Category Archives: Votes voting

Hey Donald, You Ready for these Political Ambushes?

Posted on by

There is historically to be a smooth transition of power. So far that has hardly been the case. While most Democrats say that Donald Trump won the most important seat in the free world, others are out there saying not so much.

Draining the swamp could be a rather easy political mission in DC due to many progressive powerbrokers being so unabashed at revealing who they are. Sure there are a number of them that refuse to attend the inauguration which is shameful. What they plan to do in that time period is in many cases even more shameful. Exactly what are they boycotting anyway?

This is going to be a wild ride and the left is making it worse beginning with cabinet nominees and future legislation.

Related reading: ACLU Demands That Body Cams Are Turned Off During Inauguration While They Intend To Record Police

****

The boycott movement began with Georgia Rep. John Lewis, a civil rights icon, who said he did not view Trump as a “legitimate president” because of allegations that Russia attempted to sway the election in Trump’s favor. After Trump responded with several highly critical tweets about Lewis, Democrats rallied behind Lewis, and as of Saturday night, 17 members of Congress have announced they will not attend.

None of the Democrats who are boycotting is part of the House leadership for the party. All except one of those who are received at least 64 percent of their district’s vote in the November election.

Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva

 

“My absence is not motivated by disrespect for the office or motivated by disrespect for the government that we have in this great democracy, but as an individual act, yes, of defiance at the disrespect shown to millions and millions of Americans by this incoming administration, and the actions we are taking in this Congress,” Grijalva said on the House floor Friday, per CNN.

California Rep. Barbara Lee

But it will be worse than just boycotting January 20th. Sure there are countless protests planned and protests permits have been approved. So, what else you ask?
****

From the National Law Journal: The day after Donald Trump is sworn in as the 45th president the United States, hundreds of attorneys and activists are slated to gather in Washington to strategize on how best to resist “bad government” and coordinate pro bono efforts to protect civil rights.

They will spend two days meeting and discussing issues such as gerrymandering, human rights, better policing and U.S. Supreme Court confirmations during the so-called Rise Above conference. It’s scheduled to coincide with the Jan. 21 Women’s March on Washington.

Rise Above is co-sponsored by two fledging nonprofit groups formed in the wake of Trump’s election: the grassroots government accountability organization RISE When We Fall and the attorney-centric Lawyers for Good Government. They hope to create a “pro bono army to be on the front lines protecting our country and our values,” according to an announcement of the event.

The conference combines networking opportunities, an expo of nonprofit organizations, talks from experienced leaders intended to inspire attendees and a slew of panel discussions of specific legal and activism topics.

“One of the things that’s very important to us is to create a starting point,” said Traci Feit Love, a former DLA Piper associate who is the founder of Lawyers for Good Government. “Some people who are relatively new to activism are trying to figure out, ‘Where do we go from here? How do we approach the issues? What do we prioritize?'”

Some legal heavy hitters are on the agenda. SCOTUSBlog founder Tom Goldstein is scheduled to speak, as are Southern Poverty Law Center co-founder Joe Levin and newly-elected Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, who previously taught Constitutional Law at American University Washington College of Law.

Love got the idea for what would become Lawyers for Good Government the day after the election, following a fruitless search to connect with like-minded lawyers in Facebook. The election results had given her a sense of urgency.

“As I was putting my 8-year-old daughter to bed the night of the election, it hit me what had just happened and what it might mean for the country,” she said. “It was a punch in the gut to me and, I think, a lot of other people.”

Love decided to create her own lawyer activist Facebook group called Lawyers of the Left, thinking that 200 or so might join. Within a week, membership swelled past 100,000. Love quickly concluded that lawyers inspired to fight back against Trump’s agenda needed more than just an online gathering place, and she created Lawyers for Good Government using the online lawyer community that coalesced immediately after the election as the foundation for the new effort.

“Everyone was asking, ‘What can we do?'” she said. “No one wanted to just talk about things. It felt like a responsibility to figure out how to help this group of people make the biggest impact.”

