Personnel Practices: Actions Needed to Improve Documentation of OPM Decisions on Conversion Requests
Released: 2017-09-27T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Each administration makes political appointments to support and advocate the President’s political goals and policies. These positions are noncareer excepted service appointments made without regard to the statutory and regulatory provisions governing career appointments in the competitive, excepted, or senior executive service. Consistent with how we have reported related data in the past, for the purpose of this review, we defined political appointees as those who were appointed in one of the six categories of positions defined below.

Schedule C: Appointments are generally noncompetitive and are for excepted service positions graded General Schedule (GS)-15 and below. These positions involve determining policy or require a close, confidential relationship with the agency head or other key officials of the agency. Schedule C appointees serve at the pleasure of the department or agency head.

Noncareer Senior Executive Service (SES): Appointments are to positions with responsibility for formulating, advocating, and directing administration policies. Noncareer SES appointees serve at the pleasure of the department or agency head.

Limited-term SES: Appointments may be made to a position with duties that will last for a specified period of 36 months or less.

Limited-emergency SES: Appointments may be made for up to 18 months to a position established to meet a bona fide, unanticipated, urgent need.

Presidential appointees, including executive level and noncareer ambassadors: Appointments are made by the President, generally to fill high-level executive positions. Appointees support and advocate the President’s goals and policies.

Noncareer legislative branch: Appointments are primarily to positions in member and committee offices.

Also consistent with our past work on conversions, we identified three categories of career positions as defined below.

Career-Conditional/Career (competitive service): Appointments are to permanent positions in the competitive service and are generally made through open competitive examination. Competitive examination includes recruitment through a published or “all sources” announcement. It also includes the rating and ranking of eligible candidates using OPM-created or approved qualification standards and agency-developed, job-related assessment tools to identify the most qualified applicants. Generally, the initial competitive service appointment is career conditional. Appointees must complete a 1-year probationary period and a total of 3 years of continuous creditable service to become a career employee.

Career (SES): Appointments are into SES under 5 U.S.C. § 3393 to top-level policy, executive, supervisory, and managerial positions above GS-15. Appointments into career SES positions require a further review and certification of the executive/managerial qualifications of the proposed selectee by an OPM-administered SES Qualifications Review Board.

Career excepted service (Non-Schedule C): Some appointments are to positions excepted from the competitive examination requirements in Title 5 of the U.S. Code by OPM. Other appointments are to positions or in agencies not subject to competitive examination requirements in Title 5. Agencies have the authority to establish their own hiring procedures to fill excepted service vacancies. Such procedures must comply with statutory requirements such as merit system principles and veterans’ preferences, when applicable.

Federal agencies must use appropriate authorities and follow proper procedures in converting political appointees to career positions. The majority of authorities and procedures governing appointments to career positions are outlined in Title 5 of the U.S. Code. Merit systems principles are one of the fundamental statutory rules applying to civil service appointments. These principles require that agencies follow a selection process that is fair, open, and based on skills, knowledge, and ability. Another key statute under Title 5 prohibits certain personnel practices (known as prohibited personnel practices). These practices include granting any individual a preference or advantage in the application process. This could include defining the manner of competition or requirements for a position to improve the prospects of any particular applicant, or failing to fulfill veterans’ preference requirements. In addition to these and other statutory requirements, agencies must follow OPM’s regulations in Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations outline required procedures for making appointments to career positions, such as providing public notice of all vacancies in the career SES. For career-excepted service (non-Schedule C) positions, agencies are not required to follow OPM’s hiring regulations for the competitive service; however, they must apply veterans’ preference and follow merit system principles and OPM’s regulations on excepted service hiring when making most of these appointments.

