Podcasts about Clerical

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

The government of Armenia has gone to war against one of the country's most powerful institutions – the Apostolic Church. National security police have gaoled a popular archbishop, Bagrat Galstanyan, claiming he was involved in a plot to overthrow the government. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has also demanded the resignation of the top cleric, accusing him of having a secret child. It's a high-risk move for an unpopular government, taking on the ancient church that many Armenians see as the embodiment of the nation.  OLESYA VARTANYAN is an independent analyst and consultant based in neighbouring Georgia.Australia's Law Reform Commission is reviewing a patchwork of different state laws governing surrogacy. Earlier this year, the ABC reported that by 2032, the global surrogacy industry was set to reach $129 billion. But if it's financial boom for the baby business, what are the ethics of a practice that includes severing the connection between mother and child? Dr ERICA CERVINI has been reviewing the case in an essay for Eureka Street magazine.In what amounts to a small revolution in the Church of Latter-Day Saints, Mormon women are now permitted to reveal their shoulders, having been taught that bare upper arms were too raunchy. These changes come with the growing power of Mormon influencers on social media -- known loosely as “#momtok” – and a popular TV show, The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives. The reality show on Hulu follows eight influencers in Utah. JESSICA GROSE from The New York Times has been immersed in the show.GUESTS:Olesya Vartanyan, Georgia based analyst and consultantDr Erica Cervini, academic and journalistJessica Grose, journalist and writer for the New York TimesThis program was made on the lands of the Gadigal People of the Eora Nation

Evil Genius Chronicles Podcast for July 11 2025 - Comic Book Collecting Involves a Lot of Clerical Work Download audio On this show, I play a song from Adrianne Lenker; I discuss losing weight rapidly; I talk about Heroescon 2025; I bought more original art at this show than ever before; I...

A grieving father is turning his anger into action after he learns his daughter's killer, a hardened criminal with nearly 40 arrests should have been behind bars! Instead, clerical errors & blunders allowed him to walk free...and continue his crime spree. A kindergartener is lucky to be alive after being shot in a road rage attack; the bullet lodged in her sippy cup. Plus, all aboard the crazy train, for one heck of a joyride in Florida! Jennifer Gould reports. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A grieving father in North Carolina learns that the man accused of killing his 22-year-old daughter in South Carolina should have already been in prison for burglary, but a clerical error let him walk free. A Pennsylvania man goes on trial for allegedly killing his father, cutting off his head with a machete, and calling for a violent uprising in a gory video he posted online. Drew Nelson reports.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As the 6OP team roll out of their malaise brought on by a deep dive into your scoring, we reflect on a joyous June. MTC leads Haway with this weeks ad read, Gavino Rosso welcomes us in Italian and we have the blindest of rankings to wrap up.Before that though, learn about the event that Jon organised and won, the event that Sam organised and won, and recount every single shot, emotion and interaction from Gavs most recent win. TC makes his own Pizza, Arron shoots a million and Couhig ascends the leaderboard with scores attested by people nobody has heard of.Send us a textButter Cut Social ClubGolf apparel and merch. Because 5 yards matters IG:@buttercutsocialclubDisclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Ways to follow Six, Over Par - Tweet us @sixoverpar - IG @six_over_parThanks for listening, see you on the first tee !

First day of summer! Today we talked a massive data breach that affected 16 billion accounts, an ultimate irony took place at a Buffalo Wild Wings, and a government worker got a surprise paycheck. We found a crazy review of that wine hack we shared recently, involving jalapenos. As always, we crowned our "Asshat of the Week," and hit the phones to bat around movies that Hollywood would NEVER make again in today's day and age! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

