Memos to National LeadersThe National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) and the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) launched this project to inform incoming national leaders about policy and management challenges facing the Nation. This effort includes the release of a series of memoranda outlining these challenges and recommending solutions representing a consensus of the best thinking by public management practitioners and researchers across the country. The memoranda have been developed with both a Presidential and Congressional focus, reflecting the joint ownership of problems and solutions for these major challenges. We have produced memoranda in the following nine key areas, outlined below:National Academy of Public AdministrationNAPA_7a3dc6e6-079d-4ca1-8578-c0acc675ce0fThe National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) was created to help public sector leaders meet the important and varied management challenges of today and anticipate those of the future. Chartered by Congress as an independent, non-partisan organization, the National Academy undertakes its important work on behalf of the public sector by anticipating, evaluating, analyzing and making recommendations on the nation’s most critical and complex public management, governance, policy and operational challenges. Through the trusted and experienced leaders that comprise its more than 700 Fellows and direct its projects and services, the Academy improves the quality, performance, and accountability of government.American Society for Public AdministrationASPA_23e2704f-0b61-47cf-88e1-ea33cfa2ac28The American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) is the largest and most prominent professional association for public administration. It is dedicated to advancing the art, science, teaching and practice of public and non-profit administration. Members have an opportunity to advance their careers by becoming involved in their local public administration community. ASPA promotes ethics and integrity in public service and governance worldwide, while promoting dialogue on social equity issues in all areas of public service such as public budgeting, government hiring practices, diversity in academia and others._a126ae6a-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24cTo inform incoming national leaders about policy and management challenges facing the Nation._a126b2e8-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24cBudget ProcessStrengthening the Federal Budget Process_a126b446-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1Steve RedburnChair & Co-author -- Steve Redburn directs studies for the National Academy of Sciences and teaches in the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration of George Washington University. He is a National Academy of Public Administration Fellow and currently chairs its standing panel on executive organization and management. Dr. Redburn directed a study of the fiscal future of the U.S. in 2008-2009 for a joint NAPA-NAS study committee and was project director for the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform in 2010 and 2011. Prior to retiring from federal service in 2006 he was a senior career executive in the Office of Management and Budget. He is a NAPA Fellow.Phil JoyceCo-authorRoy MeyersCo-authorPaul PosnerCo-authorThis set of memoranda will discuss how policymakers and managers can cope with the collision between lower resources and sustained high expectations for public services, what options exist for the nation to reconcile its animosity to larger government with its growing appetite for public goods and services. And, what kinds of specific recommendations can be made to improve the way Congress and the agencies allocate increasingly scarce resources. Memo Overview: It is now widely understood that the federal government faces a large long-term mismatch between its policy commitments and its projected revenues. Closing this fiscal gap will, by all authoritative accounts, require hard choices to yield trillions of dollars in budget savings. Achieving these while sustaining the nation’s highest public priorities, supporting robust and sustained economic growth, and dealing with inevitable emergencies and surprises will be difficult at best. Soon after the fall elections the U.S. will approach a “fiscal cliff” which provides still another opportunity for negotiated agreements on large policy adjustments to address the long-term problem. Continued stalemate would trigger sudden across-the-board spending cuts and massive tax increases, pitching the nation back into recession and greatly complicating an already staggering political and fiscal challenge. Whatever budget savings are negotiated, whether on this or the far side of the fiscal cliff, must be implemented and sustained year by year through the federal government’s budget process. At this inopportune time, the federal government’s budget process has virtually seized up. Routine decisions on annual discretionary spending are usually late, causing uncertainty and disruption. The largest parts of the budget, including revenue policy and entitlements, are on autopilot. Major decisions to reform the tax code and adjust spending priorities are blocked or deferred. Even if the familiar budget process were working smoothly, however, it would not be up to the tasks now facing us. We need a new approach that is more far-sighted and strategic, more focused and disciplined. To help the next Administration and the next Congress be better equipped to meet the fiscal challenge, a group of four expert observers of that process has prepared the attached set of memos. Each memo presents a set of recommended actions – both practical and bold – that deserve serious consideration in a necessary effort to repair and remake the federal budget process. Two of the memos describe steps to expand the budget’s time horizon and to help policy makers act more strategically to meet the public’s highest priorities while finding budget savings sufficient to put the federal budget on a sustainable path. The other two memos are directed, respectively, at the executive branch and Congress, and propose complementary changes to help streamline, focus, and discipline budget decisions and to better fix responsibility for budget outcomes.Long TermBudgeting for the Long Term: Avoiding the Fiscal Cliff_a126b54a-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.1Summary: To address a large long-term gap between federal revenues and spending commitments, the budget process and institutions can be reformed to be more far-sighted. Reforms will raise the salience of the long-term fiscal challenge and make it more difficult for policy makers to ignore the long-term implications of their decisions or their failure to act. The President and Congress should agree on fiscal goals as a starting point for work on the annual budget, and the budget resolution to be a multi-year plan to meet specific fiscal targets. The President should show how his fiscal policies will play out over the far horizon and how much his policies will do to close the long-term fiscal gap. Other procedural and institutional changes can be made to provide the incentives and discipline needed to put the budget on a sustainable path.Analysis & ProposalsThe President should be required to include in annual budgets a detailed analysis of how his fiscal policies will play out over two decades at least, and provide specific budget proposals to close any projected long-term fiscal gap._a126b676-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.1.1President of the United StatesFiscal Exposure ReportsGAO, OMB, and CBO should prepare annual reports on “fiscal exposures”, including the long-term costs of major social insurance and pension commitments._a126b77a-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.1.2GAOOMBCBOAccruing CostsAccruing costs for long-term commitments such as federal pensions and health care and federal insurance programs should be booked as they arise and included in annual estimates of spending and deficits._a126b888-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.1.3Debt Targets & Budget SavingsThe President should propose and Congress enact medium- and long-term targets for the debt, as a starting point for estimating annual and multi-year budget savings required to achieve them._a126b9a0-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.1.4President of the United StatesCongressTriggersThe President and Congress should join in developing soft triggers for both major entitlement and tax programs._a126bab8-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.1.5President of the United StatesCongressTargets & CapsAnnual budget resolutions should be used to implement a preestablished multi-year target such as debt as percent of GDP and should include specified policy changes and caps on appropriated spending consistent with that multi-year framework._a126bbd0-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.1.6Savings TargetsCBO should be required to assess whether the President’s budget and the budget resolution meet the overall savings targets previously adopted and the deficit reduction legislation._a126bcf2-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.1.7CBOStrategyBudgeting Strategically_a126be14-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.2Summary: Facing prolonged slow growth and fiscal austerity, the federal government must make more effective use of limited public resources and mobilize private investment to achieve the most important national objectives. This requires a more strategic approach to fiscal choice, using information on expected costs and returns to the economy over a long horizon. The budget’s decision-making should be organized around enduring missions and long-term social goals. For selected goals, the relevant portfolio of spending, tax expenditures, legislative and regulatory mandates, and other policy tools should be regularly shaken to separate wheat from chaff. Each review should include non-federal partners and be conducted with full transparency, public hearings, and input from all stakeholders. Expert panels should be asked to review evidence on social benefits from recommended changes in policy and resource use and advise on effective implementation of the recommended strategy. At the completion of each review, the President’s budget and legislative agenda for the next fiscal year should incorporate policy changes estimated to achieve breakthrough returns and accelerated progress toward the priority goal.National ObjectivesIdentify and announce a handful of high priority national objectives that will be the focus of strategic budget reviews over the coming year._a126bf2c-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.2.1President of the United StatesCongressional LeadersThe new Administration, in consultation with leaders of the next Congress, should identify and announce a handful of high priority national objectives that will be the focus of strategic budget reviews over the coming year. The aim of each review should be to achieve a breakthrough in enhanced use of public and private resources to achieve ambitious improvements by specified dates toward a major policy objective – such as a more productive labor force; greater energy independence; broad improvements in health – while at the same time yielding budget savings as scored over a five-year period and longer and social benefits far exceeding its costs.Federal ProgramsRigorously examine the full portfolio of current federal programs cutting across multiple agencies and departments, including tax expenditures._a126c06c-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.2.2Each strategic budget review should rigorously examine the full portfolio of current federal programs cutting across multiple agencies and departments, including tax expenditures. As alternatives to current or proposed spending, it should assess the potential use of regulations and other policy instruments to achieve a given objective. It should also examine the contributions of states, communities, and others to achievement of the objective.Review LeadersDesignate a leader responsible for convening and conducting each strategic review._a126c1a2-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.2.3Federal Program Review LeadersNational Research CouncilNational Academy of Public AdministrationThe Administration should designate a leader responsible for convening and conducting each strategic review. Each review should include representatives of non-federal partners and should be conducted with full transparency, public hearings, and input from all stakeholders. Expert panels of the National Research Council should be asked to review the evidence on the effectiveness