BRIDGES: BUILDING SOME AND BURNING OTHERS

Yale Journal on Regulation, 2022

The Trump administration was unusually aggressive in using an obscure set of tools to undo the Obama administration’s regulatory legacy: Congressional Review Act disapprovals, requests that courts hold in abeyance pending cases challenging Obama-era regulations, and suspensions of final regulations. These actions could be seen as part of the Trump administration norm breaking approach to regulatory policy, under which it also provided shoddy justifications for its actions, ignored statutory commands, and failed to comply with procedural requirements. There has been a general assumption that the norm-breaking was a result of the Trump administration’s lack of respect for the rule of law and that it would subside when a new administration took office. This Article challenges this assumption with respect to the manner in which presidential transitions are conducted, showing that the Trump-era toolkit on rollbacks has now also been used aggressively—in some cases more aggressively—by the Biden administration. Actions that might have been seen as an aberration four years ago should now be regarded as integral components of the administrative state. As a result, the nature of the presidency has changed in significant ways. A one-term president will likely not be able to implement much regulatory policy that is durable. And to do so, a president has a much shorter period during which regulations are likely to be protected from quick undoing by a successor of the opposite party, from roughly three-and-a-half years to about two years. The impact of this trend is particularly significant because, during the current era of congressional gridlock, presidents rely on regulations as the primary way in which to implement their domestic policy programs.

2005

Oxford Handbooks Online, 2009

Since President George Washington first relinquished his office to incoming President John Adams in 1797, this peaceful transition, symbolizing both continuity and change, has demonstrated the stability of our system of government. Aside from the symbolic transfer of power, an orderly transition from the outgoing Administration to the incoming Administration is essential to ensure continuity in the working affairs of government. Necessary funding for both the incoming and outgoing Administrations is authorized by the Presidential Transition Act, as amended. The General Services Administration (GSA) is authorized to provide suitable office space, staff compensation, communications services, and printing and postage costs associated with the transition.

Journal of Management Inquiry, 2012

A presidential administration transition is a crucial time for establishing an effective governance style and reflects the president's own personality. Presidents are concerned with building a coherent, cohesive team as they move from their electoral victory to implementing their vision for the country through legislative successes. A successful president displays an entrepreneurial mind-set as he proceeds throughout his 1st year to achieve early legislative victories, which establish the president as an effective president. This entrepreneurial approach requires cold-blooded politics and eschews inordinate concern for individuals, issues, and policies, and, this entrepreneurial approach is predicated on nimble governance and shrewd implementation. Nimble governance is choosing among alternative priorities, avoiding blunders, and maneuvering in the face of opposition. Shrewd implementation results in a few, carefully selected initiatives that are announced early, lobbied energetically, enacted swiftly, and executed boldly. These criteria are applied to the inaugural year of the Clinton presidency.

Presidential Studies Quarterly, 1983

II. The Lame-Duck Eleven Weeks Policy direction and control can come to a presidential administration only after the inauguration on January 20th. But the groundwork for the takeover of power must begin well before November, and be under way in earnest immediately after the election. The foundation for the tran 623 624 I PRESIDENTIAL STUDIES QUARTERLY sition is laid during the lame-duck eleven weeks between election and inauguration. As the outgoing administration ties up loose ends, the President-Elect scrambles to put together a governing team, and the bureaucracy slips into neutral gear while it awaits its new bosses. The Outgoing Administration After the election new policy initiatives stop as agencies become reluctant to make agreements that may become moot on January 20. The outgoing administration is usually sensitive to the need to give the incoming President as clean a slate as pos sible. On the other hand, there is a flurry to complete those policy decisions well underway so that they cannot be easily re versed by the new people. One example of this was the litigation over the Profes sional and Administrative Career Exam ination (PACE), the professional level en try examination that had been challenged in court as discriminatory. The Justice Department and the Office of Personnel Management were handling the case, and in the final days of the Carter administra tion, negotiated a consent decree that committed OPM to develop Civil Service entrance examinations that did not have a discriminatory impact on minority groups.2 While the outgoing Carter offi cials felt they were minimizing the cost to the government and still upholding the spirit of non-discrimination, the Reagan people felt they made an eleventh hour deal that committed the government to a form of reverse discrimination. A major concern of all newly elected administrations is that the outgoing ad ministration will attempt to seed the bu reaucracy with its own people, either to save their jobs or to leave behind people sympathetic to the old and hostile to the new administration's goals. One way this can be done is to have people who entered the government as political appointees converted to career status in the Civil Ser vice or to career Senior Executive Service appointments. In the past this could be done wholesale and was.called "blanketing in." It oc curred when a President staffed a new agency with officials from his own party, and then issued an executive order that put the personnel of the new agency under the jurisdiction of the merit system and under Civil Service rules. The next admin istration thus could not throw out the po litical appointees upon taking office, and could remove them only for cause through cumbersome Civil Service procedures. Most presidents since the Pendleton Act was passed in 1883 to World War II en gaged in this practice to a greater or lesser extent. This option is no longer readily avail able to presidents, but individual political appointees can try to immunize them selves from being ousted by the next ad ministration by getting for themselves "career status" with all the attendant pro cedural protections of the Civil Service. This maneuver is called "burrowing in." On January 4, 1980 OPM sent out FPM (Federal Personnel Manual) Bulletin 273-18 to remind agencies that during election years they ought to "carefully re view all personnel actions to be certain they meet all civil service rules and regula tions and also that these actions are free of any stjgma of impropriety." The bulle tin urged agency personnel directors to re view carefully any actions that would place incumbents of positions in the ex cepted service in the competitive service.3 In a follow-up Operations Letter to OPM officials on September 17, 1980 it was re iterated that "before any competitive staffing action is initiated involving a con version of an excepted service employee" it should be ascertained that there is a "bonafide vacancy" and that, "In no in stance should vacancies be announced solely to convert an excepted service em ployee to a position in the competitive ser vice."4 Despite OPM policy there were some attempted conversions of political ap pointees to the career service. OPM inves tigated 43 conversions in three agencies during the transition period and con cluded that 13 were improper. Conver sions are legitimate if there is a genuine competitive selection process or if the em ployee had a prior competitive service ap pointment. Not all conversions are at tempts to "burrow in." The General Ac

2009

Many think of leadership transition in government as something that happens only once every four or eight years. While presidential transitions are undoubtedly the largest in scope, leadership transition in government is a constant process. In fact, the average tenure of Senate-confirmed appointees is only 3.3 years, while appointees at executive departments generally spend only 2.8 years in a single post.In a federal government made up of departments and agencies as large and complex as any Fortune 500 company, a strong leadership team is critical to effective governance. Members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) serve as the primary link between political appointees and the broader federal workforce, operating and overseeing nearly every government activity. They play a significant role during leadership transitions, ensuring the continuity of operations within government. Members of the SES are also uniquely positioned to help incoming political leaders build on the positive ...

NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 2020

Illusions and Realities: the Metamorphosis of Civil Society in a New European Space, 1999

This article uses a case example of a public sector CEO transition to comment on the impact of gender and leadership style on leadership transition in times of organisational reform and upheaval.

Index on Censorship, 2003