Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 51
Science and Technology for America’s Progress: Ensuring the Best Presidential Appointments in the New Administration Appendix B BIBLIOGRAPHY Presidential Appointments Aberbach, Joel D., and Bert A. Rockman. In the Web of Politics: Three Decades of the U. S. Federal Executive, Brookings, Washington, DC, 2000. American Bar Association Committee on Government Standards. “Keeping Faith: Government Ethics & Government Ethics Regulations.” Administrative Law Review 45, no. 3 (1993). Auer, Matthew R. “Presidential Environmental Appointees in Comparative Perspective,” Public Administration Review 68, no. 1, (2008) 68-80. Barker, Anthony, and B. Guy Peters. The Politics of Expert Advice: Creating, Using and Manipulating Scientific Knowledge for Public Policy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993. Beckler, David Z. A Decision-Maker’s Guide to Science Advising. New York: Pergamon Press, 1991. Bell, Lauren C. Warring Factions: Interest Groups, Money, and the New Politics of Senate Confirmation. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 2002. Bertelli, Anthony, and Sven E. Feldmann. “Strategic Appointments,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17, no. 1 (2007), 19-38. Brookings Institution. Staffing a New Administration: A Guide to Personnel Appointments in a Presidential Transition, Washington, DC: Brookings, 2000. Brooks, Harvey. The Scientific Adviser. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964. Burtless, Gary. “How Much Is Enough? Setting Pay for Presidential Appointees.” The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 2002. Carter, Stephen L. The Confirmation Mess: Cleaning Up the Federal Appointments Process. Perseus Books Group, 1994. Chandler, Ralph C., and Jack C. Plano. The Public Administration Dictionary. New York: Wiley, 1982. Collingridge, David, and Colin Reeve. Science Speaks to Power. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986. Committee on Governmental Affairs. The Plum Book: United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions. 2004 ed. Washington, DC: Govern-ment Printing Office. U. S. Senate, 108th Congress, 2d Session.
OCR for page 52
Science and Technology for America’s Progress: Ensuring the Best Presidential Appointments in the New Administration Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy. Science and Technology in the National Interest: Presidential Appointments Process, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000. Corley, Pamela A. “Avoiding Advice and Consent: Recess Appointments and Presidential Power,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 36 (2006), pp. 670-680. Council for Excellence in Government and the Presidential Appointee Initiative. A Survivor’s Guide for Presidential Nominees, Washington, DC: Brookings, 2000. Cronin, Thomas E., and Sanford D. Greenberg. The Presidential Advisory System. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Dickinson, Matthew J., and Kathryn D. Tenpas. “Explaining Increasing Turnover Rates Among Presidential Advisers, 1929-1997.” Journal of Politics 64, no. 2 (2002):434. Dickson, David. The New Politics of Science. New York: Pantheon, 1984. Ezrahi, Yaron. “Utopian and Pragmatic Rationalism: The Political Context of Scientific Advice.” Minerva 18 (1980):114. Fisher, Louis. “White House Aides Testifying Before Congress.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 27, no. 1 (1997): 39. Gerhardt, Michael J. The Federal Appointments Process. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000. ———. The Federal Appointments Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003. Gilpin, Robert, and Christopher Wright. Scientists & National Policy Making. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. Goggin, Malcolm L. Governing Science and Technology in a Democracy. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1986. Golden, Sheldon. “The Federal Appointments Process (Book Review).” Political Science Quarterly 116, no. 3 (2001):486. Golden, William T. Science Advice to the President. New York : Pergamon Press, 1980. ———. Science and Technology Advice to the President, Congress and Judiciary. New York: Pergamon Press, 1988. ———. Worldwide Science and Technology Advice to the Highest Levels of Governments . New York: Pergamon Press, 1991. Heclo, Hugh. A Government of Strangers: Executive Politics in Washington. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution, 1977. ———. “The In-and-Outer System: A Critical Assessment.” Political Science Quarterly 103 (1988):37-56. Hess, Stephen. First Impressions: Presidents, Appointments, and the Transition, Washington, D. C.: Brookings, 2000. Hough, Henry. Presidential Appointments to Full-Time Positions in Executive Departments During the 107th Congress, 2001-2002. Washington: Congressional Research Service: 2002. Ingraham, Patricia W. “Building Bridges or Burning Them? The President, the Appointees, and the Bureaucracy.” Public Administration Review 47 (1987):425-435. Jasanoff, Sheila. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.
