Federal Government

Towards mid-20th century, American society had been stricken with social problems that stemmed from its history of tolerating and legalizing African slavery during its transition as a nation that has new found independence and freedom as a state. Freed from British colonization, Americans found themselves assuming the role of their previous colonizers; only this time, they became usurpers of the rights of African slaves, who were transported from Africa to America.

As the promise of social, economic, and political power became more possible, America in the 20th century sought to create a fair, just, and egalitarian society. One of the immediate steps taken by Americans in order to ensure this was the incorporation of Africans and African-Americans into American society.

Achieving this, however, was a task not easily accomplished. Apart from people’s fear of breaking the status quo and entering a new social order, the American society also had the perceived threat that if African-Americans would be recognized in the country as equal citizens as Americans, then the privileges and opportunities they have enjoyed would be re-channeled and re-distributed to a larger population. Hence, the threat of decreased opportunities and privileges kept some Americans from accepting African-Americans as equal to them in enjoying the rights, freedom, and liberty as mandated by the American Constitution.

The American government, however, sought ways in which African-Americans or black Americans could gain equal rights as Americans. The road towards achieving civil rights was not an easy task for both the black American society and the government. With the combined influence and constitutional power of the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary branches of the government, black Americans gradually achieved their goal of becoming recognized as citizens of the United States of America.

In 1961, the Executive branch of the government, under the leadership of then-president John F. Kennedy, the Affirmative Action program was unveiled and implemented in the education and labor sectors of the American society. Under Kennedy’s leadership, Affirmative Action was implemented as a result of tedious studies by the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. Initially, this program was aimed to provide equal opportunities for black Americans to apply for and enter into jobs or work without being discriminated-that is, they undergo the process of application and acceptance based on their credentials, skills, and knowledge as potential employees/workers for the employer/company.

As an improvement to Kennedy’s initial program, President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 included in the Affirmative Action program the education sector, giving opportunities for black American youth to enjoy the same privileges that Americans have received from the government. Thus, with the inclusion of the education sector in the Affirmative Action program, black American students received scholarships and financial funding from the government and specific entities in the education sector. The program has benefited black American youth through the years.

The Judiciary also played an important role in promoting the civil rights movement among African-Americans. Early on in the 1950s, America bore witness to a landmark case, Brown v. Board of Education, wherein Linda Brown, a black-American third grade student, was refused to be admitted in an all-white American school. The complaint was forwarded by Linda’s father because she had to walk one mile in going to her school, when in fact, she only lived seven blocks away from the all-white American school. The school’s refusal to admit Linda Brown signified the persistence of discrimination against black Americans. The case paved the way for educational institutions in America to re-examine themselves, and accept the reality that discrimination promotes social stagnation more than progress and development of America’s youth, whether they are black or white Americans.

The legislative branch has been one of the active branches of the government, and has a significant relationship with African-Americans’ fight for their civil rights in the country. While the legislative branch had played the role of adversary, especially during the period wherein the civil rights movement was still in its infancy (implementation of Jim Crow laws and Fugitive Slave Law), the legislative branch nevertheless served as the medium through which black Americans were able to express and argue for their rights.

One such example of laws that promoted black American civil rights was the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which promised equal rights and privileges among black Americans. It became the first step for the American society to fully accept the reality that they are equal in status and power as the black Americans. Thus, the Civil Rights Act made American society of this period to become more receptive, understanding, and open to the idea that indeed, American society is fast becoming a diverse and multi-cultural society.

Kenneth A. Cherisol AMH 2020 Prof. John Fitzgerald Nov 17, 2010 But WHY? Why has the power of the federal government expanded so significantly? Was this shift in power from state governments to the federal government necessary? Government power took a huge shifted from state government to federal government during and after the civil war. Although President Franklin D Roosevelt’s new deal is often considered the pivotal point that caused this shift, the major event attributing to this shift in power was the civil war. The first event that led to a growth in federal power was the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.

Although the constitution is to protect the right of individuals and limit the power of government it led to more government power so that it can accomplish its goals. Eventually the Civil war established the federal government’s power over the states. After the civil war the Federal government had to enforce its power over the states to control issues such segregation, racism and regulating states powers over the rights of citizens. The government that was established to protect the rights of it citizens now had to look out for its economic welfare.

Eventually this led the way for interest groups such as union veterans to tap into the federal treasury. The government now needed means to obtain funds for it limited treasury. Different commissions were developed to regulate aspects of the food industry, fuel, trade and eventually the entire economy. Some of these commissions include the FDA established in 1906, the Federal trade commission established in 1914 and the Federal Reserve establishes in 1913. Eventually in 1913 federal income tax was established providing a source of funds for the federal treasury.

World War 1 led to future advancement of the Federal government’s power even further. The federal government now regulated waterway shipping, railways were nationalized, and the United States food administration now regulated all aspects of the food industry from agriculture, distribution and sales. During the 1920’s US agriculture suffered because the worldwide market for farm products was competitive. This led to the federal government passing tariffs of farm imports and in 1922 the Capper-Volstead act exempted agricultural cooperatives from antitrust laws.

