United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

September 1997 PERSONNEL

PRACTICES

Career Appointments

of Former Political and

Congressional

Employees

GAO/GGD-97-165

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-272243 

September 2, 1997

The Honorable John L. Mica

Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil Service

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

House of Representatives

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman

Chairman, Committee on International Relations

House of Representatives

This report responds to your requests that we determine (1) whether

appropriate authorities were used and proper procedures were followed in

appointing former political appointees and legislative branch employees1

to positions in the executive branch since January 1996 and (2) whether

the circumstances surrounding any of the appointments gave the

appearance of favoritism or preferential treatment in the appointment

process, even if proper procedures were followed.

More specifically, this report provides information on the appointments of

36 former political appointees and legislative branch employees to

positions in the executive branch between January 1996 and March 1997.2

These 36 appointments were at pay grades General Schedule (GS) 13 or

higher and were reported to us by 18 of the 50 agencies—including the

cabinet-level departments—that we surveyed. The 36 appointments

represented fewer than 1 percent of the career appointments made at the

GS-13 level or above during the period we reviewed.

Results in Brief On the basis of our review of relevant personnel files and documents and

discussions with agency officials, we believe the 18 agencies that provided

career appointments to the 36 former political appointees and legislative

branch employees used the appropriate appointment authority to hire

1

As used in this report, political appointees are defined as those who obtained noncareer appointments

to the Senior Executive Service (SES); limited term and limited emergency SES appointments;

presidential appointees; and noncareer appointments involving an administratively determined pay

rate and whose position titles were administrative—not technical—in nature. Also included are those

who held Schedule C positions. Former legislative branch employees are defined as former

congressional employees who obtained career appointments to executive branch agencies under

authority provided by the Ramspeck Act of 1940 (5 U.S.C. 3304(c)). The act was repealed by Congress

effective December 19, 1997.

2

Of the 36 individuals appointed, 28 were political appointees in the executive branch, and 8 were

employed in the legislative branch. The appointments were either career or career-conditional

appointments; a career-conditional employee must satisfactorily serve a probationary period before

gaining full career status.

Page 1 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
B-272243 

each of them3 and followed proper procedures in making the

appointments. However, notwithstanding use of the appropriate authority

and proper procedures, the circumstances surrounding six of the

appointments could, in our opinion, give the appearance that the

appointees had received favoritism or preferences that enhanced the

appointees’ prospects of appointment.4

 For example, in two cases, the

vacancy announcements for the positions to be filled, which outlined the

qualifications (e.g., work experience) that the agencies were seeking from

applicants, appeared tailored to include specific work experiences

possessed by the two appointees. Under such circumstances, one would

expect these applicants to fare very well in the qualifications review

portion of the appointment process, which they did. (Details of the six

cases are presented in app. I.) The remaining 30 appointments did not

raise comparable questions of the appearance of favoritism or preference.

Background The majority of the federal civilian workforce obtained their positions by

competing against others under the government’s merit system selection

process. However, there are provisions for noncompetitive appointments

as well. Included among these are the following:

• Presidential, noncareer SES, and Schedule C appointees are appointed by

an administration to support and advocate the president’s goals and

policies. Noncareer SES appointees can receive noncompetitive

appointments to SES positions that normally involve advocating,

formulating, and directing the programs and policies of the administration.

Schedule C appointees generally receive noncompetitive appointments to

excepted service positions graded GS-15 and below that involve

determining policy or that require a close, confidential relationship with

the agency head or other key officials of the agency. These appointees

serve at the pleasure of the President or agency head.

• Certain congressional employees are eligible to apply for noncompetitive,

career appointments under the Ramspeck Act. Eligibility requirements

include, among other things, that employees must have been separated

from this employment involuntarily, such as when a Member retires, and

must be appointed to a career position within 1 year of separation.

3

Although the appropriate appointment authorities were used, the reference citations on the effecting

documents for 3 of the 36 appointments were incorrect. Personnel officials from the employing

agencies stated that the incorrect citations were due to administrative error and that corrections

would be made. The three appointments did not involve circumstances that, in our opinion, could give

the appearance of favoritism or preferential treatment.

4

The agencies that made the six appointments were the Departments of Defense, Energy, Commerce,

and Veterans Affairs; the U.S. Agency for International Development; and the Office of Personnel

Management (OPM).

Page 2 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
B-272243 

Employees appointed under this authority must meet applicable

qualification requirements for the positions to which they are appointed.

• Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, certain agencies

can noncompetitively appoint individuals to what are labeled

administratively determined pay rate appointments in which

(1) individuals appointed under this authority serve at the pleasure of the

agency head and can be removed upon notice and (2) the salary levels can

be determined by the agency head.

• Limited term SES appointments are time-limited, nonrenewable

appointments for up to 3 years. These appointments can be made

noncompetitively. Limited emergency SES appointments are also

nonrenewable. They are for time-limited positions for up to 18 months that

are required to meet an urgent program need. Limited emergency SES

appointments also can be made noncompetitively, and the appointees

serve at the pleasure of the agency head.

Since such appointments are often tied to the administration in power and,

with the exception of the Ramspeck Act appointments, are not permanent,

such individuals sometimes seek a permanent, career appointment in the

government. Career appointments in government are usually made

through competitive procedures, consistent with the government’s merit

system selection principles, in which the selection is determined on the

basis of relative knowledge, skills, and ability, after fair and open

competition that ensures that all applicants receive equal opportunity.5

When a political appointee seeks a career appointment, concerns can arise

as to whether these merit principles will be followed. These concerns may

occur because the appointee competing for the career appointment is

often well known or “connected” in the agency or department, sometimes

having worked for the political appointee who should nominate the best

qualified candidate to the selecting official or for the official who will do

the selecting.

We have written a number of reports on the issue of former political

appointees and former legislative branch employees receiving career

appointments in the executive branch. As in this report, we generally

found that agencies usually followed appropriate procedures in making

these career appointments. However, we also found a few cases in which

the circumstances appeared to have provided the appointee with an

advantage. See Related GAO Products for a listing of our past reports.

5

5 U.S.C. Sec. 2301(b)(1).

Page 3 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
B-272243 

Scope and

Methodology

In order to determine whether agencies used appropriate authorities and

followed procedures in providing career appointments to former political

appointees and legislative branch employees during the period January 1,

1996, through March 31, 1997, we first identified such cases. We did this by

asking 50 executive branch agencies, including all cabinet-level

departments, to complete and return to us a data collection instrument

(DCI) for each case in which they had provided (1) a career appointment to

a former political appointee or (2) a career appointment to a former

legislative branch employee using Ramspeck Act authority. The DCI

provided reporting instructions and defined former political appointees

and legislative branch employees for purposes of our review. It was also

used to collect details of each of the career appointments, including the

appointee’s name, employing agency, date of career appointment, title of

position, and grade level. It also collected details about each of the

political or legislative branch appointments, including the type and date of

the political appointment, title of position, and employing agency. In

addition, we asked each of the 50 agencies to send us negative reports for

each month in which they did not make such career appointments. A copy

of the DCI we used for this review is contained in appendix II.