OCR for page 53
Science and Technology for America’s Progress: Ensuring the Best Presidential Appointments in the New Administration Jones, Charles O. Passages to the Presidency: From Campaigning to Governing, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1998. Labiner, Judith. A Vote of No Confidence: How Americans View Presidential Appointees, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2001. Light, Paul C., and Carole M. Plowfield. “Problems on the Potomac: How Relocation Policies for Presidential Appointees Can Help Win the Talent War.” The Presidential Appointee Initiative, March 22, 2002. Light, Paul C., and Virginia L. Thomas. “The Merit and Reputation of an Administration: Presidential Appointees on the Appointments Process.” The Presidential Appointee Initiative, April 28, 2000. ———. “Posts of Honor: How America’s Corporate and Civic Leaders View Presidential Appointments.” The Presidential Appointee Initiative, January 10, 2001. Mackenzie, G. Calvin. The In-and-Outers: Presidential Appointees and Transient Government in Washington. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1987. ———. Innocent Until Nominated: The Breakdown of the Presidential Appointments Process. Brookings Institution Press, 2001. ———. The Politics of Presidential Appointments. New York: Free Press, 1981. ———. Starting Over: The Presidential Appointment Process, New York: Free Press 1997. Mackenzie, G. Calvin, and Michael Hafken. Scandal Proof: Do Ethics Laws Make Government More Ethical? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. 2002. Mackenzie, G. Calvin, and Judith M. Labiner. “Center for Public Service Report.” Opportunity Lost: The Decline of Trust and Confidence in Government After September 11, 2002. McConnell, Grant. Private Power and American Democracy. New York: Knopf., 1966. Michaels, Judith E. The President’s Call: Executive Leadership from FDR to George Bush. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1997. Miller, Jon D. The American People and Science Policy. New York: Pergamon, 1983. Musell, R. Mark. Comparing the Pay and Benefits of Federal and Nonfederal Executives. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1999. National Academy of Public Administration. The Presidential Appointee’s Handbook, Washington, DC, 1988. ———. Recruiting Presidential Appointees: A Conference of Former Presidential Personnel Assistants, Washington, DC, 1984. Office of Government Ethics. “Post-Employment Conflict of Interest Restrictions.” Federal Register 68, no. 32 (2003):7844. ———. Report on Improvements to the Financial Disclosure Process for Presidential Nominees, 2001. To the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives. Office of Personnel Management. “Guide to the Senior Executive Service.” Web page, [accessed September 8, 2004]. Available at http://www.opm.gov/ses/sesguide-staffing.asp.
OCR for page 54
Science and Technology for America’s Progress: Ensuring the Best Presidential Appointments in the New Administration Panel on Presidentially Appointed Scientists and Engineers, National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engineering/Institute of Medicine. Science and Technology Leadership in American Government: Ensuring the Best Presidential Appointments. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992. President’s Commission on the Federal Appointment Process. The Report of the President’s Commission on the Federal Appointment Process, Washington, DC, 1990. Raines, Franklin D. “A Bipartisan Plan to Improve the Presidential Appointments Process.” Testimony Before the United States Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, 2001. Randall, Ronald. “Presidential Powers Versus Bureaucratic Intransigence: The Influence of the Nixon Administration on Welfare Policy.” American Political Science Review 73, no. 3 (1979):795-810. Report of the National Commission on the Public Service. Urgent Business for America: Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21st Century, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2003. Ripley, Randall R., and Grace A. Franklin. Congress, the Bureaucracy and Public Policy. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey, 1980. Schott, Richard L., and Dagmar S. Hamilton. People, Positions, and Power: The Political Appointments of Lyndon Johnson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Seidman, Harold. Politics, Position, and Power. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, Bruce L. R. “The Advisers: Scientists in the Policy Process.” Washington, DC: Brookings Institution,1992. Sullivan, Terry. Repetitiveness, Redundancy, and Reform: Rationalizing the Inquiry of Presidential Appointees, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2001. Task Force on the Confirmation Process. “Report of the Task Force on the Confirmation Process.” Congressional Record (1992):1348-1352. The Report on the National Commission on the Public Service. Leadership for America: Rebuilding the Public Service, Washington, DC, 1989. Trattner, John H. The 1997 Prune Book: Making the Right Appointments to Manage Washington’s Toughest Jobs. Washington, DC, 1997. ———. The 2000 Prune Book: How to Succeed in Washington’s Top Jobs. Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 2000. U. S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Presidential Appointment Process: Reports of Commissions That Studied the Staffing of Presidential Administrations: A Summary of Their Conclusions and Recommendations for Reform, Washington, DC, 2001. Committee print, 107th Congress, 1st session. ———. The State of the Presidential Appointment Process, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2002. Hearings, 107th Congress, 1st session, April 4-5, 2001 U. S. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. The 9/11 Commission Report, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2004.
