Fixing the Nomination and Confirmation Process: Part II


John Kamesnsky, Senior Fellow, IBM Center for The Business of Government This is the second entry in a two-part review of the federal appointee Nomination and Confirmation Process.


 What’s the Process That Needs Fixed?

 First, there’s the nomination process.  After someone is selected by the White House personnel office (or the president-elect’s transition team), they have a number of forms to complete.   Dr. Alvin Felzenberg notes: “The typical appointee must complete a minimum of three forms: SF-278, a financial disclosure statement; SF-86, a form that begins an FBI background investigation; and the White House Personal Data Statement Questionnaire. Although the White House and FBI are free to modify their forms, information on the financial disclosure form is required by statute.”  The nominee’s information is reviewed by the White House counsel, the FBI, the IRS, and the Office of Government Ethics.


 Paul Light says that there are about 60 pages of forms with about 240 questions, many overlapping.  Each of the different Senate committees each has its own forms to fill out.   Appointees who need national security clearances have additional forms to complete, as well.  Some of the forms require a typewriter to be completed; others must be hand-written because, according to Light, the White House personnel office rejects typed or computer-generated versions.  Light says that about half of the delay in the overall nomination-confirmation process is due to the Executive Branch. 


Once nominated, then there is the Senate confirmation process.  If there is no controversy, sometimes the delay is in scheduling a hearing; other times, it is the press of business of the committee or the full Senate.  And other times, appointees are held hostage pending resolution of a policy issue that is unrelated to the individuals being confirmed.  According to the Washington Post, in May 2008 there were 200 appointments awaiting confirmation. 


What Action Has Been Taken? 


As I mentioned in my August blog entry on this topic, the last concerted effort to reform the process was in 2000 when the Brookings Institution supported the Presidential Appointee Initiative.  Unfortunately, the website from this 4-year, $3.9 million project is no longer active; it used to have valuable resources, such as an appointee survivor’s guide!  But the project leaders wrote books that are available.  The project was led by Dr. Light.  Dr. G. Calvin MacKenzie, an academic specialist in the topic, was a senior advisor to the project.  Each wrote a book about their research findings.


Dr. Light’s 2000 research project included interviews with hundreds of past appointees about their experience.  Based on the research, Dr. MacKenzie wrote a book,” Innocent Until Nominated: The Breakdown of the Presidential Appointments Process.”  


The research project did generate some action.  In late 2000, Congress required the Office of Government Ethics to prepare a report identifying ways to simplify the financial reporting process that appointees undergo.  Its mid-2001 report identified both administrative as well as legislative fixes.


The Brookings Presidential Appointee Initiative also convened a bipartisan panel to develop recommendations.  In early 2001 it offered 11 specific actions in its report:


§ Create a permanent Office of Presidential Personnel in the Executive Office of the President.

§ Simplify and standardize the information-gathering forms used in the presidential appointments process, and develop and maintain online, interactive access to all such forms and questionnaires for persons going through the appointments process.

§ Reduce the number of positions requiring FBI full-field investigations.

§ Undertake a comprehensive review of the ethics requirements imposed on political appointees, with the goal of striking a balance between concerns for the integrity of those who serve and the need to eliminate intrusive or complex disclosure requirements.

§ Ensure annual changes in executive-level salaries equal to changes in the Consumer Price Index.

§ Reduce the number of positions requiring Senate confirmation.

§ Limit the imposition of “holds” by all Senators to a total of no more than 14 days.

§ Require Senate confirmation votes within 45 days after receipt of a nomination.

§ Allow nominations to be reported out of their respective Senate committee without a hearing upon the concurrence of a majority of committee members of each party.

§ Reduce the number and layers of political appointees by one-third.

§ Grant the president renewed executive reorganization authority to de-layer senior management levels of all executive departments and agencies.


Senate hearings were held in early 2001 on the results of the bipartisan panel and the OGE report.  In late 2001 legislation was drafted.  The bill was S.1811.   Hearings were held again in early 2002 and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee reported out legislation to the full Senate.  The legislation died there.  The Brookings project closed its doors in 2003.   Now it’s 2008.


So what’s the next step?  Do you have any friends in high places that want to help the next president be successful?


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Fixing the Nomination and Confirmation Process: Part II”

  1. Norman M. Macdonald Says:

    I wonder why an initiative as intelligent as the Brookings Presidential Appointee Initiative was allowed to wither in the Senate?

  2. John Kamensky Says:

    Good question, Norm. I don’t know. Do any other readers have some background on this?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: