Schedule F: Let’s Deprofessionalize Government and Make America Irrelevant AgainBy Dennis Jett - Jan-Feb FSJ Edition
The
20th president of the United States had been in office only four months
when he was shot by an assassin. He would no doubt be astounded if he
knew that what his death helped accomplish may be undone in the 21st
century. That would be the effect of Republican efforts to vastly
increase the number of political appointees in government and gut the
protections for civil servants against being fired for purely political
reasons. A bill sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) would help
prevent that, but as of late November, it remains to be seen whether it
will be enacted.
A little history helps explain why this matters
and why such efforts would return American government to a 19th-century
level of competence and capability. When James A. Garfield moved into
the White House in 1881, the federal government operated almost entirely
on a system of patronage. Anyone who helped get the president elected
could line up for a cabinet position, a diplomatic posting, or any other
federal job, because they were all up for grabs.
One of those in
that line was Charles Guiteau. He asked to be named minister in Austria
(that was the highest rank in an embassy; it would be another dozen
years before the first American diplomat was given the title of
ambassador). When that request was rejected, he said he would settle for
vice consul in Paris. At that point, tired of his pleading, Secretary
of State James G. Blaine told him he would get nothing because he had
done nothing to help Garfield get elected.
Not taking rejection
lightly, Guiteau stalked Garfield until he found him in Washington
waiting to board a train. Since presidents went around without any
security at that time, it was easy for Guiteau to walk up to Garfield
and shoot him twice. Today, the wounds would have been serious but not
life threatening. Thanks to the limits of 19th-century medicine,
however, Garfield’s slow and painful death came two months later.
The
murder of the president by a patronage seeker prompted Congress to act
on reforming the government’s hiring practices. That, plus the
realization that as America increasingly began to play a significant
role on the world stage, it needed a government capable of supporting
the country’s ambitions and interests. It needed professionals.
The Pendleton Act
The
result was passage of the Pendleton Act, which set up a system in which
civil servants were hired after competitive exams and promoted on the
basis of merit. Once employed, they also had the prospect of having a
career in government, which provided an incentive to stay in its
service.
The other reason for reform was the fact that filling
all the jobs had become too big a burden. During the 19th century, the
number of federal employees grew dramatically from fewer than 20,000 to
more than 130,000. Industrialization and increasing international trade
required having bureaucrats with specialized skills. The Pendleton Act
covered only about 10 percent of the federal workforce, but it was a
start. The act did not, however, cover the diplomatic service.
A
couple decades later, Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard
Taft saw the need for the same standards to be applied to diplomats. In
1912, President Taft explained the importance of that in his State of
the Union report. (At that point, most presidents provided a written
document to Congress rather than giving a speech before it, so the
following does not read like a series of applause lines.) Taft wrote:
“At
the beginning of the present administration the United States, having
fully entered upon its position as a world power, with the
responsibilities thrust upon it by the results of the Spanish-American
War, and already engaged in laying the groundwork of a vast foreign
trade upon which it should one day become more and more dependent, found
itself without the machinery for giving thorough attention to, and
taking effective action on, a mass of intricate business vital to
American interests in every country in the world.
“The Department
of State was an archaic and inadequate machine lacking most of the
attributes of the foreign office of any great modern power. Expert
knowledge and professional training must evidently be the essence of
this reorganization. President Cleveland had taken the first step toward
introducing the merit system in the foreign service. That had been
followed by the application of the merit principle, with excellent
results, to the entire consular branch. Almost nothing, however, had
been done in this direction with regard to the Diplomatic Service.
“Therefore,
by an Executive Order I placed the Diplomatic Service up to the grade
of secretary of embassy, inclusive, upon exactly the same strict
nonpartisan basis of the merit system, rigid examination for appointment
and promotion only for efficiency, as had been maintained without
exception in the Consular Service.”