OCR for page 55
Science and Technology for America’s Progress: Ensuring the Best Presidential Appointments in the New Administration U. S. Office of Government Ethics. Public Financial Disclosure: A Reviewer’s Reference, Office of Government Ethics, Washington, DC, 1996. ———. Report on Improvements to the Financial Disclosure Process for Presidential Nominees, Washington, DC, 2001. U. S. Office of Personnel Management. Federal Civilian Workforce Statistics: Pay Structure of the Federal Civil Service As of March 31, 2001, Washington, DC, 2001. Wolanin, Thomas. Presidential Advisory Committees. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. Zink, Steven D. Guide to the Presidential Advisory Commissions, 1973-84. Alexandria, VA: Chadwyk Healey, Inc., 1987. Federal Advisory Committees American Public Health Association. Ensuring the Scientific Credibility of Government Public Health Advisory Committees. Washington, DC. Ard, Catherine F., and Marvin R. Natowicz. “A Seat at the Table: Membership in Federal Advisory Committees Evaluating Public Policy in Genetics.” American Journal of Public Health 91, no. 5 (2001):787-790. Areen, Judith, Steven Goldberg, Patricia A. King, and Alexander M. Capron. Law, Science, and Medicine (1996):397. Ashford, Nicholas A. “Advisory Committees in OSHA and EPA: Their Use in Regulatory Decisionmaking.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 9 (1984). Aurelia, Laurie. “The Federal Advisory Committee Act and Its Failure to Work Effectively in the Environmental Context.” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 25 (1995):87. Bybee, Jay S. “Advising the President: Separation of Powers and the Federal Advisory Committee Act.” Yale Law Journal 104 (1994):51-73. Croley, Steven P. “Practical Guidance on the Applicability of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.” The American University Administrative Law Journal 10 (1996):111. Croley, Steven P. and William F. Funk. “The Federal Advisory Committee Act and Good Government.” Yale Journal on Regulation 14 (1997):451. Domhoff, G. William. The Powers That Be. New York: Vintage, 1967. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General. Science Policy Council Handbook: Peer Review. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2000. ———. Science to Support Rulemaking, 2002. Report 2003-P-00003. Washington, DC. European Parliament. Transparency and Openness in Scientific Advisory Committees: The American Experience, 1999. General Accounting Office. “Federal Advisory Committee Act: General Services Administration’s Oversight of Advisory Committees.” 1998. GAO Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO/GGD-98-124. ———. Federal Advisory Committee Act: Views of Committee Members and Agencies on Federal Advisory Committee Issues, 1998. GAO Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO/GGD-98-147.
