The Budget as Control
There are several strategies for controlling the activities of agencies. One of them is through budget restrictions. This strategy is commonly deployed by the President to direct agencies because they are not permitted to increase budgets or exceed the established thresholds. It is one of the elements of the President’s executive control. Therefore, the decision to control agencies through the budget is solely political because it allows the President to allocate the desirable volume of resources and make the agencies act according to it.
The effectiveness of this control tool depends on the scope of the agency’s activities as well as the volume of changes in the budget. However, they are effective for political influence. One of the instances of budgeting changes is the constraint of the IT budget for most of the federal agencies across the US. Still, it was not effective because agencies managed to cope with the crisis by decreasing the rate of expenditures and shifting to cheaper providers of services and manufacturers of hardware. If the constraining entity wanted to control agencies in such a way, it should have selected another area for constraining activities – that inseparable from cooperation with the entity itself, not one with numerous alternatives.
The Use of Executive Removal Powers
The President has executive powers to remove officers from federal executive agencies and independent federal agencies. However, to make a removal decision, it is essential to correspond with several requirements. For instance, to remove an officer from a federal executive agency, failing to follow directives or any other reason sufficient and adequate under the Constitution and legal acts. Speaking of independent federal agencies, regardless of removal restrictions, a sufficient reason for removing an officer is the negligence of legally predetermined job duties, inefficiency, and malfeasance in office (Rao, 2014).
Any other good cause is as well legally acceptable for removing the officer. Some good causes may include law violations or serious illnesses affecting performance. Still, there is one condition common for both types of agencies – only those officers performing executive functions can be removed by the President because they are under President’s chain of command according to the Constitution (Rao, 2014). In any case, it is imperative to prove that the cause of removal is good and there is a real need to remove the offices from the occupied position.
Judicial Review of Agencies
Judicial review of agencies is one of the cornerstones of administrative procedures. It is critical for assuring that agency decision are fair so that they protect both public and private interests and support social justice. At the same time, there are needed for checking the speed of agency activities to guarantee that no time is wasted and correspondence with legal provisions to assure the legitimacy of actions (Code of Federal Regulations, 2012).
Judicial review is conducted by courts. They review whether the agencies act by their statutes and laws. Nevertheless, to initiate the review, it is critical to make sure that several requirements are met. For instance, it is essential to point to the unconstitutionality of the agency’s statute or actions. In this case, the pointing should be clear and violations should be obvious. Also, there should be no personal interest in bringing a case.
Finally, cases can be brought if an agency does no satisfy the request of legally bounding actions – ignores laws and the Constitution. The court will review each case to conclude on the correspondence with laws and the Constitution. If the reviews are precluded by agency statutes, the court can still initiate the review under the standards known as an abuse of discretion and evaluate agency’s activities to find out whether this abuse is real (Code of Federal Regulations, 2012).
Federal Tort Claims Act and Violations of the Federal Constitution and Laws
The Supreme Court enacted the Westfall Act to guarantee that federal employees are not sued for any torts within their employment scopes (Mace, 2014). In other words, under the provisions of this Act, federal employees are provided with absolute immunity. The document was enacted as a response to the Westfall v. Erwin case that stated that federal employees could be liable for torts within the scope of their employment. Therefore, the enactment of the new legal provision was imperative for protecting them (Mace, 2014). Still, the enactment of the document does not mean that constitutional violations performed by state officials are ignored. Instead, violations of federal and statutory provisions are perceived as constitutional violations, and federal employees are not granted immunities in case of revealing such torts.
Administrative Agency Budget as Performance Control Tool
Budgeting of administrative agencies can be used as one of the tools for performance because agencies cannot increase the budget allocated by the government. It is the element of the President’s executive powers. Therefore, budgeting can be deployed for performance checks by monitoring whether declared goals are met and resources are allocated to meet the initially stated objectives. Controlling can be conducted by audits of the agency’s activities and correspondence of the agency’s budget with the governmental allocations.
References
Code of Federal Regulations. (2012). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Mace, C. T. (Ed.). (2014). Federal manager’s handbook (4th ed.). Glen Allen, VA: FEDweek.
Rao, N. (2014). Removal: Necessary and sufficient for presidential control. Alabama Law Review, 65(5), 1205-1276.