Bush Nominees Face Invasive Vetting Process

Dec. 27, 2000 -- Today, at least, they’re smiling. But in the next few weeks, many of President-elect George W. Bush’s cabinet picks may wonder what they’ve gotten themselves into as the FBI and IRS run them through the grueling “vetting” process.

“The process can be a little nerve-racking. It’s really a shock to the system for most people,” says Mark Gearan, President Clinton’s former director of communications and Peace Corps director from 1995 to 1998.

Previous cabinet members and other government appointees who endured the rigorous screening were hesitant to discuss their vetting, but in years past it has been described as invasive, humiliating and unpleasant. But it’s all worth it, they say, for a chance at one of the 6,000 highly coveted positions appointed by the president at the beginning of a new administration.

After candidates fill out a barrage of forms, revealing intimate details of their personal and financial lives, FBI and IRS agents investigate and reinvestigate to verify the information.

Agents talk with former employers, high school classmates, neighbors and ex-spouses, asking when the candidate came to work each day, whether he or she used drugs or alcohol or ever paid an employee under the table.

Disconcerting Process

Even for seasoned government staffers who have been through the process two or three times already, “it’s still disconcerting,” says Gearan, who is now president of Hobart and William Smith colleges and has been vetted twice in the past decade.

“The system really favors career civil servants. For candidates coming from the private sector, the complications that can bring [i.e. stock options] are amazing. I’ve seen it knock the wind out of people.”

To navigate this minefield, candidates in years past have had to hire high-priced accountants and attorneys. Previous appointees have claimed they spent between $10,000 and $60,000 on legal and accounting fees, just to make sure they filled out the forms correctly.

For higher-level appointments, there are four required forms plus whatever paperwork the Senate committee overseeing a particular appointment requires. (Blank forms are attached at right). The only completed forms that are made available to the public, the financial disclosure report, require 17 pages of instructions.

While some questions on the various reports ask for detailed specifics, others are so broad it’s hard to know where to start, says Gearan.

For example, question No. 41 on the White House questionnaire asks whether a nominee has “ever had any association with any person, group, or business venture that could be used, even unfairly, to impugn or attack your character and qualifications for a government position?”

Except for the financial disclosure report, all the forms and a candidate’s FBI and IRS files are considered confidential “but pass by many pairs of eyes during the process” said Paul Light, vice president and director of governmental studies at The Brookings Institution.

“I can’t wait to hear what Christie Whitman and some of the other [potential cabinet members] who have never been through this process have to say when it’s done” said Light. “They are really in for a big surprise.”

Would Bush Make the Cut?

Heading Bush’s recruitment efforts are executive director of Bush’s transition, Clay Johnson, Vice President-elect Dick Cheney and chief of staff designate Andy Card. The three men are already weeding out the list for Bush, who sets the criteria for the search and will interview many of the final candidates himself, especially for the top positions, Light said.

As a senior adviser to the Presidential Appointee Initiative, a project run by The Brookings Institute and designed to help candidates through the nomination process, Light advises honesty as the best policy.

“The new administration doesn’t want any surprises. That’s why the investigation is so thorough,” he said. “Its best to be upfront about everything or it could come back to haunt you.”

FBI agents inquire about traffic fines of $150 or more. They also call every former employer and ask if the candidate showed up on time for work. They ask ex-spouses and at least one former high school friend (whose name is provided by the candidate) questions about the nominee’s character.

If George W. Bush had been a presidential appointee he would have been required to disclose his 1976 arrest for drunk driving in Maine, where a judge fined him $150 and suspended his driving privileges.

But as a presidential candidate he didn’t have to go through the vetting process his appointees face. His arrest only came to light about a week before the election after a local Maine television reporter uncovered the story while working on an unrelated county court case.

A Longer Process

The process of vetting candidates dates back to the Eisenhower administration and has grown more grueling over the years as new positions were created and more forms and procedures added.

Since the Kennedy administration, the amount of time it takes to get through the confirmation process has risen from just over two months in 1961 to more than eight months in 1992. It took both the Clinton and Bush administrations about eight months to recruit, evaluate and confirm all 6,000 appointed positions. Only about half of those positions are full-time and about 600 are considered key jobs.

“There’s no doubt it’s going to take longer this time because of the drawn-out election and the Bush team will probably stick to the forms and procedures already in place,” said John Fortier project manager of the Transition to Governing Project at the American Enterprise Institute.

But not all those appointees require a full background check. Fortier estimates only about 1,500 nominees get the special treatment. So far, he says, there aren’t any clear numbers on how many don’t make it each year — or how many quit rather than face the scrutiny.

“Unless you have complete reassurance from the White House that you’ve been nominated, there is no reason you would submit to this process. Most appointments go through,” but it can depend on how well the White House screened its nominees.

Learning From His Predecessor’s Mistakes

For example, the Clinton administration staggered repeatedly as it rushed to fill the top administrative positions without fully reviewing the information garnered during the vetting process.

Zoe Baird, Clinton’s first nominee for attorney general, disclosed she’d employed illegal aliens and hadn’t paid Social Security taxes on their salaries. Next, it was leaked that Kimba Wood would be Clinton’s pick for attorney general, but her trial nomination ended quickly when it became clear Wood also had a “nanny problem.”

Clinton withdrew his nomination of Lani Guinier to head the civil rights division at the Department of Justice, saying he didn’t know her writings were so radical even though they’d been friends for years. And in 1995, there was Henry Foster, Clinton’s nominee for surgeon general. Again, the Clinton administration hadn’t done all its homework. The staff apparently didn’t know how many abortions Foster had performed as an obstetrician/gynecologist, a point that raised the ire of conservatives in Congress and thwarted his nomination.

“Bush really wants to avoid those types of embarrassments. It’s not the best way to start,” said Light.

Part of Being an FBI Agent

In the past, the FBI has reportedly boosted its manpower during the hectic months of investigating as many as 1,500 potential presidential appointees by hiring retired FBI agents and law enforcement officers.

This year, the time crunch will be tighter than ever because the presidential election lasted five weeks longer than usual. To meet the sudden demand, this year’s graduating class from the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va., will be devoted to presidential appointee investigations and all active agents are on call. But looking up the high school sweatheart of an assistant to the deputy chief of some department isn’t exactly the most exciting of assignments, says one agent.

“Applicant investigations are just part of the job of being an agent,” said Jill Stillman, an FBI spokeswoman. “Although for key presidential appointees a new agent will probably be supervised by a more senior agent.”

The FBI currently has 12,000 active agents across the country and any one of them could be called on to look into an appointee’s past.