White House Chief of Staff Claims USDA Move Was Deliberate Attempt to Reduce Agency Workforce
White House Chief of Staff Claims USDA Move Was Deliberate Attempt to Reduce Agency Workforce
Following a June 2019 announcement that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would move most of the employees of the Economic Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture from Washington D.C. to Kansas City, the AP has reported that the move appears to have involved a deliberate attempt to cut the agency’s workforce. The move, which the USDA claims is being made to reduce costs and bring the agency offices closer to farmers and agribusiness, was announced in June and workers were given only a month to decide whether they would relocate. The option presented to workers was move or be fired, and on August 7 termination notices went out to those who decided not to move.
Despite the stated reasons for the move, comments made by acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney indicate that it was in fact a deliberate attempt to gut the agency’s existing workforce. Mulvaney told a group of Republicans in his home state of South Carolina that relocating offices was “a wonderful way to streamline government” and that while it was “nearly impossible “ to fire federal workers, many will not be willing to move to “the real part of the country.” Following these statements, a USDA spokesman tried to downplay them stating that they were made through a political lens at a political event and that the move will save the agency a significant amount of money, money that can instead be dedicated to the agency’s research efforts.
The agency’s own inspector general’s office concluded that the USDA may have violated federal law by moving forward on the relocation without advancing funding approval from Congress. An estimated 55% of the affected workers have chosen not to move, especially more senior staff members with roots and families in the Washington D.C. area. The Washington Post previously reported that large scale moves of this nature are very rare in the federal government and that based on experience with past, smaller agency moves, the government expected the reassignment take-up to be low. While the USDA claims that it has an aggressive hiring plan to fill the vacancies, experts worry about the loss of knowledge with one stating “You’re losing that expertise you can’t just buy back” and another saying “This is a move to cripple an institution that’s vital to the researchers in the U.S. and ultimately U.S. agriculture.”
| Update: On September 29 Government Executive published an article that gave details of an internal USDA memorandum that stated reports generated by the Economic Research Service (ERS) would be delayed or discontinued altogether as a result of the relocation (transferred employees were due to report to a temporary Kansas City office on the 29th). The article reported that ERS had delayed the move of some employees as well as delayed the separation of others to avoid disruption (over half of their employees declined the relocation and chose to leave the agency) and that these measures would ensure that all congressionally mandated reports would be released on time. However, many could be shortened or missing features as a result of staff shortages. The memo warned that monthly season-average commodity price forecasts—reports used by USDA’s Risk Management Agency and World Agricultural Outlook Board—could see delays as early as October, depending on which staffers leave the agency, and the Monthly Food Price Outlook is expected to be delayed in October, November and December. Additionally other planned reports outside these mandatory reports could see delays or be cancelled all together, with reports that have yet to begin the peer review process most at risk. The memo also referenced the fact that “officials still have work to do in communicating the many projected delays to people who rely on ERS reports.”
|
This is a blatant move to circumvent Civil Service employment law. I suspect a class action lawsuit is likely to be brought and taxpayers will see no savings in payroll costs but will be burdened with hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees that are caused by the megalomania of Trump and the toadies he has installed in his administration.