Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:07:23.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No vacancy: holdover capacity and the continued staffing of major commissions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2016

Anthony Madonna  and
Ian Ostrander
Anthony Madonna
Affiliation:
University of Georgia E-mail: [email protected]
Ian Ostrander
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Texas Tech University, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although the United States (US) federal bureaucracy is plagued by high vacancy rates generally, quorum requirements and small board sizes make vacancies particularly problematic within major independent regulatory commissions. Not all vacancies, however, are created equal. By statute, some major boards allow members to continue serving beyond their original term in the absence of a confirmed replacement. The difference between an empty seat and a holdover official is important as it can determine whether a board is functional or inoperable. In this article, we examine how the presence of holdover provisions within such commissions alters confirmation dynamics and vacancy rates. Evidence suggests that holdover provisions lead to quicker confirmation on nominations as well as fewer complete vacancies. Such structures thus help mitigate the short-term problems stemming from staffing independent regulatory boards, especially given the tendency towards obstruction in the US Senate.

Keywords

executive nominationsmajor regulatory commissionsvacancy
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 341 - 361
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainsworth, S. and Flathman, M. (1995) Unanimous Consent Agreements as Leadership Tools. Legislative Studies Quarterly 20(2): 177–195.Google Scholar
Baker, P. (2015) Obama Rejects Republican Bid to Overturn New Union Rules. The New York Times, 31 March, A16.Google Scholar
Barrow, D., Gryski, G. and Zuk, G. (1996) The Federal Judiciary and Institutional Change. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, S. A. and Maltzman, F. (2002) Senatorial Delay in Confirming Federal Judges, 1947–1998. The American Journal of Political Science 46: 190–199.Google Scholar
Black, R. C., Madonna, A. J., Owens, R. J. and Lynch, M. S. (2007) Adding Recess Appointments to the President’s “Tool Chest” of Unilateral Powers. Political Research Quarterly 5: 645–654.Google Scholar
Black, R. C., Madonna, A. J., Owens, R. J. and Lynch, M. S. (2011) Assessing Congressional Responses to Growing Presidential Powers: The Case of Recess Appointments. Presidential Studies Quarterly 41: 569–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, J. R., Fleisher, R. and Krutz, G. S. (2009) Malign Neglect: Evidence that Delay has Become the Primary Method of Defeating Presidential Appointments. Congress and the Presidency 36(3): 226–243.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M. and Jones, B. S. (2004) Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corley, P. (2006) Avoiding Advice and Consent: Recess Appointments and Presidential Power. Presidential Studies Quarterly 36: 670–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deering, C. (1987) Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don’t: The Senate’s Role in the Appointment Process. In Calvin Mackenzie G. (ed.), The In-and-Outers: Presidential Appointees and Transient Government in Washington. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 100–119.Google Scholar
Devins, N. and Lewis, D. E. (2008) Not-so-Independent Agencies: Party Polarization and the Limits of Institutional Design. Boston University Law Review 88: 459–498.Google Scholar
Dull, M., Roberts, P. S., Keeney, M. S. and Choi, S. O. (2012) Appointee Confirmation and Tenure: The Succession of U.S. Federal Agency Appointees, 1989–2009. Public Administration Review 72(6): 902–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durant, R. F. and Resh, W. G. (2010) Presidential Agendas, Administrative Strategies, and the Bureaucracy. In Edwards G. (ed.), The Handbook of the American Presidency. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 577–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, S. E. and Howard, R. M. (2010) Ignoring Advice and Consent: Presidential Use of Judicial Recess Appointments. Political Research Quarterly 63(3): 640–653.Google Scholar
Greene, M. (2015) Presidential Appointments to Full-Time Positions on Regulatory and Other Collegial Boards and Commissions, 112th Congress. Congressional Research Service Report No. RL43893, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Ho, D. (2007) Congressional Agency Control: The Impact of Statutory Partisan Requirements on Regulation. Unpublished Manuscript. Accessed Online: http://dho.stanford.edu/research/partisan.pdf.Google Scholar