The 50 agencies and departments were selected using criteria developed in

concert with your offices. The selection criteria and agencies are identified

in appendix III. As agreed with your offices, we conducted detailed

reviews of the authorities used and procedures followed in those cases in

which career appointments reported to us were made at the GS-13 level

and higher. To determine whether the appropriate appointing authority

was used, we first identified the authority that the agency cited for the

appointment. The agency must cite this authority in Standard Form

50B-Notification of Personnel Action (SF-50B), a copy of which is filed in

the appointee’s official personnel folder (OPF). We then researched the

cited authority in law and/or regulation to determine the criteria the

agency had to meet in order to use the authority. We then examined the

contents of the employee’s OPF and, when appropriate, the merit staffing

case file to determine if there was evidence that the criteria for using the

authority were met.6

6

The types of documents contained in an employee’s OPF may include, in addition to SF-50Bs, the

employee’s resumes or applications for federal employment, pay records, certificates or diplomas of

professional training and achievement, and performance ratings. The types of documents contained in

the merit staffing case file may include a copy of the vacancy announcement, the application packages

of each applicant, the results of the rating and ranking process, the listing of best-qualified applicants,

and documentation showing which applicant was selected for the position.

Page 4 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
B-272243 

To determine whether proper procedures were followed in the 36 cases,

we examined the steps taken in the application and appointment process.

With guidance and assistance from a GAO personnel specialist, we

examined OPFs and merit staffing case files to determine what procedures

the agencies used. In cases where we had questions, we also interviewed

officials from the personnel offices of the appointing agency or other

officials knowledgeable about the specific case. We then compared the

procedures used in the appointment process to the federal personnel laws

and regulations contained in the U.S. Code and the Code of Federal

Regulations and to the department’s or agency’s merit staffing plans, as

appropriate. We did not independently determine whether the 36

employees were qualified for the positions to which they were appointed.

There was no specific set of criteria that we could apply to determine if

any of the appointments appeared to involve favoritism or preferential

treatment. Consequently, we applied our professional judgment after

reviewing the circumstances of each case. For example, to assess whether

a vacancy announcement might have been tailored to the work

experiences of the appointee, we examined information contained in the

employee’s application materials and excepted service position

descriptions regarding work experiences and dates and responsibilities

and compared that information to the information contained in the

vacancy announcement.

We were aided in this appraisal of the circumstances by the knowledge

gained from past work on the subject; the technical assistance provided by

a GAO personnel specialist; and by our internal review process, which

included the examination of the six questionable cases by attorneys

experienced in the application of federal personnel law. In addition, we

gave draft summaries of the six cases to the respective agencies that made

the appointments and asked them to provide any corrections,

clarifications, or explanations that they believed were appropriate to our

understanding of the circumstances. We incorporated their clarifications

to the case summaries as appropriate.

All together, 20 of the 50 agencies reported to us that they had made 47

career appointments of (1) former political appointees or (2) former

legislative branch employees under authority provided by the Ramspeck

Act. We did not verify that the 50 agencies identified and reported to us all

reportable appointments. Of the 47 appointments reported to us, 36 were

made at the GS-13 level, or higher, by 18 agencies. Appendix IV provides a

list of the 18 agencies where the 36 appointments were made.

Page 5 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
B-272243 

We did our work in Washington, D.C., from April 1996 through July 1997 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Because OPM is responsible for overseeing the federal personnel system,

we obtained written comments on a draft of this report from OPM. These

comments are discussed at the end of this letter and are reprinted in

appendix V.

Appointment

Authorities and

Procedures Properly

Used or Followed

Agencies must cite the legal authority under which they are appointing an

individual in the documentation they prepare to make an appointment.

Each appointment authority generally covers a particular set of

circumstances and includes requirements or criteria the agencies must

meet in order to use the authority. All together, 7 different appointment

authorities, such as the Ramspeck Act of 1940, were cited for the 36

appointments. (The 7 authorities, their criteria, and the distribution of the

36 appointments among the 7 authorities are shown in app. VI.) From our

review of the various documents that were related to the appointments

(such as vacancy announcements, resumes, and official notifications of

personnel actions) and our discussions with pertinent agency officials, we

determined that the agencies met the requirements of the 7 appointment

authorities and that they used the authorities properly in making the 36

appointments.

We did note, however, that in 3 of the 36 appointments, although the

appropriate appointment authorities were used, the reference citations on

the effecting documents were incorrect. For example, in one case, the

appointment authority cited was the vacancy announcement number

rather than the applicable section of the U.S. Code entry under which

authority the appointment had been made. Personnel officials from the

employing agencies stated that the incorrect citations were due to

administrative error and that corrections would be made. The three

appointments did not involve circumstances that, in our opinion, could

give the appearance of favoritism or preferential treatment.

The merit staffing procedures agencies are to follow in making

appointments are set out in federal personnel law and regulations and by

the agencies in their merit staffing plans, which detail their procedures for

filling positions. The procedures are intended to foster the principles of

fair and open competition and equal opportunity. For example, to fill a

position, an agency may be required to (1) publish a vacancy

announcement so that the position’s availability is made known to

possible applicants; and (2) have all applications rated and ranked by a

Page 6 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
B-272243 

several-member panel, with the assignment of members to the panel and

the scoring of applications to be accomplished in accordance with the

related merit staffing plan. For the 36 cases, we compared the procedures

called for in law, regulation, and merit staffing plans, as appropriate, with

the procedures that were evident in the appointment documentation. On

the basis of these comparisons, it appeared that the agencies followed

proper procedures in making the 36 appointments.

However, as we pointed out in a previous report,7

 like any other system,

the appointment process can be manipulated. Processes and procedures

such as advertising the positions may be followed, and the appearance of

fair and open competition may be achieved. Ultimately, however, the

question of whether fair and open competition actually occurred or

whether a candidate was preselected for appointment or given some other

advantage rests with the intent and motivation of the agency officials

involved—factors that cannot be controlled by regulation and that we

could not determine from review of files or discussions with agency

officials.

Circumstances

Surrounding Six

Appointments Could

Give the Appearance

of Favoritism or

Preferential

Treatment

Although records in OPFs and merit staffing files indicated that agencies

used proper appointing authorities and procedures for all 36

appointments, in our opinion, 6 appointments involved circumstances that

could lead to the appearance that the individuals received favoritism or

preferences that enhanced their prospects for the appointments. The

remaining 30 appointments did not raise comparable questions of the

appearance of favoritism or preference. The circumstances in these six

cases are summarized below.