Rise Against will be the group’s first foray into live events, though the nearly $600 full ticket price has generated some criticism. Love said Monday that the group retooled parts of the conference in response to concerns that the high cost would shut out some would-be attendees. Organizers did away with a formal evening gala and priced tickets to the networking event at $20 to $40. But staging a large event during the busy inaugural weekend was expensive, and the two host groups lacked established budgets to subsidize costs. Tickets sales were needed to cover the bulk of event, which is being held at the Lincoln Theatre and the Mayflower Hotel, she said. Love is expecting about 1,000 attendees.

“I think one of the most important things this conference can do for us is create both personal relationships and that sense of connection that can sustain a movement beyond the initial energy,” Love said. “What’s likely to happen, due to human nature, is months go by and everyone starts to refocus on their day-to-day lives. We need to ensure that we can sustain the level of energy required to keep an eye on the new administration and Congress.”

 

German Holocaust Archive Publishes

Posted on by

German Holocaust archive publishes inventory online

BERLIN (AP)— The International Tracing Service says it has published its Holocaust-era inventory online, offering an overview of holdings that include some 30 million documents on Nazi persecution, forced labor and the fates of survivors.

The archive, located in Bad Arolsen, Germany, said Monday that parts of the holdings that had undergone only preliminary indexing were also included. More detailed descriptions will be added gradually.

The ITS was established by the Western Allies in the final days of World War II and initially run by the Red Cross to help uncover the fates of Holocaust victims and others.

In 2007, scholars and researchers were allowed access to the documents, beginning the archive’s transformation from a tracing service to a research institution. The overview aims to help researchers prepare for visiting the archive.

****

picture shows: map presentations of deathmarches

There is a great deal of interest worldwide in the documents of the archives of the International Tracing Service (ITS) about former victims of Nazi persecution and the liberated survivors. A small part of this collection, which since 2013 is inscribed onto the UNESCO “Memory of the World” register, can now be viewed in a new online archive. The ITS has uploaded three collections in an initial step including photos of personal objects that were taken from the prisoners in the concentration camps. Also available are a collection on the death marches as well as files from the Child Search Branch from the time immediately following the liberation of Nazi victims.

Wallets with photos, engraved wedding rings, fashion jewellery, letters or identification papers: While being deported to concentration camps prisoners were usually only carrying the few things they had on them at the time of their arrest. Such personal belongings that were taken from the prisoners when they arrived at concentration camps are the so called “personal effects”. The International Tracing Service (ITS) in Bad Arolsen is still in possession of  personal effects of some 3,200 former prisoners, 2,700 of whom are known by name. Of course, personal belongings of prisoners can also be found at other memorial sites and museums, yet knowing the name of the original owners is only possible in the rarest of cases.

The personal belongings generally have little material value but a high sentimental value for family members. More often than not they are a last personal memento. The goal of the ITS is to return the personal belongings to the former prisoners and their family members. Every year this is made possible in some cases, very often through cooperation with memorial sites and partner organizations or through journalistic research. Occasionally family members themselves contact the ITS, in this way also enabling the return of personal effects.

The personal effects are mainly from the concentration camps Neuengamme and Dachau. In addition there are some personal belongings from prisoners of the Hamburg Gestapo, concentration camps Natzweiler and Bergen-Belsen, as well as the transit camps Amersfoort and Compiègne.

Obama/Kerry: Diplomatic Terrorism on Israel

Posted on by

Israel was on the edge at least last October, they knew that Obama and Kerry had something in the pipeline against Israel. So it comes down to who wins the debate over Jerusalem? Should there even be a debate and Israel is fighting back on the never-ending use of the words ‘occupy’ and ‘settlement’s and should.

 CBS

Bloomberg: When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was re-elected last year, the White House threatened to reconsider long-standing U.S. policy to veto U.N. Security Council resolutions on Israel’s presence in the West Bank. At issue was a last-minute interview in which Netanyahu said there would be no Palestinian state as long as he was prime minister. He took back that statement after the election. Nonetheless, the White House directed policymakers to draw up a set of options for how Obama could “preserve the two-state solution,” according to one U.S. official privy to the process.