Another act, the Agricultural Credits act of 1923, made it easier for farmer to receive loans from the Federal Farm Board which was established by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929. The federal Government also needed to regulate the power of businesses. The Federal Government began to limit the power of business by enforcing antitrust laws created by the Shermans act of 1890. Antitrust enforcement was another area in which Federal government increased in power. I believe the expansion of the Federal Government was necessary in every way to ensure the future of US.

Before the civil war the states had most of the power dictating state laws and each was concerned with better its own states not looking at the nation as a whole. This led to issues such as the south having slaves and the north not allowing slavery. Eventually this led to the civil war. The federal government is necessary to regulate the powers of the states. Acts such as the civil rights act of 1964 led to equal treatment of individuals regardless of race or color. Even after the act the federal government had to enforce the laws on the south and rebuild the south’s state governments.

The federal government’s power affects our daily lives from education to regulations on entertainment and safety. Due to recent economic issues states are allowing the federal government to dictate education policy in exchange for funding. Federal taxes affect our income and ensure funding for various government programs. Federal expansion is also necessary to maintain peace with other nations and ensure the safety of American lives through funding for our military and regulating foreign affairs. I believe the growth in Federal Government is necessary and without it the US would not be as influential and powerful as it is today.

A Reflection Paper on Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21st Century This is a reflection paper on the recommendations proposed in the Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21st century report by the National Commission on the Public Service (Volcker Commission).

The Volcker commission, comprised of members from the three major political parties, recognizes the importance of disciplined policy direction, operational flexibility, and clear and high performance standards as guiding objectives (The National Commission on the Public Service [NCPS], 2003) for an organizational restructuring within the federal government to meet the challenges of the 21st century. This author agrees with the commission in that no such undertaken has occurred since the Hoover Commission some 50 years ago.

It articulates in my view a comprehensive plan to reclaim the dignity once associated with public service, and if effectively utilized could re-establish trust between the American public and its government. The decline in confidence shared by many Americans in the capability of federal personnel to carry out the tasks of public service must be addressed. The National Commission on the Public Service (Volcker Commission) recognized this need and published a 2003 report on the public service sector titled Urgent Business for America: Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21st Century.

The report, a collective collaboration between veteran government employees, drew upon their knowledge and the expertise of outside sources from every political affiliation to address challenges that plague the civil service sector in the 21st century. The members of the commission focused on seven key areas which are: the relationship between the government and the American public, organizational disorder, one size fits all management, vanishing talent, personnel systems, and labor-management conflict (NCPS, 2003).

This author considers trust as the main component of any relationship and agrees with the commission that the distrust between the American people and the government is contributing to the decay of public service. The commission realized that that the policy changes need to combat the problems associated with public service in the 21st century will take a collaborative effort between the citizens of American and government.

I agree with the commission that there is no “quick fix” that the government shares the blame for the negative perception, and must make every effort possible to regain that trust by sufficiently improving its performance. The organizational structure within the civil service sector was another focal point in the commissions’ report. The members recommended that “the federal government should be reorganized into a limited number of mission-related executive departments” (NCPS, 2003, p. 14).

The commission points out that most public servants are perplexed as to the application and significance of their agency’s undertaking and more often than not departments share responsibilities that could be combined to form one cohesive unit. For example, I found it very disturbing that as many as 12 different agencies share the responsibility of administering over 35 food safety laws (NCPS, 2003). The disarray with organizational structure also presents the problem of effectively managing the mission of these individual agencies. The commission notes that nine agencies operate 27 teen pregnancy programs come back to.

It is my opinion that the solution given by the commission to group related missions under the same organizational structure would enhance employees’ sense of purpose and loyalty, provide opportunities for advancement and reduce waste of limited resources (NCPS, 2003). One size doe not fit all; this entire “cookie cutter” approach to agency structure and management practices is no longer viable. The needs of the American public are far more complex and vary significantly than those confronted by civil service reformers of the past.

Because the tasks performed by public servants range so greatly it is no longer feasible to assume that a single approach to management will be effective in every instance. The commission members make a valid point in that “excellent performance requires organizational leadership and culture that fit the mission, not just a single theory of administration” (NCPS, 2003, p. 8). The future of attracting and retaining highly qualified workers in the public service profession appears bleak.

The prestige and sense of accomplishment once considered attributes or incentives of public sector employment is on a sharp decline amongst American citizens. This can be attributed to many factors such as inadequate work conditions, differential in public versus private sector salaries, personal safety, and the opportunity for advancement. The two I found most interesting were the requirements for disclosure of personal information and the application process. Ethics regulations are enacted by Congress to ensure the integrity of federal employees.

