[Infowarrior] - The invasive Obama employment questionairre

[Richard Forno]

(For anyone thinking of applying for a senior-level job with the Obama  
Administration, you might need to take out a second mortgage to fund  
the research these guys are asking of you.   I can understand their  
desire to avoid political embarrassment but some of these questions  
and the timeframes involved are unbelievable -- they should reimburse  
applicants for the time and trouble!  -rf)

The questionairre:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/13apply_questionnaire.pdf

November 13, 2008
For a Washington Job, Be Prepared to Tell All
By JACKIE CALMES

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/politics/13apply.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON — Want a top job in the Obama administration? Only pack  
rats need apply, preferably those not packing controversy.

A seven-page questionnaire being sent by the office of President-elect  
Barack Obama to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts may  
be the most extensive — some say invasive — application ever.

The questionnaire includes 63 requests for personal and professional  
records, some covering applicants’ spouses and grown children as well,  
that are forcing job-seekers to rummage from basements to attics, in  
shoe boxes, diaries and computer archives to document both their  
achievements and missteps.

Only the smallest details are excluded; traffic tickets carrying fines  
of less than $50 need not be reported, the application says.  
Applicants are asked whether they or anyone in their family owns a  
gun. They must include any e-mail that might embarrass the president- 
elect, along with any blog posts and links to their Facebook pages.  
[Application at nytimes.com/washington.]

The application also asks applicants to “please list all aliases or  
‘handles’ you have used to communicate on the Internet.”

The vetting process for executive branch jobs has been onerous for  
decades, with each incoming administration erecting new barriers in an  
effort to avoid the mistakes of the past, or the controversies of the  
present. It is typically updated to reflect technological change  
(there was no Facebook the last time a new president came to town).

But Mr. Obama has elevated the vetting even beyond what might have  
been expected, especially when it comes to applicants’ family members,  
in a reflection of his campaign rhetoric against lobbying and the back- 
scratching, self-serving ways of Washington.

“President-elect Obama made a commitment to change the way Washington  
does business, and the vetting process exemplifies that,” said  
Stephanie Cutter, chief spokeswoman for the Obama transition office.

Jobs with the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have  
served as lucrative incubators for Democratic and Republican  
administration officials. But those affiliations have become  
potentially toxic since the government seized both companies after  
years of financial irregularities that have stoked the economic crisis.

Not surprisingly, then, Question 18 of the Obama application asks  
whether “you, your spouse or any member of your immediate family” have  
been affiliated with Fannie, Freddie, American International Group,  
Washington Mutual and any other institution getting a government  
bailout.

Under “Domestic Help,” the questionnaire asks the immigration status  
of applicants’ housekeepers, nannies, chauffeurs and yard-workers, and  
whether applicants have paid the required taxes for household  
employees. (Those questions reflect controversies that tripped up  
President Bill Clinton’s first two nominees for attorney general in  
1993.)

“Every transition is cumulative,” said Michael Berman, a lawyer and  
lobbyist who worked in the transitions of both Mr. Clinton and  
President Jimmy Carter. After reviewing the Obama application, Mr.  
Berman added, “I am very happy I am not seeking a job in the federal  
government.”

A former Clinton White House official who insisted on anonymity said  
in an e-mail message, “I believe it is considerably more detailed than  
we had to fill out in ’93. Interesting that they want spouse  
information on everything — means lots of folks are going to have to  
list the very prominent — and controversial — companies that their  
spouses work/lobby for.”

The first question asks applicants not just for a résumé, but for  
every résumé and biographical statement issued by them or others for  
the past 10 years — a likely safeguard against résumé falsehoods, one  
Clinton administration veteran said.

Most information must cover at least the past decade, including the  
names of anyone applicants lived with; a chronological list of  
activities for which applicants were paid; real estate and loans over  
$10,000, and their terms, for applicants and spouses; net worth  
statements submitted for loans, and organization memberships — in  
particular, memberships in groups that have discriminated on the basis  
of race, sex, disability, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

There are no time limits for some information, including liens, tax  
audits, lawsuits, legal charges, bankruptcies or arrests. Applicants  
must report all businesses with which they and their spouses have been  
affiliated or in which they have had a financial stake of more than 5  
percent. All gifts over $50 that they and their spouses have received  
from anyone other than close friends or relatives must be identified.

Just in case the previous 62 questions do not ferret out any potential  
controversy, the 63rd is all-encompassing: “Please provide any other  
information, including information about other members of your family,  
that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of  
embarrassment to you, your family, or the president-elect.”

The answer could duplicate the response to Question 8: “Briefly  
describe the most controversial matters you have been involved with  
during the course of your career.”

For those who clear all the hurdles, the reward could be the job they  
wanted. But first there will be more forms, for security and ethics  
clearances from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Office of  
Government Ethics.