So far, nothing has come of Obama’s threat. Indeed last month, Obama signed an agreement with Israel to extend the U.S. subsidy of its military for another ten years. In foreign policy, Obama is focused on the collapse of U.S. policy in Syria, which has become an even greater humanitarian emergency in the last month with the Russian and Iranian-led siege of Aleppo. Politically, the White House is working to elect Hillary Clinton as Obama’s successor.

Yet with a little more than three months left of his presidency, Israeli officials privately say they worry Obama intends to try to level the playing field between the Palestinians and Israelis before he leaves office. The threat of a last-minute speech, executive order, or U.N. action has stirred some of Israel’s friends in Washington. Last month, for example, 88 senators signed a letter to Obama urging him to restate “long-standing U.S. policy” to veto one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.

The Obama administration has not made such a statement. This week, however, White House spokesman Joshua Earnest “strongly condemned” Israel’s approval of 98 new housing units in the West Bank settlement of Shilo. A CBS correspondent noted that this phrasing is “usually reserved” for terrorist attacks.  More here.

**** So Israel put some assets into the system and worked to determine who, what and when such actions would happen. Since the UN vote, Israel says it has iron clad evidence of the United States complicity in the text for the vote.

****

Haaretz: he Egyptians distributed a Security Council resolution on the settlements last week, and demanded a vote within 24 hours, only to withdraw it after pressure from the prime minister’s bureau in Jerusalem and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump.

Israel’s UN ambassador, Ron Dermer, said Monday that Israel had evidence that the Obama administration was behind the wording of the resolution and had cooperated with the Palestinians behind Israel’s back. The document published on the Egyptian new site might be the evidence Israel has. On December 22, the day the original Security Council vote was to have taken place, the Israeli news site Walla published a report almost identical to the one on the Egyptian news site. Walla quoted a senior Israeli official as stating that in a meeting between Kerry and a Palestinian delegation to Washington headed by Palestinian Liberation Organization Secretary General Saeb Erekat, agreement was reached on the matter of a resolution against the settlements, and that Kerry said the United States would not veto it. More here.

****

What else was Israel watching?

On December 23, 2016, the UN General Assembly approved spending $138,700 to create a “database” of all companies that conduct business – directly or indirectly – relating to Israeli “settlements” in Arab-claimed territories. The idea of a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) blacklist came from a March 2016 resolution of the UN Human Rights Council. According to UN documentation, the $138,700 will be used “to pay for one staff member to create the database over a period of 8 months and present a report” to the Human Rights Council in March 2017. In other words, the December authorization backdated approval of an expenditure for an operation already underway.

When the General Assembly’s Budget Committee met to approve the UN budget, Israel proposed to delete approval specifically for funding the blacklist.The Committee rejected the Israeli amendment 6 in favor (Australia, Canada, Guatemala Israel, Palau and the United States), 151 against, with 6 abstentions (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Central African Republic, Georgia, Honduras and Ghana).

After Israel lost the vote on funding the BDS item, it declared it was “disassociating” from the General Assembly’s subsequent approval of the UN budget as a whole. Despite the U.S. voting against funding the blacklist initially, it voted in favor of the UN budget, and made no mention of any problem funding BDS.

Date
December 23, 2016
Title
Fifth Committee Vote on Israeli Proposed Oral Amendment to Resolution on Programme Budget Appropriations for 2016-2017 Biennium, UN Meeting Coverage
Original Source
https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/gaab4224.doc.htm
Attachment
Click here to view this document in MS Word/PDF format
Note
Israel’s oral amendment was rejected by a vote of 6 in favor (Australia, Canada, Guatemala Israel, Palau and the United States), 151 against, with 6 abstentions (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Central African Republic, Georgia, Honduras and Ghana)

****

So, here is Kerry on 12/28/2016 speaking while Obama is on vacation in Hawaii:

AP: Secretary of State John Kerry says that if Israel rejects a two-state solution for peace with the Palestinian people, “it can be Jewish or it can be democratic.”