and relative social returns from recommended changes in policy and resource use. Advice should be sought from the National Academy of Public Administration on effective implementation of the recommended strategy.Breaktrhough ReturnsIncorporate in the President’s budget and legislative agenda for the next fiscal year the first stages of a proposed reform estimated to achieve breakthrough returns and accelerated progress toward the priority goal._a126c2ec-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.2.4At the completion of each strategic budget review, the President’s budget and legislative agenda for the next fiscal year should incorporate the first stages of a proposed reform estimated to achieve breakthrough returns and accelerated progress toward the priority goal.Reorganization LegislationGive fast track consideration to any reorganization legislation required to implement the recommended strategy._a126c44a-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.2.5CongressUnder renewed Presidential reorganization authority, Congress should give fast track consideration to any reorganization legislation required to implement the recommended strategy.President's RoleStregthening the President's Role in the Federal Budget Process_a126c58a-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.3Summary: To help the public hold the President and Congress jointly accountable for better budget outcomes may require granting the President a larger role in the budget process. Beginning the annual budget process with a negotiated agreement between the President and Congress enacted as a joint budget resolution, giving the President enhanced rescission authority, and other legislative reforms would help. The President could be required by legislation to address the nation each fall on fiscal sustainability. If the President takes the lead in summarizing these challenges, and the Congress weighs in with its own views, then there will be a better basis for debating different budget options and holding leaders accountable for improved budget outcomes.Line-Item VetoGive the President the line-item veto or expedited rescission authority._a126c6ca-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.3.1President of the United StatesCongressGive the President the line-item veto or expedited rescission authority. The former would require amending the Constitution and is therefore not an immediate possibility; the latter could be achieved legislatively and is therefore feasible. Expedited rescission authority would allow the President to propose cancellation of individual provisions in enacted appropriations bills, and require Congress to take up-or-down votes on those proposals. This power could be used by the President to highlight unjustified spending items that were enacted only because they were included in large appropriations bills, and prod Congress to reject this spending the second time around. However, this procedure would extend a process that already fails to meet deadlines. Presidents already have the capacity through Statements of Administration Policies to identify objectionable items, especially now that the Congress has prohibited the “airdropping” of earmarks into conference reports. And if the experiences of governors with the item veto provide an accurate basis for estimating what could happen at the federal level, the practical effect of that veto on the nation’s fiscal sustainability may be positive, but almost certainly will be small.Negotiated AgreementBegin the annual budget process with negotiated agreement between the President and Congress on a joint budget resolution._a126c83c-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.3.2President of the United StatesCongressBegin the annual budget process with negotiated agreement between the President and Congress on a joint budget resolution. This would set in law each year the budget totals that are now supposed to be passed by the Congress in the form of a concurrent budget resolution. By making this process joint, requiring the President’s assent, the Congress would no longer be able to pass bills based on its totals and pretend that the President’s veto is politically meaningless--until the threat of a veto becomes real at the beginning of the fiscal year. Since the joint budget resolution conforms best to the constitutional structure, early negotiations between the branches would allow them to reach compromises over the budget’s major parameters, and then to move on to the many important details in appropriations, authorizations, and reconciliation bills. Should the expectation that an early negotiation produce agreement on budget totals not be realized, the Congress could still pass a concurrent resolution as a backup procedure.Budget ModificationsRequire the President to propose budget modifications in particularly challenging sectors of the budget._a126c990-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.3.3President of the United StatesCongressThis will require legislation. While the informational effect of the President’s budget request is substantial, the Congress is not required procedurally to vote on its contents. An alternative would be to create fast-track procedures for selected areas, in which Presidential proposals would be guaranteed votes, with or without amendments. It could be used to give the President the responsibility to propose significant reorganizations of federal agencies and programs. Government Accountability Office reports have documented substantial duplications and overlaps between programs that if reduced could save money. A reorganized executive branch, especially if matched by a reorganized Congress, would allow the government to make policies strategically and align those policies with budget allocations.Congressional DirectionLimit the extensive direction Congress now gives agencies about how they should spend money._a126caf8-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.3.4CongressFederal AgenciesConvince the Congress to limit the extensive direction it now gives agencies about how they should spend money. This approach would take advantage of the substantially increased ability of the executive branch to report on its performance in attaining program goals. Despite this information, the Congress has continued to give agencies detailed directions in authorizations and appropriations bills about how and where money should be spent on specific inputs and activities. This practice can be justified when agencies abuse the discretion they are given by the Congress. But for other agencies, giving them greater flexibility about how inputs are used and which activities they carry out, contingent on their achieving measured results, could allow managers to reduce unnecessary costs while improving performance. Presidents should be given the chance to run more agencies in ways that can give citizens a greater bang for their buck, and the Congress should hold administrations accountable on this measure.EducationInvest more effort in educating the public about the country’s long-term fiscal outlook and the policy responses that would put the government on a fiscally sustainable path._a126cc88-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.3.5President of the United StatesExpect Presidents to invest more effort in educating the public about the country’s long-term fiscal outlook and the policy responses that would put the government on a fiscally sustainable path. One step in this direction is to require by legislation that the President address the nation each fall on fiscal sustainability. This high visibility forum could direct the public’s attention to this issue, and provide a summary of how the President’s budget was received by the Congress. When combined with the other reforms we propose, it could help the public to hold Presidents and the Congress accountable for acting in a fiscally responsible way.Congressional Budget ProcessStrengthening the Congressional Budget Process_a126cdfa-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.4Congresssional Budget CommitteesSummary: The current congressional budget process, far from encouraging fiscal discipline, works against a responsible approach to budgeting. The Budget Committees should be made instruments of House and Senate leadership and be given authority sufficient to shape annual budget legislation. The currently optional reconciliation process should be mandated annually until the publicly held federal debt is stabilized at 60 percent of GDP. To streamline Congress’s work, the authorizing and appropriations committees should be combined. To break the pattern of serial continuing resolutions that hamper effective administration, any appropriations bill should be required to provide at least a full year of appropriated funding in order to be considered on the floor of the House or Senate.Budget LeadershipMake the Budget Committees leadership committees._a126cfbc-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.4.1Congressional Budget CommitteesPeterson-Pew Commission on Budget ReformMake the Budget Committees leadership committees. The Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform explicitly advocated a legislative change providing that the budget committees include “House and Senate leaders and the chairs and ranking members of both the appropriations and revenue committees and other major authorizing committees.” This recommendation is aimed at making it more likely that the budget committees would be invested in fiscal goals that had been agreed to prior to the year’s budget process and would be committed to carrying out those goals in the subsequent legislation. Such a change might aid in the passage, content, and adherence to the budget resolution. In another memo we describe how the budget resolution can be reformulated to provide a multi-year framework based on established fiscal goals, such as stabilizing the debt.Budget ResolutionsPermit any member to propose a budget resolution on the floor of the House or the Senate if the budget resolution is not reported out by the Budget Committee in either house by May 15th in any year,_a126d16a-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.4.2House Budget CommitteeSenate Budget CommitteeMembers of the U.S. House of RepresentativesMembers of the U.S. SenateU.S. House of RepresentativesU.S. SenateIf the budget resolution is not reported out by the Budget Committee in either house by May 15th in any year, permit any member to propose a budget resolution on the floor of the House or the Senate. This would create incentives for the Budget Committees to act, since otherwise they would cede power to other actors in the Congress.Reconciliation ProcessRequire the reconciliation process to be used annually until the public debt is stabilized at 60 percent of GDP._a126d2f0-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.4.3Require the reconciliation process to be used annually until the public debt is stabilized at 60 percent of GDP. Currently, the reconciliation process is optional. This means that the Congress does not have to confront mandatory spending and revenue decisions unless they desire to do so. Instead of permitting them to duck this responsibility, reconciliation should be a required part of the budget process. If a reconciliation bill is not considered by the House and Senate in a given year, a sequestration process involving automatic spending cuts and tax increases should take effect.Authorizing & Appropriations CommitteesCombine the authorizing and appropriations committees._a126d480-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.4.4Combine the authorizing and appropriations committees. Currently the federal budget process has, in effect, three stages: Consideration of the budget resolution (including reconciliation), authorization of federal programs and, for programs requiring annual spending authority, the appropriations process. Proposals to combine the latter two stages usually would restructure committee jurisdictions along functional lines (defense or health or education), with committees having jurisdiction over both mandatory and discretionary programs, and over both authorization and appropriations. These committees could take general responsibility for performance in a mission or functional area, including review of related tax expenditures and effective program implementation.Appropriations BillsRequire any appropriation bill to provide at least a full year of appropriated funding in order to be able to be considered on the floor of the House or Senate._a126d642-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c1.4.5Prohibit continuing resolutions. Specifically, this would require any appropriation bill to provide at least a full year of appropriated funding in order to be able to