tv The Washington Center Discussion on Trump Administration and New Congress... CSPAN January 14, 2019 10:40pm-11:31pm EST
a way out. he wants issue. and he find it really revved up and that is where we are. democrats feel you don't give into a bully. you give in and you know, you're writing your epitath. >> there is research into turn overinto presidential reservations. she takes questions from students attending washington center's seminar this, is 45
minutes. good morning we have our first speaker dr. tempis. going to talk to us about your hired you're fired staffing and a nonresident senior fellow with governance studies and she's looked at white house staffing with a particular focus on turn over rates an individual white house entis like office of political affairs and you can
that's affects moral. and i would say in the fost, too, so important in working for the government. if you're working in the white house don't just care about the white house. you care about staff and groups and about the media. and in this city, i would make the case that personal relationships are the foot of the point of the realm. so is not just they have to re
retrain, they lose personal relationships that are not easily transferrable. you can in the transfer those personal relationships. and so for those reasons i would say that it's very important to study white house staff turn over and we should care about it. i want to talk about emergence of the data set and prior research. and i won't spend a long time on this. it sounds lick a dry title. idea is that a lot of people ask me how do you get this sample? how do you have a list of white house staff you can compare trump to? back to reagan? and i point out number one, there is not a lot of transparency when it comes to white house staffing. it's difficult to determine number of white house staff. and that is because presidents
have had a tradition of hiring people from agencies and president presidents started at fdr. i thought this is great. i realized that this if they want to include 40 people, they include 40. six #, they include 60. there is no list of staff. but. in 2001 at the prkings institution, my colleague steve hess a presidential scholar called and said look at this.
the title was decision maker. an edition to people in the executive branch and importantly, it was put together by approximately 4 to 7 journalists who spent five months in washington, d.c. of the push administration going around and doing interviews to find out who will be influential in this administration. so it's their judgment about who they think the ap is. so i went wow. this is terrific. as a social scientist you can't sort of -- it's difficult to come up with a methodology to say this person is influential. this person is not. in this case i had a group of journalist
journalists in 1989 there is mother edition. and they're just trapped through news accounts. you try to figure out how long individuals stayed in jobs. so you can see over time the first year is blue, second green, fourth purple and then, royal blue. you can see there tends to be more turn overin years 2, and 3 and going down in year four. with the exception of of the second year, 40%, between reagan and obama there averages in
year one, you lose 10% of the a team. and two, you lose about 25%. and year 3, 27 and 4, 8% right? so middle two years. that makes perfect sense. perfect sense. i've done a lot of interviews with former staff members. miller center does a terrific interviewing program. you can meet individuals. one individual says he would see his children sunday, and pri. people want to leave over time. there is burnout.
and some people need to go to private sector to make more money. some have other opportunities they want to take. so some turnover is normal. some is good. many times they hire people on the campaign. campaigning is not the same as governorerning so sometimes, during that year, you can see people weeded out. it wasn't the best fit. national journal no longer existed. so a young journalist said what are you going to do? i said i don't know what i'm going to do. she and i worked together and what we did is went back to all of the edition and took an
inventory of every position listed as a decision maker and then put the trump people in to see how they fit. and we've got it similar end. so let's talk about how donald trump compares. you can see here if you average prior five presidents for the first year there is 10% turnover. for president trump there is 34% turn over. second year, 45%. exwreeding the purr years of push bush. his over all turn over was six #%.
and after two years, 48 hads, president trump already exwreeded what occurred in push bush administration. furn over rates as i have said to reporters are off the charts. what i also did in samples is that i broke down to various positions over five to find you out which occurred in all five. if this was in all five that, is tier one. so i looked and after would years, president trump lost 83%
of tier one people. so this is lear to see turn jefr rates are high. but why is that case? irs i want to say there is probably lots of reasons why. it's very difficult to sort of nail it town and identify three comprehensive reasons why. there are lots of reasons. i will say is that president trump had a very unconventional campaign. it was much smaller than a typical national campaign. individuals were pan ready from ever working at the white husband and he had disdain for people that worked for the prior administration. so iffen the fact it's been
mind, you can see people, where they went. when took their place. and so 42 of the 65. after the piers year there are a lot resigning under pressure. i looked to see if i can find examples of 18 staff members resigning under pressure. and i found 1 or 2. national security advisor touring reagan administration that was sort of a controversial resignation. and with i had difficulty
concern and i think if you're someone with a passion for maybe health care plsy or mrg policy, if you hef know from day-to-day who issing to be around. there are simultaneous investigations about leaks. and this level is high and worthy of study. another thing i wanted to mention the way i collected data
is that my study does not look at multiple departures. this the case of national security advisor they're on their third. this goods on and on and adds to perception of chaos. if we go back to idea thinking about private sector and and put simply in a way, president trump is under lining efforts to try
washington post have a running tally of the process. if you think about the opoid crisis you would have thought that would have been a position filled in six months. he did nominate someone that did not get confirmed and that person had to be renominated. i talk about vacancies and we have had multiple turnover. it's worth while through public part moreship there is a if you
goals. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we've been trying to examine the have been. you can say you've worked for the white house 1, 2 years and that you have this expert ease and understand how washington works and i'm seeing that people are going back to their old afrngs of where they are before. their universities instead of
and l is a lot of my frags between capitol hill and white house. and because of the elections those option s have decreased. are might be a problem and in the past if there had pb a chief of staff pgs people would have opinion jumping for that job. and there is a lot going to take it and what do we do? and this is striking to me. if you can fill it with someone what wanted the job there would be no acting pairen thet cal around the maim.