In two cases, the required duties, knowledge, skills, or abilities listed in

the vacancy announcements appeared to have been tailored to the work

experiences of the political appointees who applied for and were

appointed to the respective positions. In one of these cases, the vacancy

announcement contained several requirements that closely matched the

specific work experiences of the political appointee who obtained the

position. One of those requirements, for example, was that applicants

should have experience working with particular congressional

committees. The only applicant who had that experience was the political

appointee, who had worked for one of the committees prior to obtaining

his political appointment. In the other case, the vacancy announcement

7

Personnel Practices: Propriety of Career Appointments Granted Former Political Appointees

(GAO/GGD-92-51, Feb. 12, 1992).

Page 7 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
B-272243 

contained several requirements that closely matched the position

description for the job the political appointee had previously held at that

agency. Agency personnel officials with whom we discussed these two

cases defended the agencies’ prerogative in determining what

requirements were necessary for the positions. They also said that

situations in which vacancy announcements may appear to be tailored to a

particular individual are not unusual.

In another two cases, political appointees obtained career appointments to

positions from which they were reassigned shortly after receiving their

appointments, thus raising questions about whether there was a bona fide

need to fill the positions. In one of these cases, a political appointee

obtained a career appointment to a position from which—on the same day

of his career appointment—he was reassigned to a second position. In the

second of these two cases, a political appointee responsible for the

agency’s administrative operations—including human resource

management—initiated the process to fill, through a career appointment,

an executive level position at a component agency. A vacancy

announcement was published, and the political appointee applied and was

selected for the position. According to a high ranking human resource

management official at the parent agency, the need to fill the position was

questionable because, among other things, the agency in which the

position was located had a strong administration and did not need another

executive position. After about 2 months, the newly appointed “career”

employee was reassigned to another position.

In the fifth case, a political appointee who worked directly for the head of

the agency helped create a new executive position that was to be filled

through a career appointment. The political appointee applied and was

selected by the head of the agency for the position. High ranking agency

officials told us that they were surprised that the political appointee

applied and was selected for the position because of the potential negative

perceptions that the public may have acquired in this case. Nevertheless,

the agency officials advised us that political appointees are not prohibited

from applying or being selected for career appointments in the

government; in this case, they believed the individual was the most

qualified applicant for the position.

Finally, the sixth case involved a political appointee who applied and was

selected for an executive position after the position was announced a third

time. Applicants from the first two announcements were rated together by

a screening panel, of which the political appointee was a member. Five

Page 8 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
B-272243 

applicants were identified as being best qualified for the position, and one

of them was offered the position but declined. The position was then

reannounced for the third time, and the political appointee applied and

was selected for the position. According to documentation contained in

the merit staffing file, the position was reannounced because too much

time—3 months—had passed since the closing of the original

announcement, and it was decided that the search for candidates should

be broadened. We noted that recruitment under the first two vacancy

announcements had been limited to current civil service employees of the

federal government. The recruitment area was expanded to qualified

applicants from within and outside the federal government in the third

announcement. The political appointee who obtained the position had the

kind of experience that the position required. However, the unanswerable

question is whether the agency reissued the announcement in order to

enable the political appointee to apply, even though one of the

best-qualified candidates from the earlier announcements could have been

selected.

We believe that the circumstances surrounding each of the six cases could

create a perception of preferential treatment or favoritism toward a

particular applicant, despite the use of proper hiring authorities and merit

staffing procedures. The appearance of preferential treatment or

favoritism can obviously compromise the integrity of the merit staffing

system. However, a determination of whether preferential treatment or

favoritism actually occurred could be made only if the intent and

motivation of the agency officials involved were known.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

The Director of OPM provided written comments on a draft of this report in

a letter dated July 29, 1997. (See app. V.) The Director expressed concern

about our finding that circumstances surrounding six appointments could

give the appearance of favoritism or preferential treatment. He noted that

there is a difference between “could” and “did,” and in OPM’s reading of the

draft report, there is no basis to conclude that favoritism or preferential

treatment did actually occur. He was concerned with the use of the word

“could” because, he said, it implies activity that cannot be proven, while

leaving the impression of wrongdoing. He said that since we were unable

to discern the intent of the agency officials involved in the six

appointments, it would be inappropriate to conclude that any prohibited

activities occurred. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, he believed

that agencies must be given the benefit of the doubt in assessing whether

they exercised proper judgment in their appointments.

Page 9 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
B-272243 

We agree that such a conclusion would be inappropriate. As we point out

in the report, an ultimate determination of whether favoritism or

preferential treatment actually occurred could be made only if the intent

or motivation of the involved agency officials are known—something that

we could not determine from review of agency files or discussions with

agency officials. For this reason, we characterized the circumstances as

those that, in our opinion, could lead to the appearance of favoritism or

preferential treatment. We believe this is a valid representation of the

circumstances surrounding the six appointments, but we recognize that

others could have a different opinion. Just as we reported that the

agencies used appropriate appointment authorities and followed proper

appointment procedures, we would be remiss in not reporting the

existence of the circumstances surrounding the six cases.

The Director pointed out in his letter that limited term and limited

emergency SES appointments are not considered by OPM to be political

appointments. We recognize that OPM has not traditionally recognized such

appointments as being political appointments. Among other things,

however, they share certain characteristics with the noncareer SES

political appointments. For example, limited term SES appointments can be

made noncompetitively and appointees serve at the pleasure of the agency

head. On the basis of discussions with your offices, and as pointed out in

footnote 1 of this report, we treated both limited term and limited

emergency SES appointments for purposes of this assignment as political

appointments when the incumbents of those positions subsequently

obtained career appointments. The Director also clarified the use of a

specific SES appointment authority that focuses on the technical

qualifications of an SES career appointment candidate deemed to offset the

lack of some of the general managerial qualifications. We incorporated this

clarification in our description in appendix I of the case involving the

career appointment of a Department of Energy employee.

One of the other cases involved an OPM appointment, and the Director

provided clarification of the role his former Chief of Staff played in the

creation of the position to which he (the former Chief of Staff) obtained a

career appointment. Based on this clarification, we augmented our

description of this case to include language intended to more clearly

describe the former Chief of Staff’s role in creating the position. In

clarifying the role, the Director noted our concern that the appointment

may have negatively affected other agencies’ views toward OPM as the lead

organization for ensuring that agencies follow merit system principles. The

Page 10 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
B-272243 

Director said he considers oversight and protection of the merit system to

have been the core function of OPM during his tenure.

As agreed with your Committees, unless you publicly announce this

report’s contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 10 days

after the date of this letter. We will then send copies to the Ranking

Minority Members of your Committee and Subcommittee, the Chairmen

and Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Governmental Affairs and

House Government Reform and Oversight Committees, other appropriate

congressional committees, the Director of OPM, the heads of other agencies

where we did our work, and other interested parties. We will also make

copies available to others on request.

Major contributors to this report were Richard W. Caradine, Assistant

Director; N. Scott Einhorn, Evaluator-in-Charge; Anthony Assia, Evaluator;

Carolyn L. Samuels, Evaluator; and Stephen J. Kenealy, Technical Advisor.

