Schedule F and career SES EOs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:National Treasury Employees Unions files suit against the Schedule F EO:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-sued-over-schedule-f-order-targeting-federal-employees/ar-AA1xBFwb?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And the judge assigned to the case is a Biden appointee.

They'll have a good case too. Biden put the prior rule through APA rule making, so Trump can't just revoke with an EO. He has to go through rule making too. He didn't do that, so easy case. Trump can probably eventually make this change, but it's going to take him a year or so. And now it will be longer because he tried to skip the process.

This is what I thought. They can't just automatically put Schedule F into place because we still have notice and comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m SES. I read the EO and I don’t see the big deal. I mean sure, we are getting some unwanted attention. There are a couple aspects that are eyebrow raising, but noting that I feel alarmed about.

+1

for you SES saying it's all fine, what happens when you provide an opinion or news that is counter to what the administration would like to hear? Even if what you are saying is true and based on statistics/research? If you won't regurgitate the message, it appears they can fire you for that.

I worked really well with my political under the last Trump administration. And I did NOT vote for the man and certainly did not this time around either. I don’t desire to have contentious relationships with my peers or bosses. When I disagreed or had a different perspective, I didn’t fight them head on. I usually went off and did my research. Thought of alternative approaches and usually went back and had a 1:1 meet. Instead of framing my disagreement as a “I disagree,” I usually started with something like “I’d like to discuss a bit more the approach for achieving x objective.” I would layout a couple options. If I heard discussion about something against existing law or best practices, I’d say “I thought about that approach, but I settled on these options because This will keep us out of trouble with the OIG, GAO, union etc. sometimes the political was not thrilled. But they thought I had their back. I always try to find a way I can achieve the policy objective without violating law or putting undue burden on the staff. Also, my job is not soul sucking - like splitting up migrant families and putting kids in cages. If I were in those roles I would have suggested a more humane way of accomplishing that policy objective. The stuff I dealt with was “no more climate change talk,” and “focus more on rural vs urban.” In both cases, I usually suggested approaches that carried out the policy objective but did NOT obliterate important climate or urban community work. I just made sure the majority of what was being done was no climate and rural. And I would frame the results around the policy objective. I wouldn’t mention the other stuff, even though parts of our programs included climate change activities and support for urban communities. So my political was always Able to tout success and I knew that we were still doing good work where it needed to be done. So I agree with the poster that said a political ally savvy SESer can navigate these waters. And I’m well aware that this round of political will likely be a bit more savage that last round. I just met my acting political this morning. I feel like I can work with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m SES. I read the EO and I don’t see the big deal. I mean sure, we are getting some unwanted attention. There are a couple aspects that are eyebrow raising, but noting that I feel alarmed about.

+1

for you SES saying it's all fine, what happens when you provide an opinion or news that is counter to what the administration would like to hear? Even if what you are saying is true and based on statistics/research? If you won't regurgitate the message, it appears they can fire you for that.

At my old agency the rule of thumb was we told the political appointees the truth one time, "No I think that is wrong for these reasons....". If they insist on following their policy/orders then we keep our mouths shut and do what they ask. Most of the appointees in the last Trump admin were pretty smart and listened to good advice. Sometimes they changed their minds after a few months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bet the Trumpers will be thrilled when Dems eventually use this to their advantage someday.

They already have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the agencies I have worked at the SES have been highly professional. But at one agency some of them were mini-Democrat party apparatchiks. One of them told me back in 2018, "We won't do a single thing Trump orders." SES like that give all of them a bad name.

Oh are we telling anecdotes? Because I have PLENTY of those from Republican appointees under W and Trump.

This was a career SES, not a political appointee.

Your only anecdote was a person saying they wouldn’t do a single thing Trump orders. No context for what this means. For all we know, you work at DHS and this was about putting kids in cages.

No, the conversation was initially was about doing something reasonable and good for the American people. And then it became, "We will not do ANYTHING they want."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the agencies I have worked at the SES have been highly professional. But at one agency some of them were mini-Democrat party apparatchiks. One of them told me back in 2018, "We won't do a single thing Trump orders." SES like that give all of them a bad name.

Yes, because they take an oath not to violate the law and constitution. Also, if what you describe is so awful, why is it acceptable for Trump to appoint actual apparatchiks in their place? I thought politicization was bad.

DP. Political appointees are gone at the end of any administration so big difference versus career folks taking sides

Read the EO. They are reforming the bodies that help select career SES to now require a majority of members be political appointees. This allows politicals to select whomever they want for every career slot. The boards that handle SES performance evals will also be majority staffed by politicals.

Yes. I don’t like that but it wasn’t the discussion. The discussion was about the difference between a political appointee acting political (expected and ends with admin) and a career employee acting on their politics (unethical)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m SES. I read the EO and I don’t see the big deal. I mean sure, we are getting some unwanted attention. There are a couple aspects that are eyebrow raising, but noting that I feel alarmed about.

+1

for you SES saying it's all fine, what happens when you provide an opinion or news that is counter to what the administration would like to hear? Even if what you are saying is true and based on statistics/research? If you won't regurgitate the message, it appears they can fire you for that.

At my old agency the rule of thumb was we told the political appointees the truth one time, "No I think that is wrong for these reasons....". If they insist on following their policy/orders then we keep our mouths shut and do what they ask. Most of the appointees in the last Trump admin were pretty smart and listened to good advice. Sometimes they changed their minds after a few months.

Exactly! By all means, if they are determined to step into an OIG investigation,, GAO review, contentious congressional hearings, make the front page of WaPo—I won’t stop them. I will document my advice as I always do and keep it moving

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bet the Trumpers will be thrilled when Dems eventually use this to their advantage someday.

They already have.

The Dems used a policy that wasn’t in place yet? Do they have time travel powers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sign the loyalty oath or you’re done.

