The court case about USDA reorganization is interesting from a number of perspectives. There is a separation of powers question.. what is the executive branch allowed to do without the explicit approval of Congress? Is this different, for say, rulemaking than for cancelling leases or moving employees? What kinds of decisions trigger Congressional approval? How different is the statutory backdrop to these questions between Interior and USDA? In this post, I’ll give some historical background and next post look more into this specific case.
As an old person, I remember many previous reorganization efforts. Remember when the research parts of the Interior bureaus were taken out and put together in the National Biological Survey? It later got folded in to the USGS. I think it was Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt’s idea.
Then there was BLM getting rid of a management layer, hoping to streamline. Here’s what Google AI says, and I’m hoping humans out there will correct if AI got it wrong.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) attempted to remove its district office layer of management in 1994 as part of the Clinton administration’s broader “National Performance Review” initiative (commonly known as “reinventing government” led by Vice President Al Gore). [1, 2]Under Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, the plan aimed to streamline the agency by eliminating the intermediate district office level—which sat between the state offices and local field/resource area offices—to reduce costs and speed up decision-making. [1, 2, 3]However, the restructuring was highly decentralized and met with mixed execution:
-
Inconsistent adoption: Some BLM state directors complied and dismantled their district offices, while others resisted, viewing the move as overly disruptive and expensive. [1]
-
Outcome: The initiative was widely considered a failure due to high relocation costs and broken lease agreements. The management layer was quietly restored across the agency during the subsequent George W. Bush administration. [1, 2]
**********************
Again, here is what the Clinton Admin did with USDA Reorganization according to Google AI, again, please correct if it is wrong. Note that there was an Act of Congress, which is what the judge points out seems to be lacking for the current Admin effort.
- Establishment of Mission Areas: The department was organized along six centralized mission areas overseen by newly created Under Secretary positions:
- Agency Streamlining: It combined several functions to build the Consolidated Farm Service Agency (handling price/income supports and agricultural credit) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). [1, 2]
- National Appeals Division: The act set up an independent National Appeals Division to give farmers a neutral forum to dispute adverse decisions made by USDA agencies. [1, 2]
- Personnel Reductions: The legislation mandated a workforce reduction of at least 7,500 full-time employees by September 30, 1999. [1, 2]
- Field Office Closures: To eliminate redundancies, the administration closed or consolidated over 1,100 localized field offices. [1]
- One-Stop Service Centers: It established unified “USDA Service Centers,” co-locating the Farm Service Agency, the NRCS, and Rural Development agencies so farmers could access multiple services under a single roof. [1]
- Financial Savings: The restructuring was projected to save taxpayers roughly $3.7 billion in personnel and operating expenses between 1994 and 1999. [1]
*************
So, if AI is correct (and I had to add the Clinton Admin to my search to get away from AI getting stuck on current events), USDA had a specific Congressional Act at the time for its previous reorganization, the objectives of which sound surprisingly similar to those of today.
But more recently, the BLM headquarters was moved to Grand Junction, Colorado, and I don’t remember that being stopped by a judge. So, is there a statutory difference between Interior and USDA? Did no one decide to bring a suit? What was different?
Also, the USWFS was formed, and many people disagreed with that. But did no one file a lawsuit against that?
Here are the folks who filed this lawsuit..according to Google AI..
- Federal Labor Unions:
- Nonprofit Organizations:
- Including groups like Democracy Forward [1]
- Cities and Counties:
- Various local government municipalities and counties across the country
Here’s what Google AI says about why unions went along with Clinton era cuts..
Union Reaction: Major federal employee unions initially raised concerns and cautioned that cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs could strain public services, but the administration’s partnership framework and reliance on attrition/buyouts prevented the severe, chaotic labor friction typical of unilateral workforce slashing. [1, 2, 3]
Of course, many years have gone by since, and at the end of the legal day, this Admin also relied on attrition-buyouts, at least for the FS. As a non-legal person, it’s definitely puzzling. Maybe folks out there have some answers, or at least hypotheses.
Next post: what are the key issues in this lawsuit?