fWotD Episode 2941: Chinese characters Welcome to Featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia's finest articles.The featured article for Saturday, 24 May 2025, is Chinese characters.Chinese characters are logographs used to write the Chinese languages and others from regions historically influenced by Chinese culture. Of the four independently invented writing systems accepted by scholars, they represent the only one that has remained in continuous use. Over a documented history spanning more than three millennia, the function, style, and means of writing characters have changed greatly. Unlike letters in alphabets that reflect the sounds of speech, Chinese characters generally represent morphemes, the units of meaning in a language. Writing all of the frequently used vocabulary in a language requires roughly 2000–3000 characters; as of 2024, nearly 100000 have been identified and included in The Unicode Standard. Characters are created according to several principles, where aspects of shape and pronunciation may be used to indicate the character's meaning.The first attested characters are oracle bone inscriptions made during the 13th century BCE in what is now Anyang, Henan, as part of divinations conducted by the Shang dynasty royal house. Character forms were originally ideographic or pictographic in style, but evolved as writing spread across China. Numerous attempts have been made to reform the script, including the promotion of small seal script by the Qin dynasty (221–206 BCE). Clerical script, which had matured by the early Han dynasty (202 BCE – 220 CE), abstracted the forms of characters—obscuring their pictographic origins in favour of making them easier to write. Following the Han, regular script emerged as the result of cursive influence on clerical script, and has been the primary style used for characters since. Informed by a long tradition of lexicography, states using Chinese characters have standardized their forms—broadly, simplified characters are used to write Chinese in mainland China, Singapore, and Malaysia, while traditional characters are used in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau.Where the use of characters spread beyond China, they were initially used to write Literary Chinese; they were then often adapted to write local languages spoken throughout the Sinosphere. In Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese, Chinese characters are known as kanji, hanja, and chữ Hán respectively. Writing traditions also emerged for some of the other languages of China, like the sawndip script used to write the Zhuang languages of Guangxi. Each of these written vernaculars used existing characters to write the language's native vocabulary, as well as the loanwords it borrowed from Chinese. In addition, each invented characters for local use. In written Korean and Vietnamese, Chinese characters have largely been replaced with alphabets—leaving Japanese as the only major non-Chinese language still written using them, alongside the other elements of the Japanese writing system.At the most basic level, characters are composed of strokes that are written in a fixed order. Historically, methods of writing characters have included inscribing stone, bone, or bronze; brushing ink onto silk, bamboo, or paper; and printing with woodblocks or moveable type. Technologies invented since the 19th century to facilitate the use of characters include telegraph codes and typewriters, as well as input methods and text encodings on computers.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:48 UTC on Saturday, 24 May 2025.For the full current version of the article, see Chinese characters on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm neural Ayanda.

In this episode, we break down the upcoming MA-IDIQ: Administrative, Clerical, and Non-Scientific Support Services contract from the Department of Commerce – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Set aside exclusively for SBA-certified Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs), this $30.28M opportunity includes 6 anticipated awards and a planned RFP release in June 2025.We'll explore:Contract scope and service areasSet-aside requirements for WOSBsInsights on the previous RFP and incumbent landscapeWhat your business can do now to get a head startIf you're a WOSB looking to expand into NOAA or federal administrative support, this episode is a must-listen.

León XIV, ¿progresista o conservador? ¿protector o combatiente de pederastia clerical?Enlace para apoyar vía Patreon:https://www.patreon.com/julioastilleroEnlace para hacer donaciones vía PayPal:https://www.paypal.me/julioastilleroCuenta para hacer transferencias a cuenta BBVA a nombre de Julio Hernández López: 1539408017CLABE: 012 320 01539408017 2Tienda:https://julioastillerotienda.com/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

ATF, Cash Patel, Zero Tolerance Policy, Gun Rights, Media Misrepresentation, Lee Williams, Armed American Radio, Gun Dealers, Federal Incarceration, Second Amendment Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses significant developments regarding the ATF's zero tolerance policy and its implications for gun dealers. Joined by Lee Williams, they delve into the media's portrayal of these issues, particularly focusing on a misleading article from The Trace. The conversation also highlights Cash Patel's reforms aimed at dismantling problematic ATF policies and the case of a young sailor facing severe consequences due to alleged ATF misconduct. The episode emphasizes the importance of understanding the nuances behind headlines and the ongoing fight for gun rights. takeaways The ATF's zero tolerance policy has harmed many law-abiding gun dealers. Media misrepresentation can skew public perception of gun laws. Cash Patel is making significant reforms within the ATF. Understanding the details behind headlines is crucial for informed opinions. The case of the young sailor highlights the consequences of ATF actions. Clerical errors have led to severe penalties for gun dealers. The importance of advocacy and collective action in fighting for rights. The role of misinformation in shaping public discourse on gun control. The emotional and psychological toll of wrongful incarceration. The need for transparency and accountability within federal agencies.

Joy during Lent, nuanced political views, Hawaiian shirts, and Co-op spoils.   Fourth Sunday in Lent, John 6:1–15

Our Heroes push forward through deeper in search of the eternal contract. They finally begin to understand the contract, and how the previous changes to it have caused problems. As they Check out our Linktree where we have Twitter, Facebook, Discord and Instagram! Come join in the and chat about your favorite moments with the cast!linktr.ee/thedhcastMusic credits: www.epidemicsound.com

Titulamos con una novedad editorial, y es que os traemos un libro de Iván Gómez Avilés, quién ya nos ha visitado anteriormente. En esta ocasión, acompañado por Pello Larrinaga, nos presenta "Infanticidio clerical: consecuencias catastróficas del celibato católico" donde se aborda este delito cometido por miembros de la Iglesia católica para ocultar el nacimiento de neonatos fruto de la ruptura del celibato. Un tema no muy tratado en la bibliografía y que entronca con prácticas realizadas desde que el mundo es mundo. Como segundo plato, comida oriental para quienes se quedaron con ganas de seguir escuchando a Rubén Ibarzabal, escoltando en Kioto a Bikendi Goiko-uria y Mikel Carramiñana, hablando de los Shinsengumi. Si en el capítulo anterior escudriñamos sus orígenes, esta vez nos centraremos en una de sus más épicas hazañas: el asalto a Ikedaya, de la mano de Kondō Isami y los suyos. Finalmente, en la repetición, un poco de Roma. Mucho antes de que Marx dijera que la religión es el opio del pueblo, Roma ya sabía que para mantener la paz entre sus ciudadanos eran necesarios dos elementos: el pan y el circo. Mientras que el primero no siempre llegaba, lo segundo no podía faltar. Y sin duda los juegos gladiatorios eran uno de los espectáculos predilectos. Hoy hablaremos de sus protagonistas, los gladiadores, y lo haremos en Por los dioses. Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Platiqué con Analu Salazar, víctima de viol3nci4 s3xu4l infantil, activista, mamá y conductora de radio y televisión. Analu nos comparte su fuerte historia de 4bu$o a los 8 años por parte del sacerdote Fernando Martínez Suárez. También nos platica el momento en el que habló por primera vez sobre esto, de la dura revictimización que vivió por parte de la sociedad y distintos organismos de la iglesia, sobre cómo este suceso le afectó en su identidad y autoestima, sobre la transformación de su fe y sus creencias, sobre su activismo en contra de la p3dofilia clerical y principalmente sobre cómo se puede gestionar y procesar un trauma tan duro como la viol3nci4 s3xu4l infantil. Este es un episodio muy fuerte que evidencia una problemática que está sucediendo de manera sistemática en todo el mundo.Sigue el trabajo de Analu: @ana1usalazarY sigue mi trabajo @jessicafdzg Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Back from Santa Clara, Dan and Taylor discuss the successful weekend after Maindeck Mitch took the event with Water Mill Arisanna! How does the visibility of this deck affect the metagame? Also - hear about Dan's wacky adventures missing Day 2 due to a reporting error and winning a round with a score of 2-0-1! Audio only version available on iTunes, Spotify, and more! 0:00 Intro 3:47 The Santa Clara Trip 18:00 How to Support Maindeck 19:08 Maindeck Ascending 32:14 The Clerical Errors - Missing Day 2 43:15 Scrub Out Event & The Mechanical Draw 56:25 Impact on the Meta & Next Steps 1:19:10 Outro SUPPORT MAINDECK by shopping on TCGPlayer with our affiliate link at no extra cost to you! https://tcgplayer.pxf.io/maindeck JOIN THE MAINDECK DISCORD and chat with other fans of a wide variety of TCGs! https://discord.maindeck.games Follow Dan on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/MaindeckGames #grandarchive #gatcg #tcg #podcast #podcasts ► We are supported by our generous patrons on Patreon - check out the link here and consider supporting us for bonus perks and behind the scenes content: https://www.patreon.com/maindeckgames ► Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MaindeckGames/ ► Written content, resources and more at: http://www.maindeck.games Music from Epidemic Sound!! Get access to a huge music library for a small monthly fee. Try it out through my link below to support Maindeck as well! https://share.epidemicsound.com/pa4rmh

I stopped wearing clerical garb because, in my context, it wasn’t fulfilling its intended purpose and could sometimes create unintended associations. While I respect the idea of a distinctive uniform for ministers, I believe our focus should remain on preaching, administering sacraments, and embodying biblical priorities without unnecessary distractions. Traditions like collars and liturgical seasons are valuable if they recede into the background, but if they overshadow the gospel and simple obedience, they may need to be reconsidered. Read the full blog post here: why-i-dont-wear-a-clerical-collar-or-robes-anymore

I stopped wearing clerical garb because, in my context, it wasn’t fulfilling its intended purpose and could sometimes create unintended associations. While I respect the idea of a distinctive uniform for ministers, I believe our focus should remain on preaching, administering sacraments, and embodying biblical priorities without unnecessary distractions. Traditions like collars and liturgical seasons are valuable if they recede into the background, but if they overshadow the gospel and simple obedience, they may need to be reconsidered. Read the full blog post here: why-i-dont-wear-a-clerical-collar-or-robes-anymore

Canon Michael Stein, ICKSP serves as Rector at Old St. Patrick Oratory in Kansas City, Missouri. He was ordained in 2010.     In Today's Show     Visit the show page at thestationofthecross.com/askapriest to listen live, check out the weekly lineup, listen to podcasts of past episodes, watch live video, find show resources, sign up for our mailing list of upcoming shows, and submit your question for Father!