be considered on the floor of the House or Senate. One practical way (but not the only way) to enforce this would be to prohibit any bill that does not provide a full twelve months of funding to be passed unless 75 percent of each house voted for the bill. This is a radical idea. It would possibly make it more likely that government shutdowns of the type not seen since 1995 and 1996 would occur. On the other hand, that fact might make it less likely that we would continue the process of enacting serial continuing resolutions that create numerous problems for federal agencies and recipients of government funds. The argument here is that the routine practice of serial CRs creates more problems than brief periodic government shutdowns.Inter-Governmental SystemRationalizing the Inter-Governmental System_a126d7fa-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c2Allan RosenbaumChair & Co-author -- Allan Rosenbaum is Director of the Institute for Public Management and Community Service and Coordinator of the PhD program at Florida International University. He has held senior positions in local, state and national government and is currently the Vice President of the American Society for Public Administration and will subsequently become President of that organization. He has either lectured or provided advice or technical assistance in approximately 60 countries around the world. He is a former editor of the Policy Studies Review and a past President of the International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration.The Honorable Parris GlendeningCo-authorPaul PosnerCo-authorTim ConlanCo-authorThis set of memoranda will discuss government's capacity to deliver effective public service for federally assisted programs, if these programs provide a more efficient, productive and responsive inter-governmental system, and whether reforms are needed to promote more effective governance of intergovernmental programs. Memo Overview: The American intergovernmental system was one of the great institutional inventions of the Country’s founding fathers. It serves many purposes ranging from facilitating our democracy through the dispersal of political power, to enabling individuals in local communities to more carefully and strategically address the many problems that exist in a complex society. That this system has played a major role in facilitating the building and development of the American nation goes without saying. Nevertheless, this is a system that is currently in a state of crisis - in part because it has worked so effectively for so long that often little or no attention is paid to it. This is highly unfortunate since the American governmental system is an interlocking one in which the actions of each level impact upon each of the others. Today, more than ever, the intergovernmental system faces multiple highly complex challenges. Many of these challenges are driven by fiscal factors, but not all of them. Political and administrative conflict, exacerbated by a highly polarized political environment, has dramatically lessened the capacity of the system for cooperation at a time when collaboration is desperately needed. While many proposals are being put forward to address the problems faced at the federal, state and local levels of government, rarely do those proposals recognize that they are highly dependent for successful implementation on circumstances that are often predetermined at another level of government. To help the next Administration, the next Congress and our state and local governmental leaders to more effectively address these issues, a group of four individuals with long experience both studying and participating in the American governmental system has prepared the attached memo. These individuals have held senior positions in local, national and state government and have also written extensively about intergovernmental relations in the United States and abroad. The memo on “America’s Invisible Intergovernmental Crisis” provides important recommendations for reinvigorating the American intergovernmental system and the nation itself. Most significant in this regard are the calls for a joint federal, state and local reassessment of the nation's tax policies with a focus upon the introduction of a shared consumption tax and the need for the establishment of an institutional mechanism to facilitate intergovernmental collaboration. Summary: It is now widely recognized that at all three levels of government in the United States there is a mismatch between available revenues and citizens’ demands for public services. Almost every study of this situation, whether at the national, state or local level, suggests the problems will inevitably become far worse in the absence of significant action. What is often not recognized, however, is that in many instances these situations are inextricably interrelated across all three levels of government. The fact is that the country faces an intergovernmental crisis and that if it does not address its fiscal problems from an intergovernmental perspective, it will not be able to address them successfully. In order to strengthen the federal system emerging needs for public services and public deficits must be addressed; intergovernmental tax reform should be undertaken in a collaborative manner; a means to an institutional framework for the improvement of intergovernmental policy must be initiated; and, much work must be done to rationalize that system.Needs & DeficitsAddress both emerging needs for public services and long term deficits._a126d994-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c2.1OECDRockefeller InstitutePew Center on the StatesBoth emerging needs for public services and long term deficits must be addressed. While the nation’s intergovernmental crisis has many dimensions, at its heart is the absence of adequate revenue. For example, a recent OECD study points out that 30 years ago the US led the world in the percentage of 25-34 year olds possessing the equivalent of at least a two year degree. Most recent data shows that the US now lags behind 14 other countries in that measure of human resource capacity. Similarly, today 20 countries have higher High School graduation rates than the US. While this is occurring, states and localities in most parts of the country have been disinvesting in their educational systems and, in many cases, very significantly so. While there are many explanatory factors, the most important one is the absence of adequate revenues. The Rockefeller Institute reports that state tax collections dropped by over 16% in just one quarter of 2009 and that by the end of 2010 they were barely at 2006 levels. Local governments are experiencing, as the Pew Center on the States has noted, the first time since 1980 the simultaneous decline of both state aid and property taxes. The increasingly long term recession has had parallel effects on federal revenues, which sunk to 15.1 percent of GDP -- a level not seen since 1951 Since these declines have had significant impacts on both public services and debt, major tax reform is essential to address both emerging needs for public services as well as long term deficits at all levels of government.Tax ReformCollaboratively undertake an intergovernmental tax reform initiative._a126dbb0-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c2.2An intergovernmental tax reform initiative must be undertaken in a collaborative manner. There is a need for a national tax reform initiative that should include federal, state and local governments. While recent federal budget commissions have called for federal tax reform to simplify the tax code and raise revenue, we worry that such an effort could lead to further erosion of fiscal capacity of state and local partners in our federal system. A national intergovernmental tax reform initiative would be far more effective in giving serious consideration to important new revenue systems such as a national consumption tax. As other OECD nations have shown, a national consumption tax along the lines of a value added tax could provide significant advantages for the national economy both in terms of additional revenues and savings incentives. However, given the states’ substantial investment in sales taxation, only an intergovernmental tax reform process can gain the support of states that will be critical to implementing much needed reforms.Intergovernmental Policy CouncilCreate an intergovernmental policy council._a126dd86-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c2.3Intergovernmental Policy CouncilPresident of the United StatesU.S. CongressState Governmental AssociationsLocal Governmental AssociationsCreate an intergovernmental policy council. The crisis of the federal system is not a short term one. The nature of the American governmental and political system guarantees that there will be continuing policy complexity and political conflict. This can and should not be ignored. It rather needs to be constantly monitored and, as necessary, proposals for adequate adjustment should be put forward in a timely and highly visible fashion. Towards this end, the President should initiate an intergovernmental policy council that is adequately staffed and meets at regular (at least quarterly) intervals to review, assess and advise on initiatives designed to enhance the American intergovernmental system. It should be bipartisan in nature. Half of its members should be appointed from the federal level of government, in part by the President and in part by the party leaders of the two Houses of Congress. The remaining half of its membership should consist half of governors and half of mayors or other elected local government officials. There should be two ex-officio non-voting members drawn from the executive directors of the seven major state and local governmental associations. The Council should assume as its task the ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of programs which involve federal government participation and are implemented by state and local governments. It should also address the strengths and weaknesses of the intergovernmental system, and, in particular, the adequacy of the resources to achieve desired policy outcomes.Grants & PersonnelReform in the grant system and address personnel needs._a126df52-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c2.4Intergovernmental Policy CouncilNational OfficialsState OfficialsLocal OfficialsImmediately address reform in the grant system and personnel needs. The Intergovernmental Policy Council should immediately begin to address the various issues that are central to the improvement of the effectiveness of the intergovernmental system. Towards that end, it should appoint working groups composed equally of national, state and local officials. Areas that should be addressed include:GrantsReform grant programs._a126e16e-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c2.4.1Grant reforms, such as program consolidation, improved grant management practice and block grants, to simplify an increasingly complex system characterized by over 900 separate categorical grants ...HR PolicyReform human resource policy._a126e34e-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c2.4.2Human resource policy reforms to help cope with the loss of experienced professionals in the public service and the effects of demographic change on service demands and public pension systems.Administrative LeadershipAchieve a better balance between political responsiveness and competence in leading public organizations._a126e538-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c3James PfiffnerChair & Co-author -- James P. Pfiffner is a University Professor and Director of the Doctoral Program in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University. He is the author or editor of twelve books on the presidency and American Government, including The Strategic Presidency: Hitting the Ground Running and Power Play: The Bush Presidency and the Constitution. He has worked in the Director's Office at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and is a NAPA Fellow.Dwight InkCo-authorDavid LewisCo-authorAnne O'ConnellCo-authorThis set of memoranda will discuss whether effective public administration can occur in such a highly politicized environment, and whether the “giants” of public administration will continue to exist. Specific recommendations will be given to try and achieve a better balance between political responsiveness and competence in leading public organizations. Memo Overview: A President is elected every four years, but he or she does not run the government alone. Thousands of political appointees must be appointed to lead the departments and agencies of the executive branch. These appointments depend on an elaborate process of