We are seeing the patronage system making a comeback under Trump, replacing the meritocracy required under current law. There have been more than few posts here blasting the concept of meritocracy as being based on the background of the incumbent writing the job requirements and not on any objective measure of suitability for doing the job. My question is, what criteria should we use to fill government jobs?
I think the complaints are loaded with myth.
Maybe I'm distilling 30 years of experience as "understanding". I could even be wrong, but I think I'm more likely right than wrong.
Cabinet agencies require an enabling "charter" passed by Congress.
Among each agency's "purpose for existence", various statutes -- laws would've been passed which have some sort of objective -- outright enforcement, aid to state and local government with strings attached, the purchase of military hardware under reasonable contract selection and progress guidelines . . . the list would go on and on.
These laws generally require "regulations", or the translation of the statutes into specific requirements for action and execution, review and control, all the various things which become job descriptions for individual civil servants. And generally, the regulations are written and revised by a cabinet-agency's Office of General Counsel, which changes with each successive administration.
The job descriptions are then posted; applications are accepted; panels of existing civil servants review the applications; a selection process is hopefully pursued to completion.
Meanwhile, performance measures -- whatever can be quantified -- are drafted and approved along with the job descriptions. Performance Appraisals are issued periodically for this or that employee. There is an oversight and control mechanism to assure that the Law is fulfilled, the regulations are followed, and goals and results are pursued and completed.
A General Accounting Office and a Congressional Budget Office -- among other entities -- periodically checks and measures the benefits against the costs of following the Laws we have been talking about.
I agree that this personnel system is corruptible. Position descriptions can be written to accept minimal educational and other indicators in the job selection process. The outcomes of personnel selection can be influenced or overridden through political influence.
But wherever it was deemed essential to hold skill and experience over the other factors, it was more likely done that way as opposed to what Trump's people are trying to do now. All of his cabinet-level selections are obvious and demoralizing examples of people totally unprepared to do their jobs on behalf of the Constitution and the People. And NONE of those people have in mind any serious custodial effort to make their departments actually succeed at what they do, unless it has some personal value to -- you guessed it -- the sociopath, criminal, rapist and delusional President of the United States.
Facebook
Twitter