssa, I found that Berry's unique mix of expertise and enthusiasm around people issues (he hates the term "human capital," and now I kind of do, too) makes for a really encouraging and energizing encounter.

I've put some general observations below the fold, but one thing Berry said was particularly interesting to me: He announced that, as part of recruiting efforts specifically as well as public engagement efforts more broadly, he would be assembling a group of 20-somethings who would be tasked with engaging young people in the missions of government and, ultimately, with attracting them into the federal workforce. Obviously a lot of this game is won at the paying-off-some-of-your-student-loans level, but a non-trivial part of it really is just about getting the message out.

Berry's focus on a squad of 20-somethings reminded me of someone I once met in federal government. She was in her mid-20's, had just graduated with an Ivy League MBA, and was recruited by the FBI right out of school as a GS-14. (Talk about public-private pay parity!) But the rub was, despite her relative inexperience in FBI's mission, she was incredibly effective because she knew how to connect and share information with other people across FBI who were in this same program. Her skills had little to do with law enforcement, and everything to do with collaborating and connecting.

The moral of this story, I think, is that increasingly, "collaboration" -- defined roughly as "the ability to build and lead purposeful social networks that act as agile problem-solving communities" -- is going to be a critical skillset in the federal workforce. So-called "digital natives," who grew up using these skills as a matter of daily life on sites like MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter (and more recently GovLoop!). What's truly noteworthy is that our new OPM Director -- who is by his own admission not a Tech Guy -- recognizes the importance of this skillset and is leading by example.

Continue reading "To Build Social Networks, Hire Social Networkers" »

One of the more fascinating parts of this transition has been watching new Secretaries show up at various departments and be greeted as liberators. A notable exception, of course, has been Commerce, where Acting Secretary Otto Wolff labors in obscurity and employees are still waiting for new leadership to be put in place.

All of this, predictably, has inspired a fresh round of blogospheric navel-gazing about the Commerce Department's raison d'être. Harold Meyerson, tongue firmly in cheek, contemplates the Department's role in a post-centralized-industrial-base world. David Rothkopf, a former Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade (and author of a great book on the NSC), puts things less delicately but ultimately comes to the right conclusion:

Here's the problem: the job of this administration is to rebuild our economy and for all its myriad structural flaws and like of budgetary clout, the Commerce Department is the only place with anything like the capability to play a role this area. High financial policy types don't typically think much about the grunt work of job-creation or supporting the businesses that actually create the jobs. And we have been so ideologically opposed to anything that had a hint of industrial policy to it for so long that there is no capability elsewhere to help determine where to best invest stimulus money or what the future of the U.S. economy will look like.

Bingo. The Obama Administration has made a point of noting that this whole stimulus deal depends on something like 90% of the jobs being created in the private sector. That, of course, requires cajoling leaders of non-decrepit industries to get back into gear and start making stuff again. I think it's great that Obama is engaged in this issue, but when you've got the President himself personally congratulating individual corporate executives on their continued participation in the economy, there's a capacity issue somewhere along the line. While we wait to learn who will ultimately take the Commerce gig, it's important to remember why the post exists in the first place, and that whatever you think of the Department's org chart, the top job is one vacancy that needs filling ASAP.

Appointment-wise, anyway, says the New York Times. Given everything the folks at NextGov have broken about the dismal state of the 2010 Census, I'd say that's pretty much right.

Ezra Klein is pretty excited about the prospects of CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta as our next Surgeon General. I have no particular quibble with Ezra's theory that Gupta will be an advocate for health care reform, and that his appointment represents a reconceptualization of the position. Both of those things are probably true. But I think it's a mistake to minimize "the guy who writes warnings for cigarette labels" part of the job, or to suggest that the 1964 Surgeon General's report was just one in a line of public health PR initiatives. Rather, tobacco in particular provides an instructive lesson on how the Surgeon General can operate.

Before I explain why, I have to admit to being a bit of a Surgeon General groupie. One of my first real reporting experiences came at a terrific presentation by former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner David Kessler when I was in high school. Kessler was basically leading a master class on tobacco regulation, assigning various audience members roles to play (your loyal blogger got a minor part as a Philip Morris lobbyist). In attendance was former Surgeon General Julius Richmond, who I buttonholed after the event to ask if I could interview him for my National History Day paper. For a fifteen-year-old high school newspaper editor, it was pretty exciting to come home after school one day, and mid-snack pick up the phone to find a Surgeon General on the other end of the line. But for the project, I also read Richard Kluger's Ashes to Ashes: America's Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris, which along with Kessler's A Question of Intent, provide an important lens into another one of the Surgeon General's roles: building consensus within the medical community.

