Gov Careers

By Phil Piemonte

Blog archive

Favoritism and other pernicious practices

More than a few readers of this blog have indicated that they believe favoritism is alive and well in the federal workplace.

And as all — or most or perhaps many — feds know, there is a clear prohibition against favoritism spelled out in Merit Principle No. 8, as follows:

“Employees should be —

(A) protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes, and

(B) prohibited from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for election.”

Then again, the articles of the Constitution seem simple enough on the surface, too. The first part of No. 8 — Part A — protects feds against favoritism from above, as well as from political pressure and arbitrary actions against them by agencies. At the same time, Part B protects feds from other feds, in terms of any political pressure they might apply to one another.

According to the Merit Systems Protection Board, Part A incorporates an idea that traces back to the Pendleton Act of 1883 — that feds should not be subject to a patronage or “spoils” system. Under that system, civil servants’ continued employment depended on whether they voted the way their bosses told them to vote, and bosses hired employees according to their personal preferences rather than based on a person’s merit.

At the same time, Part B puts a restriction on feds themselves by barring them from using their authority or office to influence nominations and elections. In applying Principle No. 8, MSPB notes that the right to be free from political coercion is so important that it is “extended even to probationary employees who do not have the same appeal rights that tenured employees have.”

The prohibition of the activities in Part B is enforced primarily through something called the 1939 Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities. If you’ve never heard of it, that’s because it’s usually referred to by the name of its author, a senator from New Mexico named Carl Hatch.

The Hatch Act, if you’ve been properly informed, prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activities while on duty, wearing a uniform, or using a government vehicle or computer, among other things. The bottom line is that feds are forbidden from using their official capacity in any way to influence an election.

Although some feds commenting on this blog have expressed different opinions on MSPB’s effectiveness in enforcing Part A, the section on favoritism, they should note that MSPB also does pre-emptive work on the issue by vetting — and sometimes turning back — regulations that might open up feds to violations of Principle No. 8.

And of course, the board’s Office of Policy and Evaluation also does a good bit of research on how well the merit system and the federal workforce are faring. It did that in a December 2009 report, “Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining,” which showed that “a substantial percentage of federal employees harbor concerns about the impact of favoritism on management decisions.”

So fear not, MSPB — like many readers of this blog — also knows that favoritism is alive and well in the federal workplace.

Posted by Phil Piemonte on Aug 09, 2011 at 12:13 PM


Featured

  • Cybersecurity

    DHS floats 'collective defense' model for cybersecurity

    Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen wants her department to have a more direct role in defending the private sector and critical infrastructure entities from cyberthreats.

  • Defense
    Defense Secretary James Mattis testifies at an April 12 hearing of the House Armed Services Committee.

    Mattis: Cloud deal not tailored for Amazon

    On Capitol Hill, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis sought to quell "rumors" that the Pentagon's planned single-award cloud acquisition was designed with Amazon Web Services in mind.

  • Census
    shutterstock image

    2020 Census to include citizenship question

    The Department of Commerce is breaking with recent practice and restoring a question about respondent citizenship last used in 1950, despite being urged not to by former Census directors and outside experts.

Stay Connected

FCW Update

Sign up for our newsletter.

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.