As we continue to navigate the many webs of the Delphi Murders, we are now being hit with a new piece of information that makes you question why it took so long for Richard Allen to be arrested. That information you ask? Richard Allen was known to investigators in 2017 but the information he voluntarily provided in the aftermath of the murders was lost due to, what authorities are calling "A clerical error."Let's get caught up.(commercial at 7:35)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/delphi-murders-suspect-richard-allen-slipped-through-net-in-2017-due-to-clerical-error-podcasters-reveal/ar-AA14Npa3?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=e9f7cb259b8f45deb34ad0941a3d165a

In the 2017 "Delphi murders" investigation, a critical clerical error caused a substantial delay in the pursuit of justice. Richard Allen, now the prime suspect, was initially questioned by authorities shortly after the murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German. During this questioning, Allen provided information that should have warranted further investigation. However, due to a record-keeping mistake, the details of Allen's statements were misfiled, resulting in the failure to properly flag him as a person of interest. This oversight allowed Allen to avoid further scrutiny, leaving the case largely stagnant for years despite ongoing public pressure to solve the murders.The error went unnoticed until 2022, when a fresh review of evidence and records uncovered the mistake, prompting a renewed focus on Allen. Investigators revisited his earlier statements and actions, which ultimately led to his arrest and subsequent charges in connection to the murders. This revelation not only reignited legal proceedings but also raised concerns about procedural flaws that may have compromised the case early on. The delay highlighted the impact of administrative errors on major criminal investigations, underscoring the importance of thorough documentation and review to prevent similar setbacks in achieving justice.(commercial at 7:35)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/delphi-murders-suspect-richard-allen-slipped-through-net-in-2017-due-to-clerical-error-podcasters-reveal/ar-AA14Npa3?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=e9f7cb259b8f45deb34ad0941a3d165aBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Some critics claim that the angel Moroni was originally referred to as "Nephi," and that the name was switched by later church leaders because it made more sense for the "made-up" storyline of the Book of Mormon. In this episode, David Snell investigates the claims. YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@keystonelds Insta: https://www.instagram.com/keystonelds/ Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@keystonelds Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/keystonelds/ Website: https://www.keystonelds.com Music by Zach Sundwall.

