Personnel Practices: Career Appointments of Former Political and
Congressional Employees (Letter Report, 09/02/97, GAO/GGD-97-165).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided 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, focusing on whether: (1) appropriate authorities were used
and proper procedures were followed in appointing former political
appointees and legislative branch employees; and (2) 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. GAO did not independently determine whether
the 36 employees were qualified for the positions to which they were
appointed.

GAO noted that: (1) on the basis of GAO's review of relevant personnel
files and documents and discussions with agency officials, GAO believes
the 18 agencies that provided career appointments to the 36 former
political appointees and legislative branch employees used the
appropriate appointment authority to hire each of them and followed
proper procedures in making the appointments; (2) although the
apropriate appointment authorities were used, the reference citations on
the effecting documents for 3 of the 36 appointments were incorrect; (3)
personnel officials from the employing agencies stated that the
incorrect citations were due to administrative error and that
corrections would be made; (4) the three appointments did not involve
circumstances that, in GAO's opinion, could give the appearance of
favoritism or preferential treatment; (5) however, notwithstanding use
of the appropriate authority and proper procedures, the circumstances
surrounding six of the appointments could, in GAO's opinion, give the
appearance that the appointees had received favoritism or preferences
that enhanced the appointees' prospects of appointment; (6) 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; (7) under
such circumstances, one would expect these applicants to fare very well
in the qualifications review portion of the appointment process, which
they did; and (8) the remaining 30 appointments did not raise comparable
questions of the appearance of favoritism or preference.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-97-165
     TITLE:  Personnel Practices: Career Appointments of Former 
             Political and Congressional Employees
      DATE:  09/02/97
   SUBJECT:  Civil service appointments
             Federal personnel law
             Employment discrimination
             Federal employees
             Government job appointments
             Hiring policies
             Presidential appointments
             Personnel management
             Executive agencies
IDENTIFIER:  Senior Executive Service
             SES
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

September 1997

PERSONNEL PRACTICES - CAREER
APPOINTMENTS OF FORMER POLITICAL
AND CONGRESSIONAL EMPLOYEES

GAO/GGD-97-165

Personnel Practices

(410029)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  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

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


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
employees\1 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. 


--------------------
\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. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

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 each of them\3 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. 


--------------------
\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). 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

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. 
     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). 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

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

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. 

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. 


--------------------
\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. 


   APPOINTMENT AUTHORITIES AND
   PROCEDURES PROPERLY USED OR
   FOLLOWED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

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 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. 


--------------------
\7 Personnel Practices:  Propriety of Career Appointments Granted
Former Political Appointees (GAO/GGD-92-51, Feb.  12, 1992). 


   CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING SIX
   APPOINTMENTS COULD GIVE THE
   APPEARANCE OF FAVORITISM OR
   PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

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 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 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
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

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. 

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 Director said he
considers oversight and protection of the merit system to have been
the core function of OPM during his tenure. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

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


DETAILS OF SIX CASES THAT COULD
GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OR
FAVORITISM
=========================================================== Appendix I


   CASE 1:  TAILORED VACANCY
   ANNOUNCEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

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 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. 


   CASE 2:  TAILORED VACANCY
   ANNOUNCEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

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 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 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. 


--------------------
\1 See footnote 1 in letter. 

\2 22 U.S.C.  2385(b). 

\3 5 CFR 332.406(b). 


   CASE 3:  REASSIGNED SOON AFTER
   OBTAINING CAREER APPOINTMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

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). 

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
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
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

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. 

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. 

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
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5

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
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. 

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. 


--------------------
\4 See OPM, Office of the Inspector General, Inspection Report: 
Selection to the Position of Director, Partnership Center, April
1996. 


   CASE 6:  POLITICAL APPOINTEE
   PARTICIPATED ON PANEL BEFORE
   APPLYING, AND BEING SELECTED,
   FOR THE POSITION
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6

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 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. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT USED
=========================================================== Appendix I



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


LISTING OF 50 EXECUTIVE BRANCH
AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS REVIEWED
AND CRITERIA USED TO SELECT THEM
========================================================= Appendix III

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
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


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)
========================================================== Appendix IV

                                                             Number of
Agency                                                    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. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
COMMENTS FROM THE OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
========================================================== Appendix IV



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


APPOINTMENT AUTHORITIES USED IN
THE 36 APPOINTMENTS WE REVIEWED
========================================================== Appendix VI

                                                                       Number of
                                                                    appointments
                                                                     reviewed in
                                                                       which the
Appointment       Criteria for authority's use applicable to the   authority was
authority         appointments reviewed                                    cited
----------------  ----------------------------------------------  --------------
Civil Service     Merit staffing plans of each agency                         11
 certificates
 from
 competitive
 selection
 process
Ramspeck Act of   An individual must (1) serve for at least 3                  9
 1940 (5 U.S.C.    years in the legislative branch and be paid
 3304(c))          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.
SES Recruitment   OPM shall, in consultation with the various                  8
 and Career        qualification review boards, prescribe
 Appointments      criteria for establishing executive
 (5 U.S.C. 3393)   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.
Schedule A        Noncompetitive hiring authority for positions                5
 (5 C.F.R.         other than those of a confidential or policy-
 213.3102)         determining character for which it is
                   impractical to examine.
Reinstatement     An agency may appoint by reinstatement to a                  1
 (5 C.F.R.         competitive service position a person who
 315.401)          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.
SES               A career appointee who is appointed by the                   1
 Reinstatement     president to any civil service position
 (5 U.S.C.         outside the SES and who leaves the position
 3593(b))          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.
Senior Level      Merit staffing plans of each agency                          1
 Appointment
 (5 U.S.C. 5108)

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


RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
============================================================ Chapter 0

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). 

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). 

*** End of document. ***