Image: Lux Blue/Shutterstock.com
Following is the portion of a GAO report on the Schedule F excepted service authority that the Trump administration had attempted to carry out reflecting comments from more than a dozen former agency officials and others from academia, federal labor unions, and nonprofit organizations that GAO asked for their views on the implications of Schedule F.
Several stakeholders told us that future administrations could seek to re-establish Schedule F, or a category of federal positions with similar attributes. Some stakeholders said this was, in part, because Schedule F could be used to expedite the hiring and removal of federal workers. Specifically, some stakeholders said Schedule F could be used to expedite hiring of federal employees committed to advancing the President’s policy agenda, and removing those who were not. Several stakeholders discussed important tradeoffs, however, that agencies would need to consider when given more discretion to move quickly on hiring and removals. For example, some stakeholders said that Schedule F was designed with fewer due process protections compared with the competitive service and other excepted service schedules. Many stakeholders said there was risk that employees in Schedule F positions could be subject to removal for partisan political reasons. Stakeholders also varied in their estimates of the potential number of positions that could ultimately be placed into Schedule F, given the discretion agencies had to make that determination.
Federal Hiring
Many stakeholders said that, in general, the speed of federal hiring needs to be improved. Schedule F would have streamlined the hiring process, potentially resulting in a faster time-to-hire than the competitive service process.16 E.O. 13957 stated that agencies would have had greater appointment flexibility for Schedule F employees than that provided by the existing competitive service process. Under the competitive service process agencies need to follow several steps to hire an employee, including screening and examination of applicants, and application of veterans’ preference, among others. As shown in table 1, Schedule F positions would have neither required competitive examination nor the application of veterans’ preference in the same manner as it would have been applied under Title 5 of the U.S. Code (Title 5).
Though many stakeholders spoke about the need for improved speed in federal hiring, there were diverging perspectives related to the effect of implementing Schedule F on hiring and retention:
• Some stakeholders noted that a Schedule F category could create a second, and potentially larger, contingent of political appointees hired for their responsiveness to the President rather than their qualifications. One stakeholder said a Schedule F category would be a positive development, as employees in Schedule F positions should be committed to Presidential priorities and therefore more motivated to quickly and effectively implement the President’s policy agenda. Some stakeholders, however, stated that this could cause federal employees to be hired for their commitment to the President rather than their competence.
• Several stakeholders said Schedule F could make it more difficult to recruit federal employees, as potential applicants interested in a federal career could be deterred from taking a Schedule F position if they believed they could be removed for political reasons after a change in administration
• Several stakeholders told us that Schedule F could result in increased employee turnover between administrations, leading to a lack of continuity and a potential degradation in the overall subject matter expertise held within the civil service. One stakeholder said that an independent civil service is important for preserving institutional memory, knowledge, and competence across administrations. However, another stakeholder said that, while expert knowledge of how the government functions could and should be used to effectively implement policy, it could also be used to undermine, slow down, and otherwise prevent implementation of the President’s agenda.
Removals and Performance Accountability
Some stakeholders said that Schedule F could be used to expedite the removal of federal employees who were not committed to the President’s policy agenda. Agencies are generally required to follow certain procedures when seeking to remove an employee for reasons such as misconduct or poor performance. These procedures protect due process rights, and entitle the employee to notice of their proposed removal, an opportunity to respond, representation by an attorney or other representative, and a written account of the reasons for the decision. Federal employees also have statutory protections designed to ensure they are not subject to prohibited personnel practices, which include discrimination and retaliation.
E.O. 13957 stated that “the government’s current performance management system is inadequate” and that “senior agency officials reported that poor performance by career employees in policy-relevant positions had resulted in long delays and substandard quality work for important agency projects, such as drafting and issuing regulations.” Further, the E.O. stated that agencies needed “the flexibility to expeditiously remove poorly performing employees from these positions without facing extensive delays or litigation.” The E.O. would have excepted Schedule F positions from Title 5’s removal requirements, thereby expediting the removal process.
Some stakeholders said that removals under the current process can be time consuming. There were differences among stakeholders, however, as to whether the possibility of an expedited removal would increase employee accountability and performance. One stakeholder said that career staff must be willing to follow the directions of political staff at agencies or they should face removal, and that the possibility of quick removal would be sufficient to dissuade federal employees from attempting to undermine an administration’s priorities. In contrast, some other stakeholders said that the changes made under Schedule F, including changes to the removal process, would not increase the overall accountability of employees for their performance.
For example, some stakeholders stated that, without due process rights Schedule F could reduce the willingness of civil service employees to challenge potentially inefficient, unethical, or illegal requests from political staff without fear of removal. Further, some stakeholders expressed concern that, under Schedule F, it could be difficult to discern legitimate removal actions for performance or misconduct from those motivated by favoritism or partisan political reasons.
Potential Scope of Schedule F
Stakeholders shared varied perspectives on the potential scope of Schedule F implementation. Many stakeholders said that agencies could have identified positions affecting hundreds of thousands of federal employees across government because Schedule F criteria could be broadly interpreted. In contrast, some stakeholders told us they expected Schedule F placement to be limited to a more narrow set of positions. One of these stakeholders said that the approved OMB petition, for example, was not indicative of the overall scope of E.O. 13957. This stakeholder said that the large percentage of employees identified at OMB was due to the unique nature of its policy advising role to the President, which they did not believe applied to most other agencies.
Enrollee Share of FEHB Premiums to Rise 8.7 Percent on Average for 2023
OPM Addresses Drivers of Premium Hikes, Upcoming Coverage Changes in FEHB
Agency Response to Schedule F Order Varied, GAO Finds
Effort to Ban a New Schedule F Ratchets Up in Congress
Administration Urged to Extend Waiver in Loan Forgiveness Program
OPM Addresses Drivers of Premium Hikes, Upcoming Coverage Changes in FEHB
Biden Signs Continuing Resolution; Next Deadline Dec 16
TSP Responds to Complaints about New System
See also,
Report Assesses Impact of Repealing Windfall, Offset Provisions
With FERS Annuity Indexed for Inflation, Fed Retirees Faring Better