The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: BlueStateSaint on November 12, 2009, 11:06:50 AM
-
It's on RedState now. They got it from Instapundit.
Via Instapundit comes word that the federal government’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to purge the federal government of Republican civil servants all in the name of purify the federal bureaucracy.
You can read the OPM memo here.
It is a typical Washington process that many political appointees are able to take jobs within the civil service once their political appointment expires — usually at the conclusion of one administration. What often happens as well is Congressional staffers, before an election or shortly thereafter, will move over to the Executive Branch placed into the civil service, in effect, by appointment.
The rest of the RedState blog post is here:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/11/12/obama-administration-intends-to-purge-republicans-from-the-civil-service/
The Instapundit entry is here:
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/88309/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
The Federal OPM memo is here:
http://www.chcoc.gov/Transmittals/TransmittalDetails.aspx?TransmittalId=2588
DUmb**** lurkers, remember this little phrase:
What goes around, comes around.
And it will.
-
Un F'n real........ I guess one can no longer hold to their own beliefs and have a Govt job. I see lawsuits forthcoming IF this does happen.
-
Since when is it a requirement to list one's political party when applying for a freakin' gummint job????
ETA: The policy applies to political appointees, who are, of course, identified by the administration that put them in the gig to start with.
-
How long before all US Attorneys appointed under President Bush are replaced?
-
Since when is it a requirement to list one's political party when applying for a freakin' gummint job????
Since the Statists returned to all three branches in a majority role.
ETA: The policy applies to political appointees, who are, of course, identified by the administration that put them in the gig to start with.
I wonder how well this is going to go over with the Union that represents all Civil Service employees?
-
While political appointees may not be excluded from consideration for Federal jobs because of their political affiliation, they must not be given preference or special advantages.
Pursuant to our oversight authority under 5 U.S.C. Section 1104(b)(2) and 5 CFR Section 5.2, OPM requires Federal agencies to seek our approval before selecting a political appointee for a competitive service position during a Presidential election year. OPM’s oversight in this area safeguards merit system principles and assures fair and open competition free from political influence.
Beginning January 1, 2010, agencies must seek prior approval from OPM before they can appoint a current or recent political appointee to a competitive or non-political excepted service position at any level under the provisions of title 5, United States Code. OPM will review these proposed appointments to ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws. I have delegated decisionmaking authority over these matters to career Senior Executives at OPM to avoid any hint of political influence.
http://www.chcoc.gov/Transmittals/TransmittalDetails.aspx?TransmittalId=2588
-
While it is a cheap shot and raw deal for those involved, this deals with a very small number of folks, not the entire civil service. Essentially there is a long-standing practice (of which I don't entirely approve) under which outgoing low-level political appointees are customarily allowed to shift over into related competitive or executive service jobs. In theory, it allows them to keep using all the expertise they supposedly developed in their positions, but the downside is that some of these positions are created just for them and in any case it means the career professionals don't get a shot at those jobs. I would prefer to see the practice ended entirely forever and all hiring for those positions be on a competitive basis, like the rest of civil service is supposed to be, much as it sometimes fails on that score due to various hiring preferences. Under competitive hiring procedures, political affiliation is totally prohibited as a selection criterion.
-
The federal civil service roll is probably already 90% Democratic as it is. Most government employees at any level - federal, state, local - are probably Democrats.
-
The federal civil service roll is probably already 90% Democratic as it is. Most government employees at any level - federal, state, local - are probably Democrats.
What are you basing that assumption on?
-
The federal civil service roll is probably already 90% Democratic as it is. Most government employees at any level - federal, state, local - are probably Democrats.
Not the ones I deal with on, well, an every day basis. GS's, GM's, and SES's that work for the DoD are, by a majority of the ones I've met, conservative.
-
Not the ones I deal with on, well, an every day basis. GS's, GM's, and SES's that work for the DoD are, by a majority of the ones I've met, conservative.
True, the non-DOD civil service tends to be more Democrat though, probably about 2 to 1. The GOP didn't do itself any favors in DOD with Rumsfeld's NSPS project, though.
-
What are you basing that assumption on?
I could use my moonbat Representative (Che-Porter) as an example--former social worker.
-
The federal civil service roll is probably already 90% Democratic as it is. Most government employees at any level - federal, state, local - are probably Democrats.
If true, it would explain the incompetence and why the right hand never knows what the left hand is doing.
.
-
If true, it would explain the incompetence and why the right hand never knows what the left hand is doing.
.
I don't agree. I think it's the nature of large organizations anyway, regardless of political persuasion.
Smaller, leaner organizations tend to compartmentalize less meaning that people have to take OWNERSHIP of what they're doing.
The gummint features dumbing down and allowing poor leadership to rule the day, but this is also a characteristic of those larger outfits.
Just check with 3M or with IBM and see how business gets done. Or not.
-
Since the Statists returned to all three branches in a majority role.
I wonder how well this is going to go over with the Union that represents all Civil Service employees?
:rotf:
This was a throw away line, right??
-
Correct me if I am wrong but is it a law that every man has to register on their 18th birthday or is that outdated as well?
Still law. ....assuming you're referring to the Selective Service. Don't know what that has to do with this issue though.
-
What are you basing that assumption on?
I pulled it out of my ass. :-)
However, I did spend that last few years of my career working for the County of Orange, California. As you may have heard, Orange County, California is supposedly a bastion of conservatism. As far as I could determine, the vocal majority of my co-workers were Democrats.
-
Still law. ....assuming you're referring to the Selective Service. Don't know what that has to do with this issue though.
I misread it sorry I was thinking something else as I read it I removed the post :thatsright: