Podcasts about civil service commission

Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D. Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/BCja5KnBz4kFormer Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator in the Karen Read case, is appealing his termination from the Massachusetts State Police. He was fired in March after an internal investigation sustained allegations of misconduct, including derogatory text messages, sharing information outside the department, and drinking alcohol on duty.Proctor has civil service protections in his job, and his appeal is being supported and paid for by the police union. The union's involvement may also be to prevent his termination from setting a precedent for other officers. Proctor stated in an interview that he wants his job back, claiming that "no one's ever fired for personal texts."A procedural hearing for his appeal was held virtually on Tuesday as part of his appeal to the state's Civil Service Commission, an independent body that handles issues of state and local worker discipline. State Police requested the hearing be made public, which some see as a step towards transparency. A full in-person hearing is scheduled for mid-August.During the procedural hearing, lawyers for Proctor and the State Police indicated they had reached an agreement regarding evidence discovery, although it might take longer than anticipated. Proctor remains certified as an officer in Massachusetts, even without a law enforcement agency. The Karen Read case has also led to other changes within the Massachusetts State Police, including the reassignment of Proctor's supervisor, Yuri Bukhenik, and the relocation of another trooper involved in the case, David DiCicco. The Civil Service Commission will ultimately decide whether Trooper Proctor will get his job back.RESOURCESNBC 10 Boston Reporting - https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/michael-proctor-mass-state-police-appeal-hearing/3761846/Proctor's Post Trial Interview - https://www.youtube.com/live/i7IdKgUQoDU?t=7615sThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

It's Thursday and that means it's time to catch up on politics with The Times-Picayune/New Orleans Advocate's editorial director and columnist, Stephanie Grace. We hear about the latest clashes between Mayor LaToya Cantrell and the Civil Service Commission, and a millage to support the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office. The death penalty has been a major topic in Louisiana ever since the execution of Jessie Hoffman, Jr. one month ago. He was the first person in the state to be killed with nitrogen gas. While many anti-death penalty organizations spoke up against this, there's one Louisianan who's been leading the charge against the death penalty for generations. Sister Helen Prejean is a Catholic religious leader and author of several books, including, “Dead Man Walking,” which captures her experiences serving as a spiritual adviser for two people on death row. She joins us now for more on her life's work, new book, and re-release of “Dead Man Walking,” as a graphic novel. Today's episode of Louisiana Considered was hosted by Bob Pavlovich. Our managing producer is Alana Schreiber. We get production support from Garrett Pittman and our assistant producer Aubry Procell.You can listen to Louisiana Considered Monday through Friday at noon and 7 p.m. It's available on Spotify, the NPR App and wherever you get your podcasts. Louisiana Considered wants to hear from you!  Please fill out our pitch line to let us know what kinds of story ideas you have for our show. And while you're at it, fill out our listener survey! We want to keep bringing you the kinds of conversations you'd like to listen to.Louisiana Considered is made possible with support from our listeners. Thank you!

* Between tariffs and the major Chevron verdict, what does the future hold for Louisiana oil and gas and the energy industry in general? We'll try to get some answers * New Orleans Councilmember JP Morrell on Cantrell and on a Civil Service Commission decision

Tommy spends some time talking with Councilmember JP Morrell about Mayor Cantrell and the French Quarter sanitation contract and a Civil Service Commission decision the Council is objecting to

This Day in Legal History: Pendleton Civil Service Reform ActOn January 16, 1883, the U.S. Congress enacted the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, a landmark piece of legislation that fundamentally transformed federal employment practices. The act was a response to widespread corruption and inefficiency in the government, fueled by the patronage or "spoils" system, which awarded jobs based on political loyalty rather than competence. Signed into law by President Chester A. Arthur, the Pendleton Act marked a critical shift toward merit-based hiring and promotion within the federal workforce.The law initially applied to only about 10% of federal jobs, requiring competitive examinations to determine qualifications. However, it granted the president authority to expand the classified service, allowing successive administrations to broaden its scope. The act also established the Civil Service Commission, the first federal agency tasked with overseeing adherence to these new standards of fairness and efficiency.This reform was catalyzed by public outcry following the assassination of President James A. Garfield in 1881 by a disgruntled office seeker. The tragedy underscored the dangers of a system rife with favoritism and incompetence, galvanizing bipartisan support for change. Over time, the principles of the Pendleton Act have become cornerstones of American civil service, contributing to the professionalization and stability of the federal government.By curbing patronage and introducing accountability, the act helped restore public trust in government operations. It also served as a model for state and local reforms and influenced broader discussions about the role of expertise in public administration. Today, the Pendleton Act is recognized as a foundational moment in the evolution of modern governance in the United States, laying the groundwork for a more impartial and effective civil service system.Victims of recent Los Angeles wildfires are leveraging California's unique legal doctrine of "inverse condemnation" to seek damages from Southern California Edison (SCE), even if the utility was not negligent. This doctrine, traditionally used against government entities for property damage, has been extended to utilities, making them liable for property damage caused during public service operations, regardless of fault. SCE is facing numerous lawsuits over the Eaton Fire, which destroyed thousands of structures and caused at least 24 deaths. Plaintiffs claim the fire originated near SCE's high-voltage transmission towers, although the company reports no operational anomalies on its lines before or during the fire.California law does not require plaintiffs to prove negligence for property damage claims under inverse condemnation. However, proving negligence could enable claims for personal injuries and wrongful death. The lawsuits cite substantial economic losses and damages exceeding insurance coverage. To mitigate financial impacts, a $21 billion state wildfire insurance fund is available, capping SCE's exposure at $3.9 billion.These cases, expected to take years to resolve, highlight the escalating legal and financial consequences for utilities in wildfire-prone areas.California utility faces billions in claims for fire damage even if it did nothing wrong | ReutersPam Bondi, nominated by Donald Trump for U.S. attorney general, assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that she would not politicize the Justice Department, but refused to rule out investigating Trump critics. Bondi, who previously served as Florida's attorney general and defended Trump during his 2019 impeachment trial, emphasized her focus on issues like violent crime and human trafficking while acknowledging she would evaluate investigations and potential pardons on a case-by-case basis.Democratic lawmakers expressed concerns about her independence, referencing Trump's pledge to target his adversaries and the dismissal of two past attorneys general who defied him. Bondi criticized Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigations into Trump as partisan but claimed she would maintain fairness. Republicans praised Bondi, urging her to restore the Justice Department's reputation and combat crime and border issues. Democrats questioned her involvement in promoting Trump's election fraud claims and her support for FBI director nominee Kash Patel, who has been linked to controversial conspiracy theories. Bondi acknowledged Biden's 2020 victory but suggested irregularities in Pennsylvania. The committee continues vetting other controversial cabinet nominees ahead of Trump's upcoming inauguration.Trump nominee Pam Bondi vows independence, but won't rule out probes of Trump critics | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg this week I focus on the strategic risks of advocating for retirement account tax reforms during the anticipated extension of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) provisions under a new Trump administration. Extending these provisions, a top priority, will cost an estimated $4.6 trillion over the next decade, creating a politically and fiscally sensitive environment where other tax code changes could face heightened scrutiny. The 403(b) retirement accounts, designed for public employees and nonprofit workers, are particularly vulnerable because of their association with significant tax expenditures, which totaled over $300 billion in 2022 and are projected to exceed $2 trillion by 2026. Advocates for reform in areas like expanding 403(b) investment options should avoid pushing these changes now, as drawing attention to retirement accounts could lead to cuts framed as cost-saving measures. History shows that retirement savings provisions are not immune to political pressure, with past examples including the TCJA's elimination of Roth IRA recharacterizations and narrowly avoided cuts to 401(k) benefits. In this high-stakes fiscal landscape, strategic patience is essential. Advocates are advised to focus on preserving existing provisions rather than risking unintended consequences by pursuing reform during an unfavorable political moment.Retirement Account Reformists Should Wait to Push Tax Code Changes This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of VT Radio, you get to hear the world-renowned author Richard C. Cook.Richard C. Cook is a co-founder and Lead Investigator for the American Geopolitical Institute.  Mr. Cook is a retired U.S. federal analyst with extensive experience across various government agencies, including the U.S. Civil Service Commission, FDA, the Carter White House, NASA, and the U.S. Treasury. As a whistleblower at the time of the Challenger disaster, he exposed the flawed O-ring joints that destroyed the Shuttle, documenting his story in his book “Challenger Revealed.” After serving at Treasury, he became a vocal critic of the private-finance-controlled monetary system, detailing his concerns in “We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform.” He served as an advisor to the American Monetary Institute and worked with Congressman Dennis Kucinich to advocate for replacing the Federal Reserve with a genuine national currency. His latest book is “Our Country, Then and Now” (Clarity Press, 2023). https://www.claritypress.com/product/our-country-then-and-now/In this book, Mr. Cook postulates that our country has lost touch with its founding principles, among which is the Bill of Rights, which we must reaffirm to survive as a nation.ResourcesSUPPORT VT and  Subscribe to our Monthly MembershipDONATE:  Make a one-time DonationSHOP OFFICIAL VT MERCH

Murph interviews his old friend and colleague, Tom Golden. The briefly talk about Tommy's time in the Uniform Division of the US Secret Service, and his transition to becoming a DEA Special Agent.  Tom and Murph worked together as young Agents in Miami in the late 1980s, and they have some great adventures together, especially the one when Tom and another agent hid in the FL Everglades for hours waiting for a clandestine load of 400 kilograms of cocaine to arrive.  After 30 years of being a federal Agent, Tom continued his public service as a Police Chief, a Municipal Court Judge, and now a member of the Civil Service Commission.

