A sign outside the Smithsonan

House wants to know if free work from feds is legal

A House panel is probing the particulars of which employees can be required to work during a lapse in appropriations.

Most employees whose pay is covered by appropriations are furloughed during a shutdown, but excepted employees stay on for emergency work without pay to protect the safety of human life or property.

It isn't always clear what operations meet the life and property exception. The duration of the most recent shutdown put agencies in an especially difficult bind, prompting creative alternatives to bring employees back to carry out operations.

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies questioned the legality of some of those alternatives during a Feb. 6 hearing.

Subcommittee Chairwoman Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) announced she would be requesting an investigation and opinion from the Government Accountability Office about the legality of the Department of Interior's decision to use money collected through fees to pay for operations at National Park Service sites during the shutdown.

"Today, I'm more than convinced, sadly, the administration has ignored the law and the policies the agencies have had in place for years," she said.

During the shutdown, the National Park Service tapped into funds collected through entrance fees to maintain operations. These fees are legally authorized to fund "repair, maintenance, and facility enhancement related directly to visitor enjoyment, visitor access, and health and safety."

GAO's Managing Associate General Counsel Julie Matta testified that while the investigative arm has not issued any legal opinions regarding NPS's fees to date, agencies are prohibited from switching funding sources "because one account has run out of money."

"In the fees situation," she added, "we'd be looking at what are the purposes that Park Services' general operating appropriations were made for, what are the statutory purposes for the fees, is there overlap, has the agency elected one appropriation over the overlap and thus, should it be required to adhere to that?"

Members of the committee also raised concerns about the change of course regarding federal employees who were initially sent home at the outset of the shutdown, only to be called back later on.

Sam Berger, an attorney at the Office of Management and Budget from 2010 to 2015 who worked on the governmentwide guidance issued ahead of the 2013 shutdown, said the deviation from the initial contingency plans "raises concerns about whether the law was followed."

"Agencies are supposed to plan for those circumstances, so when they make that change, it makes you ask why," he said.

Berger, now the senior advisor at the Center for American Progress, noted that "these types of changes are even more surprising given that agencies implemented their plans over a multi-week period just five years ago, and subsequently revised plans to reflect that experience."

He also pointed to an IRS plan to recall about 36,000 employees three weeks into the shutdown, most of whom were called back to process tax returns, as a move of questionable legality.

"Agencies create shutdown plans for a reason, and making significant changes in the middle of a funding lapse undermines many of the reasons for undertaking such planning efforts in the first place," he said.

The administration's handling of the shutdown has come under fire across government.

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon warned the White House that the IRS plan could be illegal and grounds for judicial intervention.

Currently, three lawsuits are working their way through the court against the administration challenging the legality of requiring some federal employees, regardless of excepted status, to work without pay. Their next hearing is scheduled for Feb. 22.

On the Senate side, Mark Warner (D-Va.) said recently that whether Congress should step in and evaluate at determinations of who is deemed essential and nonessential in a government "is a legitimate question."

Reader comments

Mon, Apr 1, 2019 James Davis Sacramento

Isn't in necessary to protect critical people and resources? Would anyone say we should open our AF bases and not protect nuclear bombs? Just let our white supremacists come in to arm themselves? There has to be a plan and I'm sure there is. Some times we work for a week or month and get paid. In this case we work for maybe several months and get paid. Maybe hopefully with interest. Peace to you all.

Mon, Apr 1, 2019

The root of the problem can be laid directly at the feet of Congress when they broke the law requiring that they pass a budget for each department. Their favorite trick of passing an omnibus budget is patently illegal.

Thu, Feb 14, 2019

Eliminate the congressional and senate financial compensations and benefits package. Let them work for free since they have bilked the system for years. The special interest groups will still pay them under the table and business will go on as usual.

Tue, Feb 12, 2019

Put the whole elected lot in prison in regards to the shutdown. This includes Pelosi, Schumer, McConnel and the residents of the white house. They are all criminals against our nations best interests.

Mon, Feb 11, 2019

No other employer has the option to force workers to work without pay, what makes the federal government so special? We should be a model employer not the bottom of the heap.

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

Contributors

Edward A. Zurndorfer Certified Financial Planner
Mike Causey Columnist
Tom Fox VP for Leadership and Innovation, Partnership for Public Service
Mathew B. Tully Legal Analyst

Free E-Newsletter

FederalDAILY

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.

Stay Connected

Latest Forum Posts

Ask the Expert

Have a question regarding your federal employee benefits or retirement?

Submit a question