recruitment, confirmation, mastering their offices, and working with career executives to implement the president’s priorities and execute the law. But the political appointee system that developed over the course of the 20th century is broken in several important ways. From 1984 to 1999 only 15% of the top appointees of the new President were in place within two months of inauguration. In the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, about 50% of the top 75 national security appointments remained vacant on May 1, and 85% of the top sub-cabinet positions in legislative, legal, management, and budget officials remained empty. These months are of crucial importance for formulating and launching presidential initiatives at the beginning of a term. Causes for these delays in filling positions, include inadequate pre-election planning, inadequate human resources devoted to personnel, slow recruitment and vetting, multiple information forms to be filled out by candidates, and the flood of applications for jobs after each election. Once filled, these positions often empty out before the end of a President’s term, leading to agency inaction, confusion of civil servants, and lack of accountability. In addition, the expanding role of political appointees, combined with their increasing numbers, has led to the underutilization of the career services, with serious program delivery consequences. The memos below make a number of recommendations to alleviate the above problems. If the President and Congress put these recommendations in place, we will see significant improvements in the management of the government and the delivery of services to the American people.Political AppointeesRecruiting Political Appointees_a126e768-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c3.1Office of Presidential PersonnelU.S. SenateSummary: In order for the President to be able to fully implement his or her policy priorities and lead the nation, it is crucial to have the top levels of executive branch leadership in place. In recent administrations, delays have significantly slowed political appointments. For instance, in the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, about 50% of the top 75 national security appointments remained vacant on May 1. To alleviate this problem, we recommend that Presidents establish priorities on positions to be filled quickly, especially those related national security. To do this, more resources should be allocated to the Office of Presidential Personnel, and the OPP should work closely with the Senate and vetting agencies to share information about nominees to expedite clearance processes. A reduction in the total number of political appointees would facilitate the political appointments process and improve the leadership of the executive branch.PlanningPlan early._b3bd4e80-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c3.1.1Presidents of the United States (Newly Elected)For newly elected Presidents: 1. Early planning is essential for an effective appointments process. Personnel planning should begin several months before the election so that it is ready to go immediately after the election.OPP DirectorDesignate the head of transition personnel planning to be the first director of the Office of Presidential Personnel._b3bd575e-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c3.1.2Presidents of the United States (Newly Elected)Office of Presidential PersonnelHead of Transition Personnel PlanningFor newly elected Presidents: 2. The President elect should designate the head of transition personnel planning to be the first director of the Office of Presidential Personnel. Top members of the personnel recruitment team should commit to stay in their jobs at least a year rather than taking other positions with the new administration.National Security PostsSet priorities for nominations to top national security posts._b3bd5c86-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c3.1.3Presidents of the United States (Newly Elected)DODDHSDepartment of StateDepartment of the TreasuryFor newly elected Presidents: 3. New Presidents should set priorities for nominations to top national security posts in DOD, DHS, State, Treasury and other positions in the areas of Presidential policy priorities.Background MaterialDeliver background material to Senate staff of the appropriate committee as soon as the President nominates the person._b3bd63de-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c3.1.4Presidents of the United States (Incumbent)OPPU.S. Senate Committee Staff For incumbent Presidents: 1. The OPP should deliver background material to Senate staff of the appropriate committee as soon as the President nominates the person.Background InformationDevelop a common on-line form for background information._b3bd67a8-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c3.1.5Presidents of the United States (Incumbent)OPPFBI Office of Government Ethics U.S. Senate CommitteesFor incumbent Presidents: 2. Pursuant to the Working Group Report created by S. 679, a common on-line form for background information should be developed so that a nominee has to enter the information only once and the required information can be made separately available to the OPP, FBI, the Office of Government ethics, and the appropriate Senate committee. OPPIncrease the size of the Office of Presidential Personnel._b3bd6ae6-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c3.1.6Presidents of the United States (Incumbent)Office of Presidential PersonnelFor incumbent Presidents: 3. The Office of Presidential Personnel should be increased in size so that the resources are available to move quickly at the beginning of a new administration. Likewise, the FBI, OGE, and Senate should increase their staffs so that the vetting process and keep up with nominations.Confirmation UnitEstablish a confirmation unit in the White House._b3bd7068-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c3.1.7Presidents of the United States (Incumbent)White HouseOPPWhite House Counsel’s OfficeWhite House Office of Congressional LiaisonFor incumbent Presidents: 4. A separate confirmation unit should be established in the White House with members of the OPP, the counsel’s office, and the Office of Congressional Liaison to assist nominees and shepherd them through the confirmation process.Political AppointeesReduce the number of political appointees._b3bd748c-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c3.1.8Presidents of the United States (Incumbent)Political AppointeesFor incumbent Presidents: 5. A reduction of the total number of political appointees would alleviate most of the problems noted in this report.InteractionInteraction of Political and Career Leaders_a126e95c-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c3.2Political LeadersGovernment Career LeadersSummary: Over the past several decades, the expanding role of political appointees, combined with their increasing numbers, has led to an underutilization of the career services. No matter how sound the policies or how skillful the political skills of a President, success will depend heavily on how well career executives implement his or her initiatives. The level of performance of these career leaders will depend on the extent to which department and agency heads understand their value and provide an environment that utilizes their potential contributions. An effective partnership between political and career leaders from the beginning of each new administration will do much to determine the success or failure of the President’s agenda. The policy roles of the political appointees and operational roles of the career leaders need to be clarified. These two groups are interdependent. Therefore, they need to join in close cooperation without losing accountability for their roles. The ability of career leaders to perform at their potential will be enhanced by increasing their developmental opportunities and reducing the number of lower level political appointees.Political Appointee PracticesAppoint a bipartisan commission to review political appointee practices._a126eb5a-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c3.2.1Presidential Commission on Political AppointeesPresidential Commission. A bipartisan commission should be appointed to review political appointee practices that contribute heavily to improved agency operations such as those that energize the career service, and those practices that impact operations negatively. It should review their political role only as it impacts agency operations, such as whether the increased number of appointees is resulting in career leaders being replaced by political appointees with less experience and knowledge of government operations as this author asserts. Steps to enhance working relationships between top political appointees and SES leaders should be included.Political AppointmentsLimit Political Appointments. _a126edbc-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c3.2.2Limit Political Appointments. A limit on the number of political appointees should be established by Congress, especially for Schedule C appointments. The Congressional limit on political appointments in the Senior Executive Service has little meaning if political appointees can be added through Schedule C appointments.Career DevelopmentProvide development opportunities for qualified career personnel._b3bd77ca-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c3.2.3Development Program. To ensure development of career personnel capable of handling key operational roles, OPM should expedite a program to provide development opportunities for qualified career personnel from entry through the SES. Each deputy to a program assistant secretary or bureau chief should be drawn from the SES.MobilityFacilitate greater mobility of senior executives among agencies._b3bd7d6a-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c3.2.4Partnership for Public ServiceOMBOPMSenior ExecutivesSES EmployeesMobility. The Partnership for Public Service has found that only 8% of SES executives have worked at more than one agency, and almost half have stayed in one position in their agencies. OMB and OPM should work together to facilitate greater mobility of senior executives among agencies. To ensure continuity, legislation is also recommended to mandate mobility opportunities for high performing personnel wishing to advance to top SES assignments, taking care to provide flexibility to adapt to agency needs and changing conditions.Political AppointeesReducing the Number of Political Appointees_a126efce-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c3.3Summary: Presidents understandably want to fill political positions in the executive branch with those who have worked for them and who share their political and policy priorities. But with three to four thousand appointments to make, the quality of appointees, especially at lower levels, necessarily suffers. Political appointees at top policy-making positions are central to Presidential leadership, but the key program and agency management positions require experienced managers who know those programs well. Thus we recommend the reduction of the total number of political appointees in order to allow Presidents to focus on those most important to policy leadership. In addition, freeing up positions at the management level will improve career opportunities for the best career executives and encourage them to continue in the public service.Senate-Confirmed PositionsReduce the number of Senate-confirmed positions in management positions and part-time, commission, and advisory posts._b3bd812a-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c3.3.1President of the United StatesPresidents should aim to reduce the number of Senate-confirmed positions in management positions and part-time, commission, and advisory posts. Management positions are ideally suited for experienced persons concerned with long term planning and the agency’s health. Presidents could fill these posts with career members of the Senior Executive Service whose long experience in the federal government would be valuable but over whom the President still retains substantial control. Cuts in part-time, commission, and advisory posts (which often require Senate confirmation) would not directly help performance in the larger agencies but cutting such positions would make the personnel task easier for the PPO and reduce the burden on the Senate to let both parties focus on the nominees for the key policymaking positions.FocusFocus efforts to cut appointees of all types on the program or bureau level._b3bd847c-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c3.3.2Efforts to cut appointees of all types should focus on the program or bureau level. The best empirical evidence suggests that career managers