Murph interviews his old friend and colleague, Tom Golden. The briefly talk about Tommy's time in the Uniform Division of the US Secret Service, and his transition to becoming a DEA Special Agent.  Tom and Murph worked together as young Agents in Miami in the late 1980s, and they have some great adventures together, especially the one when Tom and another agent hid in the FL Everglades for hours waiting for a clandestine load of 400 kilograms of cocaine to arrive.  After 30 years of being a federal Agent, Tom continued his public service as a Police Chief, a Municipal Court Judge, and now a member of the Civil Service Commission.

Chris talks more and takes calls on the Civil Service Commission's decision in the Fairhaven police chief saga.

GUEST 1 OVERVIEW: Paul Gottfried is a Paleoconservative, historian of political thought, editor Chronicles Magazine. GUEST 2 OVERVIEW: Richard C. Cook is a Co-Founder and Lead Investigator for the American Geopolitical Institute. Mr. Cook is a retired U.S. federal analyst with extensive experience across various government agencies, including the U.S. Civil Service Commission, FDA, the Carter White House, NASA, and the U.S. Treasury. As a whistleblower at the time of the Challenger disaster, he exposed the flawed O-ring joints that destroyed the Shuttle, documenting his story in his book "Challenger Revealed." After serving at Treasury, he became a vocal critic of the private-finance-controlled monetary system, detailing his concerns in "We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform." He served as an advisor to the American Monetary Institute and worked with Congressman Dennis Kucinich to advocate for replacing the Federal Reserve with a genuine national currency. His latest book is "Our Country, Then and Now" (Clarity Press, 2023). https://www.claritypress.com/product/our-country-then-and-now/ In this book, Mr. Cook postulates that our country has lost touch with its founding principles, among which is the Bill of Rights, which we must reaffirm to survive as a nation

GUEST OVERVIEW: Richard C. Cook is a Co-Founder and Lead Investigator for the American Geopolitical Institute. Mr. Cook is a retired U.S. federal analyst with extensive experience across various government agencies, including the U.S. Civil Service Commission, FDA, the Carter White House, NASA, and the U.S. Treasury. As a whistleblower at the time of the Challenger disaster, he exposed the flawed O-ring joints that destroyed the Shuttle, documenting his story in his book "Challenger Revealed." After serving at Treasury, he became a vocal critic of the private-finance-controlled monetary system, detailing his concerns in "We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform." He served as an advisor to the American Monetary Institute and worked with Congressman Dennis Kucinich to advocate for replacing the Federal Reserve with a genuine national currency. His latest book is "Our Country, Then and Now" (Clarity Press, 2023). https://www.claritypress.com/product/our-country-then-and-now/ In this book, Mr. Cook postulates that our country has lost touch with its founding principles, among which is the Bill of Rights, which we must reaffirm to survive as a nation.

Clark County is accepting applications to fill a vacancy on the local civil service commission for the Sheriff's Office created under state law. https://tinyurl.com/4yxkf4fj #ClarkCountyWa #acceptingapplications #vacancy #CivilServiceCommission #ClarkCountySheriff'sOffice #statelaw #employmentandpersonnelmatters #fivemembercommission #appealhearings #ClarkCountyCouncil #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

Jayvee Moltio is a nurse who currently works as a public health practitioner specializing in health promotion and communication in a government hospital. He is pursuing a PhD in Indigenous Studies, focusing on Medical Anthropology, at the University of the Philippines Baguio. He has received prestigious awards, including the Presidential Lingkod Bayan from the Civil Service Commission. He has been recognized as an Outstanding Citizen in the Province of Benguet and an Outstanding Alumni for Excellence in Public Health and Community Service from Saint Louis University. We talked about the Universal Health Care Law in the Philippines, how universal health care benefits communities, challenges in improving the Philippine health care system, the Next Generation One Health Fellowship, and more. How to contact Jayvee: Facebook - fb.com/jayvee.moltio Email - jayveemoltio@gmail.com This episode of Ask Theory was made in partnership with Next Generation One Health Philippines. For more information, visit: https://nextgenonehealthph.com/about

The President of Federally Employed Women (FEW), Pam Richards, explained what FEW does, why you should join and what's coming up in this year's National Training Program in Columbus, Ohio, July 9-13. You can register for the event and become a member here. FEW is a private, non-profit organization founded in 1968 shortly after government issued Executive Order 11375 which added sex-discrimination to the list of prohibited discrimination within the Federal Government. Although E.O. 11375 was an important milestone, several women were concerned that the Civil Service Commission and individual agencies may not put forth the vigorous effort necessary to ensure compliance with E.O. 11375. Although the Federal Women's Program (FWP) had been established, the early organizers of FEW realized that the government could dismantle FWP, and they wanted to ensure that there would always be an organization dedicated to promoting equality for women and addressing concerns of women in the Federal workforce. Additionally, because FWP is a government function, it is limited in its political scope, and cannot lobby Congress. As a private organization, FEW is not restricted in that area. As a private organization, FEW works as an advocacy group to improve the status of women employed by the Federal government. This includes contact with Congress to encourage progressive legislation. FEW national officers meet with management officials at all levels of agencies to demonstrate support of the FWP, encourage officials to support the program and to obtain insight on the effectiveness of the FWP at agency and local levels

