ProPublica: Vacancies pile up in Obama administration

Responsibility apparently shared by president and Republican lawmakers
Tom Jackson
Mar 4, 2013

 

 

By THEODORIC MEYER
ProPublica, Feb. 27 2013
 
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services haven’t had a Senate-confirmed administrator since 2006. The Federal Labor Relations Authority has had only a single member since January and can’t issue decisions. And the Election Assistance Commission hasn’t had any commissioners at all since 2011.
All presidential administrations have vacancies. But an analysis of appointments data by ProPublica shows that President Obama hasn’t kept up with his predecessors in filling them. A greater share of presidentially appointed positions that require Senate confirmation were sitting vacant at the end of Obama’s first term than at the end of Bill Clinton’s or George W. Bush’s first terms.
At least 68 of the positions remain vacant, including 43 that have been vacant for more than a year.
The vacancies have been spread across dozens of different departments and agencies, with some hit harder than others.  At the Department of the Interior, for instance, six of its 18 appointed positions were vacant at the end of Obama’s first term. The department had three vacancies midway through Clinton’s presidency and only one midway through Bush’s.
The lack of appointed leaders can create problems. Too many vacancies can put agencies “in stand-down, waiting for policymakers to show up,” said Terry Sullivan, a political science professor at the University of North Carolina who has studied appointments.
Acting heads of agencies “don’t make any big decisions,” said Cal Mackenzie, a professor of government at Colby College who has studied appointments since the 1970s. “Your authority is not going to be recognized in the same way a Senate-confirmed appointee is going to be recognized.”
Overall, more than 13 percent of presidentially appointed positions hadn’t been filled at the end of Obama’s first term, compared with around 10 percent for Bush and 11 percent for Clinton. While the uptick compared with the Bush administration may sound small, it translates into dozens more vacant positions.
The data comes from the Plum Book, a directory of federal appointees released every four years. (We started looking at the data after it was flagged by the New York Times’ Derek Willis.) The data doesn’t include the vast majority of judicial appointments, for which vacancies have also risen under Obama.
The White House’s Office of Presidential Personnel didn’t respond to a request for comment.
So who’s to blame for the unfilled positions?
“I think President Obama bears some responsibility and the Senate bears some responsibility,” said Anne Joseph O’Connell, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, whose research shows that Obama filled fewer positions in departments and executive agencies in his first year in the White House than any of the last four presidents.
Obama has been slower to make appointments, she said, and the Senate slower to confirm them.
Republicans have increasingly created roadblocks for nominees.
For instance, Senate Republicans blocked Obama’s nominees to the Election Assistance Commission — an agency charged with aiding voting that House Republicans voted to get rid of in 2011.
And Chuck Hagel this month became the only the fifth cabinet nominee to face a filibuster. (It was Democrats, however, who first toughened up the confirmation process, under Republican presidents in the 1970s and 1980s.)
At the same time, the number of positions the president must appoint has swelled. Obama signed a bill in August that removed the Senate confirmation requirement from some 166 positions, but the president still must fill over 1,000 appointed positions — a task that can prove overwhelming.
Clay Johnson, a Republican who headed the Presidential Personnel Office director under George W. Bush, said there simply are not enough White House staff to select and vet nominees, especially in the early days of an administration. Senate clashes over appointments, in his view, are less of a problem.
“There is little dispute that the current nominations process has grown too cumbersome and complicated, in some cases discouraging qualified individuals from seeking leadership positions,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, said on the House floor when the bill passed.
Despite the recent efforts to reform appointments, the growing fierceness of Senate confirmation battles has fueled worries that it might get harder to find qualified nominees willing to endure them.
Consider William Boarman, whom Obama tapped to lead the Government Printing Office in 2010.
Boarman, a former printer, had headed the printing, publishing and media workers section of the Communications Workers of America union when he was nominated. He had advised the White House on choosing the next public printer — as the head of the GPO is known — before they offered him the nomination. He cleared the Senate Rules and Administration Committee unanimously in July 2010.
“I thought it was going to a cakewalk,” he said of the confirmation process.
But Boarman’s nomination failed to come up for a vote. (Roll Call reported that a senator had placed a hold on it.) Obama circumvented the delay by giving Boarman a recess appointment while the Senate was away in December, allowing him to take the post while the administration nominated him a second time.
As public printer, Boarman took steps to modernize the agency and cut its costs. He slashed bonuses — “which were being paid pretty liberally when I got there,” he said — offered buyouts to workers and introduced the GPO’s first e-books.
Boarman’s recess appointment lasted only until the end of Congress’s current session, however.
Obama had nominated Boarman again in January 2011, but his nomination continued to languish in the Senate. As Roll Call first reported, Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, both Republicans, were holding up Boarman’s nomination because they were unhappy that a nominee to the National Labor Relations Board had not been confirmed by the Senate.
Boarman’s nomination never came up for a vote. He turned on C-SPAN on Dec. 17, the last day Boarman could be confirmed, and found out he was out of a job.
The GPO is now run by the acting public printer, Davita Vance-Cooks, whom Boarman has hired after he arrived. But he said he doesn’t think an acting head can lead as effectively as a Senate-confirmed one.
“When you’re a political appointee,” Boarman said, “you feel that you’re empowered” to make the kind of changes that Boarman made when he arrived. “I don’t think you can do that as an acting,” he added.
Boarman, who left his well-paid union position to serve as public printer and is now retired, said he worried that the arduous confirmation process would make it hard to find good candidates: “If this continues to happen — and I have no reason to believe that it won’t — people aren’t going to serve.”
Correction: This story mistakenly stated that Democrats had filibustered the two previous cabinet nominees to face a filibuster. In fact, Ronald Reagan’s nominee for commerce secretary in 1987, C. William Verity, was filibustered by Republicans over his views on trade with the Soviet Union. And according to Sarah Binder, a George Washington University professor who has studied the filibuster, the tactic has been used against five cabinet nominees.
ProPublica’s Cora Currier contributed reporting to this story. 
(ProPublica offers "Journalism in the Public Interest." This story also is available here. )
 