It is a given than more that 250,000 federal employees must make yearly disclosure of the full details of their personal finances (NCPS, 2003). While I agree that such laws are necessary; I also think the process can be modified as not to encompass so many employees. As the commission states Congress needs “to make federal ethics rules cleaner, simpler, and more directly related to the goals they are intended to achieve” (NCPS, 2003, p. 22). The application process within the civil service sector is another deterrent that I agree with the commission on could be streamlined to expedite the procedure.

Those applying for public sector employment find this process tedious and much more complicated than that of the private sector and typically get faster responses private employers. Personnel management systems in public service were originally designed to promote equity among the workforce. The truth of the matter is “equal pay for equal work” is no longer realistic. This concept is antiquated because of the sophisticated high level tasks performed by some government agencies. The recommendation of the commission is to eradicate the General Schedule classification system.

This system has become too cumbersome to administer; to guarantee equity in compensation this system will always require constant tinkering to define “equal work” so that it can ensure “equal pay” (NCPS, 2003). What the commission has suggested, and what I agree with, is a broadband system under which the current 15 pay grades are consolidate into six to eight broad bands with wider salary ranges (NCPS, 2003). This would give managers the flexibility to compensate based on capability and performance, and design personnel systems that best sustains the mission of the organization.

The Commission notes that there are three very distinct factors that determine pay for the overwhelming majority of federal workers: how an individual job fits into the General Schedule classification system, geographical location of the job, and the employee’s time in service (NCPS, 2003). I was disturbed by the fact that the quality of the work performed was frequently disregarded as a standard. It has to frustrating for workers who provide a high quality of service to be judged on the same merits as those of poor performers.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was enacted to reward bonuses, merit pay and performance commendations to high performing civil servants (NCPS, 2003). This is rarely the case because of insufficient funds or an evaluation system that acts more as a rubber stamp than an effective means of evaluation. Managers routinely were allocating funds as a means to compensate equitably across the board, and not as inducements or rewards for top achievers. This is an area of reform which much attention should be given.

It is irrational to believe that high performing employees do not “pick up the slack” for poor performers. It has been my experience that management comes to rely on this (as long as the work is getting done) instead of dealing with poor performers appropriately. This attitude does nothing but destroy the morale of the unit as a whole. The last area of concentration by the Volcker Commission was the conflict between labor and management. The commission believes, as do I, that it is entirely possible to modernize the public sector without jeopardizing the fundamentals of the merit system (NCPS, 2003).

I agree that political affiliation should not be a factor for determining employment within the civil service sector, and that individuals employed by this sector should not be subject to arbitrary discipline or dismissal based on political affliction. I also agree that labor- management collaboration can coexist within the federal government. Numerous recommendations made to the president and Congress. What I found surprising about the report is that the commission instead of focusing exclusively on changes to the public service sector; devoted much attention to a restructuring of the executive branch of government.

Moreover, it calls for “The House and Senate to realign their committee oversight to match the mission driven reorganization of the executive branch” (NCPS, 2003, p. 17); which is no small feat given the current political climate. The commission also made several other controversial proposals, for example, the President and Congress should work together to drastically decrease the number of executive branch positions (NCPS, 2003).

In calling for an “immediate and significant” increase in judicial, executive, and legislative salaries, the commission also recognizes the long-standing reluctance of members of Congress to vote for a pay increase for themselves (NCPS, 2003). The report calls upon Congress to break the statutory link between their salaries and those of judges and senior political appointees (NCPS, 2003). While I found the report be very cohesive and comprehensive, a nd a blueprint for a more efficient government and better quality of civil service employees; I also felt several issues were not adequately addressed.

Although, the repot does present sufficient advice as to restructuring organizational and management systems within the federal government “it fails to address the core problems affecting the delivery of public services. Primarily too often federal agencies simply don’t have the resources they need to meet mission requirements; an emphasis on pay compression for top ranking government positions overlooks the impact of pay disparities on front-line workers; and much more needs to be done to address the negative impact of contracting out (Palguta, 2003).

While the commission’s report appropriately focuses on “leadership in government” as a primary area of concern, it tends to define leadership too narrowly as those individuals at the top of the organization. First-line supervisors and mid-level managers are a vital component of the leadership team. Finally, while agreeing that greater management flexibility is needed, there must also be balanced with reasonable safeguards to ensure the basic merit principles are maintained (Palguta, 2003). References The National Commission on the Public Service. (2003). Urgent business for America: evitalizing the federal government for the 21st century. Retrieved from http://docs. google. com/viewer? a=v&q=cache:KSnwxENfsmQJ:www. brookings. e du/gs/cps/volcker/reportfinal. pdf+urgent+business+for+america:+revitalizing+the +federal+government+for+the+21st+century Palguta, John M. “Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21st Century: Presenting differing perspectives on the report of the National Commission on the Public Service (Volcker II). (Opinion Roundtable: Volcker II). ” The Public Manager 32. 1 (2003): 7+. Academic OneFile. Web. 6 Feb. 2011.