In this interview I am once again joined by Dr Ben Joffe, anthropologist and scholar practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism. Dr Joffe leads a deep dive into the Western magickal tradition of spirit conjuration, traces their diverse forms through the centuries, and considers the range of beings described, from the land sprites of localised traditions to the high angels of the Enochian system of Renaissance polymath John Dee. Dr Joffe reflects on the origin and changing usage of terms such as “demon” and “devil”, laments the prevalence of dangerously lax invocation practices, considers the cultural impact of the grimoire tradition, compares the systems of demonology found in world religions, and notes striking similarities between Buddhist tantric mystic Padmasambhava and King Solomon. Dr Joffe also shares his own occult experiences including tales of spirit contact, servitor creation, dream visitations from the recently deceased, and ritual workings in several magickal systems. ... Also available on Youtube, iTunes, & Spotify – search ‘Guru Viking Podcast'. … Topics include: 00:00 - Intro 01:12 - Western Esotericism 04:42 - Spirit conjuration and the grimoire tradition 05:49 - Analysing spirit conjuration tropes in horror movies 09:46 - Diverse magical practice 10:51 - Professor Ronald Hutton's history of Western Esotericism 12:05 - History of spirit conjuration from Ancient Egypt to today 14:49 - Mesopotamian laws against witchcraft 16:08 - The status of magick in the Abrahamic traditions 16:58 - Clerical underground of wizards 18:20 - Literacy and the power of a magickal book 21:03 - Prioritising of the book and of language itself 23:08 - Gathering one's magickal tools 25:00 - Preparation is key 26:20 - Do spirits find humans repulsive? 30:29 - Self-purification and strategies for self-deification 31:24 - Similarities between Padmasambhava and King Solomon 32:43 - Dzamling Chi Sang and subjugating spirits 33:41 - The Testament of Solomon and subduing spirits 35:34 - Magick and frat-boy fantasy 37:47 - John Dee and the quest for knowledge 39:40 - Christian ceremonial magick and Jesus as a sorcerer 41:55 - Pre-Christian Pagan European spirit traditions 43:09 - Magick vs religion 45:12 - Hamlet and old spirit frameworks 48:03 - Arguments for and against the grimoire tradition 53:56 - Cultural impact of the grimoire tradition 56:05 - Wisdom of the past 58:33 - Different types of spirits and supernatural beings 01:02:33 - Muslim views of Iblīs (the devil) and djinn. 01:04:22 - Evil spirits in Christianity and Tibetan Buddhism 01:06:01 - Different ideas of the Devil 01:07:17 - What is a demon? 01:07:50 - Lazy demonology 01:15:05 - The perspective of nondual Tibetan tantra 01:18:31 - Limitations of dualistic cosmology 01:20:56 - Angels and pre-modern Christian views 01:25:03 - Why demons are useful for practical magick 01:27:47 - Ben's personal reflections on working with spirits 01:31:17 - Rites of passage and creating servitors 01:33:00 - Ben explains the Goetia 01:34:16 - Ben reflects on his magickal career 01:36:45 - Summoning spirits at 12 years old 01:43:11 - ADHD approach to magick 01:44:09 - Ben recalls powerful, unexpected spirit contacts 02:00:51 Group corroboration 02:02:17 -Dream visitations from the recently deceased 02:04:56 - Are these experiences real? 02:07:30 - The social aspects of magickal practice 02:10:48 - Ben's relationship with an invented spirit 02:15:42 - Wyatt the servitor 02:21:02 - Models of magick and questions of purity 02:29:09 - The two wolves inside of Ben 02:31:25 - Universal principles or relative frames? 02:34:33 - Artisanal magick and honing attention 02:36:18 - Is magickal training reliable? 
… Previous episodes with Dr Ben Joffe: - https://www.guruviking.com/search?q=joffe To find out more about Dr Ben Joffe, visit: - https://perfumedskull.com/ … For more interviews, videos, and more visit: - https://www.guruviking.com Music ‘Deva Dasi' by Steve James

The Prosecution in the Chad Daybell trial rested its case on Friday, but not before there was a bit of drama surrounding an amended indictment that had the wrong date for the Murder of JJ Vallow.   Daybell's legal team attempted to utilize that clerical error as a way to get the murder charge he's facing for the murder of JJ tossed, but Judge Boyce ruled that it was an obvious clerical error and that there was enough evidence provided by the prosecution that a jury should decide the outcome, not him.   In this episode, we take a look at how it all went down and what we should expect from the defense as they begin to present their case.(commercial at 12:01)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge says error on indictment for JJ's murder not grounds for acquittal of murder charge - East Idaho NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Prosecution in the Chad Daybell trial rested its case on Friday, but not before there was a bit of drama surrounding an amended indictment that had the wrong date for the Murder of JJ Vallow.   Daybell's legal team attempted to utilize that clerical error as a way to get the murder charge he's facing for the murder of JJ tossed, but Judge Boyce ruled that it was an obvious clerical error and that there was enough evidence provided by the prosecution that a jury should decide the outcome, not him.   In this episode, we take a look at how it all went down and what we should expect from the defense as they begin to present their case.(commercial at 12:01)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge says error on indictment for JJ's murder not grounds for acquittal of murder charge - East Idaho News

Clerical Transgenderism: Women in Ministry and Feminism's Impact on the Church Originally published at the Center for Baptist Leadership This episode is a reading of my recent piece for the Center for Baptist Leadership, where I explore the recent controversy in women's Olympic boxing and what it reveals about egalitarianism and transgenderism. I also discuss how feminist ideologies have infiltrated the church, particularly in the area of women preaching. Highlighting the differences between masculine and feminine preaching styles, I argue for the importance of strong, masculine leadership in the church and the spiritual dangers of diluting these roles. Discover why biblical preaching is seen as a form of spiritual warfare and why it should be reserved for men. 00:00 Introduction to the Olympic Boxing Controversy 02:12 The Feminist Movement and Its Impact on Womanhood 02:38 Clerical Transgenderism: Women Preaching in the Church 03:04 Egalitarianism and Its Influence on Church Roles 04:18 Feminine-Coded Preaching and Its Consequences 07:31 The Call for Masculine Preaching 08:32 Conclusion: Upholding Biblical Preaching and Roles

Gavin Ortlund offers a Protestant critique of clerical celibacy, as practiced in Roman Catholicism and to a lesser degree in other traditions. Mark Vroegop's Waiting is Not a Waste: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1433590972 Pre-order Ortlund's book on Protestantism: https://www.zondervan.com/p/what-it-means-to-be-protestant/ Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville. SUPPORT: Tax Deductible Support: https://truthunites.org/donate/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://truthunites.org/

In this lesson we will examine the clerical vestments and protocols of: I. Old Testament: What garments were worn by the Levitical/Aaronic Priesthood? II. Jewish Rabbinical Order: Did Jesus wear Rabbinical Garments? III. The Early Church Fathers: What garments did they wear? IV. Modern Day Clergy: What should we wear?