Hogue, H. B. (2003) Presidential Appointments to Full-Time Positions on Regulatory and Other Collegial Boards and Commissions, 107th Congress. Congressional Research Service Report No. RL30910, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hogue, H. B. (2005) Presidential Appointments to Full-Time Positions on Regulatory and Other Collegial Boards and Commissions, 108th Congress. Congressional Research Service Report No. RL32742, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hogue, H. B. and Bearden, M. (2010) Presidential Appointments to Full-Time Positions on Regulatory and Other Collegial Boards and Commissions, 110th Congress. Congressional Research Service Report No. RL41463, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hogue, H. B., Bearden, M., Ely, D. and Lisbeth, T. L. (2009) Presidential Appointments to Full-Time Positions on Regulatory and Other Collegial Boards and Commissions, 109th Congress. Congressional Research Service Report No. RL34744, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hollibaugh, G. (2015) Vacancies, Vetting, and Votes: A Unified Dynamic Model of the Appointments Process. Journal of Theoretical Politics 27(2): 206–236.Google Scholar
Howard, N. O. and Roberts, J. M. (2015) The Politics of Obstruction: Republican Holds in the U.S. Senate. Legislative Studies Quarterly 40(2): 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, W. G. (2003) Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. D. and Riddlesperger, J. W. Jr. (1996) Senate Confirmation of Cabinet Nominations: Institutional Politics and Nominee Qualifications. Social Science Journal 33: 274–285.Google Scholar
Labaton, S. (2005) Departing Democrat at S.E.C. Agrees to Remain for a While. New York Times. 17 June. Accessed Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/business/departing-democrat-at-sec-agrees-to-remain-for-a-while.html.Google Scholar
Landler, M. and Greenhouse, S. (2013) Vacancies and Partisan Fighting Put Labor Relations Agency in Legal Limbo. The New York Times, 15 July, A14.Google Scholar
Lesniewski, N. (2014) Nuclear Fallout Slows Senate, Briefly Delays Recess. Roll Call, 10 April. http://www.rollcall.com/wgdb/nuclear-fallout-could-delay-recess-for-democrats/?dcz=.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. E. (2003) Presidents and the Politics of Agency Design: Political Insulation in the United States Government Bureaucracy, 1946–1997. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. E. (2008) The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Light, P. C. (1995) Thickening Government: Federal Hierarchy and the Diffusion of Accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, N. and Razaghian, R. (1999) Advice and Consent: Senate Responses to Executive Branch Nominations 1885-1996. The American Journal of Political Science 43: 1122–1143.Google Scholar
Moe, T. M. (1985) Control and Feedback in Economic Regulation: The Case of the NLRB. American Political Science Review 79: 1094–1116.Google Scholar
Nixon, D. C. (2001) Appointment Delay for Vacancies on the Federal Communications Commission. Public Administration Review 61(4): 483–492.Google Scholar
Nixon, D. C. and Bentley, R. M. (2006) Appointment Delay and the Policy Environment of the National Transportation Safety Board. Administration and Society 37(6): 679–694.Google Scholar
Nixon, D. C. and Haskin, J. D. (2000) Judicial Retirement Strategies: The Judge’s Role in Influencing Control of the Appellate Courts. American Politics Quarterly 28(4): 458–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noel Canning v. NLRB NLRB, 705 F.3d 490, 492–93 (D.C. Cir. 2013).Google Scholar
O’Connell, A. J. (2009) Vacant Offices: Delays in Staffing Top Agency Positions. Southern California Law Review 82: 913–999.Google Scholar
O’Connell, A. J. (2015) Shortening Agency and Judicial Vacancies Through Filibuster Reform? An Examination of Confirmation Rates and Delays From 1981 to 2014. Duke Law Journal 64: 1645–1715.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, B. I. (1985) Changing Time Constraints on Congress: Historical Perspectives on the Use of Cloture. In Dodd L. C. and Oppenheimer B. I. (eds.), Congress Reconsidered, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 393–413.Google Scholar
Ostrander, I. (2015) Powering Down the Presidency: The Rise and Fall of Recess Appointments. Presidential Studies Quarterly 45(3): 558–572.Google Scholar
Poole, K. and Rosenthal, H. (1997) Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ruckman, P. S. Jr. (1993) The Supreme Court, Critical Nominations, and the Senate Confirmation Process. Journal of Politics 55(3): 793–805.Google Scholar
Ruiz, R. R. (2015) Publication of New Internet Rules to Prompt Cheers and Challenges. The New York Times, April 6, B3.Google Scholar
Shear, M. D. and Silver-Greenberg, J. (2015) Agency Aims to Rein In Loans Seen as Predatory. The New York Times, March 27, B1.Google Scholar
Smith, S. S. and Flathman, M. (1989) Managing the Senate Floor: Complex Unanimous Consent Agreements Since the 1950s. Legislative Studies Quarterly 14: 349–374.Google Scholar
Smith, S. S., Ostrander, I. and Pope, C. (2013) Majority Party Power and Procedural Motions in the U.S. Senate. Legislative Studies Quarterly 38(2): 205–236.Google Scholar
Spriggs, J. and Wahlbeck, P. (1995) Calling it Quits: Strategic Retirement on the Federal Courts of Appeals, 1893-1991. Political Research Quarterly 48(3): 573–597.Google Scholar
Strauss, B. (2014) Still Awaiting Union Ruling, Northwestern Football Players Focus on Field. The New York Times, November 28, D3. Google Scholar