Federal Manager's Daily Report

Concerns that changes in disciplinary rules for SES members would be unconstitutional are “arguable” but the stated motivation behind such bills, that they would lead to more accountability, “is code for making it easier to fire someone,” according to a publication from the National Academy for Public Administration.

Discipline was one of many aspects of the senior executive cadre explored in a book with contributions from numerous former federal officials. It noted that a law enacted in response to the VA’s wait-time scandal–shortening the notice and appeals process, and restricting appeals rights of SES members there–“spawned a number of bills, all of which are designed to curtail SES adverse action appeal rights. In some cases, they’re limited to VA executives; in other instances, they apply to the entire SES.”

Those bills so far have fallen short of enactment, in part because of arguments that they would turn execs into at-will employees, the publication said. That is a questionable argument, it added, because all of them would retain some form of due process, including review by a third party.

Still, it added, “If placed in irresponsible hands, the adverse action authorities in play or already in place could wreak havoc in the senior executive corps. And what’s so disturbing in all the debate on this issue is the relative absence of regard or respect–from either Congress or the administration–for the SES as an institution … an institution whose members are the buffer between politics and administration and, as such, are the most susceptible to partisan purges.

“Indeed, one can argue that SES members need more, not fewer, protections. To be sure, some elected and appointed officials have come to the SES’ institutional defense, but not nearly enough, and that is mightily disappointing,” it said.