Lil Wayne's former bodyguard Christian Carlos is fighting to keep his lawsuit against the rapper from being tossed out over a clerical mixup, RadarOnline.com can reveal.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

This tutorial is all about Clerical magic of the Temple and using Exaltation for Miracles. I go over all the details of performing Miracles for the TTRPG Shadows of Esteren by Studio Agate. This video is part of a Shadows of Esteren Crash Course Tutorial series that will cover all aspects of the game. We also have complete Actual Play series of this TTRPG lead by GM Rob Mulligan. Please explore our playlists and channel! Shadows of Esteren Portal: https://portal.esteren.org/en Studio Agate on Drivethru: https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/publisher/5029/agate-rpg/category/33030/shadows-of-esteren Shadows of Esteren Pronounciation Guide: https://www.scribd.com/document/345006961/Shadows-of-Esteren-Pronunciation-Guide Join us! Calling all game masters, players, edgerunners, choombas, wastelanders, vault dwellers, spice traders & space folders! We have a very active community for Cyberpunk, Fallout, Dune & more! If you're looking to join a game, run a game, network, learn something new, contribute an idea, chat or just hang out, we have the home for you! Check out the ttrpg related options below and be sure to say hello! https://discord.gg/VJv4FPC https://www.twitch.tv/cybernationuncensored https://twitter.com/CNUncensored https://www.patreon.com/CybernationUncensored https://www.youtube.com/cybernationuncensored/join https://www.instagram.com/cybernationuncensored/ https://www.facebook.com/CyberNationUncensored https://www.facebook.com/groups/2951164338265802 Explore our website! https://www.CybernationUncensored.com/ We're a brand dedicated to everything and anything Cyberpunk, dystopian and scifi! We stream live Cyberpunk RED, 2020, Fallout 2D20 & Dune 2D20 gameplay, a Game Master Tips series, Deep Dive series, Night City Live series and a GM Round Table series on the Cybernation Uncensored youtube and twitch channels! We discuss everything and anything Cyberpunk, including but not limited to 2020, RED, 2077, fallout & dune on our Cybernation Uncensored podcast! We also have a Cybernation Uncensored community blog, discord and group! Join us and let's network and have fun! We have a passion for creating Cyberpunk genre content and would really appreciate your support! Sound & music by Syrinscape https://syrinscape.com/ Because Epic Games Need Epic Sound Complete list of credits here: https://syrinscape.com/attributions/ #shadowsofesteren #ttrpg #tutorial --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/cybernationuncensored/support

Michigan man who recently went viral for allegedly driving with a suspended license during a virtual hearing on the matter should have had his license reinstated long beforehand, according to clerical records. Pags gives his thoughts. PLUS... Charles Marino Discusses Border Security with Joe Pags: The Terrorist Threat and Government (in)Action

The Prosecution in the Chad Daybell trial rested its case on Friday, but not before there was a bit of drama surrounding an amended indictment that had the wrong date for the Murder of JJ Vallow.   Daybell's legal team attempted to utilize that clerical error as a way to get the murder charge he's facing for the murder of JJ tossed, but Judge Boyce ruled that it was an obvious clerical error and that there was enough evidence provided by the prosecution that a jury should decide the outcome, not him.   In this episode, we take a look at how it all went down and what we should expect from the defense as they begin to present their case.(commercial at 12:01)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge says error on indictment for JJ's murder not grounds for acquittal of murder charge - East Idaho News

The Prosecution in the Chad Daybell trial rested its case on Friday, but not before there was a bit of drama surrounding an amended indictment that had the wrong date for the Murder of JJ Vallow.   Daybell's legal team attempted to utilize that clerical error as a way to get the murder charge he's facing for the murder of JJ tossed, but Judge Boyce ruled that it was an obvious clerical error and that there was enough evidence provided by the prosecution that a jury should decide the outcome, not him.   In this episode, we take a look at how it all went down and what we should expect from the defense as they begin to present their case.(commercial at 12:01)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge says error on indictment for JJ's murder not grounds for acquittal of murder charge - East Idaho News

