Paul Light, vice president, director and Douglas Dillon Senior at the Brookings Institution, co-authored two studies for PAI: The Merit and Reputation of an Administration: Presidential Appointees on the Appointments Process and more recently Posts of Honor: How America's Corporate and Civic Leaders View Presidential Appointments. He will join washingtonpost.com Thursday, Jan. 18.
The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

washingtonpost.com: Good afternoon Mr. Light and welcome. Would you please tell us about the recent study released by the Presidential Appointee Initiative?

Paul Light: The study asked some of the nation's most talented executives what they think about presidential service, and can be read in full at www.brookings.appointee.org. In a sentence, the study found a tremendous reservoir of interest in service among the nation's corporate and civic elite, but a parallel reluctance to enter what many described as a confusing, embarrassing, and unfair process. These potential appointees saw problems at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and worried about problems restarting their careers once their service ended. It is a hopeful and troubling study. On the one hand, these folks are ready to serve. On the other, they want nothing to do with the process. It's rare that Congress gets the chance to learn in advance just how much streamlining a bureaucratic process would help solve a problem. But the evidence is all here. Simplifying the presidential appointments process would dramatically increase the willingness to serve.

Arlington, Va.: With the inauguration about to happen is it too late to send in a resume/application?

Paul Light: Absolutely not. That's part of the problem. The fact is that the process is so cumbersome and difficult that it will drag on for months and months and months. The Bush administration will still be looking for candidates for the top jobs well into this coming summer. And don't lose hope if you don't get a call on this round. Past appointees stay in their posts for roughly 18-24 months on average, meaning this administration could still be filling jobs when its earliest top-level appointees are already starting to leave. I've never heard a White House staffer who was willing to say there are too many political appointments in government, but I've also never heard one willing to admit that a 20%-30% vacancy rate in those jobs was troublesome. The White House has always wanted to have its cake and eat it too: no cut in appointees, but no complaining about vacancy rates.

Bethesda, Md.: Do you think senators might think twice in the future about opposing nominees on the grounds of ideology after Ashcroft's grilling? If so, is that a good thing?

Paul Light: I think the most interesting thing about Ashcroft is the deer-in-the-headlights sense as he has had to defend his past opposition to nominees like Bill Lan Lee, David Satcher, and Henry Foster. Ironically, his hearings could actually improve this process. Rarely have Senators been held accountable for using holds and other legislative delaying tactics on a president's nominees. But here's Ashcroft having to explain why he filibustered Foster and why he opposed Lee. I think Senators will wonder whether their use of holds on Bush appointees may come back to haunt them in future election campaigns, which could improve the process somewhat by encouraging up-or-down votes on candidates and fewer holds. Currently, it takes about 90 days on average for the Senate to review and vote each nominee, which is about twice as long as it should.

Cedar Rapids, Iowa: Are those individuals appointed for any given position actually decided in advance of winning the election - in other words, is this payback time? If so, I am surprised at the appointment of N.J. Gov. Whitman. I did not note she was of any particular help to Bush, that is more than anyone else.

Paul Light: Some are known well in advance, while others emerge from the post-election search. Colin Powell was on both the Bush and Gore "hope-for" list two years ago, but Whitman likely emerged only after mid-November when the Bush team got serious about filling in the Cabinet. Think of this as a giant craps table in which you do better if you put down more bets.

Washington, D.C.: I believe the vast majority of these same people who expect "perfection" in high-level federal government officials change their tune when they must face the music. In other words, EVERYONE has something "embarrassing" or perhaps disqualifying in their background. It takes courage, commitment, and perseverance to withstand public scrutiny. Too many male prima donnas aren't willing to take that step. They feel entitled because of societal rank, influence, and/or connections. That's my frank opinion. And yours, sir?

Paul Light: Has someone told you something about me??????