The Far Middle episode 96 begins with birthday wishes to jazz guitarist Geroge Benson, and moves on to a timely dedication as Major League Baseball’s 2023 season gets underway in just eight days from this episode’s release. Going back to 1996, for episode 96, when no baseball players were inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, Nick offers a thoughtful look on players that aren’t in Cooperstown, but who have the career accomplishments to warrant induction. Nick then transitions from America’s pastime to the time of Teddy Roosevelt during his tenure at the Civil Service Commission. Nick discusses Roosevelt’s efforts to upend the spoils system, and replace it with a meritocracy in terms of hiring government employees. The idea was to go from who you knew, to what you knew, explains Nick. Related, Nick examines government today and how key positions are staffed. “I fear that our government has steered far, far away from where Teddy Roosevelt was looking to take it in the late 1800s,” says Nick. He asserts governmental decisions are not being made by those with the most experience and best skillsets, resulting in ineffective government being exposed at the worst possible times during crises. The discussion of meritocracy is connected to America’s regional power grids, and the need to let competition drive the best generation sources to power our energy systems. Nick focuses on the PJM grid, and revisits Winter Storm Elliot that hit the mid-Atlantic on Christmas Eve this past December. Nick underscores that natural gas, in particular Appalachian natural gas, didn’t just save the PJM grid, it saved lives. Despite the facts, there are environmental groups looking to fool the public and force an agenda. Environmentalists are executing their new sneaky two-step technique, which Nick dubs their “tame and blame” campaign. “If we allow natural gas to fairly compete and grow with private investment and innovation, then no more grid weakness, anywhere,” says Nick. He then presents six stark truths about wind and solar at scale on our power grid, which Winter Storm Elliot again exposed. When climate policies of the Left start to infiltrate the infrastructure of the power grid, cracks are going to appear quickly. And the same can be said of office real estate today in America’s major cities. Nick explains how climate change policies are stressing both grid capacity of power pools as well as balance sheets of urban office tower companies. In closing, Nick recalls Led Zeppelin’s best-selling album, Led Zeppelin IV, and in particular the track, “When the Levee Breaks.” In a similar vein, Nick argues that if, “the Left keeps ruling, the grid is going to break, and if the Left keeps ruling, the debt portfolio is going to break.”

In this episode, I had a great time talking with Ricardo Ortega Martinez Jr.Ricardo Ortega Martinez Jr is an active Commissioner for the Immigration Commission, under Assemblymember Mike A. Gipson 64th District in the State of California, and the youngest appointed Commissioner in the Assembly District's history.He is currently the National Director of Community & Government Relations for the Light of the World, inaugural Los Angeles County Youth Commissioner, and California Youth Connection Member Executive Commission.He previously served as a member of the Mental Health Board, for Transitional Age Youth, in the State of California. Ricardo was the youngest commissioner to serve on the Civil Service Commission, in the city of Huntington Park, California.On December 2nd 2017, he was officially recognized as a Young Senator, by State Senator, Ricardo Lara, for successfully completing the 33rd Senate District Young Senators Program.Ricardo was a founding member of the Principal Advisory Committee, giving a voice to the student body in the decision making process at their school. Through an early employment opportunity, he worked with the Chamber of Commerce in the cities of Florence-Firestone, Walnut Park, and Lynwood.Ricardo served as President for the Los Angeles chapter of a non-profit organization, California Youth Connection, he also joined the California Youth Connection Legislative and Policy Committee and was an Ambassador for the Southern California region. #opportunity #mentalhealth #community #Childwelfarereform #FosterYouthAndAlumniVoicesMatter

Anna Slotky Reitano, candidate for office No. 60 she is on the Defenders of Justice slate w/ Holly Hancock and Carolyn Jiyoung Park. She obtained her J.D. at the University of California, Davis, King Hall School of Law. While at Davis Anna was an extern at Legal Services of Northern California representing indigent clients with matters like unlawful evictions and obtaining benefits. Her first position was with a small firm that handled union matters, with the bulk of the work focused on matters involving Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputies in administrative matters like hearings at the Civil Service Commission, internal affairs investigations, and counsel during homicide investigations.

