Prevent Political Interference in Nonpartisan Public Service

When Politics Invade Public Service: How External Reporting Puts Government at Risk

​

The requirement for federal employees to submit personal achievements to a non-governmental figure, such as Elon Musk, bypasses established legal frameworks designed to protect federal employees' rights, preserve the integrity of the performance management system, and ensure that political influence does not interfere with civil service operations. Here is a breakdown of why such an action would likely be problematic:

​

1. Separation of Powers and Accountability

The federal civil service system is designed to ensure that civil servants are held accountable through established supervisory channels. Federal employees report to their direct supervisors, and those supervisors are accountable to higher levels of management. Requiring a non-governmental figure like Elon Musk to impose this kind of requirement bypasses the hierarchical structure of accountability, potentially violating the principles of separation of powers and the established performance management system. This structure ensures that elected officials and political appointees do not infringe upon the daily functioning of the civil service, which is meant to operate impartially.

​

2. Merit System Principles (5 U.S.C. § 2301)

The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) ensures that federal employees are treated fairly and evaluated based on performance in a manner consistent with merit system principles, which include fair treatment, equal opportunity, and avoidance of discrimination or political retribution. Requiring employees to submit personal achievements to an external entity for review or pressure could undermine these principles, as it introduces external, non-merit-based interference into the performance evaluation process.

​

3. Executive Orders and Agency Authority

While the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the White House have authority to issue directives or guidance, they cannot unilaterally impose actions that override established procedures for performance evaluations. Any such directive must align with existing laws, regulations, and oversight mechanisms governing civil service workers, including protections against politically motivated decisions. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 reformed the federal personnel system to prevent political patronage and ensure fair treatment, and any deviation from these processes could be challenged as a violation of the law.

​

4. Political Influence and Intimidation (5 U.S.C. § 2302)

If an external request for employees to submit personal achievements is perceived as intimidation or political pressure, it raises serious concerns under 5 U.S.C. § 2302, which prohibits prohibited personnel practices. This provision safeguards federal employees from political pressure, retaliation, or coercion for engaging in protected activities. Any action that feels like political pressure could be seen as a violation of this provision, and employees are protected from retaliation by filing complaints with agencies such as the MSPB or the Office of Special Counsel (OSC).

​

5. Legal Precedent and Civil Service Protection

A requirement for employees to submit weekly achievements in a manner that feels coercive or comes from an external, politically charged figure could lead to legal challenges. Under the Civil Service Reform Act, performance evaluations and disciplinary actions must be consistent with established procedures, and deviations from these procedures could be challenged in court. Additionally, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 ensures that federal employees who report wrongdoing are not retaliated against, and any action perceived as retaliation or coercion could violate this statute as well.

​

6. Federal Labor Relations and Union Rights

Federal employees have the right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. If such a directive were issued without consulting labor unions or outside of agreed-upon collective bargaining processes, it could violate federal labor rights. Unions like the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) play a critical role in protecting employees' rights, and a directive bypassing union consultation could lead to legal action.

​

7. OMB Circular A-11

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11 outlines federal performance management guidelines, emphasizing that agency performance reporting must follow established frameworks. These guidelines stress the importance of maintaining the integrity of the performance evaluation system and using existing procedures to measure agency performance. Any external intervention that bypasses these procedures could undermine the purpose of these guidelines and disrupt the accountability mechanisms built into the federal system.

​

Conclusion: Legal Constraints on External Mandates for Reporting

In summary, OPM or any other entity does not have the legal right to bypass established procedures for performance evaluations or to impose such mandates in a manner that undermines civil service protections. Federal employees are protected under a variety of laws, including the Merit Systems Principles, the Civil Service Reform Act, and 5 U.S.C. § 2302. Any actions that constitute political pressure, intimidation, or coercion could lead to legal challenges and violations of employees' rights. Employees who feel that such actions have taken place are encouraged to consult with legal experts, report issues to the MSPB or OSC, or seek support from unions like the AFGE.

​

Why This Is Important for All Americans

The action of imposing non-governmental oversight on federal employee performance is not just a matter of individual rights or one isolated incident; it signals a broader threat to the civil protections that safeguard the integrity of our government. If this type of politically motivated interference is allowed to undermine the performance management system for federal employees, it sets a dangerous precedent. It opens the door for similar challenges to civil protections across other sectors and groups. These protections, including those enshrined in the Merit Systems Principles and the Civil Service Reform Act, were specifically designed to guard against political retribution and ensure that government operations remain impartial, professional, and free from outside influence.

​

By weakening these safeguards, we risk eroding the very foundations of a nonpartisan civil service, which is crucial for maintaining the public's trust in government institutions. If the protections for one group can be bypassed, so too can those of other groups. The danger is not just theoretical—it is a slow, incremental erosion of the mechanisms designed to preserve fairness, equality, and accountability in the federal workforce. Upholding these protections is essential for ensuring that government remains a place where decisions are made based on merit, not political favoritism or personal agendas.

 

Legal Citations:

1. 5 U.S.C. § 2301 - Merit System Principles:

   • Source: Legal Information Institute

   • Relevance: Ensures that federal employees are treated based on merit, free from political retribution, and evaluated in a consistent and fair manner.

2. 5 U.S.C. § 2302 - Prohibited Personnel Practices:

   • Source: Legal Information Institute

   • Relevance: Protects federal employees from retaliation, coercion, or political pressure, which could be relevant to concerns regarding intimidation or undue influence.

3. Civil Service Reform Act of 1978:

   • Source: National Archives

   • Relevance: Establishes the merit-based system for hiring, performance evaluations, and promotions within the federal government.

4. Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute:

   • Source: FLRA

   • Relevance: Outlines the rights of federal employees to engage in collective bargaining and the procedures for handling disputes between federal agencies and employee unions.

5. OMB Circular A-11:

   • Source: Office of Management and Budget

   • Relevance: Establishes federal guidelines for performance evaluation and accountability, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established procedures.

News Citations:

1. NPR:

   • Title: "What did you do last week?' email stokes confusion and anger among federal workers.

2. New York Times:

   • Title: "Musk Says Government Workers Must Detail Their Workweek or Lose Their Jobs"

3. Reuters:

   • Title: Musk orders US federal workers to report on work by Monday or resign

4. AP News:

Title: Federal workers sue over Elon Musk’s threat to fire them if they don’t explain their accomplishments