Scope and Methodology

In order to determine whether agencies used appropriate authorities and followed procedures in providing career appointments to former political appointees and legislative branch employees during the period January 1, 1996, through March 31, 1997, we first identified such cases. To determine whether proper procedures were followed in the 36 cases, we examined the steps taken in the application and appointment process. We did not independently determine whether the 36 employees were qualified for the positions to which they were appointed. From our review of the various documents that were related to the appointments (such as vacancy announcements, resumes, and official notifications of personnel actions) and our discussions with pertinent agency officials, we determined that the agencies met the requirements of the 7 appointment authorities and that they used the authorities properly in making the 36 appointments. We did note, however, that in 3 of the 36 appointments, although the appropriate appointment authorities were used, the reference citations on the effecting documents were incorrect. Personnel officials from the employing agencies stated that the incorrect citations were due to administrative error and that corrections would be made. The three appointments did not involve circumstances that, in our opinion, could give the appearance of favoritism or preferential treatment. On the basis of these comparisons, it appeared that the agencies followed proper procedures in making the 36 appointments. Circumstances Surrounding Six Appointments Could Give the Appearance of Favoritism or Preferential Treatment

Although records in OPFs and merit staffing files indicated that agencies used proper appointing authorities and procedures for all 36 appointments, in our opinion, 6 appointments involved circumstances that could lead to the appearance that the individuals received favoritism or preferences that enhanced their prospects for the appointments. The remaining 30 appointments did not raise comparable questions of the appearance of favoritism or preference. One of the applicants was the political appointee. 31, 1997)

Department of Defense (Office of the Secretary)

Comments From the Office of Personnel Management

Appointment Authorities Used in the 36 Appointments We Reviewed

Merit staffing plans of each agency An individual must (1) serve for at least 3 years in the legislative branch and be paid by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Representatives; (2) be involuntarily separated without prejudice from the legislative branch; (3) pass a suitable noncompetitive examination (i.e., be qualified for the position being sought); and (4) transfer to the career position within 1 year of being separated from the legislative branch.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the appointments of 36 former political appointees and legislative branch employees to positions in the executive branch between January 1996 and March 1997, focusing on whether: (1) appropriate authorities were used and proper procedures were followed in appointing former political appointees and legislative branch employees; and (2) the circumstances surrounding any of the appointments gave the appearance of favoritism or preferential treatment in the appointment process, even if proper procedures were followed. GAO did not independently determine whether the 36 employees were qualified for the positions to which they were appointed.

What GAO Found

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