Anna Slotky Reitano, candidate for office No. 60 she is on the Defenders of Justice slate w/ Holly Hancock and Carolyn Jiyoung Park. She obtained her J.D. at the University of California, Davis, King Hall School of Law. While at Davis Anna was an extern at Legal Services of Northern California representing indigent clients with matters like unlawful evictions and obtaining benefits. Her first position was with a small firm that handled union matters, with the bulk of the work focused on matters involving Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputies in administrative matters like hearings at the Civil Service Commission, internal affairs investigations, and counsel during homicide investigations. Elizabeth Lashley-Haynes, candidate for Office No. 67 she is a Deputy Public Defender who has invested her time outside of the courtroom advocating for those who need help. She served on the national board of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association — a nonprofit founded in 1911, dedicated to providing legal services to people from low-income communities. She is a member of the four-woman Defenders of Justice Slate. Civil Rights Attorney Caree Harper, Attorney Harper is one of California's Super Lawyers, voted the best of the best of the golden state. Harper is the segment producer for our Meet the Judicial Candidates series. In addition Caree handles many high profile police abuse cases. Here she updates on developments in the cases of Anthiny McCLain and a minor victim, a young girl seen on tape being thrown to the ground and roughly handled by a Rialto police officer. Troy Slaten, candidate for Office No. 60 he is a defense attorney and a current administrative law judge. He ran for Superior Court Judge in 2020 and was not elected. He graduated from UCLA with a degree in English literature. He got his JD from Pepperdine University after a successful career as a child actor. He has served as a managing partner at Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin.

This is Stephen Schmidt from the Gazette digital news desk and I'm here with your update for Saturday, March 12and Sunday, March 13. First of all, I should note that this weekend is daylight savings time week, meaning we will Spring forward an hour on Sunday. Just a reminder to set your clocks ahead, presuming you have any that don't update themselves. As for the weather, there will be one last cold day on Saturday before a warm week begins on Sunday. According to the National Weather Service it will be sunny with a high near 25 degrees on Saturday in the Cedar Rapids area. The wind will not be overly strong until Saturday night, but it will have a wind chill of -10 degrees before it warms up Saturday night. On Sunday it should be sunny with a high near 55 degrees and a mild wind. It may get quite warm and sunny this coming week, with a potential for near 70 degrees on Wednesday. So if you want to spend your weekend looking for your Spring clothes I think it might finally be safe to do so. According to reporting from the Washington Post, Democratic leaders took another step Friday toward ending Iowa's status as the first state in the party's presidential nominating process. A party rules committee meeting showed clear support for a new path that would prioritize more diverse and competitive states. The meeting of the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee came to no final decisions, but once again a majority of speakers made clear they are open to shaking up the presidential primary calendar to better reflect what speakers described as the party's values. Despite Iowa's lack of demographic diversity, the national party has also criticized the Iowa Caucus for what is viewed as an archaic caucus system. It did not help that the most recent caucus was botched so heavily that results were delayed for a week, leading to the resignation of the head of the Iowa Democratic Party. On the Republican side, there is no indication that Iowa will lose its first in the nation status. Besides already being a primary, Iowa Republicans enjoy the benefit of having more sway in the national party. Two years after a pandemic-plagued University of Iowa announced plans to https://www.thegazette.com/education/sweeping-ui-budget-cuts-affect-hancher-thousands-of-employees-and-harrelds-pay/ (wean its acclaimed Hancher Auditorium) off university general fund support by 2024, UI officials Friday committed to continue providing $750,000 “annually” for the venue's facilities and maintenance costs. The UI did not respond to questions about how long that annual contribution will last, and it comes to half the $1.5 million annual support the UI has typically made to Hancher in years' past. The news came as part of a larger announcement about the creation of a new UI Office of Performing Arts and Engagement that will house a re-branded “Hancher Presents,” which is intended to expand its reach to “potential venues across the university and Iowa City area to further enable arts engagement.” Iowa City City Manager Geoff Fruin has named Scott Lyon as the city's next fire chief. Lyon, now the assistant fire chief in Urbandale, is to start April 4, pending approval by the city's Civil Service Commission and City Council. He will succeed John Grier, the city's fire chief from 2013 until February 2022, https://www.thegazette.com/news/iowa-city-fire-chief-retiring-after-nearly-30-years-with-department/ (who retired after nearly 30 years with the department). Deputy Chief Eric Nurnberg has served as interim chief. Fruin said in a memo that Lyon “clearly articulated his strong belief that the fire department is an extension of the community.” Fruin said he expects Lyon will create new partnerships between the department and the community, other city departments and regional public safety organizations. Support for this news update was provided by New Pioneer Food Co-op. Celebrating 50 years as Eastern Iowa's destination for locally...

Anne and Kevin discuss the recent Civil Service Commission decision against the city, reveal a juicy rumor (especially if you like paying higher taxes) and read listener mail.

Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch responds to a Civil Service Commission report that alleges unfair hiring of his son as a Quincy police officer. Koch also praises Granite Telecommunications of Quincy for their 9th annual Saving by Shaving fundraiser.

In this Focus On Shelton, presented by Peninsula Credit Union, Shelton Police Chief Carole Beason talks about some openings in the Civil Service Commission. There are candidates for hire and promotion and the Civil Service Commission is an integral part of the process. There is limited time commitment so if you're interested there is information on the City of Shelton's website, https://www.sheltonwa.gov/news_detail_T32_R429.php.