A Professional Foreign Service
Not
all presidents shared Taft’s concern. Ironically, under the president
most associated with international affairs, Woodrow Wilson, the
professionalization of the State Department did not advance. Besides
Wilson’s attitude, it was hindered by the expectation that ambassadors
would cover the entire cost of representational entertaining. That
prompted Wilson to name several men to key posts who were noteworthy
mainly for their wealth.
Following the end of World War I,
Congress decided to legislate the professionalization of the diplomatic
corps instead of leaving it entirely up to the president.
As the
short history on the State Department’s website explains: “After the war
ended, Congress completed the pre-war movement toward a fully
professional and democratic Foreign Service. In 1924, the Rogers Act
fundamentally reformed the foreign services by establishing a career
organization based on competitive examination and merit promotion.” The
Foreign Service Act of 1980, prompted by the corruption of the Nixon
administration, reenforced further the protections afforded career
diplomats.
The purpose of all this history is to show that there
is a long line of political leaders who appreciated the value of a Civil
Service and Foreign Service largely composed of professional, career
people.
They understood that government could not serve the
country effectively if there were a massive turnover in federal
employees every time a new occupant was in the White House. They also
knew that America could not play a significant role in the world if the
only requirement for a government job was loyalty to the president. It
is bad enough that the United States is the only country in the world
that sells the title of ambassador in exchange for campaign
contributions. To vastly increase the number of government officials who
obtained their job solely because they helped get the president elected
would confirm in the eyes of the world that America should not be taken
seriously.
A Resurrection of “Schedule F”?
Today, it is clear
that the importance of the professionalization of government that
brought an end to the 19th-century spoils system commands no respect in
some quarters. According to media reports, people around the previous
president are busy planning the resurrection of “Schedule F,” the
executive order issued by Donald Trump and promptly rescinded by
President Joe Biden. It would strip any official who has anything to do
with policy of any real career protections or due process. Government
employees could essentially be fired at will or even on a whim.
The
jobs placed on Schedule F would be all “positions of a confidential,
policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character not
normally subject to change as a result of a Presidential transition.”
That definition could cover as many as 50,000 positions. Trump has said
he would reinstitute Schedule F in a second term.
Well-funded
groups are reported to be developing lists of candidates to fill the
jobs listed under Schedule F by building databases of people who are
“vetted as being committed to Trump and his agenda.” These groups are
often staffed by former Trump aides and include the Center for Renewing
America, the America First Policy Institute, the Conservative
Partnership Institute, and the Heritage Foundation.
Even more
jaw-dropping than Schedule F is H.R. 8550, a bill introduced in the
House last July by Representative Chip Roy of Texas and 14 Republican
co-sponsors: Bob Good (Va.), Andy Harris (Md.), Mary Miller (Ill.), Troy
Nehis (Texas), Michael Cloud (Texas), Roger Williams (Texas), Lance
Gooden (Texas), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Bob Gibbs (Ohio), Jeff Duncan
(S.C.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), Byron Donalds (Fla.), Ken Buck (Colo.),
and Lauren Boebert (Colo.). Called the Public Service Reform Act, it
should really be titled the Public Service Extermination Act. It would
make all federal jobs “at will,” all 2 million of them. That would quite
simply return the United States to a mid-19th-century style of
governance and the squalor of the spoils system.
The proposed
legislation makes its intent clear. It literally states that any
employee of the executive branch “may be subject to any adverse
personnel action (up to and including removal) for good cause, bad
cause, or no cause at all; and may not challenge or otherwise appeal
such action.” No appeals by someone who was fired would be allowed
except in the cases of whistleblowers or those who believe they were
victims of discrimination. But the process is set up in a way to ensure
those appeals would fall on deaf ears.
“Good cause, bad cause, or
no cause at all.” It is not clear whether the 15 representatives behind
H.R. 8550 introduced it as a sick joke or because they actually think
it deserves serious consideration.
Who would want to serve in
government knowing they could be fired at any moment on any pretext
without any recourse? Not only Garfield, but Roosevelt, Taft, Cleveland,
and many other presidents must be turning in their graves. Charles
Giteau, on the other hand, is surely enjoying the show.