OPM has oversight authority to ensure that federal agencies are following the merit system principles when hiring. It also has authority to order agencies to take corrective actions regarding any agency hiring when it determines the action was contrary to any law, rule, regulation, or standard established by OPM; in turn, agencies are required to comply with such orders. As one aspect of carrying out these duties, OPM has traditionally required that agencies seek its pre-appointment approval for the appointment of certain noncareer appointees (Schedule C and noncareer SES) into certain career positions (competitive service and career SES) during a presidential election period. However, in a November 5, 2009, memorandum to heads of executive departments and agencies, OPM expanded the requirements for pre-appointment approval; beginning January 1, 2010, OPM conducted pre-appointment reviews of political conversions on a continuing basis, rather than just during the year leading up to a presidential election. OPM also required agencies to seek its approval before appointing a current or recent political appointee to a competitive or nonpolitical excepted service position at any level under the provisions of Title 5 of the U.S. Code. According to this memorandum, OPM will (1) review these proposed appointments to ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws, and (2) continue to conduct merit staffing reviews for all proposed career SES selections involving a political appointee before the SES selections are presented to OPM’s Qualifications Review Board for certification of executive qualifications.

To implement its policy of requiring agencies to seek its approval before completing political conversions, OPM established standard operating procedures for reviewing political conversions requests by agencies. For each conversion request review, OPM’s lead coordinator on political conversions is expected to ensure that the agency submitting the conversion request has submitted all required documentation, saves the documents onto an OPM shared drive and sends each case to the relevant lead office. An OPM evaluator assigned by the lead office is expected to ensure that all requested information is received, and requests missing or additional information from the agency. Next, the evaluator reviews the agency’s documentation and completes a review checklist to determine whether the agency’s request complies with merit system principles and appropriate laws, rules, and regulations, and if it is free of political influence. After completing each review, the evaluator and his or her supervisors recommend the approval or denial of the conversion request. The lead office reviewing the request transmits a draft decision letter, the checklist, and supporting documentation to OPM’s Merit Systems Accountability and Compliance (MSAC) Division. OPM’s lead coordinator on political conversions reviews the case for consistency in findings, recommendations, required actions, and referrals to OSC. Then, the MSAC Associate Director and Deputy Associate Director review the recommendation from the lead office. The Associate Director makes the final decision whether to approve or deny the conversion request. See figure 1 for additional details on the processes OPM uses to review political conversion requests and collect data post- approval.

OPM Approved 78 of 99 Political to Career Conversion Requests Agencies Intended to Complete from January 1, 2010, through March 17, 2016

As shown in figure 2 below, OPM reviewed 99 agency requests to convert individuals from political to career positions. The agencies proposed to complete these conversions during the period of our review. OPM denied 21 and approved 78 of the 99 political conversion requests. Of the 78 approved conversion requests, agencies followed through and converted 69 political appointees to career positions.

In 9 cases, agencies did not complete conversions approved by OPM. In some instances, the political appointee did not accept the agency position; in other instances, OPM’s Qualifications Review Board did not certify the executive qualifications of the applicant, so the conversion was not completed.

During the period, agencies also completed 7 conversions without obtaining OPM approval. Once OPM identified these conversions, it took specific actions for each. According to OPM, it conducts post-appointment reviews for cases where agencies convert political appointees to career positions without seeking OPM approval. OPM conducted post- appointment reviews for 4 of these 7 conversions, denying all 4. For each of the 4 denied cases, agencies undertook various remedies, such as readvertising positions, in response to OPM’s concerns.

OPM did not complete a review for the 3 other conversions because the appointees were no longer in the career positions to which they were converted. In 2 instances, OPM determined that reviews were not needed because the appointed individuals were no longer employed by the government at the time OPM discovered the conversions. In 1 instance, the involved agency returned the appointed individual to the previous political position instead of submitting conversion documents to OPM for a post-appointment review.

OPM Is Taking Steps to Better Identify Political Conversions Completed by Agencies without Prior OPM Approval

We reported in September 2016 that some agencies converted political appointees to career positions without first obtaining OPM approval. OPM informed us at that time that it was improving its oversight of political conversions by enhancing its monitoring processes and increasing the frequency of checks of Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI) data. At the time of our September 2016 review, we could not determine a way to reliably identify political conversions within the scope of OPM’s review using queries of EHRI data alone, given the complexity involved in defining political conversions in scope of OPM’s review. Since our review, however, OPM officials said that OPM has transitioned from using a mainframe for querying EHRI data and generating reports to a new EHRI reporting platform.