The Prosecution in the Chad Daybell trial rested its case on Friday, but not before there was a bit of drama surrounding an amended indictment that had the wrong date for the Murder of JJ Vallow.   Daybell's legal team attempted to utilize that clerical error as a way to get the murder charge he's facing for the murder of JJ tossed, but Judge Boyce ruled that it was an obvious clerical error and that there was enough evidence provided by the prosecution that a jury should decide the outcome, not him.   In this episode, we take a look at how it all went down and what we should expect from the defense as they begin to present their case.(commercial at 12:01)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge says error on indictment for JJ's murder not grounds for acquittal of murder charge - East Idaho NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

While waiting to learn what became of the official documents that gave Orik full control of the Holy Forge Company, Rumble Squad seek out Luven's penpal Vel and learn more about the goings on in Rumnaheim. Twitter:@RulesAsWritten Email: dm@dndraw.com Discord: Chat with us! “Heroic Age” by Kevin MacLeod  License: CC BY Thank you to Tabletop Audio for providing music for this episode. Music d20 We want to thank Will for making his music available for podcasters, and we are thrilled to use some of his tracks for this episode. You can support Music d20 on Patreon at patreon.com/musicd20. You can also follow him on Twitter @Music_d20.

 Ramon Vargas, a former reporter for the New Orleans Times-Picayune and now an editor/reporter for the London-based publication The Guardian, has for several years been covering sex scandals mostly between adult educator authority figures and school age youth. Most of his work has centered around the Roman Catholic church in the New Orleans area but has wider implications. Recently, information released by the Louisiana State police who gained access to what has been private documents, has opened shocking revelations of new charges many made by alleged former victims. Vargas joins Louisiana Life Executive Editor Errol Laborde, along with producer Kelly Massicot, to talk about what was learned from the affidavits including what church officials might have known but not revealed.  

-“Clerical payroll error” costs 49ers a 2025 fifth-round pick, reduced 2024 fourth-round pick-Marquise Brown re: Choosing the Chiefs-Vikings to have private workout with J.J. McCarthy next week-Simms 2024 Draft WR Rankings

As we continue to navigate the many webs of the Delphi Murders, we are now being hit with a new piece of information that makes you question why it took so long for Richard Allen to be arrested. That information you ask? Richard Allen was known to investigators in 2017 but the information he voluntarily provided in the aftermath of the murders was lost due to, what authorities are calling "A clerical error."Let's get caught up.(commercial at 7:35)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/delphi-murders-suspect-richard-allen-slipped-through-net-in-2017-due-to-clerical-error-podcasters-reveal/ar-AA14Npa3?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=e9f7cb259b8f45deb34ad0941a3d165a

Where are the St Peter Damians of Today? *Deliver Us from All Vice *Book of Gomorrah and Today's Clerical Sex Abuse Scandal *Calming the Storms, Where Peace Is, God Is Subscribe and Rate on Apple Podcasts

ROFL! Today's show was so funny, we just can't stop ROFLing! Clerical errors! A couple who won $35 million at a lottery got NOTHING after a major error! Was Taylor Swift spotted at Sydney Harbour? We investigate while Joel gives us an update about Charlotte the Stingray! Ricki gives us an update on the great contestants of Australian Idol last night! How did you catch the cheat? A woman was willing to shell out $350 on AirTasker for help in catching her cheating BF! A new black hole has been discovered! Have you eaten from the trash? A woman was fired after eating a left over sandwich! We play Joel Jivin' (Taylor's Version)! Follow us @rickileetimandjoel!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join us in this insightful interview with E. Darlene Bullock, Director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU). With over 27 years of experience in procurement, federal assistance, and acquisitions management, Ms. Bullock brings a wealth of expertise to her role. Prior to her current position, Ms. Bullock served as a Division Director and Contracting Officer in the DHS Office of Procurement Operations (OPO), overseeing billions of dollars in procurement annually. Notably, she led the award process for the first DHS-wide Program Management, Administrative, Clerical, and Technical Services (PACTS) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts, valued at $1.5 billion and set aside for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs). Ms. Bullock's distinguished career includes leadership positions at various Federal and local agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. Department of Commerce, and the District of Columbia Government. She began her acquisition career with the U.S. Army and is a Certified Federal Contract Manager (CFCM) with the National Contract Management Association (NCMA). Don't miss this opportunity to learn from Ms. Bullock's insights and experiences in fostering small and disadvantaged businesses within the DHS procurement landscape. Subscribe now for more updates and interviews with industry leaders. Doing Business with DHS https://www.dhs.gov/topics/do-business-dhs Business Opportunities at DHS https://www.dhs.gov/business-opportunities For questions: dhsosdbu@hq.dhs.gov --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/governmentcoins/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/governmentcoins/support