Comments

The Big Dog's back

Repubs are like the wrench that was tossed into the gears.

Erie County Resident

Spin it all you want poochie..
"(It was Democrats, however, who first toughened up the confirmation process, under Republican presidents in the 1970s and 1980s.)"
Who threw the first wrench??? LOL

coasterfan

I concur with Big Dog. When the GOP begins filibustering their OWN bills, as Mitch McConnell recently did, you have a template for dysfunctional government.

arnmcrmn

Wow, imagine that...Big Dogs puppet concurring with him. You two are the same exact poster.

luvblues2

Good. I WANT it to shut down. This way of doing things isn't working.

The Big Dog's back

Repubs hate Gov. They don't want it to work.

Contango

So the Dems want it bloated, bigger and more intrusive eh Pumpkin?

eriemom

You can't complain that government doesn't work well when there is nobody in the positions. Case in point. Don't complain that there is less drilling when there is nobody in charge at the Interior Department.

Contango

@ eriemom:

What "less drilling"?

The U.S. is on the verge of being self-sufficent in oil and nat-gas. Been listening to the media?

coasterfan

Nice try Contango. When it comes to intrusive government, NOTHING will ever top Republican politicians who championed mandatory invasive vaginal probe ultrasounds for women seeking abortions. Unfortunately, that's not a rogue example of the many ways that the party tries to forces itself into people's private lives, their bedrooms and/or underwear. Shall we have a little discussion about Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock, perhaps.

Contango

@ coasterfan:

Don't you support socialism? End of story...

deertracker

What do you want pooh???? Gary who?

Contango

Well I sure as H*ll wasn't goin' to vote for "Obamney."

The central bank can't keep this economy propped up forever. Hang in the Pumpkin.

arnmcrmn

No we just hate handouts to lazy people.

luvblues2

Who do you reckon that would have the first chance of taking these United States over, given the fact that our gov't failed?

Be grown up about it and just don't say the first thing that wants to fly outta your mouth. Give it thought.

luvblues2

I can't wait for the day that the lunatic fringe takes over. That will be some fun...for a few days, anyway.

"Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs
Got to keep the loonies on the path"

Darwin's choice

"Barry's going home".....http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/0...

2cents's picture
2cents

Obozo just wants to be a DICKtator, he is just waiting all of it out in big hopes of running the show himself!

coasterfan

It's easy to spot a wingnut. Obama is already leader of the greatest country in the world, so there is no higher position for which he pines. The wingnuts think he is a socialist/Kenyan who wants to take away their guns and liberties. Most of the rest of us see him for what he is, a moderate Democrat, who (if anything) occasionally angers his supporters by being TOO centrist.

2cents's picture
2cents

(Moderate Democrat)
Oxymoron of the day, emphasis on moron.
Here is a wingnut, where this country is headed. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_...

deertracker

OMG!!!!!!!!! Are those concentration camps I see?

Contango

Not yet Punkin'; that was FDR, another Democrat with a messiah complex.

coasterfan

LOL!!! You wish you could name a GOP president in the last century who did as much for Americans and America as FDR...

Contango

@ coasterfan:

But you don't deny that he had a messiah complex? lol

rickross2

I can't wait til Obama's position is vacant. I'm still flabbergasted he's alive at this point.