The EHRI queries from the new reporting platform generate a history of political appointments, terminations and resignations, intervening appointments, and career appointments for every current or former political appointee identified for a specific time period. According to OPM officials, the new reporting query also allows OPM staff to export data to Microsoft Excel, and provides for greater access to sorting and reviewing data.

As of May 2017, OPM officials said they have access to sufficient personnel data from EHRI. They also identified instances from data queries where they could identify conversions reviewed or not reviewed by OPM. The officials added that they are still refining the query process and validating data queries from the new reporting platform. OPM also expects the new EHRI reporting platform to allow it to review EHRI data monthly as they become available, instead of quarterly, as they previously did. These measures, if effectively implemented, may help OPM to better identify in a timely manner conversions completed by agencies, including those implemented without prior OPM approval.

Agencies Converted 76 Political Appointees to Career Positions from January 1, 2010, through March 17, 2016

According to 30 agencies we reviewed, 28 agencies converted 76 individuals from political to career positions—with or without OPM approval—during the period of our review. The other 2 agencies reported making no conversions during this time. Eight agencies accounted for 44, or more than half of the completed conversions. As shown in figure 3, the Department of Homeland Security had the highest number of conversions (9) during the review period, followed by the Departments of Justice (8), Defense (6), the Treasury (5), Agriculture, Commerce, and Health and Human Services, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (4 each). Twenty other agencies each completed 3 or fewer political conversions during the scope of our review.

Of the 76 reported conversions, individuals were converted from the following categories of noncareer positions:

44 Schedule C positions,

27 noncareer SES positions,

3 presidential appointee positions,

1 limited-term SES position, and

1 administratively determined position.

The 76 reported conversions were made to the following categories of career positions:

31 career SES positions,

30 competitive service positions, and

15 career excepted service positions.

Appendix III provides more specific details on characteristics of the political and career positions to which agencies converted individuals. This includes titles and offices, types of political and career appointments, grades, salaries, and appointment dates.

While Agencies Appeared to Have Acted Appropriately, OPM Case Files Lacked Supporting Documents for Most Approved Conversion Requests

For the 78 OPM-approved agency requests, agencies appeared to have used appropriate authorities and followed proper procedures in converting political appointees to career positions. Additionally, we determined that OPM evaluators and management sufficiently reviewed all 78 approved requests. More specifically, for each of the 78 cases, our review of OPM’s case files and additional documentation from individual agencies supported OPM’s conclusion that each of these conversions appeared to be free of political influence. We determined that the conversions complied with merit system principles, applicable civil service law, and regulations. For example, agencies converting 28 political appointees to competitive service positions in our scope generally followed the competitive service examination process. The process includes notifying the public that the government will accept applications for a position; rating applications against minimum qualification standards; and assessing applicants’ competencies or knowledge, skills, and abilities against job-related criteria to identify the most qualified applicants. The process also involves determining which applicants are eligible to claim veterans’ preference, and using a certificate of eligibles identifying the best qualified applicants to fill the position.

OPM’s Conversion Case Files Lacked Key Supporting Documentation to Support Its Decisions on Most Approved Requests

As stated above, OPM reviewed and approved 78 agency requests to appoint a political appointee to a career position. However, supporting documentation in its case files for more than 70 percent (55 of 78) of approved conversions lacked sufficient information for us to initially determine the accuracy of its conclusion that the proposed conversions appeared free of political influence and conformed to merit system principles. We were only able to make our determination after obtaining and reviewing documents from involved agencies. Examples of documentation OPM checklists required agencies to submit with a conversion request—but not provided in OPM’s case files—include but are not limited to descriptions of candidates’ current or former political appointments crediting plans used to score applicants’ responses to assessment questions and determine applicants’ qualifications, and referral lists issued to the selecting official and the completed referral list documenting the tentative selection.

To complete our reviews and to assess OPM’s assertion, we requested additional case documentation directly from the involved agencies. The lack of documentation contained in OPM case files does not conform with Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. Internal control standards require agency management to design control activities—such as maintaining appropriate documentation of transactions and internal control—to achieve objectives and respond to risks.

