Google+ Followers

Friday, March 17, 2017

Senate Liability for Deficient Approvals

Citizens have the right to demand accountability from Senators for executive appointee approvals.

The Senate is responsible for approving Presidential nominees to executive positions. Citizens must ask, by what process and standards do they accomplish this important task?  Having published How to Select an American President by James A. George with James A. Rodger (c) 2017 Archway Publishing, the recommended approach is directly applicable to evaluating Presidential nominees, as it is in evaluating candidates for the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives.

The process is akin to how citizens are evaluated by employers.
  1. Define and describe the job.
  2. Derive skill, knowledge, experience and proficiency requirements.
  3. Solicit resumes.
  4. Compare resume contents with the job description and requirements.
  5. Verify and validate the truthfulness of applicant claims.
  6. Approve or reject.

The Office of Personnel Management has a process for "hiring excellence" that should apply to recruiting, vetting, and staffing executive appointees. The trouble is that it is not used by the Senate, and only optionally considered by the President. That is wrong.

Executive Branch Rejections 
During the twentieth century, the Senate generally adhered to its tradition of confirming cabinet and other key executive nominees on the principle that presidents should be allowed a free hand in choosing their closest advisers. On only three occasions (1925, 1959, and 1989) did the Senate reject proposed cabinet officers, while other major executive nominees were specifically rejected fewer than thirty times." 
Throughout the nation's history, the Senate and the president have maintained a guarded relationship in their joint constitutional responsibility for appointments to major executive and judicial positions. Contrary to recurring claims that a nominee's philosophy or ideology traditionally have not been legitimate sources of Senate attention, senators have routinely considered these matters, even if they veiled their concerns in more acceptable objections over the nominee's ability and character. Among all appointments, those to the Supreme Court have assumed a far greater significance than those to lower judicial posts and executive positions. For these other posts, at both the national and state levels, the major value of the confirmation process has been to provide an airing of the nominee's views, to serve as a reference point against which to measure his or her future performance. Only in the most blatant instances of unsuitability have these lesser nominees been rejected."

Unacceptable. American citizens deserve better than to permit unprofessional consideration and evaluation of presidential appointment. There must be standards for doing this akin to that used to staff government professionals such as used by the Senior Executive Service, for instance.

See Reference:

The Office of Personnel Management

"Assessment & Selection
Job Analysis
Occupational Questionnaires
Structured Interviews
Other Assessment Methods
Designing an Assessment Strategy
Assessment Glossary 
Classification & Qualifications
Classifying General Schedule Positions
Classifying Federal Wage System Positions
General Schedule Qualification Policies
General Schedule Qualification Standards
Federal Wage System Qualifications
Appeal Decisions
Reference Materials"

Citizens have the right to demand greater accountability from the Senate for approving executive appointments.

Demand that Senators do their jobs.
Hold them accountable when they don't.

1 comment:

  1. The Republican-led Senate approved a rash of unqualified individuals and those who have conflicts of interest. The Senators warrant impeachment for their actions.