The Vetting Process
By Dr. Rizwana Rahim
Chicago, IL
If you haven’t heard of it yet, you haven’t been following the post-election process closely, particularly the choice of a Vice President, or how the Job Fair works for other positions in the new administration.
In recent weeks, we have seen the President-Elect roll out some of the most anticipated nominees for his cabinet position. Before that the potential candidates are put through a 'vetting process'. The process is nothing new, perhaps updated for the 21st century, as the campaigning itself was.
We have heard the recurring complaint how Gov. Sarah Palin was not properly or thoroughly ‘vetted’ before Sen. John McCain announced she would be his VP. Basically, it is a job application, but it’s much more than that -covering not just professional qualifications for the job (experience, accomplishments and membership in relevant professional societies, etc.), but, evolving over the years into a multi-page questionnaire form (Obama’s included), to cover almost everything else about you and yours that you have never been asked for any job before, and that too with verifiable documentation. A personal torture, I might say, you are not just willing to go through, subjecting all your loved ones along with you, but seeking to go through after submitting decades of personal records assembled with some effort.
For the other side, though, I mean those involved in the ‘vetting’ process, it is not just a matter of making an important choice, with a room-full of independent attorneys who must first develop the best qualified, subjecting each in the short-list to a fine-toothed comb, asking, if needed, for additional information or explanation. Obviously, NOT a process (and it’s a ‘process’ too, mind you!) that we go through buying a car, a house, or a shirt.
Why do some of us want to go through this? It’s a rare honor to be considered, prestigious public service sought at much reduced government salaries, under public glare of everything you do, will do or have done (if you want to be that facetious). Why do they, the ‘vettors’ do it? A preventive measure, based on a not-too-pleasant history of the ‘chosen’ few in past administrations who had to face some pre-appointment controversies and embarrassments. We are not looking for people who are just our best-qualified peers, but peers (and their loved ones) without a hint of an odor of embarrassing past or a mere faux pas over the past decade or more.
Vetting, perhaps ironically, had to do originally with ‘veterinary’ care: physical examination/check-up, evaluation of an animal (originally a horse-racing term). An apt term for this political appointment process, you might say!
For Obama’s cabinet and other high-level positions in his administration, the vetting questionnaire that I saw is a seven-page document of 63 questions, covering eight broad categories - “Professional Background,” “Publications, Writing & Speeches,” “Relationships and Affiliations,” “Financial Information,” “Tax Information,” “Legal and Administrative Proceedings,” “Domestic Help,” and “Miscellaneous.” Some of these questions may be characterized as open-ended, personal, and somewhat invasive, and have been discussed in the press in relation to certain candidates.
For instance: “Briefly describe the most controversial matters you have been involved with during the course of your career” (#8); "If you have ever sent an electronic communication, including but not limited to an e-mail, text message or instant message, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-elect if it were made public, please describe." (#13); “If applicable, please list the names, addresses and phone numbers of cohabitants within the last ten years. A cohabitant is a person with whom you share bonds of affection, obligation, or other commitment, as opposed to a person with whom you live for reasons of convenience (a roommate) (#57); "Please provide the URL address of any websites that feature you in either a personal or professional capacity, e.g. Facebook, My Space, etc." (#58); “Do you know anyone or any organization ... that might take steps, overtly or covertly, fairly or unfairly, to criticize your nomination, including any news organization?” (#62). Look at # 18 which asks if not just you but also “your spouse or any member of your immediate family” have been affiliated with financial institutions getting a government bailout, and # 31 which asks the applicant to identify financial documents that the applicant will not release (taxes, loan/mortgages, partnerships, etc).
Almost none of these questions are without any reason. Why would any administration want a public controversy over any questionable part of any applicant’s background after appointment? Just to avoid problems that appeared in the past. Democratic Presidential nominee, George McGovern, was surprised in 1972 when medical and psychiatric health records of his chosen VP, Thomas Eagleton of Missouri came out and were being exploited in the press (Eagleton had to withdraw, which led McGovern to chose a replacement, Sargent Shriver, the first Head of Peace Corps (father of Maria, CA First Lady, and husband of a JFK sister). The question on ‘Domestic Help’ may sound trivial, but two Clinton nominees in 1993 for Attorney General had problems in the area, which led Clinton to choose Janet Reno.
It doesn’t really mean that aside from the appointed officials, the past Presidents themselves had no such problems. John Adams had several nervous breakdowns; Franklin Pierce was an alcoholic; Abraham Lincoln had near-suicidal bouts of depression; Rutherford Hayes, in his youth, used to wander about the streets of Sandusky, OH, weeping uncontrollably. But in this digital age of blogs, YouTube and MySpace, things have changed remarkably, a tremendous tool to help those interested in negative campaigning.
Even if one can survive such close scrutiny, the successful applicant isn’t home free: there is another clearance process by the FBI and the Office of Government Ethics. Then, for the nominees of the Cabinet positions, there is the process of Senate hearings for confirmation.
So, why would someone want to go through this? For prestige, honor and power! Doesn’t this exclude qualified people who are unwilling or unable for some reason to go through the increasingly stringent ‘vetting’ process? Yes, it does, and the loss is ours!
As for me, thanks, but no thanks. Don’t call me; I’ll call you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