OPM officials agreed that its case files might not always include copies of all documents OPM reviewed. In commenting on a draft of this report, OPM stated that in situations involving extensive file transactions, it allows agencies the flexibility to grant its evaluators access to automated hiring systems to conduct pre- or post-appointment reviews. OPM also stated that it exercises discretion and provides exceptions to maintaining voluminous or large sized files reviewed in automated hiring systems, when it is burdensome or impractical to store them in OPM’s files. OPM‘s standard operating procedures for reviewing political conversion requests —which were provided to us after OPM submitted comments on a draft of this report—include a description of the file organization and broad categories of information to be stored in each case file, such as contents for pre-appointment checklists submitted by agencies and additional documents reviewed. However, the procedures do not list the specific documents obtained from agency submissions and automated hiring systems OPM should save in its case files. For example, the procedures do not list specific agency documents described in review checklists used by evaluators to review conversion requests, such as job opportunity announcements used to solicit applications or documentation used to adjudicate veterans’ preference. OPM officials told us that OPM is developing guidance to identify and clarify specific agency documents OPM staff should maintain in its case files. As part of this effort, OPM’s Agency Records Office is drafting a records schedule for maintaining political conversion files, which OPM expects to be completed by the end of calendar year 2017. Once completed, OPM plans to submit the draft schedule to the National Archives and Records Administration for review, public comment, and approval. Without a finalized records schedule that lists all documents OPM must save from reviews of agencies’ conversion requests, OPM risks not maintaining sufficient or complete documentation available to justify decisions to approve or deny such requests.

Additionally, OPM’s procedures do not require its staff to verify they have reviewed documentation required by OPM checklists. In cases where OPM does not maintain all documentation used to review a conversion request, such verification would require OPM staff to certify they reviewed required documentation before recommending approval or denial of a conversion request. Without such verification, reviewers of OPM case files often are unable to determine whether OPM staff reviewed all documentation OPM requires from agencies to make an informed recommendation.

OPM Denied Over 20 Percent of Conversion Requests and Referred Several Cases to the Office of Special Counsel for Investigation

OPM denied 21 of the 99 agency conversion requests agencies intended to complete from January 1, 2010, through March 17, 2016. In these cases, OPM could not conclude that agencies adhered to merit system principles or that the conversions were free of political influence. In some cases, OPM identified deficiencies linked to inappropriate handling of applicants with veterans’ preference as reasons for the denial. These include applying overly restrictive definitions of specialized experience to applicants with veterans’ preference, making the applicant ineligible for the position; bypassing qualified veterans and pursuing a Schedule A noncompetitive appointment process to appoint a political appointee; and in two cases, not seeking OPM approval to pass over qualified, compensably disabled veterans.

OPM also cited the following reasons for denying the requests: the absence of critical documentation to conduct delegated examination for position; agencies assessing the qualifications of the selectee, other applicants, or both improperly; using inappropriate qualification standards or selective placement factors to select applicants; and agencies taking clear steps to ensure that political appointees were selected for the career position, such as interviewing only one candidate or requesting the political appointee by name for the position in recruitment documentation.

Further, OPM determined, in 9 of the 21 denied cases, there was evidence in the agency’s submission suggesting the agency may have committed a prohibited personnel practice. OPM referred these cases to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) to determine if agencies committed such practices. The outcomes of OSC investigations varied:

OSC determined that 3 conversion cases were the result of agency officials committing prohibited personnel practices. In 2 of these cases, employees found to be involved in prohibited personnel practices retired before facing an OSC interview or disciplinary action by agencies. OSC did not pursue disciplinary action in 1 case. For all 3 cases, OSC recommended that the agencies provide additional training to its human resources staff, formalize internal policies and procedures, or both.

In 1 investigation, OSC filed a complaint with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) alleging that the agency employee discriminated in favor of certain political appointees when the employee approved proposed actions to convert the political appointees to permanent civil service appointments. OSC requested the MSPB impose disciplinary action against the agency employee. The initial decision of the MSPB administrative judge ruled against the OSC and OSC thereafter filed a petition for review with the full board. In January 2017, the full board affirmed the initial decision and held that there was no basis for disciplinary action against the employee. In so concluding, it stated that OSC failed to prove that the employee intentionally committed an unlawful hiring practice.