perform more effectively than political appointees at this level of management. David Lewis has compared PART scores (2004-08) of agencies headed by political appointees and career executives. He found that programs administered by career executives systematically performed better than those headed by political appointees. Placing career executives in program management roles will induce career executives to stay and build careers in the federal service without sacrificing political accountability. Presidential appointees at the head of agencies and bureaus will continue to oversee the careerist managers of federal programs.Schedule C PositionsReduce Schedule C positions._b3bd8a3a-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c3.3.3Schedule C positions should be reduced. Schedule C positions are for persons serving in policy and supporting positions but usually in a staff role. Persons appointed in these positions have little formal authority, but can accrue substantial informal authority. Some of the difficulties in the past administration with appointees stemmed from personnel in Schedule C positions. Comparable positions to those filled by appointees in Schedule C positions are filled by careerists in different agencies with little apparent sacrifice in responsiveness.VacanciesDecreasing Agency Vacancies_a126f1ea-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c3.4Summary: In addition to delays at the beginning of new administrations, vacant positions continue to hinder effective policy leadership throughout Presidential administrations. In order to reduce these gaps in executive branch leadership, we recommend that Presidents require appointees to commit themselves to serve until the end of the President’s term. In addition, we encourage the Senate to establish fast-track procedures for the confirmation or rejection of Presidential nominations. Finally, systematic, institutionalized orientation sessions for new appointees would improve their performance and thus the length of their service.HoldsLimit or constrain the time of holds on agency nominations._b3bd8e18-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c3.4.1U.S. SenateThe Senate should limit or constrain the time of holds on agency nominations, especially if the hold is unrelated to the nominee.Fast TrackingConsider a fast track system for nominations to executive branch positions._b3bd9192-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c3.4.2U.S. SenateThe Senate should consider a fast track system for nominations to executive branch positions. This could be done by imposing deadlines on two stages of the confirmation process: how long the relevant committee or committees can consider but not vote on a nomination and how long the Senate can consider but not vote on a nomination.DeferenceDefer to the White House on agency nominations._b3bd9782-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c3.4.3U.S. SenateWhite HouseAgency NomineesThe Senate should defer in most circumstances to the White House on agency nominations, unless there is a genuine concern about the individual nominated.TenureRequire agency officials to commit to serve for a full Presidential term._b3bd9bec-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c3.4.4President of the United StatesAgency AppointeesThe President should require agency officials to commit to serve for a full Presidential term.Orientation & TrainingInstitute systematic orientation and training sessions for new appointees._b3bd9f84-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c3.4.5New Political AppointeesSystematic, institutionalized orientation and training sessions for new appointees should be instituted.Federal WorkforceStrengthening the Federal Workforce_a126f456-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c4Steve CondreyChair -- Stephen E. Condrey is President of Condrey and Associates, Inc., President-Elect of the American Society for Public Administration, Chairman of the Federal Salary Council, and Editor-in-Chief of the Review of Public Personnel Administration. His publications have appeared in Public Administration Review, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, American Review of Public Administration, and elsewhere. He is the Editor of the Handbook of Human Resource Management in Government (3rd edition). His research interests include public human resource management and public management. He holds a PhD from the University of Georgia.Rex L. Facer II Co-authorJared J. LlorensCo-author This set of memoranda will discuss the emerging models and lessons learned from innovations at all levels of government both here and abroad. Memo Overview: As many in the field of public administration have observed over the past decade, the federal workforce faces a number of critical challenges that must be addressed in order to fulfill the increasingly complex demands placed upon federal agencies. For example, there is a looming retirement bubble, which will require the replacement of a significant portion of the federal workforce. In addition, the technical skills required in today’s workplace continue to necessitate advanced employee training efforts. Accordingly, during the next four years, improving federal human resource systems will be critical. In order to provide the level of service expected from the Federal Government, we must address significant HR issues. These issues include: compensation reform, strengthening and streamlining federal recruitment and selection, enhancing training and development, and strengthening employee/labor relations. In an effort to provide assistance to the next Presidential administration and Congress, we have prepared a set of policy memos that each summarize a key challenge for federal human resources managers and provide practical recommendations on how the President and Congress can better position the federal workforce to meet the dynamic and growing demands placed upon it. * Federal pay comparability policy should more efficiently resolve disparities between the federal government and the private sector through tailored pay adjustments within the General Schedule pay system and expanded within-grade pay ranges. * To replace 60 percent of the federal workforce expected to retire during the next Administration, the federal recruitment process should continue reform efforts to strengthen transparency and accessibility by talented job applicants. * Federal training and development efforts should be reinvigorated in order serve as a natural complement to compensation policies aimed at rewarding individual effort and achievement. * Federal labor/management partnerships should be reinforced to ensure fair treatment for employees whose pay and benefits are under increasing pressure from outside economic forces. * The role of the US Office of Personnel Management should be enhanced to better position the agency to lead federal human resource management efforts in the future.Pay ComparabilityMoving Towards a More Strategic Federal Pay Comparability Policy_a126f6ae-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c4.1Summary: To address existing shortcomings in the federal pay setting process, the President and Congress should take immediate steps to reform the General Schedule pay system to provide greater flexibility in making annual pay adjustments and enhanced opportunities for employees and supervisors to progress within their occupational grade levels.Pay Scale IncreasesEnd across-the-board GS pay scale increases._b3bda5b0-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.1.1President of the United StatesU.S. CongressFederal Salary CouncilPresident’s Pay AgentGS EmployeesThe President and Congress should take steps to end the practice of across-the-board GS pay scale increases to address public/private pay disparities and allow for grade-level adjustments based upon disaggregated pay comparability estimates. This policy shift would grant the Federal Salary Council and President’s Pay Agent the ability to strategically target pay increases for those GS grade levels found to be the furthest below the private sector labor market in an effort to boost the recruitment, retention, and performance of federal employees. However, it would also allow for general cost-of-living adjustments for all grade levels.Pay ProgressionExpand the pay ranges within the existing GS pay system to allow for greater pay progression within GS grade levels._b3bda9f2-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.1.2President of the United StatesU.S. CongressGS EmployeesThe President and Congress should take steps to expand the pay ranges within the existing GS pay system to allow for greater pay progression within GS grade levels. Current pay ranges are insufficient to accommodate acceptable pay progression and ultimately contribute to salary compression at the higher grade levels. When combined with the first recommendation, this system reform would provide employees with greater opportunities to progress within existing grade levels without the need to consistently seek out higher graded positions. Recruitment & SelectionStrengthening and Streamlining Federal Recruitment and Selection_b3bdadee-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.2President of the United StatesU.S. CongressSummary: To address existing shortcomings in the federal recruitment and selection system, the President and Congress should take immediate steps to enhance the hiring process by providing greater strategic alignment of agency level hiring systems, strengthening merit system protections, and bolstering existing efforts to attract, select, and retain a high quality federal workforce.Strategic Perspective Improve the strategic perspective of hiring. _b3bdb410-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.2.1Improve the strategic perspective of hiring. Agencies should view and manage hiring as a critical business process, not an administrative function. Recruitment and selection should be designed as a continuous, long-term investment in attracting a high-quality workforce capable of accomplishing the organization’s mission. Recent efforts to improve internships, the presidential management fellowship, and other recruitment strategies are quite positive. Accordingly, discussions of agency branding and hiring system reforms should be integrated with the overall strategic plan and mission of the respective agency.Processes, Procedures & PoliciesAssess agency internal hiring processes, procedures, and policies._b3bdb852-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.2.2U.S. Federal AgenciesAgencies should assess their internal hiring processes, procedures, and policies. Such an assessment should better identify barriers to quality, timely, and cost-effective hiring decisions. Often, hiring barriers are self-imposed and rooted in past practices without a strategic guiding principle. For example, agencies may continue to impose excessive time frames, which may have been necessary when applications were processed manually.Selection QualityEmploy rigorous assessment strategies that emphasize selection quality._b3bdbc4e-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.2.3U.S. Federal AgenciesOPMAgencies, with the assistance of OPM, should employ rigorous assessment strategies that emphasize selection quality, not just cost and speed. In particular, agencies should develop and use assessment instruments that have a relatively strong ability to predict future performance. Multiple assessment tools used in succession can improve the effectiveness of the assessment process by managing the candidate pool and narrowing the field of qualified candidates. Agencies should work with OPM to develop assessment tools that can be used for occupations that cut across agencies. This would increase the Government’s return on investment for these assessments.Applicant Pool Improve management of the applicant pool while making the process manageable for applicants. _b3bdc2a2-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.2.4Applicants for U.S. Federal JobsU.S. Federal AgenciesAgencies should improve efforts to manage the applicant pool while making the process manageable for applicants. Recent improvements to USAJobs.gov and the developing use of mobile e-recruitment platforms have resulted in significant strides in this area. However, there is still a need to continue to improve recruitment strategies, vacancy announcements, and communication with applicants. For example, enhancing ongoing communication with applicants will encourage applicants to await a final decision rather than abandon the federal job search in favor of alternative employment. TrainingTrain human resources staff and selection officials to think strategically and carry out the services necessary to implement an efficient recruitment and