The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Should the Civil Service be Abolished?

In the early 19th century, positions in the federal government were held at the pleasure of the president—a person could be fired at any time. Known as the Spoils System this meant that jobs were used to support the American political parties, though this was gradually changed by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 and subsequent laws. By 1909, almost two-thirds of the U.S. federal workforce was appointed based on merit, that is, qualifications measured by tests. Certain senior civil service positions, including some heads of diplomatic missions and executive agencies, are filled by political appointees. Under the Hatch Act of 1939 civil servants are not allowed to engage in political activities while performing their duties. In some cases, an outgoing administration will give its political appointees positions with civil service protection in order to prevent them from being fired by the new administration; this is known as "burrowing" in civil service jargon.

At the time of its founding and the subsequent laws, rules, and regulations were codified the “United States federal civil service” was a good idea, as the spoils system was an ineffective means of running a government. But it was built on a presumption. A presumption that civil service employees would be responsive to Executive authority and policy and would put the interests of the people of the United States above their own interests. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case.

Today, the Civil Service laws, rules, and regulations are so cumbersome and burdensome that they are used as a shield to protect civil servants. It is so difficult to discipline a civil servant for incompetence or insubordination that it is only rarely ever done. It can take years and copious paperwork and time-consuming hearings to discipline or dismiss a civil servant. Indeed, I was once told by a high-ranking civil servant that the only grounds for a quick dismissal of a civil servant were sleeping on the job or engaging in sexual acts on the job. Otherwise, the time and effort required to discipline or dismiss a civil servant were so substantial it was not worth the effort. And today's civil servants know this and utilize these laws, rules, and regulations to protect themselves and their jobs from disciplinary or dismissal actions.

This also allows a civil servant to effectively ignore directions from policymakers that they may disagree with. Slow walking, work-to-rule, excessive clarification requests, and sometimes simply disregarding directives become a common tactic for a civil servant to “resist” a policy they disagree with. They often know if they can delay, they can wait out an administration until a new administration takes over. A new administration that is more to their liking. As most civil servants are of a liberal/progressive bent, a bent that enlarges government with more civil service jobs. they are generally supportive of Democrat politicians as the Democrat Party is more attune to a larger government that increases and protects civil servant jobs. As such, this resistance is often against Republican Party objectives and policies. These activities by civil servants are dangerous to democracy as they become unresponsive to the will of the people as expressed through elections. And this must end!

With the growth of the federal bureaucracy in the 20^th century and the number of federal employees (approximately 2.1 million), these civil servants have become a political block that can influence elections. And their main influence is on voting for Democrat politicians that will increase and protect civil service jobs. Almost no Democrat politician wants to stand-up to or oppose them fearing that it may cost them their election or reelection. This is pernicious as it prevents the necessary reforms of the civil service laws, rules, and regulations to end these tactics by civil servants.

And the civil service laws, rules, and regulations need a complete overhaul to eliminate these tactics by civil servants. A civil servant needs protection from capriciousness by Executive officers, but also needs to be responsive to Executive authority and policy. They are not the deciders of policy, but the implementors of policy. Anything else makes them “civil rulers” rather than “civil servants”.