In 3 cases, OSC said it either lacked sufficient evidence to conclude that the hiring process was manipulated or that it lacked jurisdiction over the case. In these instances, OSC closed the cases.

OSC was continuing its investigation of the other 2 cases as of July 2017.

OPM Directed Agencies to Take Corrective Actions in Over 10 Percent of the Conversion Cases It Reviewed

As discussed earlier, OPM has authority to order agencies to take corrective actions regarding any agency hiring when it determines the action was contrary to any law, rule, regulation, or OPM-established standard. Agencies are required to comply with such orders. In over 10 percent (11 of 99) of conversion requests OPM reviewed during our period of review, OPM directed agencies to take one or more corrective actions after identifying deficiencies in their handling of the respective cases. For 8 of these 11 requests, OPM directed agencies to take corrective actions after denying them. For the 3 other requests, OPM approved them but instructed agencies to take corrective actions to remedy identified deficiencies. Examples of corrective actions OPM directs an agency to implement include cancelling personnel actions, readvertising positions, separating the individual who was selected, or appointing another individual (e.g., a priority referral from the agency’s displaced employee program).

In cases where preference eligibles lost employment consideration due to improper agency action, OPM may further require agencies to identify such individuals and provide them with priority consideration. It may also impose certain conditions on an agency (or a unit), including but not limited to, decertification of staff (OPM certification is required to conduct delegated examining), close monitoring and approval of activities at various steps of the hiring process, periodic follow-up activities, and staff training until OPM is satisfied with the corrective actions taken. Finally, OPM may withdraw an agency's delegated examining hiring authority—or decertify the staff of a specific delegated examining unit—if the agency (or unit) has demonstrated systematic problems executing the authority, including in handling political conversions.

OPM Reported Political Conversion Requests as Mandated

The Edward “Ted” Kaufman and Michael Leavitt Presidential Transitions Improvements Act of 2015 (Transitions Act) requires OPM to report annually to Congress, and during certain periods quarterly, on agency requests to appoint political appointees or former political appointees to covered civil service positions. Enacted in March 2016, the Transitions Act requires such reports to include data elements for each conversion request, such as the date on which the request was received by OPM, the political position held by the individual, the proposed career position, whether OPM approved or denied the request, and the date the agency appointed the political appointee into the covered civil service position.

The Transitions Act also defines covered civil service positions and political positions included under its new reporting requirements.

From September 2016 through February 2017, OPM has provided five reports to Congress on conversion requests submitted by agencies from March 18, 2016, to January 20, 2017. The reports incorporate all data elements required by the Transitions Act. Although not specifically required under the act, the reports also include OPM post-appointment reviews of conversions that occurred without seeking OPM approval. To comply with the Transitions Act’s new reporting requirements, OPM reshaped its pre-appointment review coverage. Specifically, in an August 2016 memorandum to agencies, OPM provided information on covered political positions and expanded the scope of its conversion reviews to include current or former political appointees in positions listed in the Executive Schedule. OPM must report these reviews under the Transitions Act.

OPM’s August 2016 memorandum also lists revised procedures. For example, OPM revised its pre-appointment checklists to include requests for the rate of basic pay of the current or former political appointee, and the proposed rate of basic pay of the proposed civil service position. As part of its revised procedures, OPM also requires agencies to provide information on whether the agency appointed the individual to the covered position and, if so, the date the appointment took place. The additional information that OPM is requesting from agencies provides OPM with the data it needs to comply with the reporting requirement.

OPM does not require agencies to seek pre-appointment approval to convert political appointees to career positions when using certain noncompetitive and direct-hire authorities. However, as we pointed out to OPM officials, under the Transitions Act, appointments under these authorities are within the scope of OPM’s reporting obligation. OPM agreed and told us that, going forward, they will notify agencies that they must request OPM’s approval to convert political appointees using such authorities. OPM officials said they would also include data on these conversions in subsequent political conversion reports to Congress. By reviewing proposed political conversions made under these noncompetitive and direct-hire authorities, and including them in its reports, OPM will be able to enhance its oversight of political conversions and provide a more complete representation of political appointee conversion activity to Congress.