The Civil Service Commission is a Charter mandated component of Sacramento County government. Established in Article XVI of the Charter approved by the citizens of Sacramento County, the Commission is a nonpartisan public body responsible for policy direction and oversight of the merit system for the selection, promotion and retention of civil service employees in Sacramento County service. 

The Kewanee City Council met on Monday night in a meeting you can still find on the WKEI Facebook page. Mayor Gary Moore followed Monday's Meeting with an appearance on Wake Up Tri-Counties. In this conversation, the Mayor addressed the decision to end the Civil Service Commission which had been in place to advise on the hiring of City employees. The Mayor called the Commission antiquated and unnecessary as well as unnecessarily costly to the City. The Mayor then talked about newly appointed Fire Chief Stephen Welgat and discussed the formation of the new Kewanee Citizens Advisory Council.

The Civil Service Commission is a Charter mandated component of Sacramento County government. Established in Article XVI of the Charter approved by the citizens of Sacramento County, the Commission is a nonpartisan public body responsible for policy direction and oversight of the merit system for the selection, promotion and retention of civil service employees in Sacramento County service. 

This is Stephen Schmidt from the Gazette digital news desk and I'm here with your update for Thursday, October 28. Rain is on tap for Thursday. According to the National Weather Service there will be a high chance for showers for much of the day, with a high of 51 degrees. On Thursday night the low temperature, interestingly enough, will only drop to 47 degrees, a sign of a slightly warmer Friday that will also probably have less rain. Iowa's COVID-19 numbers have received their weekly update, and it was reported that 117 more Iowans died of COVID-19. All of these deaths occurred in September and October, according to the Iowa Department of Public Health. 100 deaths were reported the previous week. Statewide, the COVID-19 death toll now totals 6,965 since March 2020 when the virus first appeared in Iowa. New case numbers were roughly the same as the week before, with the under 17 age group again leading the way for most new cases. With COVID-19 vaccines for children ages 5 to 11 expected to gain federal approval by next week, state and local health officials are preparing to administer shots to thousands of young Iowans in the coming weeks. The Iowa Department of Public Health anticipates the approximately 284,000 Iowans in that age group can start receiving shots by the first week in November, pending an emergency use authorization. Vaccine experts are meeting over the next week to offer final recommendations on the two-dose coronavirus vaccine from Pfizer-BioNTech. In anticipation of a surge in demand for the shots, federal officials have already purchased enough pediatric doses for the estimated 28 million Americans who will become eligible. A judge has upheld the firing of former Cedar Rapids police Sgt. Lucas Jones, saying the termination was supported by evidence of dishonesty and violation of departmental policies. Sixth Judicial District Judge Christopher Bruns, in an Oct. 5 ruling, said Police Chief Wayne Jerman's finding — that Jones was dishonest about an Oct. 30, 2016, traffic stop and that he had violated two departmental policies — is supported by substantial evidence and Iowa law. The firing was later affirmed by the city's Civil Service Commission after Jones appealed his termination. The reason given for firing Jones was that he had been dishonest when confronted about having his microphone turned off during a traffic stop.  According to the Cedar Rapids Police, a pattern of Jones turning off his microphone while in the field was discovered during an internal investigation into the shooting of a Black motorist named Jerime Mitchell. Jones shot Mitchell during a Nov. 1, 2016, traffic stop near Coe College after stopping Mitchell for having a light out on his pickup truck's license plate. Mitchell was paralyzed in the incident and successfully sued the city for damages. After much speculation of how the pandemic would affect Iowa's high-profile university athletic programs — with deficit projections phttps://www.thegazette.com/iowa-hawkeyes/with-loss-of-tv-revenue-looming-iowa-discontinues-4-sports/ (rompting the University of Iowa to cut sports )programs — final numbers for the fiscal 2021 budget reveal losses were steep but less than first feared. Instead of the expected $60 to $75 million shortfall UI Athletics Director Gary Barta last August cited in eliminating men's and women's swimming and diving, men's gymnastics and men's tennis, UI Athletics ended the budget year June 30 with a $42.9 million deficit, according to a new Board of Regents report. That is on the low end of Barta's revised deficit prediction from last October  Barta has previously said that https://www.thegazette.com/iowa-hawkeyes/gary-barta-restoration-of-4-dropped-sports-at-iowa-isnt-possible/ (even a reduced deficit wouldn't be enough to save) the https://www.thegazette.com/iowa-hawkeyes/save-iowa-sports-group-struggles-to-be-heard-at-university-of-iowa/ (men's sports) cut by the department. Although, it... Support this podcast

Clark County is accepting applications to fill a vacancy on the local civil service commission for the Sheriff's Office. https://loom.ly/YI3vr-E #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyCouncil #CivilServiceCommission #Vacancy #SeekingApplicants #FiveMemberCommission #Employment #PersonnelMatters #PreEmploymentTesting #Hiring #ClarkCountySheriffsOffice #CCSO #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