You know who else had civil servants sign a loyalty oath?

Hugo Chavez.

[Anonymous]

It's interesting how all these EOs mimic Trump's speaking style and read as though they were written by a third grader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bet the Trumpers will be thrilled when Dems eventually use this to their advantage someday.

Except we won't, because we value the rule of law. That's the unfair thing about all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m SES. I read the EO and I don’t see the big deal. I mean sure, we are getting some unwanted attention. There are a couple aspects that are eyebrow raising, but noting that I feel alarmed about.

+1

for you SES saying it's all fine, what happens when you provide an opinion or news that is counter to what the administration would like to hear? Even if what you are saying is true and based on statistics/research? If you won't regurgitate the message, it appears they can fire you for that.

I worked really well with my political under the last Trump administration. And I did NOT vote for the man and certainly did not this time around either. I don’t desire to have contentious relationships with my peers or bosses. When I disagreed or had a different perspective, I didn’t fight them head on. I usually went off and did my research. Thought of alternative approaches and usually went back and had a 1:1 meet. Instead of framing my disagreement as a “I disagree,” I usually started with something like “I’d like to discuss a bit more the approach for achieving x objective.” I would layout a couple options. If I heard discussion about something against existing law or best practices, I’d say “I thought about that approach, but I settled on these options because This will keep us out of trouble with the OIG, GAO, union etc. sometimes the political was not thrilled. But they thought I had their back. I always try to find a way I can achieve the policy objective without violating law or putting undue burden on the staff. Also, my job is not soul sucking - like splitting up migrant families and putting kids in cages. If I were in those roles I would have suggested a more humane way of accomplishing that policy objective. The stuff I dealt with was “no more climate change talk,” and “focus more on rural vs urban.” In both cases, I usually suggested approaches that carried out the policy objective but did NOT obliterate important climate or urban community work. I just made sure the majority of what was being done was no climate and rural. And I would frame the results around the policy objective. I wouldn’t mention the other stuff, even though parts of our programs included climate change activities and support for urban communities. So my political was always Able to tout success and I knew that we were still doing good work where it needed to be done. So I agree with the poster that said a political ally savvy SESer can navigate these waters. And I’m well aware that this round of political will likely be a bit more savage that last round. I just met my acting political this morning. I feel like I can work with him.

You know last time is not this time, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m SES. I read the EO and I don’t see the big deal. I mean sure, we are getting some unwanted attention. There are a couple aspects that are eyebrow raising, but noting that I feel alarmed about.

+1

for you SES saying it's all fine, what happens when you provide an opinion or news that is counter to what the administration would like to hear? Even if what you are saying is true and based on statistics/research? If you won't regurgitate the message, it appears they can fire you for that.

I worked really well with my political under the last Trump administration. And I did NOT vote for the man and certainly did not this time around either. I don’t desire to have contentious relationships with my peers or bosses. When I disagreed or had a different perspective, I didn’t fight them head on. I usually went off and did my research. Thought of alternative approaches and usually went back and had a 1:1 meet. Instead of framing my disagreement as a “I disagree,” I usually started with something like “I’d like to discuss a bit more the approach for achieving x objective.” I would layout a couple options. If I heard discussion about something against existing law or best practices, I’d say “I thought about that approach, but I settled on these options because This will keep us out of trouble with the OIG, GAO, union etc. sometimes the political was not thrilled. But they thought I had their back. I always try to find a way I can achieve the policy objective without violating law or putting undue burden on the staff. Also, my job is not soul sucking - like splitting up migrant families and putting kids in cages. If I were in those roles I would have suggested a more humane way of accomplishing that policy objective. The stuff I dealt with was “no more climate change talk,” and “focus more on rural vs urban.” In both cases, I usually suggested approaches that carried out the policy objective but did NOT obliterate important climate or urban community work. I just made sure the majority of what was being done was no climate and rural. And I would frame the results around the policy objective. I wouldn’t mention the other stuff, even though parts of our programs included climate change activities and support for urban communities. So my political was always Able to tout success and I knew that we were still doing good work where it needed to be done. So I agree with the poster that said a political ally savvy SESer can navigate these waters. And I’m well aware that this round of political will likely be a bit more savage that last round. I just met my acting political this morning. I feel like I can work with him.

You know last time is not this time, right?

Y’all funny. I very much know that. Again, I’m super confident in my ability to not have significant issues with these people. I have SUPERB diplomacy skills. I don’t expect it to be perfect, but just like any place, you be professional and work through stuff as best as you can.

And You missed my last two sentences… and further, I spent 5 hours today with my incoming political. We are already off to a very good start despite differences in perspective. And I could tell it caught the political off guard that we got along—personality wise. And please don’t misunderstand me. I would NEVER hang out with this person after hours, but in the workplace I’m going to make sure we have good enough working relations.

[Anonymous]

Our SES are incredible workers and basically run the place. They would never work against an administration. Whose SES are terrible? Ours are so great that it would be hard to leave such wonderful management. They’re much more dedicated than our politicals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our SES are incredible workers and basically run the place. They would never work against an administration. Whose SES are terrible? Ours are so great that it would be hard to leave such wonderful management. They’re much more dedicated than our politicals. [/quote.

You are lucky.

We have some (not all) SES who are very political. They actively undermined our last very moderate R head and pushed things beyond our mandate in stupid ways with his D successor, sidelining all the nonpolitical, mission-dedicated SES.

Thanks to the APA, their efforts failed, and the D is going out with no successes under his belt. This is widely if regretfully acknowledged by all my D contacts in my field.

What I want is a smart R successor who will focus on mission and mandate and neutralize the political SES who are not dedicated to those things, but rather to ever growing their power.

Maybe I am just dreaming and that is too much to ask.