Talk:Schedule F appointment

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that an estimated tens of thousands of U.S. federal workers are eligible to lose due-process job protections by being shifted into Schedule F appointments?
• ALT1: ... that an October 2020 executive order makes an estimated tens of thousands of U.S. federal workers eligible to lose due-process job protections?

Source: [1] "Federal scientists, attorneys, regulators, public health experts and many others in senior roles would lose rights to due process and in some cases, union representation, at agencies across the government. The White House declined to say how many jobs would be swept into a class of employees with fewer civil service rights, but civil service experts and union leaders estimated anywhere from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands in a workforce of 2.1 million."

• Reviewed: Tracey McLellan

Created by Antony-22 (talk) and Objectivesea (talk). Nominated by Antony-22 (talk) at 03:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC).

• This article is new enough and I judge it to be long enough; there is some text moved from another article, but that article is also new enough and the author credited here. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. I prefer ALT1 over the original hook. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there any rationale for Schedule F?

Based on this article, Schedule F appears to be opposed unanimously. Is any near-rationale supporting Schedule F documented anywhere? Should the rationale and the point of view of its advocates be added to this article in a manner that can be considered objective by those opposed to it? My assumption is the point of view of proponents cannot be reflected in a manner that proponents could consider objective or neutral, without risking the credibility of Wikipedia. Carla Rogers FL (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is rationale quoted from the executive order creating Schedule F.

Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service

Section 1. Policy. To effectively carry out the broad array of activities assigned to the executive branch under law, the President and his appointees must rely on men and women in the Federal service employed in positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character. Faithful execution of the law requires that the President have appropriate management oversight regarding this select cadre of professionals.

The Federal Government benefits from career professionals in positions that are not normally subject to change as a result of a Presidential transition but who discharge significant duties and exercise significant discretion in formulating and implementing executive branch policy and programs under the laws of the United States. The heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) and the American people also entrust these career professionals with non-public information that must be kept confidential.

With the exception of attorneys in the Federal service who are appointed pursuant to Schedule A of the excepted service and members of the Senior Executive Service, appointments to these positions are generally made through the competitive service. Given the importance of the functions they discharge, employees in such positions must display appropriate temperament, acumen, impartiality, and sound judgment.

Due to these requirements, agencies should have a greater degree of appointment flexibility with respect to these employees than is afforded by the existing competitive service process.

Further, effective performance management of employees in confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating positions is of the utmost importance. Unfortunately, the Government's current performance management is inadequate, as recognized by Federal workers themselves. For instance, the 2016 Merit Principles Survey reveals that less than a quarter of Federal employees believe their agency addresses poor performers effectively.

Separating employees who cannot or will not meet required performance standards is important, and it is particularly important with regard to employees in confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating positions. High performance by such employees can meaningfully enhance agency operations, while poor performance can significantly hinder them. Senior agency officials report that poor performance by career employees in policy-relevant positions has resulted in long delays and substandard-quality work for important agency projects, such as drafting and issuing regulations.

Pursuant to my authority under section 3302(1) of title 5, United States Code, I find that conditions of good administration make necessary an exception to the competitive hiring rules and examinations for career positions in the Federal service of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character. These conditions include the need to provide agency heads with additional flexibility to assess prospective appointees without the limitations imposed by competitive service selection procedures. Placing these positions in the excepted service will mitigate undue limitations on their selection. This action will also give agencies greater ability and discretion to assess critical qualities in applicants to fill these positions, such as work ethic, judgment, and ability to meet the particular needs of the agency. These are all qualities individuals should have before wielding the authority inherent in their prospective positions, and agencies should be able to assess candidates without proceeding through complicated and elaborate competitive service processes or rating procedures that do not necessarily reflect their particular needs.

Conditions of good administration similarly make necessary excepting such positions from the adverse action procedures set forth in chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code. Chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code, requires agencies to comply with extensive procedures before taking adverse action against an employee. These requirements can make removing poorly performing employees difficult. Only a quarter of Federal supervisors are confident that they could remove a poor performer. Career employees in confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, and policy-advocating positions wield significant influence over Government operations and effectiveness. Agencies need the flexibility to expeditiously remove poorly performing employees from these positions without facing extensive delays or litigation.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/10/26/2020-23780/creating-schedule-f-in-the-excepted-service Carla Rogers FL (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Moved to bottom of page. Firestar464 (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)