Conclusions

The merit-based conversion of political appointees to career positions can be useful in achieving a highly qualified workforce. We found that OPM’s reviews of proposed political conversions are helping to ensure that agencies are using appropriate authorities and following proper procedures in making these conversions. In a number of cases, OPM directed agencies to take corrective actions and denied conversion requests where it could not conclude that agencies adhered to merit system principles or that the conversions were free of political influence. In addition, OPM is taking steps to better identify instances where agencies may complete political conversions without prior OPM approval. It has enhanced its monitoring processes and plans to increase the frequency of its checks of data collected through its EHRI database.

However, OPM’s review process and supporting documentation must also be transparent, and include and maintain the appropriate documentation to support its review decisions. For the majority of OPM’s approved cases, there was not sufficient information in OPM’s case files for us to initially support its determination that proposed conversions appeared free of political influence and conformed to merit system principles. We were, however, able to support OPM’s decisions with additional documentation obtained directly from involved agencies. As OPM drafts a records schedule for maintaining files from conversion requests, it can specify documents that must be saved from both agency submissions and agencies’ automated systems to ensure such documentation is available for subsequent review. Additionally, to provide greater assurance that its staff reviewed all documentation required by OPM checklists to support a conversion request, OPM can incorporate a process requiring its staff to verify they have reviewed such documentation before recommending approval or denial of agencies’ conversion requests.

Recommendations for Executive Action

We are making the following two recommendations to OPM: The Associate Director of Merit System Accountability and Compliance should ensure that OPM’s finalized records schedule on retaining conversion case files specifically lists all documentation that must be saved in its case files. (Recommendation 1)

The Associate Director of Merit System Accountability and Compliance should establish a policy requiring that its staff verify they have reviewed all documentation required by OPM checklists before recommending approval or denial of a conversion request. OPM may incorporate such a verification requirement as part of checklists completed by its staff when reviewing conversion requests. (Recommendation 2)

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to OPM for its review and comment. In its written comments, reproduced in appendix IV, OPM partially concurred with both of our recommendations.

With respect to our first recommendation, OPM stated that it agrees that finalized guidance on retaining conversion case files should specifically list information that must be documented in OPM’s case files. However, OPM stated that it does not agree with the implication that its current guidance lacks information about the material that must be maintained in case files. OPM noted that its political conversion standard operating procedures provide a description for the file organization and lists the contents to be stored in each case file, including a file for contents for the pre-appointment checklists. It also noted that while its guidance does not list each individual document to file, OPM maintains the documents submitted by the requesting agency and additional information obtained during the review process to support OPM’s decision. OPM stated that in situations involving extensive file transactions, it allows agencies the flexibility to grant its evaluators access to automated hiring systems to conduct pre- or post-appointment reviews. It also stated it exercises discretion and provides exceptions to maintaining voluminous or large sized files reviewed in automated hiring systems, when it is burdensome or impractical to store them in OPM’s files. Finally, OPM stated that its evaluators review checklists, which are filed in the case file, and capture the review and analysis of that documentation.

We acknowledge OPM’s standard operating procedures include information about documents that must be maintained in case files. These procedures—which OPM provided after submitting comments on a draft of this report—include a description of the file organization and broad categories of information to be stored in each case file, such as contents for pre-appointment checklists submitted by agencies and additional documents reviewed. OPM’s procedures also describe roles and responsibilities for staff involved in political conversion reviews. For example, OPM’s lead coordinator for political conversions and an evaluator assigned to the case are expected to ensure that OPM has received all documentation from the agency submitting the conversion request. An evaluator also reviews the agency’s documentation and completes a review checklist to determine whether the request complies with merit system principles and appropriate laws, rules, and regulations, and if it is free of political influence. However, the procedures do not list the specific documents obtained from agency submissions and automated hiring systems OPM should save in its case files. For example, the procedures do not list specific agency documents described in review checklists used by evaluators to review conversion requests, such as job opportunity announcements used to solicit applications or documentation used to adjudicate veterans’ preference. As noted above, as OPM drafts the records schedule on retaining conversion case files for maintaining files from conversion requests, it can specify information that must be saved from agencies’ automated systems to ensure such documentation is available for subsequent review. Thus, we believe our recommendation remains valid. We have clarified our recommendation to specify that OPM should ensure that the finalized records schedule it is drafting specifically lists all documentation it must save in its files.