It's 20 years after 9/11—what have we learned? In May, when U.S. and international troops began to withdraw from Afghanistan, feminists and Afghanistan experts warned of the brutal impact that would likely be felt by women and minorities with the return of the Taliban and in the vacuum of leadership. They were right.  The Taliban have announced their provisional government, which does not include a single woman. What does this mean for national security? The safety of women and girls? What are the geo-political dynamics yet to be sorted?     Helping us sort out these questions and set the record straight are special guests: Karen Joy Greenberg, expert on national security, terrorism and civil liberties and the director of the Center on National Security. Her latest book is Subtle Tools: The Dismantling of American Democracy from the War on Terror to Donald Trump. Greenberg's work has been featured in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Nation, The National Interest and Mother Jones, among others.  Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, award-winning author and adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. She is the author of The Daughters of Kobani and Ashley's War, and writes regularly on Afghanistan's politics and economy, entrepreneurship in fragile states, the fight to end child marriage, and issues affecting women and girls for publications including the New York Times, Financial Times, Fast Company, Christian Science Monitor and CNN.com.  Renee Montagne, NPR correspondent and host. From 2004 to 2016, Montagne co-hosted NPR's "Morning Edition," the most widely heard radio news program in the United States. Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Montagne has made 10 extended reporting trips to Afghanistan, where she has traveled to every major city, from Kabul to Kandahar. She has profiled Afghanistan's presidents and power brokers, while also focusing on the stories of Afghans at the heart of their complex country: schoolgirls, farmers, mullahs, poll workers, midwives and warlords.Gaisu Yari, a human rights defender from Afghanistan and survivor of child marriage who holds a master's degree in human rights from Columbia University and a bachelor's in Middle Eastern and gender studies from the University of Virginia. Yari is a writer and active speaker on women's issues in Afghanistan and worked with the government of Afghanistan as a commissioner to the Civil Service Commission of Afghanistan, as well as with national and international organizations. The focus of her expertise is in human rights and gender justice. She has extensive knowledge and professional experience working in both the U.S. and Afghanistan.   Rate and review “On the Issues with Michele Goodwin" to let us know what you think of the show! Let's show the power of independent feminist media. Check out this episode's landing page at MsMagazine.com for a full transcript, links to articles referenced in this episode, further reading and ways to take action.Tips, suggestions, pitches? Get in touch with us at ontheissues@msmagazine.com. Support the show (http://msmagazine.com)Support the show (http://msmagazine.com)

Episode Notes On this week's show, Anthony Corona and Scott Marshall had the great opportunity to virtually sit down with Eric Marcus, journalist, network television producer, and author of the acclaimed book and podcast Making Gay History. We first met Eric last January when he shared with us and our listeners audio clips from his collection of over one hundred interviews of LGBQ pioneers and allies. A link to that presentation is in the show notes. In today's episode, we talked with Eric about what led him to become the chronicler of oral LGBTQ history; what were his favorite interviews; what were his most difficult interviews; the interviews he was not able to do, and who among his interviewees most impacted his own life. You will hear about the “happy warriors” Kay Tobin Lahusen and Barbara Gittings from Pennsylvania whose extraordinary advocacy was wrapped in humor, the always serious and commanding Frank Kameny an astronomer from Washington, DC who was fired by the U.S. Civil Service Commission for being gay, and what he and others did to change that discriminatory policy. You will also meet Greg Brock, the self-described “Sissy from Mississippi” who as the front page assistant managing editor of the San Francisco Examiner, was outed on the Oprah Show and later worked for the Washington Post and the New York Times – a role model for many LBGTQ journalists even today. Finally, we were introduced to Jean and Morty Mannford whose son was badly beaten because he was gay. This led to the founding in the early 1970's of a parents support organization (later renamed Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, AKA, “PFLAG”), which inspired our own organization within the American Council of the Blind twenty-one years ago. Eric will be back with us during our convention in July to talk about some of his many other projects: a podcast focusing on the early years of the Aids crisis including his personal perspective, the opening of an LGTQ museum in New York City, a “Making Gay history” play first performed in New York City by high school students and his podcast focusing generally on the Holocaust. What will this incredible person do next? Pride Connection airs on ACB Radio Mainstream Tuesdays at 10pm eastern and is broadcast soon thereafter to your favorite podcatcher app. Please join us!

All-star Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is at it again! In a Judiciary subcommittee meeting, Whitehouse laid out the groundwork for how a future Supreme Court could overturn Citizens United and Shelby County v. Holder. These are two atrocious decisions that would make even the Andrewest judge lament stare decisis, but today's episode explains how a court could overturn them without doing damage to court legitimacy going forward! (if you're into that kind of thing...) Before that, Andrew breaks down SCOTUS granting cert in the NYS Rifle & Pistol Assn v Corlett. Then, we tackle a listener email claiming we badly misrepresented defense attorneys in last Tuesday's show. Links: NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n. v. City of New York, N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f), Supreme Court of the United States opp brief, 2nd Circuit NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Beach, Cert Peition, Cert granted, Supreme Court Fact-Finding and the Distortion of American Democracy, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Citizens United, Civil Service Commission v. Nat’l Assn of Letter Carriers,