thank you. >> you've talk about impact of turnover. and implementation of goals. i was interested to know whether or not to what extent is there a sense of legallessness about them? >> i hope have you a chance to talk to someone many, many years. some will tell you it doesn't matter who is president. where this hatters is hard to make changes this country. and it's a conservative type of government.
model. if you can explain how you measure it? >> if the individual appears to have left the white house not on their own something may have happened john kelly didn't leave on his own terms so i there is a man by the maim of andrew it's a promotion. there have been individuals that left on their own probably for
there is a huge movement on the hill to increase diversity. is that something past presidents have done? >> first there is something on the hill called congressional foundation management association. about the people working for members of congress and that does not exist for the presidency. there are 30 staff members and a budget and things like that.
every june, the president to include the salary and you can see the title. sometimes, after that is trance hitted there is staff changes and it doesn't include staff on omb and sc. so to me it's not comprehensive as it should be. so as i pointed out, i struggle to come up with people asking me how many people work for the president? i don't know.
staying strong so had is like 35 to 38% that referring to president trump has one of the most stable approval ratings of prior presidents. and that is because he has a block of supporters that no matter what happens, they're with him through thick and thin. maybe there are people on the margin who's say people care about this and understand importance of staff and
governing. one thing i think is essential is that the they understand in governorerning you have to be skilled and willing to compromise. and i haven't seen these emerging so today, this is a about linde gram suggesting reopen the government and declare a national emergency two weeks from now and you get your wall money. so this is television people
>> yes. omarosa will be returning season two of celebrity big brother. is there anyone else? >> those are the two i mow of considering that never happened before. >> that is a huge number of people never worked in government before. having your son and daughter in senior white house positions i can't recall. and there is a lot of pierses who knows. yeah. >> sheesh.
comic relief. >> i mow this is beyond your per view of the site. a turnover in length there is a central position people in the executive branch. >> let say you're working in the office of public liaison. this office trays to have a relationship with interest groups have access to them and can tell them about their preferred policy and white house can say listen we're about to nominate brett kavanaugh. what do organizations think about that nomination?
if they don't have a contact point it makes it difficult for constituents to reach out. it makes it difficult for people to feel like it's their government. i would say for presidency there are fewer points of personal contact. they'd refer me to the governor or what have you. so it's less it's constituency based.
emaren't staying in these positions as long. >> you're welcome. i'm wondering what onboarding cost s and just wondering if you had any. >> that is a tough question again that gets back to transparency. it's hard to find anything about inner workings. politico is able to get a source saying so and so is leaving in this spring. about i can't get names of people there is no way to find out how much time and effort the office of presidential personnel are spending on then you think
after 4% turnover there are a lot of senior staffers leading. they're on a treadmill going five minute miles. and there is a lot of criticism about the vetting and security background checks. you might remember the rob porter incident. that office is under pressure because they've been strongly criticized for not vetting people carefully enough. i cannot imagein trying to make sure these people pass pack frowned checks and haven't had any odd affiliation that's might embarrass the president.
etc. the bottom line is that they try to get a lot of information is on travel, if president trump goes to arkansas he does a maga rally that is not supposed to be paid for by taxpayer money, supposed to be paid for by campaigns. reporters are trying to figure out what is the formula? and have they reimbursed enough for that trip? your point about on boarding and how much you spend every time you have to recruit and rehire is not inconsequential. maybe you can pursue that. that would be great. >> harvard extension. >> everybody is from harvard extension or drake so far? i don't think so. >> if terms of overturn are areas or positions more or less
prone to attrition? >> i'd say no. and lower levels have had turnover. those are the one that's popped out to me. and like i said there seemed to be patterns that emerged and people leaving because they had a personal reason for leaving opposed being fired. >> thank you. >> thank you to everybody. it's nice. thank you for asking good questions. >> thank you. >> we have about six minutes and then our next panel will be with us. do your thing and come pack. i think we're still on tv.