With respect to our second recommendation, OPM agreed to add a box to the checklist for evaluators to indicate they have reviewed all required documentation, and for their reviewers to add their concurrence. OPM did not agree with what they believed was an implication that it lacks a policy or process to ensure a thorough review of required information to conduct a pre- or post-appointment review of current or recent political appointees to covered civil service positions. According to OPM, the process involves experienced evaluators and multiple levels of management review prior to issuing a final decision of approval or denial. OPM also stated that the thoroughness of its review process is also evident by the fact that GAO agreed with all of its decisions for cases reviewed.

We acknowledge that OPM has a process to review conversion requests. As discussed above and illustrated in figure 1, OPM’s process involves both evaluators and multiple levels of management review prior to making final decisions on conversion requests. Additionally, as noted above, we determined that OPM evaluators and management sufficiently reviewed all 78 OPM-approved agency requests included in the scope of our review. Specifically, for each of the 78 cases, our review of OPM’s case files and additional documentation from individual agencies supported OPM’s conclusion that each of these conversions appeared to be free of political influence. We also determined that these conversions complied with merit system principles, applicable civil service law, and regulations. However, OPM’s procedures do not require its staff to verify they have reviewed all documentation OPM requires from agencies to make an informed recommendation. While evaluators may have reviewed all required documentation, reviewers of OPM case files often cannot confirm such reviews took place without verification. Thus, we believe our recommendation remains valid.

OPM also provided technical comments, which we incorporated in our report, as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management, as well as to the appropriate congressional committees and other interested parties.

In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2717 or jonesy@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Political Conversions Reviewed and Completed from January 1, 2010, through March 17, 2016

Number of conversion requests reviewed by OPM 1

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this engagement were to provide information on conversions of political appointees to career positions, and examine the implementation and effectiveness of the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) 2010 policy for reviewing these conversions. Specifically, this report examines (1) conversion requests submitted by agencies and reviewed by OPM, (2) whether agencies used appropriate authorities and proper procedures in conversions approved by OPM, (3) conversion requests denied by OPM and referred to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), and (4) the extent to which OPM has complied with governmentwide reporting requirements stipulated by the Edward “Ted” Kaufman and Michael Leavitt Presidential Transitions Improvements Act of 2015 (Transitions Act). For the purposes of our review, we included conversions OPM reviewed and agencies intended to complete from January 1, 2010, through March 17, 2016. This period begins with the implementation of OPM’s January 2010 policy requiring its prior approval of all conversions of current or recent appointees to competitive or nonpolitical excepted service positions. The period continues through March 17, 2016. This is the day before the Transitions Act was enacted and OPM began reporting requests by agencies to appoint political appointees or former political appointees to covered civil service positions. In selecting the executive branch departments and agencies for this review, we looked at all agencies that OPM reported as having requested its approval of proposed appointments of political appointees to career positions during the time period referenced above.

For the purpose of this review, we defined political appointees as those appointed to positions in one of six categories: Schedule C; noncareer Senior Executive Service (SES); limited-term SES; limited-emergency SES; presidential appointees (including executive level and noncareer ambassadors); and noncareer legislative branch. We excluded from our review conversions of limited-term SES and limited-emergency SES appointees who were career employees prior to being appointed to the noncareer positions listed above. We identified three categories of career positions appointments: career-conditional/career (competitive service); career (SES); and career excepted service (non-Schedule C). Definitions of these political and career positions can be found in the background section of this report. They are identical to those covered in our September 2016 report. The types of current or former political appointees whose career conversion was subject to OPM’s pre- appointment review under OPM’s November 2009 guidance was not as extensive as the categories of political appointees used in this report. However, this variance in scope did not result in a difference between what agencies gave OPM to review and what those agencies subsequently provided us. For example, although not specifically under OPM’s 2010 pre-appointment review guidance, conversion actions involving one current and three former presidential appointees subject to Senate confirmation were submitted to OPM for review and were approved. Additionally, a conversion action involving a current noncareer legislative branch appointee was also reviewed and approved by OPM. However, OPM’s guidance does not specify it would subject conversions involving legislative branch employees to its pre-appointment review.