hiring system._b3bdc702-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.2.5HR StaffEmployee Selection OfficialsOPMHuman resources staff and selection officials need to be appropriately trained to think strategically and carry out the full range of services necessary to implement an efficient recruitment and hiring system. In particular, OPM should bolster its efforts to inform hiring officials about their critical role in the hiring process, the importance of using good assessment tools, what assessment tools are available to them, and how to use the probationary period to alleviate selection mistakes.Training & DevelopmentEnhancing Federal Training and Development_b3bdcb4e-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.3Summary: To address increased demands on the federal workforce, we recommend the President and Congress enhance funding for training and development to drive a cultural shift that rewards individual achievement and innovation.EmphasisIncrease emphasis on training and development._b3bdd18e-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.3.1Political LeadersBureaucratic LeadersIncreased emphasis on training and development by the Federal Government’s political and bureaucratic leadership. In order to achieve a cultural shift that welcomes and rewards training and development activities, these activities need to be supported at the highest levels of the government. Employees take their lead from political and bureaucratic leaders. If training and development are valued and rewarded in the federal workplace for a sustained amount of time, a shift in the organizational culture will have begun.FundingSet aside funds for training and development activities_b3bdd5f8-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.3.2Specific funds need to be set aside for training and development activities. A source or fixed percentage of funding not subject to normal budgetary pressures should be set aside to fund training and development activities. Such a funding source will provide necessary stability and continuity throughout budgetary peaks and valleys.Training, Development & Progression[Establish] closer ties between training and development, and career progression._b3bdda3a-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.3.3Closer ties between training and development, and career progression. A revitalized federal compensation system that links salary progression to individual achievement can most easily be accomplished through career ladders linked to individual training and professional development accomplishments. Such progression is transparent and appropriate for a large and diverse organization such as the Federal Government.Employee/Labor RelationsImproving Employee/Labor Relations_b3bde0a2-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.4Federal Labor UnionsPresident of the United StatesU.S. CongressLabor RepresentativesSummary: Federal labor unions play a vital role in the effective management of the federal workforce. As such, it is critical that the President and Congress take proactive steps to improve and maintain the Federal Government’s relationship with labor representatives, especially in light of the ongoing challenges associated with reform efforts in human resource management.HRM ReformImplement human resource management reform._b3bde4f8-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.4.1Federal Employee UnionsUnion cooperation should be sought in implementing comprehensive human resource management reform efforts. Reform cannot be successfully implemented without the cooperation of federal employee unions. CoordinationIncrease coordination between federal management and employee unions._b3bde962-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.4.2National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations (NCFLMR)Federal Management Federal Employee UnionsThe National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations (NCFLMR) is an excellent avenue to increase overall coordinative efforts between federal management and employee unions – its use should be encouraged. The continued use of NCFLMR should be encouraged, as should the use of labor/management councils at the agency level.ImageImprove the image of the federal workforce._b3bdefb6-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.4.3Federal ManagementFederal UnionsNCFLMRAmerican Society for Public Administration (ASPA)National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA)Partnership for Public ServicePublic Service OrganizationsFederal Workforce.Federal management, unions, and other interested groups should begin a coordinated effort to improve the image of the federal workforce. Such an effort will enhance recruitment and selection efforts as well as dispel inaccurate perceptions of the federal workforce. The NCFLMR should coordinate these efforts in cooperation with the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA), the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA), the Partnership for Public Service, and other public service organizations.Office of Personnel ManagementEnhancing the Role of the US Office of Personnel Management_b3bdf416-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.5US Office of Personnel ManagementSummary: Given the current human resources management challenges facing federal agencies of all sizes, we believe that it is imperative that U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) take on an enhanced leadership role and substantially bolster its efforts to ensure the presence of a stable and high performing federal workforce.Title 5-Exempt Personnel SystemsReview the benefits of Title 5-exempt federal personnel systems._b3bdfcb8-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.5.1OPMComprehensive evaluation of the personnel management operations of Title 5 and Title 5-exempt agencies. As part of the transition towards more flexible personnel management systems, there are a number of federal agencies currently exempt from the civil service rules and procedures outlined in Title 5 of the U.S. Code. As a result, the current landscape of federal human resource management is considerably varied, with some agencies operating under strict Title 5 guidelines and others provided increased flexibility to tailor their personnel systems to their unique needs. While the overriding intent of agency exemptions to Title 5 has been to enhance agency personnel operations, OPM should initiate a comprehensive review effort to assess the benefits of Title 5-exempt federal personnel systems and how these potential benefits might be achieved across all agency personnel systems.Title 5 Personnel RequirementsAssessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of Title 5 personnel requirements._b3be0348-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.5.2Comprehensive assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of Title 5 personnel requirements. Related to the first recommendation, we believe that the current personnel management structure outlined in Title 5 of the U.S. Code should be substantially restructured to better align with the realities of managing federal personnel in the contemporary labor market. For many years, OPM has led the effort to guide agencies on effective means of managing their personnel resources within the existing statutory framework of Title 5, but, given the rapidly changing workforce environment, we believe that it is the appropriate time for OPM, along with the President and Congress, to identify and revise those portions of Title 5 not fully compatible with the needs of high performing human resource management systems.OPM RoleReinforce OPM’s Leadership Role and Human Capital Capacity._b3be07bc-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.5.3OPMReinforcement of OPM’s Leadership Role and Human Capital Capacity. This recommendation centers on strengthening OPM’s image as the “go to” source for human resource related consulting services. A significant portion of OPM’s work is currently driven by agency requests for service. However, this role can be expanded. This will likely require a restructuring of the agency to leverage resources. OPM needs to be seen as the primary source for solutions, strategies, and services for the federal HR system. For example, OPM can further bring together resources much like it has done with the HR University program. HR University is designed to increase the professional development of human resource professionals across the Federal Government by identifying the best training resources and sharing those resources across agencies. If OPM strengthens its internal capacity to provide additional consulting type services, this may result in substantial savings for the Federal Government across agencies. Another example of the kind of effort that should be fostered is OPM’s recent establishment of the Innovation Lab. The Innovation Lab brings people together in an environment that is designed to foster collaboration and creativity as they address challenging problems.Technological InnovationIncrease leverage of technological innovation. _b3be0bfe-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c4.5.4OPMU.S. Peace CorpsIncreased leverage of technological innovation. Human resource management over the past 20 years has moved away from standardized processes; however, technological advancements over the past 10 years have created opportunities for more effective personnel management efforts through greater standardization and agency collaboration. For example, most agencies were granted the authority to develop and manage their own recruitment and assessment practices in the mid-1990s. The result has been a highly variable recruitment and assessment landscape where a select group of agencies have fully leveraged newer Web 2.0 technologies in this area (e.g., the U.S. Peace Corps) and others, often with less expertise and/or funding, maintain practices that are dated or ineffective in recruiting and placing younger job applicants. Overall, such technological variation is not conducive to achieving broader personnel management goals, and OPM should take the lead in identifying those areas where standardization might benefit all agencies.ReorganizationReorganization of Government_a126f8de-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c5Allen LomaxChair -- Allen Lomax is an independent consultant after retiring from the federal government with 34 years of service. Most of his federal service was with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) where he led studies on such issues as government management, performance measurement, strategic planning, national and community indicator systems, and pandemic influenza. During his tenure at GAO, Allen had temporary staff assignments to the Senate Government Affairs Committee and the House Appropriations Committee. He holds a Masters in Public Administration from George Mason University and a Bachelor's in Political Science with a concentration in Public Administration from Northeastern University.This set of memoranda will discuss whether or not the President should seek authority to reorganize the federal government and submit reorganization plans to Congress, and subsequently, the lessons learned from prior reorganizations such as FEMA, Department of Education, and the Department of Homeland Security. Memo Overview: Reducing the federal deficit and improving the efficiency of government programs has increased attention on reorganizing federal agencies and programs as a mechanism to achieve these desired results. While there is merit in reorganizing the federal government, it may not achieve the desired results unless done properly. Even then, reorganizations may have limited impact on helping to reduce the deficit or immediately improving the efficiency of government programs. There has been significant expansion of federal government agencies’ programs over the last several decades. This expansion has been due to actions by the Executive and Legislative branches of government to address new or reoccurring problems with new or expanded programs. As a result of the new or expanded programs, there has been mission creep among federal agencies and the creation of overlapping, duplicative and fragmented federal programs. Eliminating or reducing overlapping, duplicative and fragmented programs is an important task for the next Administration and Congress. One important step may be to structurally reorganize these programs by consolidating them. This will require the expenditure of political capital by both the President and Congress. It will also require them to work closely together, reach consensus on the reorganization goals, and understand that savings and program efficiencies may not be immediate. They both need to use the important principles