Members of Congress and former political appointees agreed that allowing an administration to hire and fire employees based on their politics will undermine national security.
At a hearing held by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on Schedule F last week, former political appointees from the Defense Department and Homeland Security shared their experiences working with civil servants and detailed how a plan championed by the previous administration to implement Schedule F will hurt our country’s national security and the American people.
Peter Levine, former acting undersecretary of Defense for personnel and readiness, and Elaine C. Duke, former deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and undersecretary for management at the department, said career civil servants ensure stability at the departments, which is crucial for national security.
“I am opposed to any decision that has high potential to undermine effective national security policy and operations. And I am concerned Schedule F may just do that,” she said. “My experience leads me to believe that any potential upside to the tempo of producing national security policy from Schedule F is far outweighed by its disruptive downside of less effective policy. This is in the form of less vetted, informed, and comprehensive public policy – therefore less successful public policy.”
Duke said the Schedule F executive order issued by the previous administration was ambiguous and could cover more employees than originally thought, including those whose work is not related to policy.
“National security is too important to allow Schedule F to be implemented, especially as written,” she added. “Our government was established incorporating a division of power and system of checks and balances that require transparency and some level of continuity for effectiveness. That is still important to our citizens today.”
Levine said once he was appointed to the position and was given an assignment to revitalize the DoD and civilian workforces, the first thing he did was to seek input from senior career civilians whose expertise and experience were essential to developing and implementing the policy, and he couldn’t have made progress without them.
“The ability of career civil servants to provide open and candid advice without losing their jobs enables political appointees like me to benefit from the knowledge and expertise that these civilians have developed over the course of their careers, and the duty to follow orders means that our government remains responsive to the political appointees who represent our nation’s elected leadership,” testified Levine, who also served as deputy chief management officer.
He also pointed to the fact that political appointees and military officials occupy positions for only a short period of time while career civil servants are there for several years, so they have more experience, expertise, and institutional knowledge.
Asked if they have seen civil servants refusing to implement a policy, both Duke and Levine said no.
“The risk that political appointees will fail to listen to the informed views of career civil servants (or will discourage them from offering such views) is far greater than the risk that civil servants will fail to carry out a directive from political appointees once it has been made,” Levine added.
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Gary Peters agreed with the former executives, saying Schedule F would be disastrous to the American people as more than 70% of the federal workforce serves in defense and national security agencies.
“It would drain the federal government of institutional knowledge, expertise, and continuity. It would slow down services, make us less prepared when disaster strikes, and erode public trust in government,” he said. “Perhaps most importantly, it would weaken our national security and make us more vulnerable to serious threats facing our nation.”
In addition, administrations are already struggling to fill nearly 4,000 political appointments. Increasing the number would likely lead to vacancies and disruptions, hindering any president’s agenda for much of the administration.
“These proposals are short-sighted, misinformed, and put political loyalties above effective service for the American people,” he added.
AFGE President Everett Kelley said in a statement submitted for the record that there are approximately 500,000 federal jobs classified as GS 13, 14 and 15, and a politically-motivated personnel agenda could identify most of them as being connected to policy. Designating so many positions as at-will positions would be a disaster for national security.
“What purpose would be advanced by replacing the seasoned and stable federal workforce who are now in the midst of transmitting institutional knowledge and know-how to younger career-focused hires with politicized, inexperienced, and transient individuals who would change with every administration? Far from facilitating the implementation of a president’s policy agenda, Schedule F would have government operations performed by unqualified amateurs whose primary qualifications are political. The national security vulnerabilities that Schedule F would produce are frightening to contemplate,” he said.
The Office of Personnel Management last week took a huge step toward aligning the locality pay maps for employees on the Federal Wage System and General Schedule.
Read More
With the election approaching Marcial Gomez talks about what’s on the line for TSA employees and his concerns about Project 2025.
Read More
Members of AFGE’s DEFCON Steering Group met along with AFGE staff and elected leaders to discuss ways to better serve employees throughout the DoD in the year ahead.
Read More