To address our first objective, we obtained data from OPM on its reviews of agency requests to convert political appointees to career positions. In addition, we obtained from agencies the number of approved cases where they proceeded to hire political appointees. According to OPM data, 30 executive branch departments and agencies requested OPM’s approval for at least one conversion during the period; the departments and agencies are listed in appendix I. We then asked each of these 30 departments and agencies to corroborate (1) the number of requests to convert employees from political to career positions each agency made to OPM, and (2) the number of these conversions the agencies completed during the period of our review. Additionally, we reviewed relevant OPM documents and interviewed OPM officials charged with administering OPM’s political conversion review procedures. This allowed us to better understand the steps OPM has taken to enhance its processes for identifying conversions completed by agencies, including those conversions agencies may have completed before obtaining OPM’s approval.

To assess the reliability of OPM and agency conversion data, we examined them for obvious errors and inconsistencies. We also sent questionnaires to OPM and all 30 departments and agencies identified by OPM as submitting conversion requests during the review period. We asked them to submit information on the data systems they respectively used to collect, store, and update conversions data, and the quality of data entered into their system(s). We determined that political conversion data provided by OPM and agencies for the time period of our review are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives.

To address our second objective, we assessed OPM’s reviews of all conversion requests in our scope that OPM approved. Specifically, we examined OPM’s review checklists, individual OPM case files documenting steps agencies took to convert political appointees, and additional documentation provided by individual agencies. This was designed to (1) ensure that appropriate authorities and proper procedures were followed in making and reviewing conversions; and (2) determine, for requests approved by OPM, whether we could support OPM’s decision that conversions appeared to be free of political influence and complied with merit system principles, applicable civil service law, and regulations. One GAO analyst applied professional judgment after reviewing submitted checklists and documentation, appropriate laws and regulations, and the circumstances for each conversion request. A second analyst then reviewed and validated the first analyst’s evaluation of each conversion request. The second GAO analyst either independently evaluated the conversion request, or traced findings from the first analyst’s review back to supporting audit documents. We identified conversion review cases with significant differences between our and OPM’s reviews of the cases by comparing differences we identified to selected merit system principles and prohibited personnel practices. We then collected additional information from OPM on such cases and determined whether agencies involved in the cases violated merit system principles and proper procedures, or engaged in prohibited personnel practices.

To address our third objective, we identified the number of conversion requests in our scope that OPM denied, and why they denied them. We reviewed conversion requests referred to OSC for investigation, and described the outcome of OSC’s reviews of the cases. We also summarized cases where OPM directed agencies to implement corrective actions after reviewing conversion requests.

To address our fourth objective, we reviewed revisions OPM made to its pre-appointment review policies and procedures following enactment of the Transitions Act. We also reviewed the data elements the Transitions Act requires OPM to include in its reports to Congress on agency personnel requests to appoint current or former political appointees to covered civil service positions. We then compared these data elements with information from reports on conversion requests OPM had submitted to Congress.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2016 to August 2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix III: Agency Conversions of Political Appointees to Career Positions from January 1, 2010, through March 17, 2016

Conversions to career positions in the Export-Import Bank of the United States Executive Secretary Export-Import Bank of the United States

Conversions to career positions in the Federal Communications Commission Chief Information Officer Small Business Administration

Conversions to career positions in the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Deputy Commissioner for Communications Social Security Administration

Conversions to career positions in the Federal Trade Commission Director Office of Policy Planning Federal Trade Commission

Conversions to career positions in the Social Security Administration General Counsel Merit Systems Protection Board

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Clifton G. Douglas, Jr., Assistant Director; Colleen Corcoran; Ann Czapiewski; Karin Fangman; Ulyana Panchishin; Mark Ryan; Cynthia Saunders; and Albert Sim made key contributions to this report. Michelle Batie; Ellen Grady; Ted Hu; Cale Jones; Donna Miller; LaSonya Roberts and Stewart W. Small also provided assistance.