Seriously, I don't think you have to be perfect to get through this process, but you do have to be willing to put up with a fair amount of scrutiny. Ever been divorced? The FBI will call your ex-spouse. Ever smoked marijuana in college? The FBI needs to know. The problem here is that we ask too many questions (believe it or not, there are 233 separate questions that most appointees must answer), but not necessarily the right questions. You're quite right about the need for courage, commitment, and perseverance, but those are the qualities for public service, not necessarily what the Founders intended to be needed merely to get into office.

Naples, Fla.: Do you think with all the stiff questioning of Ashcroft, it will, in fact, box him in when it comes to enforcing the laws. Even some conservatives have been surprised by Ashcroft's answers, e.g. abortion, gun control, etc. Guess it goes to show some people will say anything just to get elected (appointed.)

Paul Light: That's exactly what all the tough questioning is about. Democrats are trying to get his positions on the record in case he changes direction. Democrats are also sending the warning that they won't tolerate candidates with a similar record for judicial posts, though they're going to get some fairly conservative names over the coming years.

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Light:

What can we expect from Mel Martinez?

Thanks for being here,
Natalie

Paul Light: I don't know much about him except for the fact that he's been a very successful county executive in one of the fastest growing metropolitan regions in the United States. I like the notion of having a county executive in that post. The tradition at HUD has been to choose mayors--Cisneros, Pena, etc.--but county executives have some of the toughest urban problems in America right now, and they rightly argue that they are often the last to be asked about urban policy. His appointment is a very good step, I think.

Lincoln, Neb.:

Thank you, Mr. Light for mentioning the grilling of past Democratic nominees. It is nice to hear a conservative think tank acknowledge this.

Now, a question: I have heard that many Democrats are pushing for a vote on Ashcroft PAST Jan. 20. This way, they say they can vote against him to appease the liberal constituency and yet not be accused of gridlock.
Is that true? If it is, do you think it a sound strategy?

Paul Light: I've never heard Brookings described as conservative, I'm afraid. We're usually viewed as more in the middle or toward the liberal end of the continuum.

Ashcroft can't be confirmed until after the 20th. Technically, he hasn't been even been nominated. Only the president can make a formal nomination, and Bush is not yet the president.

That said, Ashcroft is almost certain to be confirmed. I'd guess he'll get 75-80 votes. There just hasn't been anything to this point in the hearings to derail him. Presidents have historically been given their choice for Attorney General, and Ashcroft is most certainly not the worst choice in recent memory. I rather doubt he'll be indicted, for example, which is what happened to Nixon's AG, John Mitchell.

There's still a wild card in all this, however, which is Ted Kennedy's obvious anger about Ashcroft's record. Is he ready to become the first Senator ever to mount a filibuster against an Attorney General? Who knows?

Boston, Mass.: I see your point on not asking so many questions to possible appointees so as to attract more applicants, but what if Americans hadn't found out about Chavez? She would have been heading up the Labor Department!

Paul Light: Good point, but we didn't find out because of those 233 questions. We could have asked 566 questions and not learned a single thing. Remember that the FBI was still doing the field investigation when Chavez withdrew. There is no form known to human kind that can force a nominee to reveal information they don't want to reveal, and Ms. Chavez simply did not reveal the information. Fewer questions might actually lead to more honesty, actually. I know that will strike some readers as nonsense, but nominees might be more candid if they can't hide behind 60 pages of forms.

Washington, D.C.: When is a crime or scandal in someone's past important and when is it "youthful indiscretion" or too far back to be worried about? It seems that all the debate is about drawing that line? Can it be successfully done?

Paul Light: Well, I think we all have to agree on a bright line between personal information about things like college drug use, past marriages, etc., and ethical information about a potential candidate's ability to enforce the laws. I believe that one's failure to obey the laws is fair game for denying an appointment, but which laws? Speed limits? Marijuana use? What about cocaine? Womanizing? Failure to pay social security for a household employee? Believe it or not, I think we're making some progress on sorting through the questions, and I'm hopeful that the Senate is ready to engage this conversation. Although I don't believe Chavez was actually a victim of the politics of personal destruction, she is quite right about the climate around town. Ironically, the heat surrounding Ashcroft is actually the right heat, meaning we ought to talk about what individuals stand for, not whether they can find a high school classmate who can say nice things about them.

