Around 500 government positions require Senate confirmation, in keeping with the "advise and consent" provision of the Constitution. In the Kennedy years this process took less than two and a half months; now it takes eight months.

Academics in the public administration field have joined with former government officials, think tanks and others in decrying the difficulties of having the federal government run on automatic pilot for these early months of a new administration. According to some, the appointment process "has become a monster." Others call it "a national disgrace."

"The ordeal repels the successful and creative people needed to run a modern government" and deters creative people from taking on government jobs that "are among the most prestigious and exciting in the world," according to Colby College American government professor G.C. MacKenzie.

This problem is being assessed — and addressed — by Congressional committees as well as by the Brookings Institution, a highly esteemed Washington think-tank. In early April, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held two days of hearings to examine the process and ascertain its effects on public service. Here are samples of the testimony:

The confirmation process has "become more extensive, more onerous and more complicated by a factor of at least two" in the past 10 years, according to Sean O’Keefe, former Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director.

The process "takes too long," said Rob N. Nash, who served during Democratic administrations. "It’s too long for potential appointees to put their lives on hold. It is also too long for an important position to be left vacant as we scrutinize the nominee’s background." Finally, it reduces the number of qualified applicants "willing to go through the process." 

Nash went on to make several specific recommendations:

• Shorten the process to four months

• Eliminate the full field investigation for jobs that do not deal with defense, national security or justice issues

• Reduce the financial disclosure form by half

• Reduce the number of Senate-confirmed positions on part-time boards and commissions

Likewise, the Brookings study calls the process "embarrassing, confusing and unfair." Brookings suggests that the process may be failing at its most basic task. "It does not give appointees the information they need to act in their best interest throughout the process, does not move fast enough to give the government departments and agencies the leadership they need to faithfully execute the laws, and produces a less than enviable pool of actual appointees. More than three-quarters of the Reagan, Bush and Clinton appointees rated their colleagues as a ‘mixed lot,’ while only 11 percent considered their colleagues the best and the brightest."

Professor MacKenzie believes the process is undermining the character of government itself. Rather than permitting a new administration to bring in new blood, it results in reliance on a so-called "governing class" — individuals who come from the Washington metropolitan area, especially from think tanks, Congressional staff, special interest groups, and trade associations.

The Brookings group makes these observations in their study’s conclusion:

"…The process for nominating and confirming America’s most senior government leaders is weak. The nation must address the growing toll the presidential process takes on nominees for office. Not only must America’s civic and corporate institutions be more willing to ‘let their people go’ to Washington for service, the President and Congress must work harder to ‘let those people come’ by creating a simpler, fairer, faster appointment process."