Please contact me at (202) 512-9039 if you have any questions.

Michael Brostek

Associate Director

Federal Management

 and Workforce Issues

Page 11 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Details of Six Cases

That Could Give the

Appearance of

Preferential

Treatment or

Favoritism

16

Case 1: Tailored Vacancy Announcement 16

Case 2: Tailored Vacancy Announcement 18

Case 3: Reassigned Soon After Obtaining Career Appointment 20

Case 4: Reassigned Soon After Obtaining Career Appointment 22

Case 5: Political Appointee Obtained Career Appointment to

Position He Helped Create

24

Case 6: Political Appointee Participated on Panel Before

Applying, and Being Selected, for the Position

26

Appendix II 

Data Collection

Instrument Used

28

Appendix III 

Listing of 50

Executive Branch

Agencies and

Departments

Reviewed and Criteria

Used to Select Them

31

Page 12 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Contents

Appendix IV 

Career Appointments

of Former Political

and Legislative

Branch Employees

Made by 18 Agencies

at Pay Grades GS-13

or Higher (Jan. 1,

1996, Through Mar.

31, 1997)

33

Appendix V 

Comments From the

Office of Personnel

Management

34

Appendix VI 

Appointment

Authorities Used in

the 36 Appointments

We Reviewed

38

Related GAO Products 39

Page 13 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Contents

Abbreviations

AD administratively determined pay rate

AID Agency for International Development

DCI data collection instrument

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

ERB Executive Resources Board

IDP individual development plan

IG Inspector General

IPA Intergovernmental Personnel Act

OPF official personnel folder

OPM Office of Personnel Management

QRB Qualifications Review Board

SES Senior Executive Service

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

Page 14 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Page 15 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix I 

Details of Six Cases That Could Give the

Appearance of Preferential Treatment or

Favoritism

Case 1: Tailored

Vacancy

Announcement

In May 1994, an individual was noncompetitively appointed by the

Department of Defense (DOD) to an excepted service, Schedule C, position

at the General Schedule (GS) 14 level. Prior to obtaining this position, the

individual had worked for approximately 5 years on the U.S. House of

Representatives Committee on Small Business. In March 1996, the

individual obtained a career appointment to a competitive service position

at DOD. Results from our examination of the case indicated that the

vacancy announcement for the competitive service position appeared to

have been tailored to the work experience of the individual appointed. The

announcement contained work experience requirements that closely

matched the specific work experiences of the individual, including

“detailed knowledge of, and experience with, the Congressional legislative

process, particularly in the Small Business Committees.”

The May 1994 excepted service appointment was to a temporary Schedule

C, GS-14 Staff Specialist position for which the appointment was not to

exceed September 11, 1994. On July 24, 1994, the individual was converted

from the temporary appointment to a permanent excepted service

appointment as a Schedule C Staff Specialist.

The March 1996 career appointment was to a Program Analyst position

that was initially advertised in September 1995 and subsequently

readvertised in November 1995. The initial vacancy announcement had

limited the area of consideration to “Current Status Department of

Defense Employees, Eligible Disabled, and 30% Disabled Veterans.”

According to DOD personnel officials, this area of consideration restricted

competition to only those candidates who (1) had competitive service

status and were already employed by DOD or (2) were eligible disabled

veterans. We noted that the individual who was selected for the position

had not acquired competitive service status and, under the area of

consideration specified in the initial advertisement, would not have been

eligible to apply or be considered for the position.

The area of consideration in the November 1995 vacancy announcement

was changed to “All Sources.” According to DOD personnel officials, the All

Sources denotation meant that the position was open to competition

among all candidates, including those who did not have competitive

service status in the federal government, such as the individual who was

selected for the position. However, the qualifications of such applicants

would first have to be reviewed by the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM) in order to (1) certify the individual’s eligibility for the position and

(2) rate and rank the applicants against others lacking competitive service

Page 16 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix I 

Details of Six Cases That Could Give the

Appearance of Preferential Treatment or

Favoritism

status who were seeking the position. According to DOD personnel

officials, the original intention of DOD managers was to announce the

position to sources both within and outside the government, and so the

restricted area of consideration in the original announcement was a

clerical error.

Both vacancy announcements contained several duties and assessment

factors that appeared to be tailored to the work experiences of the

individual. For example, one of the duties listed was to serve as the

manager of the Small Business Innovation Research program and related

small business research programs. According to information contained in

the application materials of the individual, he had been serving as the

acting manager of the Small Business Innovation Research and Small

Business Technology Transfer programs. Of the five assessment factors

listed in the amended vacancy announcement, one of them required

detailed knowledge of the statutes and operations of the Small Business

Innovation Research program; one required knowledge of and experience

with the congressional legislative process, particularly in the Small

Business Committees; and one required thorough knowledge and

understanding of the academic literature bearing on technology policy and

management. The first two matched the individual’s work experience as

claimed on his application materials. The third assessment factor also

matched information cited on the individual’s application materials in

which he listed six published articles on technology policy that had

appeared in such publications as The Economist and Science.

Additionally, the individual stated that he had coauthored a publication

entitled Dual Use Technology: A Defense Strategy for Affordable, Leading

Edge Technology. The other two assessment factors required general

knowledge and understanding of innovative solutions to complex

problems and familiarity with the management of “RDT&E” within DOD,

qualifications that were not specifically addressed in the individual’s

application materials.

Documents contained in DOD’s files indicated that 42 persons, including the

individual, applied for the competitive service position. Nineteen of the 42,

including the individual, were determined to be among the best qualified.

DOD tentatively selected the individual, then asked OPM to determine

whether the individual would be within reach on an OPM certificate of

eligibles. OPM determined that the individual was eligible for the position

and sent DOD a certificate of eligibles containing only the name of the

individual. It was from this certificate that the individual was officially

selected.

Page 17 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix I 

Details of Six Cases That Could Give the

Appearance of Preferential Treatment or

Favoritism

Case 2: Tailored

Vacancy

Announcement

In March 1994, an individual was noncompetitively appointed by the U.S.

Agency for International Development (AID) to an excepted service,

administratively determined pay rate position equivalent to the GS-15

level.1

 According to documents contained in the employee’s official

personnel folder (OPF), prior to obtaining this position, the individual had

worked for approximately 2 years as a congressional staff member. In

April 1996, the individual was selected for a career appointment to a

competitive service position at AID. Results from our examination of the

case indicated that the vacancy announcement for the competitive service

position appeared to be tailored to the work experience of the individual.

The announcement contained work experience requirements that closely

matched the specific work experiences of the individual, including

knowledge and understanding of the legislative authorization and

appropriations process. Because the individual did not have competitive

service status in the federal government, OPM had to review the individual’s

qualifications in order to (1) certify the individual’s eligibility for the

position; and (2) rate and rank the individual against other qualified,

nonstatus applicants who were seeking the position. For this reason, the

close matching of the experience requirements in the vacancy

announcement to the work experience of the individual could have

affected the outcome of OPM’s review.