Washington, D.C.: I understand the problem, but what's the solution? The only thing I can see to do would be to increase salaries so that they are competitive (unlikely) and make the appointee process less intrusive (also unlikely since the media is only asking more questions. What do you think?

Paul Light: I'm not sure that raising salaries is such a long shot. We doubled the president's salary last year to $400,000 and could certainly justify an increase in presidential appointee salaries commensurate with their responsibilities. Chief Information Officers in the federal government (an executive level IV assistant secretary position) make $125,700. There are entry-level programmers in the private sector who make more! Sooner or later, Congress and the president will figure out the problems with pay compression in the Senior Executive Service, too. Three of the SES grades are now paid the same. Americans have always resisted pay increases for government employees, but the gaps are becoming ridiculous. All it takes is a president willing to make the case. Given his own management background, I'm hoping that President Bush will do just that.

Washington, D.C.: The Brookings report focuses exclusively on senior level political appointees, and ways they can be induced into greater government service. However, one major way to improve the quality of government is to attract more talented people into the civil service. Apart from raising salaries, what can you think of that would raise the overall quality of applicants to the civil service? (None of this implies a lack of quality today...)

Paul Light: You've got that right. We've got lots of work to do in making the federal service a vibrant place to work, not the least of which is a hiring process that's fast enough to compete. There's plenty of hard evidence that the federal government has lost ground in the talent wars, and plenty of opportunity to fight back. Certainly, the recent effort to encourage agencies to provide debt relief is a step in the right direction, but Congress has to provide the money. You don't have to look too far in my own writing to get my standard lecture on flattening the hierarchy, creating more movement in and out at all levels of government, and making federal jobs more attractive.

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Light, I'm a foreigner in D.C. Can you name of other countries with many political appointees? I talked to friends from Asia, Middle East, Africa, and South American. Civil servants can be promoted to the #2 spot in ministries.

Paul Light: It is safe to say there are no other countries. My colleague, G. Calvin Mackenzie, world's savant of appointments, says no one does it like this. But we are not a parliamentary system, and presidents do need help running the agencies. I'm of a mind that we have too many, but the number is less important than the layers they occupy. As a rough estimate, I'd guess that 40 percent of the management layers in the federal government are occupied by political appointees of one kind or another--chiefs of staff, deputies, assistants to the assistant associate. That's just too many layers.

Washington, D.C.: I understand, Mr. Light, that many "touchy" questions must be asked. People KNOW this prior to nomination. That's why they don't come forward. Answer the questions period.
Good G-d! What ever happened to age-old advice: Honesty is the best policy.
These people MUST understand that they are being nominated for positions as PUBLIC SERVANTS. Your thoughts?

Paul Light: I couldn't agree more. But there's a risk that we will discourage people from ever entering the process if they think that everything is fair game. Do we really need to talk to ex-wives and ex-husbands, for example? Or is it reasonable to assume that a simple question about past legal disputes and court orders will tell us enough to make sure that spouse abusers don't enter the process? The current system puts everyone through a grinder to make sure that only a handful get caught. Perhaps we can invent a less burdensome approach.

Washington, D.C.: Once Ashcroft is confirmed (and we know he will be, unfortunately), what will be the options available to Democratic senators and others to keep him in check? Anything less than impeachment if he does something wildly out of touch with current U.S. law? Also, would this answer be different when the Democrats take back the Senate in 2002?

Paul Light: There are really only two numbers that matter in the Senate: one, meaning the power of an individual Senator to stop action through a hold or filibuster, and sixty, meaning the number needed to stop that individual Senator from talking. No one expects the Democrats to move to sixty members in 2002, so I rather suspect that the answer about Ashcroft won't change. But don't forget that we're talking about cabinet nominees here. All bets are off on a Supreme Court nominee with Ashcroft's positions. Democrats would filibuster that one for sure.

washingtonpost.com: That was our last question for Paul Light. Thank you to Mr. Light and to all who participated.

Automatically Update Page    |    Get New Responses    |    Submit Question