482 Chapter 13 | The Bureaucracythey receive a complaint about bureaucratic actions, then focus investigative efforts
on those cases. This practice is labeled fire alarm oversight.^60 The so-called fire alarm
that sets off an investigation can take many different forms. Constituents may let their
congressional representatives or their staff know of a problem with the bureaucracy.
Similarly, lobbyists, corporate executives, and ordinary citizens often contact the
president and his or her staff with complaints. Newspaper reporters and Internet
bloggers also provide information on what bureaucrats are doing. In addition, some
agencies have advisory committees that not only help make agency decisions but also
keep Congress and the president informed about their agencies’ actions.^61
The case of the Park Service Twitter account mentioned at the beginning of this
chapter is a clear example of fire alarm oversight. After major media outlets reported
on the tweet ban, many members of Congress demanded that it be rescinded. Faced
with this response, the White House quietly allowed the Park Service to start tweeting
again. These fire alarms provide exactly the sort of information that Congress and
the president often lack about how bureaucrats are implementing laws and directives,
including cases in which bureaucrats are doing (or planning to do) something that
contradicts their mandate. Such communications tell Congress and the president
where to focus their efforts to monitor the bureaucracy, drawing their attention to
agencies or programs in which problems have been reported and removing the need to
try to oversee the entire government at once.Correcting Violations
When members of Congress or the president find a case of bureaucratic drift, they can
take steps to influence the bureaucrats’ actions. Many tactics can be used to bring a
wayward agency into line. Legislation or an executive order can send a clear directive to
an agency or remove its discretion, tasks and programs can be moved to an agency that
is more closely aligned with elected officials’ goals, political appointees at an agency
can be replaced, and agencies can be reorganized. For example, one consequence of the
Trump administration’s slow process of making political appointments, particularly
for the State Department, was a shift in policy-making power to individuals in the
White House.
One of the most significant difficulties in dealing with bureaucratic drift is
disagreement between members of Congress and the president about whether an
agency is doing the right thing—regardless of whether the agency is following its
original orders. Many strategies for influencing an agency’s behavior require joint
action by the president and congressional majorities. Without presidential support,
members of Congress need a two-thirds majority to impose corrections. Without
congressional support, the president can only threaten to cut an agency’s proposed
budget, change its home within the federal bureaucracy, or set up a new agency to
do what the errant agency refuses to do. Actually carrying out these threats requires
congressional approval. As a result, disagreements between the president and
Congress can give an agency significant freedom, as long as it retains the support of at
least one branch of government.
An agency may also be able to fend off elected officials’ attempts to take political
control if it has a reputation for expertise. For example, one reason that attempts to pass
legislation forcing the FDA to alter its drug-approval process have had little success is
that the FDA’s process is thought to have worked mostly as intended, approving new
drugs that are safe and effective and keeping ineffective or unsafe drugs off the market.
At the same time, the FDA has responded to pressure from Congress and the president
to revise some rules on its own.^62fire alarm oversight
A method of oversight in which
members of Congress respond to
complaints about the bureaucracy
or problems of implementation only
as they arise rather than exercising
constant vigilance.One reason that attempts to pass
legislation forcing the FDA to alter its
drug-approval process have had little
success is that the FDA’s process is
considered to have worked mostly as
intended: approving new drugs that
are safe and effective, and keeping
ineffective or unsafe drugs off the
market.Full_14_APT_64431_ch13_454-487.indd 482 16/11/18 1:45 PM