The March 1994 excepted service appointment was to a Program Manager

position equivalent to the GS-15, step 9, salary level. The authority used for

this noncompetitive appointment was provided by section 625(b) of the

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.2

 According to an AID

personnel official, such appointments are labeled by AID as

administratively determined (AD) pay rate appointments in which

(1) individuals appointed under this authority serve at the pleasure of the

AID Administrator and can be removed upon notice, and (2) the salary

levels can be determined by the AID Administrator.

The April 1996 career appointment was to a GS-14 Program Manager

position and resulted from a competitive selection process in which the

vacancy was announced to the public, applications were received and

screened, the best-qualified applicants were identified, qualifications of

best qualified nonstatus applicants were reviewed by OPM, certificates of

eligibles for selection were prepared, and the individual was selected. Our

examination of the case indicated that AID appeared to have followed

proper procedures in the competitive selection process. Even so, certain

1

See footnote 1 in letter.

2

22 U.S.C. 2385(b).

Page 18 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix I 

Details of Six Cases That Could Give the

Appearance of Preferential Treatment or

Favoritism

factors about the vacancy announcement may have enhanced the

individual’s prospects of being found to be among the best qualified and

eligible for selection.

The vacancy announcement for the competitive service position indicated

that both status and nonstatus applicants could apply. Therefore, the

individual—who did not have status—was eligible to apply for the

position. According to an AID personnel official, many of AID’s positions are

highly technical in nature and therefore potentially qualified applicants are

limited. As a result, vacancy announcements for such positions are

frequently opened to all sources, including nonstatus applicants. In this

case, however, the position did not appear to be highly technical. The AID

personnel official indicated that AID management has the prerogative to

announce vacant positions as being open to both status and nonstatus

applicants in order to attract the best qualified applicants, regardless of

their competitive status.

The vacancy announcement also contained several duties that matched

the duties and responsibilities section of the position description for the

excepted service position to which the individual had been appointed in

1994. In addition, the vacancy announcement cited three selective factors

that were to be used in evaluating the applicants’ qualifications. Two of the

three factors matched the factors contained in the position description for

the excepted position to which the individual had been appointed, and the

third factor—concerning knowledge of the authorization and

appropriations process—matched the work experience cited by the

individual on application documents.

Documents contained in AID’s files indicated that at least 15 persons,

including the individual, applied for the competitive service position. Five

of the 15, including the individual, were determined to be among the best

qualified. OPM reviewed the qualifications and rated and ranked four of

those five, including the individual, since the four did not have status.

OPM’s rating and ranking resulted in a certificate of eligibles that showed

the individual as ranked highest among the four and therefore eligible for

selection. Regulations in this situation are that an agency may select from

the top three rated and ranked eligibles on the OPM certificate, except that

an agency should normally not bypass a preference-eligible veteran.3

(None of the four persons rated and ranked by OPM claimed veterans’

preference points in this case.) In our opinion, the individual’s chances of

being placed among the top three could have been enhanced by the

3

5 CFR 332.406(b).

Page 19 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix I 

Details of Six Cases That Could Give the

Appearance of Preferential Treatment or

Favoritism

similarities between the vacancy announcement and the individual’s work

experience.

The fifth person found to be best qualified did have status; therefore, OPM

did not review that person’s qualifications. AID personnel staff placed this

person’s name alone on a separate certificate of eligibles from which the

selection could also have been made.

Case 3: Reassigned

Soon After Obtaining

Career Appointment

This case involved actions taken by the Department of Energy (DOE) to

(1) appoint a former congressional employee to a 2-year limited term

Senior Executive Service (SES) position in order to fill a purported critical

vacancy, (2) approve detailing the employee from that position to another

position shortly after appointing him, (3) select this individual about 10

months later for a career SES appointment to a specific position, and

(4) reassign the individual to another SES position the same day his career

appointment became effective. We believe that the circumstances

surrounding DOE’s actions could give the appearance that

• a bona fide need for the initial limited term SES position may not have

existed, and that

• DOE did not intend for the employee to serve in the position for which he

was initially selected.

On November 18, 1994, DOE’s Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy requested the Department’s Executive Resources

Division to appoint a former congressional employee to the position of

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Building Technologies. According to the

employee’s application for federal employment, his position on a

congressional committee had been abolished. The request was for a

limited term SES appointment and was purported to be needed to fill a

critical vacancy that occurred when the incumbent went on an

Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) assignment. The term appointment

was not to exceed January 3, 1997, or the date when the incumbent

returned from the IPA assignment. The Executive Resources Board (ERB)

approved the request on November 21, 1994, pending the allocation of the

limited term SES position by OPM. DOE received approval from OPM in a letter

dated January 4, 1995, from the Chief of Staff for the Director of OPM. DOE

appointed the employee to the limited term SES position effective

January 4, 1995. An agency may make a limited term appointment without

the use of merit staffing procedures, but the appointee must meet the

qualification requirements for the position (see 5 CFR 317.603).

Page 20 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix I 

Details of Six Cases That Could Give the

Appearance of Preferential Treatment or

Favoritism

Although the limited term position and appointment were to fill a critical

need, within 2 weeks of his appointment, the ERB approved the detailing of

the employee to the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for House

Liaison, Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental

Affairs. However, agency documents contained in his OPF show that the

detail was not officially effected until April 20, 1995, approximately 4

months after he received his limited term appointment.

During the employee’s detail, DOE advertised the position for Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Building Technologies as a career SES appointment.

The vacancy announcement was advertised from July 12, 1995, to

August 9, 1995. The employee applied for the position on August 7, 1995.

DOE’s Merit Staffing Committee evaluated the applicants and made a final

determination on October 18, 1995. Seventeen applications were received,

and 4 of the 17 applicants were determined not to be qualified. Of the

remaining 13 qualified applicants, the Committee rated 1 superior, 5 very

good, and 4 acceptable. Three were found qualified as noncompetitive

referrals. The employee received the superior rating. The applicants rated

superior and very good were referred to the selecting official as the best

qualified.

The employee was approved for selection for the career SES appointment

as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Building Technologies in the Office of

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy on December 18, 1995, subject

to OPM’s certification of his managerial qualifications. On the same day,

however, DOE approved a request to reassign the employee to the position

of Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of Fossil Energy.

Because this was the employee’s first career SES appointment, his

executive/managerial qualifications needed to be certified by a

Qualifications Review Board (QRB) convened by OPM. Federal personnel

law requires that the qualifications of an individual selected for a career

appointment to the SES for the first time must be certified by a QRB. On

January 4, 1996, DOE submitted a request for certification to OPM. DOE’s

submission requested approval of the candidate’s qualifications under

5 U.S.C. 3393(c)(2)(A)—“consideration of demonstrated executive

experience.”