and guidelines for structural reorganizations. Additionally, the President and Congress should be careful not to replicate the design and process deficiencies that occurred in designing the Department of Homeland Security. Another important step may be to increase the development of interagency councils to coordinate cross-cutting programs. This step has been called a “virtual” reorganization and can be used to supplement a more traditional reorganization. Creating interagency councils though will not be sufficient. The President and Congress should organize them around broad, agreed upon national goals and use other important tools to ensure accountability and transparency of such councils. Also, one agency head should be designated to lead each council and provided with the appropriate authority to ensure that multi-programs work together toward for achieving the broad national goals. The next Administration and the Congress should use both steps to help eliminate or reduce the overlap, duplication and fragmentation among federal programs. This memo makes several recommendations regarding the structural and virtual reorganization of the federal government.National GoalsEstablish broad national goals that the government should address._a126fb5e-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c5.1President of the United StatesU.S. CongressThe next Administration should work with Congress to establish broad national goals that the government should address. These goals should focus on current, but more importantly, future issues the United States faces or may face. These goals in turn should inform subsequent choices about programmatic and structural reforms needed to better achieve outcomes.Program ConsolidationsDetermine the need for program consolidations within agencies._b3be12fc-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c5.2U.S. Federal AgenciesThe next Administration should determine the need for program consolidations within agencies. The case should be made by documenting expected improvements in efficiencies and outcomes.Structural ReorganizationDetermine the need for structural reorganization of federal agencies._b3be17e8-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c5.3President of the United StatesReorganization CommissionThe next Administration should also determine the need for structural reorganization of federal agencies and if some agencies need to be reorganized, the Administration should draft a bill, and submit it to Congress, to establish a Reorganization Commission based on the success factors of the first Hoover Commission.Congressional VoteEstablish a mechanism that requires Congress to consider and vote on the Reorganization Commission's proposals._b3be3c32-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c5.4U.S. CongressReorganization CommissionThe next Administration and Congress should establish a mechanism that requires Congress to consider and vote on the Commission’s reorganization proposals.Interagency CouncilsEstablish interagency councils focused around broad national goals._b3be4510-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c5.5GAOUsing GAO’s reports on overlapping, duplicative and fragmented programs, the next Administration, with the advice and counsel of Congress, should establish interagency councils focused around broad national goals.Interagency Council HeadsDesignate an agency head as leader of each interagency council._b3be4a74-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c5.5.aPresident of the United StatesInteragency Council HeadsOnce the interagency councils are established, the President should designate an agency head as leader of each council.National Goal ChiefsConsider legislation providing “Chief of National Goal” authority so that it may be delegated to these council leaders._b3be4f4c-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c5.5.bPresident of the United StatesU.S. CongressNational Goal ChiefsThe next Administration and Congress should work together to explore legislation providing “Chief of National Goal” authority so that it may be delegated to these council leaders.National StrategiesDevelop national strategies appropriate to broad national goals._b3be5690-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c5.5.cInteragency CouncilsPresident of the United StatesCongressional CommitteesThe interagency councils should be directed by the President to develop a national strategy appropriate to the broad national goal they are to address. These national strategies should be developed in consultation with the leaders of the appropriate congressional committees.Performance ReportingReport performance on broad national goals._b3be5ba4-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c5.5.dInteragency CouncilsOMBCongressThe interagency councils should annually report to OMB and Congress on their performance regarding implementing the broad national goals and the national strategy they are responsible for.Interagency ProgramsEnsure that interagency councils focus on the efficient and effective use of the funds for interagency programs._b3be6414-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c5.5.fInteragency CouncilsThe interagency councils should be provided the authority to make recommendations to OMB on the budget requests of their members’ programs. This authority would help ensure that the interagency councils focus on the efficient and effective use of the funds for these programs and their efforts to address broad national goals.Congressional Committee StructuresEstablish a bipartisan committee to assess Congress' committee and subcommittee structure and make recommendations for eliminating or merging some committees or subcommittees._b3be6928-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c5.6CongressCongressional CommitteesCongress should assess how it is organized and operates. It should establish a bipartisan committee to assess its committee and subcommittee structure and make recommendations for eliminating or merging some committees or subcommittees.Congressional HearingsConduct hearings focused on the achievement of national goals and the results of the programs related to those goals. _b3be6e14-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c5.7Congressional LeadersCongressional CommitteesThe leadership of the next Congress should require that congressional committees -- both oversight and appropriations committees -- hold joint hearings focused on the progress of the federal government to achieve broad national goals and the results of the programs related to these goals. More specifically, Congress should hold joint hearings on the progress made regarding the national strategies.Information & TransparencyUse real-time information to promote effective public engagement and responsible public management._a126fd84-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c6Alan BalutisChair -- Alan Balutis is a Distinguished Fellow and Senior Director, North American Public Sector for Cisco Systems’ Business Solutions Group, the firm’s global strategy and consulting arm. Balutis joined the networking leader after more than 30 years in public service and industry leadership roles. Balutis is a founding member of the Federal CIO Council. His 28 years in the federal sector were spent at the Department of Commerce, where he headed its management and budget office for over a decade and was its first CIO. He is a NAPA Fellow.This set of memoranda will discuss who has been affected by these initiatives, as well as how real time information in today’s society can promote effective public engagement and responsible public management. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, we heard again and again that our government needed to be better managed. “Everything has changed” was the constant refrain—11 years ago. Fortunately, now there is a unique convergence between current challenges, the need for government leaders to act in a fundamentally different way, a generational shift in executive ranks, and powerful new collaborative technologies. Here are some of the changes that await our next commander in chief and the leaders of the incoming Congress: * Human Resources: The Chinese write the word “crisis” with two characters, one of which means “danger” and the other “opportunity.” The pending workforce crisis (or as some refer to it, “the retirement tsunami”) also can be viewed as a tremendous opportunity to reshape the federal government, flatten hierarchies, remake the way government and citizens interact, and change the culture of the bureaucracy. * Changing Workplace: Consider how the world has changed in the last thirty years. Then people came to work at a central office, the major role of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) was to manage or build the multitude of federal buildings and offices to house all those workers, and telework was largely unknown. Contrast that with today and what the Gartner Group terms “Future Worker 2015.” Personal computers and cell phones are ubiquitous, telework is routine, and business partners are as likely to be on different continents as in different cities. * Changing Workforce: The Federal Chief Information Officers Council (CIOC) recently completed a study entitled “Net Generation: Preparing for Change in the Federal Technology Workforce.” Discussing this new generation of federal employees, the report said: “As a generation, they are over 80 million strong, larger in fact than the Baby Boomer generation. They cannot be ignored as the major source of talent to recruit, develop and retain over the next decades. Additionally, there is much to admire about this generation. They are ambitious and innovative, enjoy teamwork, and understand technology.” * Changing Technology: One can argue that Web 2.0 technologies have ushered in a new era of rapidly expanding content and information sharing capabilities. And, over time, they will dramatically change the way organizations work internally and how they interact with their external citizen and customer base. A number of departments and agencies are increasing their use of Web 2.0 social media technologies for both internal and external applications. Collaborative tools can now be considered mainstream. The federal government will be undergoing tremendous change on many levels over the next several years. Any one of the changes listed above would be a major driver for government, but their convergence creates a perfect management storm for our nation today and an opportunity for the next President, partnering with the new Congress, to dramatically reshape the bureaucracy by leveraging IT to forge a 21st century government. To do so, we have made the following recommendations:Digital Government AgendaIssue a Statement of Principles and an Action Plan for implementing An Enhanced Digital Government Agenda_a126ffaa-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c6.1Citizen EngagementFoster a Dynamic Citizen Engagement program_b3be7530-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c6.2OCIOReorganize the Office of the Chief Information Officer _b3be7a26-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c6.3Office of the Chief Information OfficerIT Project ManagementImprove IT Project Management_b3be7f08-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c6.4Transparency & TrustRebuild trust in government through greater transparency_b3be8656-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c6.5Information Security & PrivacyImprove information security while ensuring personal privacy_b3be8b60-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c6.6Big InitiativesManaging Big Initiatives_a1270248-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c7John KamenskyChair & Co-author -- John M. Kamensky is a Senior Fellow with the IBM Center for The Business of Government in Washington, D.C., where he is passionate about helping transform government to be more results-oriented, performance-based, customer-driven, and collaborative in nature. Prior to joining the IBM Center, he had a significant role in helping pioneer the federal government’s performance and results orientation. He served for eight years as deputy director of Vice President Gore’s National Partnership for Reinventing Government and special assistant to the Deputy Director for Management at the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Before that, he worked at the U.S. Government Accountability Office where he helped develop the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. He is a NAPA Fellow.Dwight InkCo-author - President Emeritus of the Institute for Public Administration Harry LambrightCo-author - Professor at Syracuse UniversityTimothy ConlanCo-author - Professor at George Mason University. This set of memoranda will explore