Kerry was responding to withering Israeli criticism of the United States’ abstention from a vote condemning Israeli settlement construction. He reiterated the American position that a two-state solution giving both Israelis and Palestinians a home state is the best roadmap to peace. He also made it clear that despite recent differences in policy, the United States continues to be Israel’s closest ally.

Israel has been furious at the United States since the UN vote late last week. But Kerry said in a farewell speech at the State Department on Wednesday that the vote was “in keeping with” American values for democracy.

****

The full text of his speech is here, but while he ways that Israel has to be either Jewish or a democracy and not both, Kerry also suggests that Israel pay restitution to the Palestinians. In 2009, the United States gave Gaza $900 million, which is under the control of Abu Mazen.

 

More here.

Robby and Donna Lost it for Hillary, But now Those Trump Picks

Posted on by

As we approach the inauguration of Donald Trump in a few short weeks, reflecting on what happened and what will happen is a task readers should assume. Politics is a blood-sport, that is beyond dispute. Fake news is still going on out there and crazy websites are still getting read that produce articles out of pure conjecture and without facts or evidence.

This post is not about slamming anyone, it is about truth and offers up some lessons, especially when it comes to what we must continue to watch for in the near future.

When journalists do spend the time to perform interviews, look for documents, have transcripts and see actual dollars change hands, one must take notice. There are many in the media that in fact do a great job while often others do not and gaining attention to additional facts is cumbersome and difficult.

Hat tip to Politico for seeking some real answers as to who was responsible for Hillary losing Michigan. If it happened in Michigan it happened in the other battleground states. Seems the Hillary headquarters in Brooklyn never had a pulse on the nation’s electorate and when polling demonstrated figures that were not in Hillary’s favor, panic set in not only at the DNC, but at the state level and at the union support level. The one size fits all playbook as designed by Robby Mook did not work. Remarkable….Trump continued to edge his opponent, Hillary. The messaging was right for Trump however, is that process for his cabinet choices all he claims that it is? No.

There are some real lessons here for the whole American electorate and this speaks to what we need to beware of in coming days, weeks and months.

**** 

In part from Politico:

Everybody could see Hillary Clinton was cooked in Iowa. So when, a week-and-a-half out, the Service Employees International Union started hearing anxiety out of Michigan, union officials decided to reroute their volunteers, giving a desperate team on the ground around Detroit some hope.

They started prepping meals and organizing hotel rooms.

SEIU — which had wanted to go to Michigan from the beginning, but been ordered not to — dialed Clinton’s top campaign aides to tell them about the new plan. According to several people familiar with the call, Brooklyn was furious.

Turn that bus around, the Clinton team ordered SEIU. Those volunteers needed to stay in Iowa to fool Donald Trump into competing there, not drive to Michigan, where the Democrat’s models projected a 5-point win through the morning of Election Day.

Michigan organizers were shocked. It was the latest case of Brooklyn ignoring on the-ground intel and pleas for help in a race that they felt slipping away at the end. Read the full summary here, it is a fascinating read.

**** Now on to Donald….remember that swamp and that whole lobby thing he touted? Remember his words about pay to play? Sheesh…

**** Hat tip to the Center for Public Integrity:

Donald Trump rewarding million-dollar donors with plum postings

Ultra-rich loyalists populating president-elect’s administration, transition team

Update, Dec. 9, 2016, 2:22 p.m.: This story has been updated.

Donald Trump routinely blasts his political foes for “pay-to-play” politics and “crony capitalism and corruption.”

But Trump is now rewarding some of his biggest campaign bankrollers with unparalleled access, influence, prestige and power in his presidential administration-in-waiting, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of new campaign finance disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission.

In all, 18 ultra-wealthy Americans — the majority are billionaires whose fortunes are greatly affected by government decisions — contributed at least $1 million to the Republican’s presidential campaign and political efforts supporting Trump’s bid, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis shows.

