The continuing series of recent scandals concerning the executive (and to a lesser extent) the legislative branches of the federal government all have one thing in common: those involved in misdeeds were "political" appointees.

The civil service was established in the late 19th Century to correct the abuses of the "spoils" system in place before that. It has been revised periodically since then to both expand its scope and contrariwise to increase the power of political appointees.

Perhaps it is time to reconsider the way agencies are staffed.

There are three areas that could be examined. The first is to restrict the number of political appointees and to require they be vetted by an independent body. This body would be under the control of one of the other branches, so it could be a permanent part of the legislator like the Congressional Research Service, or it could be part of the judiciary and composed of retired judges or similar people.

In addition to reviewing appointments this group would make recommendations as to whether the person should be installed in office. This recommendation would then go to the senate for consideration and approval. The number of appointments requiring confirmation would be increased so that everyone in a position of authority is covered. Similarly when people are to be dismissed their case would be reviewed not only by the personnel group in the appropriate department but by the review committee as well to make sure that dismissals are not politically motivated.

The second reform would be to reduce the number of such appointments. For each agency only a handful of top jobs would be political. This is fair because the winning party wants to see its political philosophy transmitted to the executive departments, but once policy directions have been set forth the actual implementation should be left to the career members of the department. They have the experience, expertise and understanding of where policies may conflict with existing laws or regulations. Not being political appointees there independence shouldn't be tampered with.

In addition to limiting the number of political appointees in the cabinet departments the same thing should happen in the White House. There is no reason to have partisan political advisers working in the government. Persons working for the president would have to remove themselves from affiliation with their political party. If the president needs to consult with his party it should be at the party's premises and with people not in the executive branch. This would still allow the president to discuss political strategy with members of congress.

The last is to stiffen the rules about moving from government into lobbying or the industries one has just been involved with as a government employee. The current time limit on employment is too short and is frequently evaded by working for an intermediary during the waiting period. I don't have a quick answer to how this should be structured, but the present system is broken. There have been many cases where captains of industry have become "dollar a year men" to lend their expertise to government for a short while and then go back to their firms. This seems to have been useful especially during prior emergencies like the depression and WWII. But the type of person involved in the present revolving door system does not belong to this class. They are seldom leaders in their firms, but usually "fixers" who are put into government to influence legislation in behalf of their (former) employers, rather than for the good of the country as a whole.

The first step is to realize that the civil service system is broken and to start a dialog on steps for reform. One can't fix a problem if the fact that a problem exists isn't recognized.