Unfortunately the article is unclear: was the overruling by appointees or civil servants? This distinction is crucial for any repair to the system.
There is unfortunately a serious and destructive plan from one of the political parties to abandon the Pendleton act and return to the spoils system. If that happens we will see a lot more of this happening.
It had to be the appointee. The analysis was squashed at a low level by a procedural technicality, and the issue was too significant for the agency head to be uninvolved. On paper though, everyone's hands are clean.
Unfortunately the article is unclear: was the overruling by appointees or civil servants? This distinction is crucial for any repair to the system.
There is unfortunately a serious and destructive plan from one of the political parties to abandon the Pendleton act and return to the spoils system. If that happens we will see a lot more of this happening.