Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service

Background

Upon its signing, the order fundamentally altered the landscape of federal employment by introducing Schedule F within the excepted service. These changes permitted agencies to reclassify a significant number of policy-related positions, effectively removing these roles from the protective umbrella of the competitive service. This reclassification aimed to provide departments with increased flexibility, theoretically allowing for more effective management of key roles. The changes emphasized performance standards and facilitated expedited removal of employees deemed underperforming, all while sidestepping the traditional procedures required for competitive service positions.

The issuance of the order elicited a range of operational adjustments across federal agencies. The directive required agency leaders to review positions within their domains to identify roles that could be shifted to Schedule F, promoting a focus on roles of confidential or policy-determining nature. This mandated review and categorization added layers to the operational process within numerous departments, necessitating re-evaluation of roles and responsibilities. However, this process raised concerns about its impact on morale and the impartiality of civil service, as those employees in newly designated positions faced potential job insecurity due to the lack of traditional civil service protections.

Agencies responding to this directive faced the dual challenge of realigning their workforce while maintaining efficiency in operations. The shift appeared to predominantly impact mid-to-senior career professionals who traditionally enjoyed protections under competitive service rules. The reassignment of roles from competitive to excepted service had the potential to alter the power dynamics within agencies. Without formal rulemaking, these changes proceeded efficiently but with a degree of opacity that led to further unrest and suspicion among federal workers concerned about favoritism and political influence in personnel decisions.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation of the order by President Joe Biden occurred in a climate of efforts to rebuild and reaffirm the values of the federal civil service. Upon taking office, President Biden quickly set the tone for his administration by revoking several executive orders from the previous administration that were considered misaligned with his policies. The action against this specific order reflected a broader ideological shift towards reinforcing the independence and stability of the federal workforce—a concept seen as crucial to upholding a non-partisan, efficient government service.

Concerns regarding the potential politicization of the federal civil service were pivotal in the decision to repeal. This move aligned with the broader Democratic agenda of reinforcing institutional norms and reducing political interference in civil service positions. The perceived erosion of merit-based protections under the previous executive order was counter to Biden's vision of a politically neutral federal workforce. Such a neutral workforce is viewed as essential for maintaining the integrity and effective delivery of government programs.

Additionally, the revocation signaled a commitment to restoring due process protections for federal employees. The order was viewed as a potential threat to employment stability within the federal workforce. By reversing the order, the Biden administration aimed to ensure that federal employees continued to carry out their roles without fear of sudden and potentially politically motivated dismissal—a message intended to boost morale and restore public trust in governmental operations.

Revocation was not simply an isolated policy adjustment, but part of a comprehensive effort to re-establish a traditional view of separation between civil service functions and political appointments. In doing so, the administration underscored its commitment to uphold principles of accountability and fairness, reinforcing civil service as a career grounded in expertise rather than political sphere.

Winners

The revocation of the order was positively received by organizations representing federal employees, such as the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). These groups viewed the order as a protective measure for their members, emphasizing job security and the value of experience and expertise in government positions. Labor unions lauded the return to competitive service protections as a safeguard ensuring stable employment conditions, which encourages a workforce capable of providing impartial advice and action.

Restoring these civil service protections served to stabilize the federal workforce environment, supporting career professionals who might have felt vulnerable under the less secure framework previously mandated. Professionals who were in roles closely connected to policy-making, or who had sensed increased politicization, emerged as clear beneficiaries. By reaffirming their jobs as merit-based, these employees could feel that their career investments in public service were valued and respected.

More broadly, proponents of strong government institutions and checks and balances appreciated the move. The retraction was viewed as a step toward enhancing institutional integrity and reducing the susceptibility of the government to political interference in the inner workings of executive agencies. By bolstering the ethos of a non-partisan civil service, the revocation appealed to advocates for transparent and unbiased governance.

Losers

Notably, the initial expansion of Schedule F empowered agency heads with significant latitude in personnel decisions, without the need for traditional oversight. The abrupt revocation curtailed this latitude, potentially frustrating managers who had begun leveraging the operational efficiencies and responsiveness the executive order had promised. Departments that had anticipated greater agility in personnel matters may have faced adjustments back to compliance with more rigid regulatory frameworks.

Moreover, some political appointees and management officials who sought to realign workforce competencies with current administration policies might find their efforts thwarted. The return to stringent adherence to competitive service norms could be seen as limiting their ability to rapidly implement policy agendas. This could introduce friction or delay in policy implementation where quick adaptability was initially expected to be achieved through strategic human resource reallocation.

Private sector entities engaging in partnerships with the federal government may have also experienced indirect repercussions. For companies seeking contracts or collaborations with agencies, the administrative agility potentially benefits of a streamlined government workforce could have led the presumptions of increased operational flexibility. The rollback reinforced a commitment to process over rapid adaptation, potentially affecting timelines and expectations within such partnerships.