At least one person on this list, former World Wrestling Entertainment executive Linda McMahon, is slated to serve in Trump’s Cabinet: Trump this week tapped McMahon to lead the federal government’s Small Business Administration. In addition to spending $6.2 million to support Trump’s presidential effort, she and husband Vince McMahon have together donated millions of dollars to Trump’s scandal-plagued charitable foundation.

Trump is also nominating six-figure contributors to cabinet-level positions: billionaire philanthropist Betsy DeVos as education secretary, restaurant mogul Andy Puzder as labor secretary and billionaire investor Wilbur Ross as commerce secretary. And four days before Election Day, Department of Housing and Urban Development secretary nominee Ben Carson’s old presidential campaign committee likewise gave a pro-Trump super PAC $100,000.

Another top backer, hedge fund manager Robert Mercer, gave $2 million to a pro-Trump super PAC he helped establish with his daughter, Rebekah Mercer, called “Make America Number 1.”

The father-daughter duo helped convince Trump to overhaul his campaign leadership in August and install operatives with close ties to the Mercer operation. They are now poised to play a leading role in a new organization designed to advance Trump’s legislative agenda. Rebekah Mercer is also a member of Trump’s presidential transition team executive committee.

In a sign of how much the Mercers have endeared themselves to the president-elect, Trump, on Saturday, made a surprise appearance at the Mercer’s “Villains and Heroes”-themed Christmas costume party on Long Island, New York.

Then there’s Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel, who gave $1 million to the Mercer-led, pro-Trump “Make America Number 1” super PAC during the presidential campaign’s final days, new federal campaign finance disclosures show.

One of the few tech titans to openly speak about his support for Trump, Thiel is now on the executive council of Trump’s presidential transition team.

Joe Ricketts, the billionaire founder of online brokerage TD Ameritrade who initially funded an anti-Trump super PAC, also earned Trump’s favor after contributing $1 million in September to pro-Trump super PAC “Future45.”

Ricketts son, Todd Ricketts, helped run “Future45.” Todd Ricketts is now Trump’s nominee for deputy commerce secretary.

Trump has given his No. 1 and No. 2 overall financial backers — casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson, and his wife, Miriam Adelson — new jobs since winning the presidency: They’re finance vice-chairmen of Trump’s inaugural committee, which is working to raise tens of millions of dollars to pay for his inauguration. It’s an event that itself promises top donors posh perks and exclusive access to Trump and his administration.

Sheldon Adelson — the chairman and CEO of the Las Vegas Sands Corp. — waited until late October to put big dollars into backing Trump. But both he and Miriam Adelson ultimately invested $10.2 million each into pro-Trump groups. The Adelsons are strong supporters of Israel and opponents of online gambling.

During the Republican presidential primary, Trump had accused Adelson of attempting to use his wealth to control Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who was also seeking the GOP presidential nomination.

Representatives from Trump’s transition team did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump has promised to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C. — an allusion to what he says is a capital city controlled by corrupt, self-interested lobbyists, political operatives and businesspeople.

On one hand, Trump can argue that many of his top donors are not creatures of Washington, D.C., but rather, successful outsiders he trusts to reform the federal government, said Meredith McGehee, chief of policy, programs and strategy for campaign finance reform organization Issue One.

On the other hand, Trump offering top donors key postings and intimate access “raises the question of whether they bought their positions,” she said.

In the end, Trump was the biggest single bankroller of his campaign. He ultimately contributed $66.1 million of his own funds to his presidential campaign — about 19 percent of the $339 million he ultimately raised for the primary and general elections, federal disclosures show.

Like all candidates, Trump’s campaign was prohibited from raising more than $5,400 per donor — $2,700 for the primary and $2,700 for the general election.

But a host of super PACs ultimately sprang up to support the billionaire businessman and celebrity reality TV star. And thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010, and a related lower court ruling, these groups are allowed to accept donations of any amount from contributors.

Trump also operated two joint fundraising groups with the Republican National Committee that could collect six-figure checks, money which was split between the Trump campaign, RNC and several state Republican parties.

Not all of Trump’s top donors have received key posting in Trump’s administration or transition team — yet.

