The committee has undergone several name changes since being formed some 30 years ago. Image: Katherine Welles/Shutterstock.com
“Oversight” is an interesting word in that it has two nearly opposite meanings: either examining something closely or paying little to no attention.
That may seem like nothing more than wordplay except that when you consider that the front door for Congress on most issues directly affecting federal employees and retirees is the House Oversight Committee. With a change in party control, it’s timely to ask which of the two types of oversight those issues will now experience.
A little background: Formally, it’s the Oversight and Reform Committee, having undergone several name changes since being formed some 30 years ago by combining two former committees. The Government Operations Committee had been responsible for overseeing agency performance while the Post Office and Civil Service Committee had been a stand-alone committee with a number of subcommittees focusing on specific issues such as health insurance and retirement. All of those roles currently are under a single subcommittee.
On the Senate side, federal employee issues for many decades have been the jurisdiction of a single subcommittee of what traditionally was known as Governmental Affairs. However, that committee took on oversight of DHS when that department was created, changing its name to Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The shorthand title you’ll see in most news reports for the House panel is the oversight committee, while for the Senate panel it’s the homeland security committee.
All of that is by way of saying that while federal workforce issues are subject to congressional oversight, they are less important than they used to be in both of the key committees. That looks likely to continue with Republicans, and in particular new chairman Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., in control for the 2023-2024 Congress.
“Republicans will return the Oversight Committee to its primary duty to root out waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the federal government and hold the Biden Administration accountable,” he said in a statement. Those priorities will include, he said, Biden family business dealings, immigration, the origins of Covid-19, the withdrawal from Afghanistan and how pandemic relief funds were spent.
Not a word about federal employees and retirees, except indirectly in a reference to making the government “more efficient, effective, transparent, and accountable to the American people.”
As context, under Democratic control in 2021-2022 the committee devoted attention to issues including the workplace culture of the Washington Commanders football team; former President Trump’s family business dealings; profits and practices of gun manufacturers; underage vaping; and pet flea and tick collars.
There is some value to the “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it” philosophy. But benign neglect works only if everything is going well. And that is not the case here. To name a few areas calling for attention:
Since prescription drug costs account for a quarter of the FEHB program’s spending, could it be time for the government to negotiate with suppliers over those costs on a program-wide basis rather than leave it up to individual carriers.
The inspector general’s office at OPM has raised numerous warnings about ineligible persons being covered by family enrollments, incurring additional claims costs without an increase in premium payments. OPM similarly leaves that issue to the individual carriers—could it be time for stronger central controls, including a program-wide database of enrollees that could be more easily checked?
What will be the impact on premiums for those remaining in the FEHB when Postal Service employees and retirees are carved out into a separate program two years from now?
How could OPM have been so far off, so many times, in premium-setting in the FLTCIP long-term care insurance program? How big will be the premium increase that is all but guaranteed to occur two years from now?
How can the TSP be held responsible for the breakdown in customer service when it rolled out its new operating system and features in mid-2022 and how can a repeat be avoided when, inevitably, further changes are made in that program?
Are the government pension offset and windfall elimination provision reductions that apply to most current and future CSRS retirees justified as a matter of policy? If they are not, shouldn’t they be repealed or at least softened? If they are, why not make the case for keeping them and settle the issue once and for all?
Can the smaller retiree COLA benefit under FERS as compared to CSRS be justified as a matter of policy—with the same two questions applying as above.
Has the paid parental leave program available for the last two years had the effect that was desired in terms of making the government an attractive employer?
Is the current benefits package in line with the desires of the generation now coming into the workforce?
Why has there been so little use of the phased retirement program, which was enacted as a “win-win” to allow employees to ease into retirement while the agency benefitted from them mentoring their replacements.
That’s by no means comprehensive. But it would be a start, for someone who takes “oversight” to mean examining something closely, as opposed to overlooking it.
January Raise Finalized, Will Range from 4.37 to 5.15 Percent
Upcoming COLA for Retirees to Be Largest in Four Decades
New Year Brings Changes in Key Figures for TSP
Retiring from a Federal Career: Prepare to Wait
The Process of Retiring: Last-Minute Changes
The Process of Retiring: Check Your Agency’s Work
Looking Forward to a Lump-sum Payment for Unused Annual Leave
The Government Pension Offset and Social Security
askFW: Calculating a Federal Annuity – FERS and CSRS
askFW: Federal Annuity Calculation for LEOs and Firefighters