OCR for page 56
Science and Technology for America’s Progress: Ensuring the Best Presidential Appointments in the New Administration ———. Federal Advisory Committees: Additional Guidance Could Help Agencies Better Ensure Independence and Balance. 2004. GAO-04-328. ______. “Federal Research: Peer Review Procedures at Federal Science Agencies Vary.” Web page, March 1999. Available at http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99099.pdf. GAO/RCED-99-99. ———. “General Accounting Office Report.” Peer Review Practices at Federal Science Agencies Vary, 1999. ———. “General Accounting Office Reports and Testimony.” Federal Advisory Committees: Additional Guidance Could Help Agencies Better Ensure Independence and Balance, General Accounting Office, 2004. ———. “Views of Committee Members and Agencies on Federal Advisory Committee Issues.” GAO Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO/GGD-98-147. General Accounting Office. “EPA’s Science Advisory Board Panels: Improved Policies and Procedures Needed to Ensure Independence and Balance.” Web page, June 2001 [accessed October 14, 2008]. GAO-01-536. http://www. gao.gov/new.items/d01536.pdf. Glode, Elizabeth R. “Advising Under the Influence? Conflicts of Interest Among FDA Advisory Committee Members.” Food and Drug Law Journal 57 (2002): 293. Karty, K. D. “Closure and Capture in Federal Advisory Committees.” Business and Politics 4, no. 2 (2002):213-238. Kello, Carolyn Bingham. “Drawing the Curtain on Open Government? In Defense of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.” Brooklyn Law Review 69 (2003):345-393. Long, Rebecca J., and Thomas C. Beierle. The Federal Advisory Committee Act and Public Participation in Environmental Policy. 1999. Discussion Paper 99-17. McGarity, Thomas O. “Peer Review in Awarding Federal Grants in the Arts and Sciences.” High Technology Law Journal 9 (1994):1. Mongan, Michael J. “Fixing FACA: The Case for Exempting Presidential Advisory Committees from Judicial Review under the Federal Advisory Committee Act,” Stanford Law Review 58 (2005):895-934. Moore, Gwen, Sarah Sobieraj, J. Allen Whitt, Olga Mayorova, and Daniel Beaulieu. “Elite Interlocks in Three U. S. Sectors: Nonprofit, Corporate, and Government.” Social Science Quarterly 83, no. 3 (2002):726-744. Murphy, Brian C. Review of Implementation of the Federal Advisory Act, Washington, DC. Report prepared for the Office of Management and Budget, 2002. National Institutes of Health. National Institutes of Health Committee Management Handbook. 2003. National Institutes of Health Peer Review Regulations, 42 CFR Part 52. 1997. National Research Council. Peer Review in Environmental Technology Development Programs: The Department of Energy’s Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998. Office of Management and Budget A-63. “Advisory Committee Management.” 1974.
OCR for page 57
Science and Technology for America’s Progress: Ensuring the Best Presidential Appointments in the New Administration Office of Management and Budget, General Services Administration. Annual Report of the President on Federal Advisory Committees, 1972-1998. Priest, T. B., Richard T. Sylves, and David F. Scudder. “Corporate Advice: Large Corporations and Federal Advisory Committees.” Social Science Quarterly 65(1): 100-111. Renn, Ortwin. “Style of Using Scientific Expertise: A Comparative Framework.” Science and Public Policy 22, no. 3 (1995). Shapiro, Sidney A. Public Accountability of Advisory Committees, 1 Risk: Issues Health & Safety 189 at 190-192. 1990. St. Hill, H., T. A. Redman, and L. M. Mehlberg. “Allied Health Representations: A Call for Action.” Journal of Allied Health 30, no. 2 (2001):117-121. Star, Jeffrey A. “The Federal Advisory Committee Act: A Key to Washington’s Back Door.” South Dakota Law Review 20 (1975). Steinbrook, Robert. “Science, Politics, and Federal Advisory Committees.” The New England Journal of Medicine 350, no. 14 (2004):1454-1460. Subcommittee on Reports, Accounting and Management. Energy Advisors: An Analysis of Federal Advisory Committees Dealing With Energy, Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board. Overview of the Panel Formation Process at the Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC. Wegman, Richard A. “The Utilization and Management of Federal Advisory Committees.” 1983. A report of the Charles F. Kettering Foundation. Wolff, Andrea L. “The Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Executive Privilege: Resolving the Separation of Powers Issue.” Seton Hall Constitutional Journal 5 (1995):1023.
OCR for page 58
Science and Technology for America’s Progress: Ensuring the Best Presidential Appointments in the New Administration This page intentionally left blank.