The Big Dog's back

What's that mean?

coasterfan

Yeah, it's scary how many righting hate groups and nutcases there are out there. CNN has an article on that very subject today. But why would you be waiting for Obama to leave office? It's not like a majority of Americans wants to sign on to the Republican brand, since they continue to ostracize large swaths of the American public. There simply aren't enough angry white men to help the GOP carry an election, and each year, more of their angry old constituents die off.

The Big Dog's back

Yes. G.O.P. Grumpy Old white People.

Darwin's choice

The buck's waiting for you.....

goofus

Yes Deertracker they are in Cleveland, Findlay, and Columbus.
http://digitaljournal.com/articl...

The Hamburglar

Man you had me going until I got to the end and saw this was the next story:
http://m.digitaljournal.com/arti...
The secret alien pyramid in Amherst was a good read too. Digital Journal an interesting site though, and worth a look.

deertracker

Glad I don't live in those cities!

arnmcrmn

Obama just failing this nation on all levels...how surprising.

coasterfan

Not really. He has accomplished more in 4+ years than his predecessor did in 8. The fact that the opposing party refuses to acknowledge any successes doesn't mean they didn't occur. And that, of course, is why well informed voters re-elected him. You are entitled to disagree (I would expect nothing less, since the GOP's motivation isn't to solve problems as much as it is to #1 get their guy elected and #2 be obstructive at all times with Obama. I often wonder how much more he might have accomplished, if Republicans weren't always paddling in the opposite direction, out of sheer spite.

Darwin's choice

Please, do you really drown yourself every day in koolade before blathering on here about your messiah? So,how's that budget coming from 4 years ago?

goofus

And your children get his daily babble ad nauseum!!!!! W@hy don't you quote from coasterfan media.com and give us one or two of Obozo's accomplishments on say the economy!!!! Don't say Lilly Bedwetter because President Bounell doesn't even pay his own women as much as men!

arnmcrmn

@Cosaterfan. What accomplishment you damn moron? Unemployment....higher. Welfare....higher. Debt....higher. Jobs....fewer. Taxes..higher. What accomplishments? What real accomplishments. Bush set up the exit strategy and all the work to capture an kill bin laden so that's a moot point. Drink your kool aid sheep

deertracker

Your taxes are not higher. Unemployment is down from when he took office. How is welfare higher? He ended the war in Iraq. He took care of bin Laden. He enacted the ACA like it or not. He got rid of that stupid don't ask don't tell, and on and on. If your Con clown friends would do their job his accomplishments would be more plentiful. Bush did not set up Jack. Sounds like you have overdosed on tea.

Contango

deertracker writes:

Unemployment is down from when he took office.

Jan. 2009: 7.8%

Jan. 2013: 7.9%

Guess not.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/L...

Darwin's choice

Really? Deertracker, You might want to do a little research! Your obama-ism is showing...

Darwin's choice

Here you go...•Dow Jones Industrial Average: Then 14164.5; Now 14164.5
•Regular Gas Price: Then $2.75; Now $3.73
•GDP Growth: Then +2.5%; Now +1.6%
•Americans Unemployed (in Labor Force): Then 6.7 million; Now 13.2 million
•Americans On Food Stamps: Then 26.9 million; Now 47.69 million
•Size of Fed's Balance Sheet: Then $0.89 trillion; Now $3.01 trillion
•US Debt as a Percentage of GDP: Then ~38%; Now 74.2%
•US Deficit (LTM): Then $97 billion; Now $975.6 billion
•Total US Debt Oustanding: Then $9.008 trillion; Now $16.43 trillion
•US Household Debt: Then $13.5 trillion; Now 12.87 trillion
•Labor Force Particpation Rate: Then 65.8%; Now 63.6%
•Consumer Confidence: Then 99.5; Now 69.6
•S&P Rating of the US: Then AAA; Now AA+
•VIX: Then 17.5%; Now 14%
•10 Year Treasury Yield: Then 4.64%; Now 1.89%
•EURUSD: Then 1.4145; Now 1.3050
•Gold: Then $748; Now $1583
•NYSE Average LTM Volume (per day): Then 1.3 billion shares; Now 545 million shares

arnmcrmn

deer......wow, I didn't know you wrote my paycheck? yes my taxes are higher from when he took office 4 years ago. I should know, I write my check every other week. DERPPPPPP!!!!!

Bush had the removal plan set in place, Obama just followed through...it wasn't his idea. You just are such a dang fool you can't even look at the facts and believe them. This is what is wrong with our nation. Fools like you with Obie blinders on..

Heres the wiki link to the deadline withdrawal deer....once again you are wrong....not surprising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wit... American military forces were mandated to withdraw from Iraqi territory by 31 December 2011 under the terms of a bilateral agreement signed in 2008 by President Bush. The U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq was completed on 18 December 2011 early Sunday morning.[5]

Try researching before you make posts again. No credibility at all = deertracker.

Darwin's choice

-