This is Stephen Schmidt from the Gazette digital news desk and I'm here with your update for Tuesday, November 24th. You may awake to find your home surrounded by a thin layer of snow. Or, if it's a bit later, it will be rain and wind that will greet you. Great options. According to the National Weather Service, there should be some cold November rain in the Cedar Rapids area Tuesday, with a high of 44 degrees. This rain will come with a 10-15 wind gusting as high as 25 mph. Tuesday night will see a low of 40 degrees, with a bit more rain and a bit less wind possible. Iowa's COVID-19 numbers have momentarily trended in a slightly less terrible direction, but with the Thanksgiving holiday on the horizon, it is too early to know if the state has meaningfully reversed its most recent spike of the disease. The positivity rate for data analyzed by the Gazette on Monday was 33.21 percent, which is not good, but as the state has hovered above 40 percent for much of November, it is a welcome change if it stays. Hospitalizations have also appeared to have stabilized in the past few days, hovering in the 1,350 patient range, but patients on ventilators and in intensive care were up slightly Monday, suggesting that even if the intake of new patients were to decrease, the result of the spike will still show serious consequences.  2,222 people had died of the virus as of Monday night, 17 total deaths for the day. Ousted Cedar Rapids Police Officer Lucas Jones will not be reinstated, the city's Civil Service Commission agreed Monday, though his lawyer said Jones would appeal. The three-person commission heard Jones make his case in September and then considered legal briefs over the last several weeks. In a virtual meeting Monday, the panel voted unanimously to deny Jones' case and uphold the police department's earlier decision to terminate him for rules violations. Jones' attorney, Skylar Limkemann, said afterward his client will appeal in court. Jones was fired June 18 after the department said an internal investigation revealed he had violated policy during a traffic stop on Oct. 30, 2016, and lied about it. This traffic stop was a few days before he became involved in a traffic stop with a man named Jerime Mitchell, who Jones shot during the arrest. Mitchell was paralyzed by the incident but a grand jury declined to pursue charges against Jones. Jones claims that he was actually fired due to pressure from the Black Lives Matter movement this summer, along with other internal department politics. The Republican candidate in Iowa's still-too-close-to-call 2nd Congressional District says the results of a recount in Scott County completed over the weekend cannot be trusted, arguing “numerous votes” are missing. Mariannette Miller-Meeks' campaign over the weekend claimed the three-member recount board's tally of absentee ballots is off by 12 from what was recorded in the official canvass of votes by the Scott County Board of Supervisors. Why does Miller-Meeks care about 12 votes? Well, her Democratic challenger has pulled from 47 votes down to 36 votes down, with more to be recounted. So literally every vote may count. The Miller-Meeks campaign contends that Scott County used both manual and optical scan counting when either is required by law, while the Hart campaign is pushing for a deeper dive into ballots in Johnson and Scott counties, which tend to favor Democrats. For those who are curious, if these two candidates end up in a tie, two scraps of paper will be placed in a “receptacle” and the winner will be drawn at random.

In an unexpected turn of events, talks between U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the Taliban, and the Afghan government will soon take place. Commission of Afghanistan’s Civil Service Commission, Gaisu Yari, and Director of the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit, Orzala Nemat, join Christiane Amanpour to asses how women’s rights might be affected. Timothy Snyder, author of “Our Malady: Lessons in Liberty from a Hospital Diary,” discusses his near-death experience and America’s healthcare system. Our Hari Sreenivasan talks to Director Jeff Orlowski and Tristan Harris, President & Co-founder of Center for Humane Technology, about their new Netflix docu-drama, “The Social Dilemma.”To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law in 1990. The ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the general public. The purpose of the law is to make sure that people with disabilities have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. The ADA gives civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities similar to those provided to individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, and religion. It guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government services, and telecommunications. The ADA is divided into five titles (or sections) that relate to different areas of public life. Alex Watters Sioux City Iowa Councilmen Sioux City is a community rich in diversity which strives to achieve geographic, gender and racial balance on each board, commission and committee. In addition, effective January 1, 2012, Section 69.16A of the Iowa Code now requires gender balance on those City Boards and Commissions required or governed by state law unless the City has made a good faith effort for a period of three months to appoint a qualified person. This affects and includes the Airport Board of Trustees, Civil Service Commission, Human Rights Commission, Library Board of Trustees, and Planning and Zoning Commission. Sujit Singh Executive Director Combined Efforts Our goal is simple; facilitate collaboration between artists with and without disabilities to create performances in which disability drops from consideration as a result of the combined efforts of a diverse group of individuals. For more information on how to get involved with this non-profit, please visit: https://combinedefforts.org/ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/erin-claimingdisability/message

The Senate has announced long-awaited hearings for three nominees to the Merit System Protection Board. The agency that handles appeals from the Civil Service Commission has lack a quorum to do business for more than 18 months.