OPM notified DOE on January 30, 1996, that the QRB disapproved the

certification because it found that two of the five executive core

qualifications—Human Resources Management and Resources Planning

and Management—were not supported at the executive level in the

Page 21 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix I 

Details of Six Cases That Could Give the

Appearance of Preferential Treatment or

Favoritism

submission. DOE resubmitted a request for approval to OPM on February 15,

1996. The new request included a revised Standard Form 171, which

expanded upon the employee’s work experience; several letters of

endorsement from senior DOE executives; and an individual development

plan (IDP) for the employee. Also, in the new submission, DOE requested

approval of the employee’s qualifications under 5 U.S.C. 3393(c)(2)(C).

This section provides for “sufficient flexibility to allow for the

appointment of individuals who have special or unique qualities which

indicate a likelihood of executive success and who would not otherwise be

eligible for appointment.” A DOE official told us that the department

believed the employee possessed the special qualities called for under

3393(c)(2)(C).

According to OPM, 5 U.S.C. 3393(c)(2)(C) authority focuses on the

qualifications of the applicant and is used when an individual brings

unique technical qualifications to the position that offset the absence of

some general managerial qualifications. OPM notified DOE on February 20,

1996, that a QRB certified the employee under 3393(c)(2)(C).

On February 21, 1996, DOE approved a request to reassign the employee

from his career SES appointment as Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Building Technologies, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,

to the position of Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy.

The effective date was March 3, 1996. A DOE official told us this

reassignment was made because there was a greater need to fill the latter

position.

On March 8, 1996, DOE selected another candidate for the Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Building Technologies position. This candidate had been

among the best qualified when the former congressional appointee was

originally selected for that position. However, this candidate declined the

offer in May 1996. DOE readvertised the position in September 1996 and

selected another individual to fill the position in July 1997.

Case 4: Reassigned

Soon After Obtaining

Career Appointment

This case involved actions taken by the Department of Commerce to select

a noncareer SES employee for a career SES appointment in a vacated

position that had been authorized to be advertised and filled by the same

noncareer SES employee. Shortly after receiving the career appointment,

the individual was reassigned to another SES position in the Department.

The circumstances surrounding these actions could give the appearance

that a bona fide need for the initial SES position may not have existed.

Page 22 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix I 

Details of Six Cases That Could Give the

Appearance of Preferential Treatment or

Favoritism

The employee was hired as a Schedule C, Confidential Assistant in the

immediate office of the Secretary of Commerce on February 2, 1993. She

was appointed to a noncareer SES position on March 3, 1993, in the

Department’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. Her

position title was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, with

responsibilities for space allocations, parking, and virtually all other

administrative matters, including human resources.

According to the Director for Human Resources Management at the

Department of Commerce, in the latter part of 1995, the noncareer SES

appointee approved the filling of a vacant career SES position. The

Director, who worked for the political appointee, investigated the position

and informed the political appointee that she did not think the position

should be posted and filled for the following reasons:

• Commerce was trying to reduce its number of SES positions.

• The agency in which the position was located had a strong administration

and did not need another executive position.

• The position created an additional layer over other administrative

positions at the agency, which created further concern about the need for

the position.

According to the Director, although the political appointee was aware of

her concerns, the political appointee decided to post the position anyway.

The position was advertised from August 28, 1995, to September 18, 1995,

and was open to all qualified applicants. Commerce received 12

applications. One of the applicants was the political appointee.

The Director told us she was unaware that the political appointee had

intended to apply for the position. After learning of this, the Director sent

all the applications to the Bureau of Census so that its personnel office

could do the merit staffing and ranking process. This was done to avoid

any appearance of impropriety, because the political appointee was the

Director’s “noncareer” supervisor.

Of the 12 applicants, 4 were disqualified in the preliminary screening for

failing to address all of the qualification requirements, and 4 others were

deemed not qualified for the position. The screening panel ranked the

political appointee as “highly qualified” and ranked the other three as

“qualified.” All four were referred to the selecting official, who selected the

noncareer SES appointee for the position.

Page 23 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix I 

Details of Six Cases That Could Give the

Appearance of Preferential Treatment or

Favoritism

Commerce sent the employee’s qualifications for the career SES

appointment to OPM to be certified by a QRB, the last step in the SES merit

staffing process. OPM also conducted a merit staffing review of this

appointment as part of its oversight of conversions of political appointees

to career positions. OPM concluded that the staffing process appeared to

have been conducted in conformance with all applicable laws and

regulations. The career appointment was effected on January 21, 1996.

On March 31, 1996, approximately 2 months after being appointed, the

former political appointee was reassigned to another career SES position in

another agency of the Department of Commerce.

Case 5: Political

Appointee Obtained

Career Appointment

to Position He Helped

Create

In March 1996, the OPM Chief of Staff—who was holding a noncareer SES

appointment to that position—obtained a career SES appointment to the

position of Director, Partnership Center. The Partnership Center position

resulted from an OPM study, and the Chief of Staff was the highest ranking

official on the task force that performed the study and recommended

creation of the Partnership Center. His selection to the position was made

by the OPM Director. These circumstances, we believe, could give the

appearance of favoritism in the Chief of Staff’s selection over other

applicants for the position and created an unfavorable situation for OPM in

which, as the government’s principal agency charged with governing the

merit selection process, it placed itself in a position in which the merits of

its own personnel actions were subject to question.

In response to the administration’s National Performance Review call for

“reinventing” government, in 1994 the Director of OPM established the OPM

Redesign Task Force to study the organizational structure of OPM and to

recommend a design for the OPM of the future. Members of the task force

included OPM employees from management, employee groups, and unions.

The highest ranking member was the Director’s Chief of Staff. In August

1994, the task force proposed to the OPM Director that a number of OPM

service “centers” be created. One of the proposed centers was the

Partnership Center, which was intended to aid and encourage government

managers and government employee union officials to work together—in

partnership—in addressing government employment issues. According to

the OPM Director, the task force recommendations were referred to an OPM

Business Council to work on implementation issues and to propose

modifications as necessary. The Chief of Staff was a member of the

Business Council, but according to the OPM Director, the Chief of Staff was

not a member of the Business Council subgroup that was working on the

Page 24 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix I 

Details of Six Cases That Could Give the

Appearance of Preferential Treatment or

Favoritism

Partnership Center proposal. The Business Council completed its

implementation plan in December 1994, and in January 1995, the Director

announced to OPM employees the plan for redesigning OPM, including the

establishment of the Partnership Center. According to a report by the OPM

Inspector General (IG),4 the Center’s business was to be handled by the

Chief of Staff with assistance from the OPM Director of Program

Management until OPM decided whether to provide permanent staff to the

Center.

In October 1995, after internal conditions stabilized, OPM decided to recruit

for several SES positions, including the Director, Partnership Center. The

Chief of Staff, along with other individuals, applied for the Partnership

Center position and was rated by OPM’s ERB as among the best qualified for

the position. As the selecting official, the OPM Director received the best

qualified list; from among those on the list, he selected the Chief of Staff

for the position. Because it would be the Chief of Staff’s first career

appointment into an SES position, OPM convened a QRB, which was

composed of SES members from other agencies, to review the Chief of

Staff’s qualifications for the appointment. The QRB considered him highly

qualified.