lessons we can learn about how a nation with deeply held attachments to private markets and local communities can effectively manage cross-sectorial responses to major national economic and social crises. Background. Every President will likely face the need to get big initiatives done sometime during his term of office. By “big initiatives” means, we mean challenges that reach across agency and program boundaries, oftentimes involving states, localities, citizens, businesses, and the non-profit sector. Recent examples include responding to catastrophic natural disasters, or undertaking big science projects such as the Human Genome Project, or large-scale administrative responses, such as the implementation of the Recovery Act. Historical examples include the race to the moon, the construction of the interstate highway system, and the national response to the Y2K computer bug. Responding to these kinds of big challenges requires a President to operate outside the traditional boundaries of agencies and programs. It requires that he quickly install a governance and accountability framework that is both agile enough to respond rapidly respond to sudden, unforeseen circumstances and yet stable enough to operate within the rule of law. The framework will different depending on whether the big initiative is thrust upon the President, such as a large-scale emergency, or whether it is self-initiated, such as the interstate highway construction project. Recommendations. By looking back at previous large-scale initiatives, there are common characteristics that can be incorporated into any new initiatives. For example: There was a shared clarity of goals. There was cross-sector collaboration around common outcomes. There was a sense of urgency and agreement to quickly resolve day-to-day problems. The project provided an unusually high level of transparency. There was freedom to innovate and be free from existing rules. In addition, the President has new statutory authority to develop cross-agency governance frameworks to pursue large-scale initiatives, under the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. To date, that authority has been used to develop a set of goals and track their progress, but the next Administration may choose to use this authority more boldly by using this authority to embrace larger scale initiatives. Beginning in January 2013, the President should plan to have such capabilities in place so he can use them to advance his agenda. The memos to be developed will outline a set of actions the President-elect and his immediate staff should take to be prepared, based on past experience. This memo was jointly prepared by four individuals who have had key roles in big initiatives of several Presidents over the past 50 years and how the federal government has approached large-scale implementation initiatives over that same period. Dwight Ink is President Emeritus of the Institute for Public Administration. Harry Lambright is a Professor at Syracuse University. Timothy Conlan is a Professor at George Mason University. John Kamensky is a Senior Fellow with the IBM Center for The Business of Government. Full Memo forthcoming..._a1270478-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24cPerformanceMake government more results-oriented._a12706b2-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c8Don MoynihanChair -- Donald Moynihan is Professor of Public Affairs at the La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His research examines public sector reforms and performance. His book, The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform has won best book awards from the Academy of Management and the American Political Science Association. He serves as the co-editor for the journals Public Administration Review and Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. He is a NAPA Fellow.Next Steps in Improving Performance - This set of memoranda will discuss whether these new initiatives have made a difference and what more needs to be done to make government more results-oriented. Memo Overview: The federal government has gradually expanded the use of performance management systems. Different administrations have tried a variety of approaches and techniques, the most promising of which have been incorporated into statute with the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act (GPRAMA) of 2010. ... Full Memo forthcoming...New SystemLeverage the new system_a1270950-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c8.1Leverage the new system: A temptation facing any new administration is to create a new reform agenda to improve federal agency performance. This would be a mistake. GPRAMA provides the President with the framework needed to institute the President’s agenda and improve government performance. The focus should be on creating the conditions for GRPAMA to succeed.Performance Information Focus on performance information use_b3be9038-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c8.2Focus on performance information use: Performance management reforms from the past were skilled at creating routines to measure and disseminate performance data. But these reforms did less well in creating routines that encouraged the use of performance data. Surveys of federal managers do not find any significant increase of performance information in the last decade. Increasing the use of performance data has been a goal of policymakers in recent years, but needs sustained attention if it is to be realized. CongressWork with Congress_b3be9790-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c8.3CongressWhite HouseWork with Congress: Congress has been traditionally reluctant to engage actively with performance management. This is a significant problem because goal clarity is central to mission achievement, and when the White House and Congress direct agencies to achieve contrary goals, the ultimate goal of performance management will be undercut.CommitmentGenerate leadership commitment_b3be9cd6-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c8.4Generate leadership commitment: Performance management systems are more likely to succeed when they have the clear and widely-perceived support of agency leaders. It is essential that the next administration prioritize hiring appointees (especially Chief Operating Officers) with a skill-set that allows them to lead discussions about how to improve performance. Learning & ImprovementBuild a culture of learning and improvement_b3bea1cc-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c8.5Build a culture of learning and improvement: Leaders should take a leaning approach to the use of performance measures, which calls for employees to acknowledge problems, question basic assumptions, and invest their ingenuity to solve problems. In the long-run, an emphasis on learning will generate greater dividends than a punitive approach that would lead federal managers responding defensively.CollaborationManage collaboration across agencies_b3bea94c-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c8.6Manage collaboration across agencies: The emphasis that GPRAMA places on cross-cutting goals underlines the fact that many of the tasks that the federal government takes on require coordination across multiple agencies. GPRAMA provides a means for the White House to set cross-cutting goals to foster collaboration between agencies. Such collaboration needs basic governance rules to determine how information is exchanged, and how decisions are made.Analytical CapacityBuild analytical capacity_b3beaeec-1fa8-11e2-80f0-213d3736e24c8.7Build analytical capacity: Agencies have come to expect that they need a mix of evaluation and performance data to understand program outcomes. Demand for quality evidence requires the resources to create the data, the capacity to analyze it, and the time to do so. Federal hiring practices should identify and utilize key skills and competencies needed to carry out performance management activities.Public-Private PartnershipsManaging Large Task Public-Private Partnerships_a1270b94-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c9Mark PisanoChair -- Mark Pisano is a Senior Fellow at the University of Southern California’s Price School of Public Policy. He is Co-Chair of the Federal System Panel of the Academy. He serves on the Board of the National Civic League, the California Foundation for the Economy and Environment, Chairman of the Southwest Megaregional Alliance, and Co-chairman of America 2050. He served for over three decades as the Executive Director of the Southern California Association of Governments and was on the Board of Resources for the Future. He also serves on the board of several private sector boards. He is a NAPA Senior Fellow.This set of memoranda will discuss whether or not this shift is temporary or the wave of the future, and whether government and its managers can hold their own during this change. Memo Overview Panel Recommendations on improving public and private relationships: * There have been numerous reports from GAO and other organizations that all levels of Governments, even assuming normal economic growth, will experience fiscal shortfalls stretching far into the future. There are also numerous reports concluding that unless we undertake major investment programs in our collective goods issues of education, infrastructure, energy and health that we will not be able to accelerate growth and alter this future. Our panel is developing strategies and recommendations, both short and long term, on putting the organizations-public, private and non-profit together differently, with new “rules of the game,” so that synergy, efficiencies, partnerships and innovation will enable us to forge approaches that can help address these dilemmas. In our panel’s deliberations we have observed that this approach is not new and that there have been abundant examples of such initiatives in our history. The panel noted that we should learn the good and bad lessons from this rich history. * Short term: The recent IBM Center for the Business of Government report on the lessons from the Recovery had a number of recommendations that could alter the way that Government operates that could substantially improve the way governments at all levels interact with other sectors. By setting outcome goals, focusing on team implementation approaches, assigning and assessing risks, improving contracting and procurement, and horizontal team building all highlighted what could be done to significantly improve the effectiveness of how we work across sectors. The lessons of hurricane Katrina, and the NAPA panel on the improvements in the budgeting and implementation process of the Corp’s of Engineers, along with the lessons of the recent Gulf oil spill all show the power of partnerships in problem solving. Recommendations are being developed from these lessons that could be implemented by the next administration. * Long term: The panel is looking at experiments in new governance structures in the country, which if expanded could alter the nature of the relationship among the sectors. The panel defined the operating principles upon which a new relationship among the sectors could be built: starting point is outcomes and results; align funding with planning up front; look at all costs over time; use business plans with identified funding streams that relies on beneficial use funding streams linked to mission and results; look at alternative systems; move from risk avoidance to risk identification, risk mitigation, and risk management. The panel also concluded that many of the recent experiments had generated important learning lessons particularly relating to transparency and accountability. The Presidio Trust Act established by Congress to reduce the largest item in the Park Service Budget, and the subsequent NAPA panel on the Trust, provides a good example of a “public benefit corporation” – a non-profit organization that embodies the panel’s operating principles and addresses the concerns identified. Given these principles and examples, the panel is developing recommendations that would be helpful to the next administration in the development and operations of: infrastructure, security and safety for our ports of entry, park services, etc. * Conclusion: These short and long term recommendations would enable experimentation in doing things differently and putting ourselves and our organizations together differently so that the major asset in America, innovation in the way we organize ourselves to solve problems, can be used to deal with our difficult fiscal future and our need in the same time to make significant investments. Full Memo forthcoming..._a1270dd8-1f85-11e2-a133-25ff3636e24c2012-10-26http://www.memostoleaders.org/memos-national-leadersOwenAmburOwen.Ambur@verizon.net