Watch Carol and Tim LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF. Bloomberg Technology Co-Host Ed Ludlow explains how a mistake in ride-hailing provider Lyft's outlook for profitability sent the stock surging on Tuesday. Pat Regnier, Editor of Bloomberg Markets Magazine, provides the details of the Markets Magazine story The End of Zero Rates Ushered in a New Era of Investment Error. Bloomberg News Mexico Business Reporter Amy Stillman discusses why Tesla's Chinese supply base in Mexico is stoking fears in Washington. And we Drive to the Close with Aaron Kennon, CEO at Clear Harbor Asset Management. Hosts: Carol Massar and Tim Stenovec. Producer: Paul Brennan. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Lyft CEO David Risher joins Bloomberg Technology hosts Caroline Hyde and Ed Ludlow to discuss the clerical error that unintentionally inflated the ride-sharing company's earnings outlook, regaining investor confidence and driver strikes.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of The Alabaster Jar, Dr. Lynn Cohick and Kelly Dippolito are joined by Dr. Beth Allison Barr to discuss her research on women's lives in the medieval period, focusing on the role of clerical texts and sermons in understanding their experiences. She explores the importance of figures like Mary and Eve in medieval sermons and the treatment of single women in medieval society. Barr also discusses the concept of marriage debt and the understanding of motherhood in the medieval period.She highlights the lessons that can be learned from medieval times for today, including the recognition of women as human beings and the importance of women's voices and leadership in the church. The conversation also explores the impact of female saints and the need to bring alive women of the Bible and the church. It highlights the lack of visibility of women in modern evangelicalism, both in leadership structures and physical spaces of churches. The conversation also discusses the historical influence on gender roles and the perpetuation of the narrative that women are not as important as men in the spiritual economy. Episode Breakdown:00:00 - Introduction and Background01:45 - Exploring Women's Lives in the Medieval Period05:51 - The Role of Clerical Texts in Understanding Women's Lives08:34 - The Importance of Mary and Eve in Medieval Sermons10:30 - The Woman of Canaan as a Lens for Understanding Medieval Women15:47 - The Concept of Marriage Debt and the Role of Single Women19:54 - The Treatment of Single Women in Medieval Society 27:28 - Understanding Motherhood in the Medieval Period 32:40 - Lessons from Medieval Times for Today 35:09 - The Impact of Female Saints 38:06 - Visibility of Women in Modern Evangelicalism 39:34 - Lack of Women's Visibility in Churches 40:43 - Historical Influence on Gender Roles 41:46 - Closing Remarks Episode Resources: The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth by Dr. Beth Allison Barr First, Preach Christ's Gospel by Dr. Beth Allison Barr The Pastoral Care of Women in Late Medieval England by Dr. Beth Allison Barr The Visual Museum Of Women In Christianity Episode Sponsor: The Alabaster Jar is brought to you by The Center for Women in Leadership, a newly formed 501©3 nonprofit organization whose purpose is to equip women in a context that is biblically rooted, theologically robust, and ethnically diverse to thrive as leaders in the academy and the Church. Follow them on Instagram @leadershipwithoutapology. Learn more about The Center for Women in Leadership at: https://www.leadershipwithoutapology.org/.

Excerpt from A Memorial to be Addressed to the House of Bishops and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant Episcopal Church in General Convention (October 1940): “The term Internationalism has been popularized in recent years to cover an interlocking financial, political, and economic world force for the purpose of establishing a World Government. Today Internationalism is heralded from pulpit and platform as a ‘League of Nations' or a ‘Federated Union' to which the United States must surrender a definite part of its National Sovereignty. The World Government plan is being advocated under such alluring names as the ‘New International Order,' ‘The New World Order,' ‘World Union Now,' ‘World Commonwealth of Nations,' ‘World Community,' etc. All the terms have the same objective; however, the line of approach may be religious or political according to the taste or training of the individual.” Watch my new film The Overseers for FREE https://rumble.com/v3rxdi7-the-overseers-cult-of-the-medics-chapter-x.html My site: https://www.dwtruthwarrior.com Donations: https://www.cultofthemedics.com/donate.html

...Plus, Radio station fights misinformation and disinformation directed at Latino voters