Concerns raised by the media about the selection of the OPM Chief of Staff

for the position of Director, Partnership Center, included claims that the

Chief of Staff was preselected for the position and that he had used his

political connections to “burrow” into a career government appointment in

order to obtain job security that is not afforded political appointees. We

also had concerns about the selection, because the Chief of Staff appeared

to play a key role in helping to create the position. His selection may have

had a negative effect on other agencies’ views on OPM as the lead

organization for ensuring that government agencies follow merit system

principles.

Partially as a result of the published criticism in this case, OPM’s IG

reviewed the case. The IG found that there were some administrative

oversights in the case that were common to many SES appointments within

OPM, but concluded that there was no legal or regulatory impropriety

regarding the career appointment of the individual in this case. From our

examination of the case, we also concluded that there was no evidence of

legal or regulatory impropriety.

4

See OPM, Office of the Inspector General, Inspection Report: Selection to the Position of Director,

Partnership Center, April 1996.

Page 25 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix I 

Details of Six Cases That Could Give the

Appearance of Preferential Treatment or

Favoritism

However, the appearance of favoritism or preselection cannot be easily

dismissed. According to OPM officials, the Chief of Staff had previously

worked closely with the OPM Director in a similar position for another

government agency, and the OPM Director recruited him for the position of

Chief of Staff at OPM. He worked closely with the Director of OPM for 3

years as the Director’s Chief of Staff, and he was selected for the career

position by the OPM Director. High ranking agency officials told us that

they were surprised that the political appointee applied, and was selected,

for the position because of the potential negative perceptions that the

public may have acquired in this case. Nevertheless, the agency officials

advised us that political appointees are not prohibited from applying, or

being selected, for career appointments in the government; in this case,

they believed the individual was the most qualified applicant for the

position.

Case 6: Political

Appointee

Participated on Panel

Before Applying, and

Being Selected, for

the Position

In this case, the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) actions in making a

career appointment to an SES position could give the appearance that the

selected Schedule C employee received preferential treatment when VA

decided to reopen the competition for the position. The Schedule C

employee had served as a GS-15 Special Assistant to the Secretary of VA

from March 1993 to February 1996 before receiving a career SES

appointment as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs on

February 11, 1996.

VA issued a vacancy announcement for a career SES appointment to the

position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs in

February 1995. The vacancy announcement was opened from February 22,

1995, to March 7, 1995, and sought applications from all persons qualified

within the federal government. According to an OPM document, a VA official

said that, just after the first announcement closed, the VA Assistant

Secretary for Congressional Affairs learned about some potential

candidates who had not applied. VA decided to reopen the announcement

for applications from April 5, 1995, to April 18, 1995. Candidates from the

first and second announcements were considered together after the

April 18, 1995, closing date.

The Schedule C employee who eventually received the appointment had

not applied under the first two announcements and had served on the

panel that rated the applications submitted under those announcements.

The screening panel considered all the minimally qualified candidates and

sent a list of 16 highly qualified candidates to VA’s ERB panel for

Page 26 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix I 

Details of Six Cases That Could Give the

Appearance of Preferential Treatment or

Favoritism

consideration. The ERB ranked the candidates referred and identified the

five best qualified candidates, and then referred its list to the Assistant

Secretary for Congressional Affairs, who was the nominating official. The

nominating official selected a candidate and referred him to the Secretary

for approval. After the Secretary’s approval, the candidate, a White House

employee, was offered the appointment, but he declined the offer on

July 13, 1995.

Rather than selecting one of the other best-qualified candidates, VA

readvertised the position from July 26, 1995, to August 8, 1995, to

individuals within and outside the federal government. Documentation in

VA’s staffing file for this appointment indicated the reason for readvertising

the vacancy was that “so much time had passed, and because it was

decided that the search for candidates should be broadened . . . .” VA

notified previous applicants that they remained under consideration and

that there was no need to reapply. The Schedule C employee and an

additional 37 other candidates applied for the position under the third

vacancy announcement. Since the Schedule C employee had become a

candidate, he was replaced on the screening panel.

The screening panel again considered all the minimally qualified

candidates and sent a list of 20 highly qualified candidates to VA’s ERB. The

ERB reviewed the applications, identified the nine best-qualified

candidates, and referred them to the same official who would nominate a

selection for the VA Secretary’s approval. Of the nine, four had been on the

best-qualified list developed from the earlier vacancy announcements; and

five, including the Schedule C employee, were new. The Schedule C

employee, who at one time served as the congressional liaison for a

veterans’ organization, was nominated for selection.

On approval of the Schedule C employee’s selection by the VA Secretary on

October 12, 1995, his qualifications for the appointment were sent to OPM

for certification by a QRB. Because of the sensitivity of staffing actions

involving conversions of political appointees to career appointments, OPM

conducted a merit staffing review before submitting this case to a QRB. OPM

concluded that the staffing process appeared to have been conducted in

conformance with all applicable laws and regulations and forwarded the

Schedule C employee’s qualifications to the QRB. The QRB certified that the

employee was qualified for the SES appointment and informed VA that he

could receive a career appointment in the SES. The appointment was

effected on February 11, 1996.

Page 27 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix II 

Data Collection Instrument Used

Page 28 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix II 

Data Collection Instrument Used

Page 29 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix II 

Data Collection Instrument Used

Page 30 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix III 

Listing of 50 Executive Branch Agencies and

Departments Reviewed and Criteria Used to

Select Them

The criteria used to select the executive branch agencies and departments

were: (1) all cabinet-level departments and agencies, (2) departments or

agencies that had at least 50 political appointees on their rolls as of

September 1995, (3) agencies that had oversight or other regulatory

responsibilities for federal workforce issues, (4) departments or agencies

having responsibility for international affairs issues, and (5) departments

or agencies of particular interest to the congressional requesters of the

review. As a result, the following 50 agencies and departments were

identified:

1. Department of Agriculture

2. Department of the Air Force

3. Department of the Army

4. Department of Commerce

5. Department of Defense (Office of the Secretary)

6. Department of Education

7. Department of Energy

8. Department of Health and Human Services

9. Department of Housing and Urban Development

10. Department of the Interior

11. Department of Justice

12. Department of Labor

13. Department of the Navy

14. Department of State

15. Department of Transportation

16. Department of the Treasury

17. Department of Veterans Affairs

18. African Development Foundation

19. Agency for International Development

20. Commission on Civil Rights

21. Commission on Immigration Reform

22. Consumer Product Safety Commission

23. Corporation for National Service

24. Environmental Protection Agency

25. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

26. Export-Import Bank of the United States

27. Federal Aviation Administration

28. Federal Labor Relations Authority

29. Federal Maritime Commission

30. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

31. Federal Retirement and Thrift Investment Board

32. Federal Trade Commission

Page 31 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix III 

Listing of 50 Executive Branch Agencies and

Departments Reviewed and Criteria Used to

Select Them

33. U.S. Institute of Peace

34. Inter-American Foundation

35. International Joint Commission, United States and Canada

36. U.S. International Trade Commission

37. Merit Systems Protection Board

38. National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

39. National Labor Relations Board

40. National Mediation Board

41. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

42. Office of Government Ethics

43. Office of Management and Budget

44. Office of Personnel Management

45. Overseas Private Investment Corporation

46. Peace Corps

47. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

48. Small Business Administration

49. U.S. Information Agency

50. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

Page 32 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix IV 

Career Appointments of Former Political

and Legislative Branch Employees Made by

18 Agencies at Pay Grades GS-13 or Higher

(Jan. 1, 1996, Through Mar. 31, 1997)

Agency Number of appointments

Agency for International Development 2

Consumer Product Safety Commission 1

Department of Agriculture 3

Department of the Army 1

Department of Commerce 2

Department of Defense (Office of the Secretary) 6

Department of Justice 4

Department of Energy 1

Department of Education 2

Department of Health and Human Services 2

Department of Housing and Urban Development 1

Department of Transportation 1

Department of the Treasury 3

Department of Veterans Affairs 2

Federal Labor Relations Authority 1

Environmental Protection Agency 2

Office of Personnel Management 1

Commission on Civil Rights 1

Total 36

Source: As reported by the agencies listed in the table.

Page 33 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix V 

Comments From the Office of Personnel

Management

Page 34 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix V 

Comments From the Office of Personnel

Management

Page 35 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix V 

Comments From the Office of Personnel

Management

Page 36 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix V 

Comments From the Office of Personnel

Management

Page 37 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Appendix VI 

Appointment Authorities Used in the 36

Appointments We Reviewed

Appointment authority Criteria for authority’s use applicable to the appointments reviewed

Number of

appointments

reviewed in which

the authority was

cited

Civil Service certificates

from competitive selection

process

Merit staffing plans of each agency 11

Ramspeck Act of 1940 (5

U.S.C. 3304(c))

An individual must (1) serve for at least 3 years in the legislative branch and be

paid by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Representatives;

(2) be involuntarily separated without prejudice from the legislative branch; (3)

pass a suitable noncompetitive examination (i.e., be qualified for the position being

sought); and (4) transfer to the career position within 1 year of being separated

from the legislative branch.

9

SES Recruitment and

Career Appointments

(5 U.S.C. 3393)

OPM shall, in consultation with the various qualification review boards, prescribe

criteria for establishing executive qualifications for appointment of career

appointees. The criteria shall provide for (1) consideration of demonstrated

executive experience, (2) consideration of successful participation in a career

executive development program that is approved by OPM, and (3) sufficient

flexibility to allow for the appointment of individuals who have special or unique

qualities that indicate a likelihood of executive success and who would not

otherwise be eligible for appointment. Each career appointee shall meet the

executive qualifications of the position to which appointed, as determined in writing

by the appointing authority.

8

Schedule A

(5 C.F.R. 213.3102)

Noncompetitive hiring authority for positions other than those of a confidential or

policy-determining character for which it is impractical to examine.

5

Reinstatement

(5 C.F.R. 315.401)

An agency may appoint by reinstatement to a competitive service position a person

who previously was employed under career or career-conditional appointment (or

equivalent). There is no time limit to the reinstatement eligibility of a

preference-eligible or a person who completed the service requirement for career

tenure. An agency may reinstate a nonpreference-eligible who has not completed

the service requirement for career tenure only within 3 years following the date of

separation. This time limit begins to run from the date of separation from the last

position in which the person served under a career appointment, career-conditional

appointment, indefinite appointment in lieu of reinstatement, or an appointment

under which the person acquired competitive status. The 3-year limit can be

extended for certain intervening service.

1

SES 

Reinstatement

(5 U.S.C. 3593(b))

A career appointee who is appointed by the president to any civil service position

outside the SES and who leaves the position for reasons other than misconduct,

neglect of duty, or malfeasance shall be entitled to be placed in the SES if the

appointee applies to OPM within 90 days after separation from the presidential

appointment.

1

Senior Level Appointment

(5 U.S.C. 5108)

Merit staffing plans of each agency 1

Source: SF-50Bs prepared by appointing agencies and applicable laws and regulations.

Page 38 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Related GAO Products

Personnel Practices: Improper Personnel Actions on Selected CPSC

Appointments (GAO/GGD-97-131, June 27, 1997).

Hiring of Former IRS Employees by PBGC (GAO/GGD-97-9R, Oct. 2, 1996).

Personnel Practices: Career Appointments of Legislative, White House,

and Political Appointees (GAO/GGD-96-2, Oct. 10, 1995).

Personnel Practices: Selected Characteristics of Recent Ramspeck Act

Appointments (GAO/T-GGD-95-173, May 24, 1995).

An Overview of Ramspeck Act Appointments (GAO/T-GGD-95-155, May 8,

1995).

Personnel Practices: Presidential Transition Conversions and

Appointments: Changes Needed (GAO/GGD-94-66, May 31, 1994).

Political Appointees: Turnover Rates in Executive Schedule Positions

Requiring Senate Confirmation (GAO/GGD-94-115FS, Apr. 21, 1994).

Political Appointees: 10-Year Staffing Trends at 30 Federal Agencies

(GAO/GGD-93-74FS, April 30, 1993).

Personnel Practices: Career Appointments Granted Political Appointees

From Jan. Through Nov. 1992 (GAO/GGD-93-49FS, Jan. 22, 1993).

Personnel Practices: Schedule C and Other Details to the Executive Office

of the President (GAO/GGD-93-14, Nov. 6, 1992).

Political Appointees: Number of Noncareer SES and Schedule C Employees

in Federal Agencies (GAO/GGD-92-101FS, June 8, 1992).

Personnel Practices: Details of Schedule C Employees to the White House

(GAO/T-GGD-92-28, Apr. l9, 1992).

Personnel Practices: Propriety of Career Appointments Granted Former

Political Appointees (GAO/GGD-92-51, Feb. 12, 1992).

Personnel Practices: The Department of Energy’s Use of Schedule C

Appointment Authority (GAO/GGD-90-61, Mar. 8, 1990).

Political Appointees in Federal Agencies (GAO/T-GGD-90-4, Oct. 26, 1989).

Page 39 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Related GAO Products

Federal Employees: Appointees Converted to Career Positions, January

and February 1989 (GAO/GGD-89-89FS, June 13, 1989).

Federal Employees: Appointees Converted to Career Positions, October

Through December 1988 (GAO/GGD-89-66FS, Apr. 24, 1989).

(410029) Page 40 GAO/GGD-97-165 Personnel Practices
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100