U.S. Attorneys' Dismissals Cloud New Rating Systems

Attorney General Gonzales acknowledged mistakes. (Gerald Herbert - AP)

Federal employees, like members of any workforce, want to see the bosses walk the talk. That's especially so when it comes to job performance.

Many federal employees are skeptical about job rating systems, and the Justice Department's handling of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys is likely to reinforce that skepticism.

That should be a cause of concern for taxpayers. New management systems cost money -- the Pentagon has spent $65 million so far on the new National Security Personnel System -- and most experts say such systems succeed only when employees perceive them as fair and credible.

The rollout of the Defense system and the Bush administration's advocacy for a government-wide pay-for-performance system have created some anxiety in the federal workforce. There are fears -- but no evidence -- that these systems might tempt political appointees to manipulate job evaluations to silence employees or put pressure on them. Or that employees will be less likely to stand up to political appointees if pay is at risk.

At the center of the Justice Department controversy is whether the U.S. attorneys' job performance was a reason for their firings.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee in January that the U.S. attorneys were asked to leave because of performance issues identified in job evaluations. A month later, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty offered a similar explanation, testifying that the telephone calls notifying the U.S. attorneys of their dismissals "were performance-related."

But this week, documents released by the department indicate that the dismissals hinged on concerns about the political loyalty of the U.S. attorneys. Gonzales called the firings "the right decision" but acknowledged that "mistakes were made" in handling the dismissals.

To be sure, U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president. President Bush and President Bill Clinton each cleaned house when taking office.

But there's also been an understanding that U.S. attorneys, like rank-and-file federal employees, put aside their political preferences at work and strive to provide the public with fair and impartial treatment.

Paul C. Light, a New York University professor who studies public service issues, said federal employees "have every reason to worry about the controversy at Justice."

Light, once a Democratic staff member for a Senate committee, said that previous administrations have sought political control of the senior ranks of government, but that the Bush administration has tried to centralize such efforts by having departmental chiefs of staff talk regularly with Karl Rove, a senior adviser to the president.

"Senior career officials are right to worry just how much the politicization will affect the new pay systems as their worries flow down the chain of command," Light said. He added, "You never know how deep the political pressure will go -- it has certainly reached the field level in several departments over the past few years."