Continue reading "Dr. Gupta, Surgeon General" »

Acting, at least. Slipped in at the bottom of a list of last-minute appointments to things like the Holocaust Memorial Council and the President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, is the notice that as of January 16, Lynne Osmus, a career FAA employee, will be the agency's Acting Administrator. She was chief of staff to two FAA Administrators appointed by Bill Clinton, David Hinson and Jane Garvey. Her expertise is in security; she took over the Civil Aviation Security Program just before 9/11 and led the agency's post-9/11 response, as well as the transition of airport security functions over to TSA. It's not clear yet where she stands on the hot-button issue of bargaining rights for FAA employees, or the pay and work rules air traffic controllers are working under now. It'll be interesting to find out. More information as I find it.

(H/T: Alexis Simendinger)

President Bush has asked all of his appointees to submit their resignations in anticipation of the transfer to the Obama administration in January, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who's sticking around after the transition, wants some of his underlings to be exceptions to the rule.

The Washington Times reports that Gates has asked many of the 250 appointees at the Pentagon to stick around until the Obama team finds replacements for them.

"I have received authorization from the president-elect's transition team to extend a number of Department of Defense political appointees an invitation to voluntarily remain in their current positions until replaced," Gates said in an e-mail sent Friday.

But at least three appointees have been told that they won't get to stay, and need to vacate their offices by Jan. 20. And Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England already has announced that he won't be sticking around.

Wondering who your new political boss will be during the Obama administration? You may not have to wait long to find out, even if you work deep in the bureaucracy. Paul Light notes today in the Washington Post that "all signs point to a record-setting pace" of subcabinet appointments in the coming weeks.

Obama's transition team "is moving apace to find and vet candidates for most of the key deputy secretary, undersecretary and assistant secretary spots in the administration," Light writes. "Expect his big tranche the week after his inauguration, largely due to the pre-clearance of 50 to 100 senior aides before the election."

Obama will be shooting at a modern-day record set by his predecessor, who sent 111 nominations to the Senate in his first 100 days in office. Of course, 48 of those came on the 100th day.

Interesting profile in the Washington Post Style section today of Alyssa Mastromonaco, Barack Obama's director of scheduling and advance, who will retain that title in the Obama White House. But she won't be overseeing the kind of fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants operation that she headed up during the campaign.

Here's how the Post's Shailagh Murray described what Mastromonaco has to look forward to:

In her new role, Mastromonaco will execute elaborate protocols that have been in place for decades, and her immediate staff of about 35 will include a "diarist," responsible for recording every one of Obama's moves -- the telephone calls, the meals, the basketball games. Each step in the White House scheduling process, from request to approval, must be documented in writing. Decisions are made by committee -- a very large committee of administrative heavyweights from the national security and domestic policy offices, speechwriting, catering, the first lady's and vice president's shops, the Secret Service and so on. Advance teams involve casts of hundreds, swarming into each of the locales, here and abroad, that a president will visit.

Little wonder that Mastromonaco has this to say about her situation: "The government feels a little weird right now."

Remember the Lurita Doan who vigorously defended herself in front of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., against allegations that she engaged in improper political activity while serving as head of the General Services Administration? Well, it turns out that was the nice Lurita Doan.

Now that she's no longer in government, Doan apparently feels free to take the gloves off in dealing with Waxman. She sent Government Executive a copy of a letter she faxed over to Waxman yesterday in his response to his report alleging that Bush administration officials had engaged in "unprecedented" efforts to aid Republican candidates before the 2006 elections.

It's worth reading the whole letter, but here are some choice excerpts:

I note that you have, once again, initiated your unique brand of vicious, partisan politics by releasing a deliberately false report prior to an important election. ... As a previous victim of your partisan manipulations, and your deliberately dishonest statements, I feel compelled to speak out against your false assertions, disparaging my service and my character for the sole purpose of your own partisan agenda.

Once again, you have falsely asserted that, as the administrator of GSA, I improperly attempted to use government resources or my office to influence an election. This assertion, masquerading as an official committee report, is especially reprehensible because you, more than anyone else, know that it is utterly false. ...

Your flawed report is also curious for what it does not contain. Nowhere is there mention that you relied heavily on the flawed investigation of Special Counsel, Mr. Scott Bloch. Nor is there any mention of the fact that the OSC Director, Mr. Bloch, was forced to hire an outfit called "Geeks on Call" to quickly come in and erase all the files of his government computers dealing with this investigation when it became clear that the evidence had been doctored. ...

I now understand you and your ubiquitous hypocrisy. I know how your witch hunts and kangaroo courts work. So please, invite me to testify. I can't wait.