Take Robert McNair, CEO of the Houston Texans, who doubled down on Trump in the final weeks of the election. According to new campaign finance filings, McNair contributed $2 million to a pro-Trump group called “Great America PAC” on Oct. 21.

But another football mogul — Woody Johnson, owner of the New York Jets and a major Trump donor — is a member of Trump’s inaugural committee. Trump is also reportedly considering Johnson for nomination as the United States’ ambassador to the United Kingdom.

Modern presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, have regularly offered top donors ambassadorships. Trump has offered no indication he will change this practice. Trump also has yet to begin doling out most ambassador positions.

Two other top Trump donors — billionaire Diane Hendricks, the richest woman in Wisconsin, and billionaire Stephen Feinberg, CEO and founder of investment firm Cerberus Capital Management — served as economic advisers to Trump during the campaign. It’s not yet clear whether either will have a more formal role in Trump’s administration.

Bernard Marcus, the billionaire co-founder of Home Depot, donated $7 million to pro-Trump super PACs, ranking him just behind the Adelsons in overall contributions. Marcus says he has no interest in a formal role with the Trump administration, but has said he will be available if Trump wants his advice.

Former Goldman Sachs executive Steve Mnuchin doesn’t rank among Trump’s top donors.

But Mnuchin, who as Trump’s top campaign fundraiser was responsible for convincing so many wealthy individuals to give Trump money, is also enjoying the spoils of victory.

Trump has nominated Mnuchin as his U.S. Treasury secretary.

Update, Dec. 9, 2016, 2:22 p.m.: This story has been updated to reflect that 18, not 17, ultra-wealthy Americans donated at least $1 million to pro-Trump efforts. A newly filed campaign finance report by pro-Trump super PAC “Great America PAC” showed that billionaire Marvel Entertainment CEO Isaac Perlmutter contributed $5 million to the group, adding him to the list. The same report showed that billionaire Dallas banker Andy Beal contributed $2 million to Great America PAC on Nov. 1, which increased his total contributions in the table.

Chris Zubak-Skees contributed to this report. For a graphic on who donated more than $1.0 million to Trump, go here.

 

 

Will Obama Burrow-in on the Trump Admin? Likely

Posted on by

A smooth and successful transfer of power on the surface perhaps…but beware of those in the shadows and lurking forever in dark hallways inside the beltway.

Primer: Obama tells anti-Trump protestors to march-on.

President Obama, speaking at a press conference in Germany, passed up the opportunity Thursday to tamp down the anti-Donald Trump protests back home — urging those taking part not to remain “silent.” 

The president fielded a question on the protests during a joint news conference in Berlin alongside German Chancellor Angela Merkel. 

“I suspect that there’s not a president in our history that hasn’t been subject to these protests,” he answered. “So, I would not advise people who feel strongly or who are concerned about some of the issues that have been raised during the course of the campaign, I wouldn’t advise them to be silent.” 

He added: “Voting matters, organizing matters and being informed on the issues matter.” 

Have you heard of the Senior Executive Service?

The Senior Executive Service (SES) lead America’s workforce. As the keystone of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the SES was established to “…ensure that the executive management of the Government of the United States is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Nation and otherwise is of the highest quality.” These leaders possess well-honed executive skills and share a broad perspective on government and a public service commitment that is grounded in the Constitution.

Members of the SES serve in the key positions just below the top Presidential appointees. SES members are the major link between these appointees and the rest of the Federal workforce. They operate and oversee nearly every government activity in approximately 75 Federal agencies.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) manages the overall Federal executive personnel program, providing the day-to-day oversight and assistance to agencies as they develop, select, and manage their Federal executives.

Obama by using his mighty pen and phone can covert some of his most trusted operatives to be permanent government employees, undermining the missions of the next administration. Let that sink in a moment.

