Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting debate. I imagine these are the things that (under this administration, maybe not under a different one) inspire the woke and stir the fury of those who oppose the Deep State. More mildly, these are thing things some people approve as the necessary judgment and competent an executive department NEEDS (!!) to execute our laws (passed by Congress, usually signed by the President, encoded into regulations, and so on).

Is a civil servant NOT supposed to execute policy? What a question. Is a civil servant just supposed to "follow orders"? Also, what a question.

Leads me to ponder--what, if any, federal agency is the least affected by politics? I thought maybe the USGS but nope, climate change. Maybe fracking too come to think. Nuclear waste disposal. But now I am curious.

Independent agencies. The politicos are at the very top of the agencies, but they can't replace staff and fire without cause. They can't force people out. They have nearly zero latitude to affect hiring and organizational hierarchy. This is because most independent agencies do not have a singular head but are instead governed by a board, which have leaders from overlapping Administrations. For example, the Federal Reserve Board governors serve 14-year terms.

Executive branch agencies can place politicos more deeply into the bureaucratic hierarchy and really affect morale at the staff-level. They can force out people on a whim, since the agency is run by only a single person.

This is an interesting debate. I imagine these are the things that (under this administration, maybe not under a different one) inspire the woke and stir the fury of those who oppose the Deep State. More mildly, these are thing things some people approve as the necessary judgment and competent an executive department NEEDS (!!) to execute our laws (passed by Congress, usually signed by the President, encoded into regulations, and so on).

Is a civil servant NOT supposed to execute policy? What a question. Is a civil servant just supposed to "follow orders"? Also, what a question.

Leads me to ponder--what, if any, federal agency is the least affected by politics? I thought maybe the USGS but nope, climate change. Maybe fracking too come to think. Nuclear waste disposal. But now I am curious.

Anonymous wrote:Send a tip to the major media outlets to ensure it gets covered from the outset.

This. You won’t get fired if you take the right precautions.

Remember to CYA and have written records of such actions. Depending on if it's FOIA-able at least you won't have your name associated with pushing the agenda or at least there is some written record showing you gave some push back on it.

Use your position as a policy maker to achieve the appointee's over-arching goal while still shaping it in a manner that does the least damage. If you quit the job, your replacement could be an utter ideologue and really cause lasting damage. You're in a position to minimize that damage and there's lots of ways to design loopholes to the policy, sunset/phase-in provisions, etc.

Just because the appointee says "Do X!" doesn't necessarily mean you need to do it in the most egregious manner possible. There are many ways to skin a cat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is you who lacks integrity, supporting this farce. How do you sleep at night?

I sleep great and you should sleep better knowing people like me are feds. My agency’s career staff are experts at what they do. We are the last line of defense, literally the only thing standing in the way of political ideologues and the federal policies and regulations they are trying to unravel.

No you are not helping by being an expert and doing the political’s bidding. I mean I get it, if you don’t write the policy, someone else will. But the point is you chose to write it, the egregious parts and all. You could have refused to do it. That does not get a career GS fired.

What you are describing is insubordination, and it certainly can get you fired. At the very least, some quite unpleasant HR actions can be taken. I don’t think you do get it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is you who lacks integrity, supporting this farce. How do you sleep at night?

I sleep great and you should sleep better knowing people like me are feds. My agency’s career staff are experts at what they do. We are the last line of defense, literally the only thing standing in the way of political ideologues and the federal policies and regulations they are trying to unravel.

No you are not helping by being an expert and doing the political’s bidding. I mean I get it, if you don’t write the policy, someone else will. But the point is you chose to write it, the egregious parts and all. You could have refused to do it. That does not get a career GS fired.

Let it go. Like PP said, it will come out when the advocacy groups dig into the proposal.

Thank you OP for staying in public service during this shitstorm of a presidency.

Anonymous wrote:Send a tip to the major media outlets to ensure it gets covered from the outset.

please don't do this. you'll get fired. it's just the press release, not the actual program. journalists who cover the issue with any intelligence and depth will figure it out.

Anonymous wrote:It is you who lacks integrity, supporting this farce. How do you sleep at night?

I sleep great and you should sleep better knowing people like me are feds. My agency’s career staff are experts at what they do. We are the last line of defense, literally the only thing standing in the way of political ideologues and the federal policies and regulations they are trying to unravel.

It's just a press release. Advocacy groups will figure it out and then they can make additional hay over the "coverup."

It is you who lacks integrity, supporting this farce. How do you sleep at night?

Send a tip to the major media outlets to ensure it gets covered from the outset.

They are temporary.

Hey all, my agency is releasing a new policy this week. The policy makes a bunch of changes to a humanitarian program- some good/helpful, some practical, and some pretty egregious. The most egregious item is the brain child of our very “connected” political appointee. However, he seems to have gotten cold feet or something and in the public affairs materials he’s asked us to OMIT any reference to the egregious item (although it will still be a robust part of the new policy). I feel this lacks integrity, and as the career GS who authored the policy at his direction I cannot believe he’s not willing to absorb the bad press it will bring. I also think it’s idiotic bc eventually people will actually read the policy and realize it’s much more expansive than what our agency has briefed to the press. I did express my concerns directly to the political appointee. I said “I’m not from the public affairs division, but can we really omit the most significant portion of this policy from our press release?” The public affairs person agreed with me. Nevertheless in the final version of the materials, this provision was eliminated. At this point, I should just let this go right? What else can I do?