[jki275]

Honestly, those top positions in almost any organization are often political appointments that have little to do with day to day operations. The current "actings" are generally the ones who "advise" the political appointees on how to handle things. Obviously there are some exceptions, but most bureaucracies tend to run that way.

Not to comment specifically on this as FAA isn't my area, but if the secdef doesn't come to work tomorrow the undersecretary is going to take the same actions he would have. I'd imagine most of those orgs trend that way.

[matthewdgreen]

The value of having confirmed appointees in those positions is not necessarily their native technical expertise. As you’ve noted, that expertise can be provided by career employees. The value of political appointees is the political clout they carry. Given that they’ve been appointed directly by the President and confirmed by the Senate, it is much harder (or politically fraught) to simply threaten or replace them when they take an unpopular stand like “let’s ground an airplane.”

The US government is a complex system, and like most complex systems it works best when you, a non-expert, don’t randomly yank out pieces and declare them unnecessary.

[jki275]

Well, that's not what I said. I've not claimed they're unnecessary, just that they have a slightly different and perhaps less important role than the post I replied to was giving them. The undersecretaries can make the same decisions, and in fact the career personnel in the organization have far more ability to take action without fear of replacement by anyone as they have more protection than a secretary who serves at the pleasure of the appointing authority.

That said, generally the undersecretaries are appointed and confirmed as well, as their role is to step in and backfill if the primary is not available, so that answers that issue.

[matthewdgreen]

I can’t find any evidence that the current acting FAA administrator was Senate confirmed. Is the Internet just being unreliable here?

I think your notion that career personnel have as much DC political clout as unconfirmed career officials is one of those things that sounds good if one is trying to win a debate, but is unlikely to represent the actual facts on the ground.

[jki275]

Just a quick google search turns up this article that says he has been.

https://www.americanshipper.com/news/?autonumber=67974&sourc...

Political clout in DC isn't what runs organizations and gets the day to day business done. It's what plays well on the hill in pointless back and forth BS sessions that a totally ineffective congress likes to have, it probably helps to some extent in budgeting discussions, but it's more posturing than anything else in a lot of ways.

Anywhere you go in the military you'll find all the GOs who are in charge, and powerful, and senate confirmed, and all that good stuff, and they've got a Chief of Staff and an aide who actually run everything, and can continue to do so if their GO walks in front of a bus. It's no different in any huge bureaucracy -- sure, CEOs make decisions, but the day to day business doesn't stop if they don't answer the phone for a while. I would actually posit that if it did the whole organization is dysfunctional to the point of ineffectivity. But I'm being redundant in describing DC that way perhaps.

[mikeash]

Amusing example, considering the Secretary of Defense has been vacant since January.

[jki275]

Well, Shanahan is acting and will be confirmed when the senate gets around to it... that's kind of the point though. DOD is still running and will continue to run, exactly as it has, with only minor political differences from the top. They have a lot of theoretical power, but little ability to actually change day to day operations of anything.

[matthewdgreen]

The purpose of confirmed political appointees is to create a layer of empowered leaders who can do more than simply steer the ship in a straight line, or react slavishly to orders from above. The confirmation process serves two purposes: (1) it ensures that relatively independent thinkers with high political capital are in those spots, and they see their allegiance to the entire system and not just one man, (2) it provides a safety valve (via resignation) when the confirmed appointee does not agree with orders from above. The danger of the DoD is that it’s an agency that can give the appearance of running itself when there’s no crisis, but may need expert leadership when there is one. Since the entire purpose of the DoD is to manage crises, lack of high-level leadership is a serious concern. Ditto the FAA.

[jki275]

As I posted in response to your other comment, you're ignoring the fact that the undersecretaries who backfill those positions in the absence of the primary are also appointed and confirmed, and the career personnel have less incentive to bow to political pressure.

DOD has far more "expert leadership" in the form of the FO/GO community than the other gov agencies as well -- the secretaries exist to implement policy, not run day to day operations.

[mikeash]

Oh, sure. I just enjoyed the combination of the example being a bit off, because it sounded like a hypothetical, but also a perfect real-world demonstration of the idea.