****

Personnel—Political-to-Career Conversions (“Burrowing In”)

Some individuals, who are serving in appointed (noncareer) positions in the executive branch, convert to career positions in the competitive service, the Senior Executive Service (SES), or the excepted service. This practice, commonly referred to as “burrowing in,” is permissible when laws and regulations governing career appointments are followed. While such conversions may occur at any time, frequently they do so during the transition period when one Administration is preparing to leave office and another Administration is preparing to assume office.

Generally, these appointees were selected noncompetitively and are serving in such positions as Schedule C,  noncareer SES, or limited tenure SES24 that involve policy determinations or require a close and confidential relationship with the department or agency head and other top officials. Many of the Schedule C appointees receive salaries at the GS-12 through GS-15 pay levels. The noncareer and limited tenure members of the SES receive salaries under the pay schedule for senior executives that also covers the career SES.  Career employees, on the other hand, are to be selected on the basis of merit and without political influence following a process that is to be fair and open in evaluating their knowledge, skills, and experience against that of other applicants. The tenure of noncareer and career employees also differs. The former are generally limited to the term of the Administration in which they are appointed or serve at the pleasure of the person who appointed them. The latter constitute a work force that continues the operations of government without regard to the change of Administrations. In 2007, Paul Light, a professor of government at New York University who studied appointees over several Administrations, indicated that the pay, benefits, and job security of career positions underlie the desire of individuals in noncareer positions to “burrow in.”

Beyond the fundamental concern that the conversion of an individual from an appointed (noncareer) position to a career position may not have followed applicable legal and regulatory requirements, “burrowing in” raises other concerns. When the practice occurs, the following perceptions (whether valid or not) may result: that an appointee converting to a career position may limit the opportunity for other employees (who were competitively selected for their career positions, following examination of their knowledge, skills, and experience) to be promoted into another career position with greater responsibility and pay; or that the individual who is converted to a career position may seek to undermine the work of the new Administration whose policies may be at odds with those that he or she espoused when serving in the appointed capacity. Both perceptions may increase the tension between noncareer and career staff, thereby hindering the effective operation of government at a time when the desirability of creating “common ground” between these staff to facilitate government performance continues to be emphasized.28

Appointments to Career Positions

Appointments to career positions in the executive branch are governed by laws and regulations that are codified in Title 5 of the United States Code and Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, respectively. For purposes of both, appointments to career positions are among those activities defined as “personnel actions,” a class of activities that can be undertaken only in accordance with strict procedures. In taking a personnel action, each department and agency head is responsible for preventing prohibited personnel practices; for complying with, and enforcing, applicable civil service laws, rules, and regulations and other aspects of personnel management; and for ensuring that agency employees are informed of the rights and remedies available to them. Such actions must adhere to the nine merit principles and thirteen prohibited personnel practices that are codified at 5 U.S.C. §2301(b) and §2302(b), respectively. These principles and practices are designed to ensure that the process for selecting career employees is fair and open (competitive), and free from political influence.

Department and agency heads also must follow regulations, codified at Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, that govern career appointments. These include Civil Service Rules 4.2, which prohibits racial, political, or religious discrimination, and 7.1, which addresses an appointing officer’s discretion in filling vacancies. Other regulations provide that Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approval is required before employees in Schedule C positions may be detailed to competitive service positions, public announcement is required for all SES vacancies that will be filled by initial career appointment, and details to SES positions that are reserved for career employees (known as Career-Reserved) may only be filled by career SES or career-type non-SES appointees.

During the period June 1, 2016, through January 20, 2017, which is defined as the Presidential Election Period, certain appointees are prohibited from receiving financial awards. These

appointees, referred to as senior politically appointed officers, are (1) individuals serving in noncareer SES positions; (2) individuals serving in confidential or policy determining positions as Schedule C employees; and (3) individuals serving in limited term and limited emergency positions.

When a department or agency, for example, converts an employee from an appointed (noncareer) position to a career position without any apparent change in duties and responsibilities, or the new position appears to have been tailored to the individual’s knowledge and experience, such actions may invite scrutiny. OPM, on an ongoing basis, and GAO, periodically, conduct oversight related to conversions of employees from noncareer to career positions to ensure that proper procedures have been followed. More here from FAS.