Overview
Title
To require Executive agencies to limit the use of special Government employees to 130 days, to require the maintenance of a public database of certain special Government employees, to require the release of financial disclosures filed by certain special Government employees, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 2455 is a proposed rule to make sure certain special workers for the government don't work more than about 4 months in a year and that there’s a list everyone can see with their names and jobs. It also says these workers must show what money or gifts they get, so we know everything is fair and honest.
Summary AI
H.R. 2455 is a bill aimed at increasing transparency and oversight of special Government employees in the executive branch. It limits their service to 130 days within any 365-day period and requires a public database of these employees with information such as names, positions, pay rates, and employment dates. The bill also mandates that financial disclosures of certain special Government employees be publicly available, except under certain conditions like the inclusion of national defense information. This legislation seeks to ensure that these employees are properly classified and their roles are transparent to the public.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The "Special Government Employees Transparency Act of 2025" is designed to enhance transparency and regulate the employment of special Government employees (SGEs) within the executive branch. This bill, introduced in the House of Representatives on March 27, 2025, imposes a limitation on the duration that an individual can serve as a special Government employee to 130 days within any 365-day period. It also mandates the establishment of a public SGE Database to provide transparency about these employees, including details such as names, job titles, and salaries. Additionally, it requires that financial disclosures by these employees be made publicly accessible, except for those containing sensitive national defense information.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill raises several significant issues:
Counting of Service Days: Section 2's criteria for counting service days might lead to disputes, especially since it includes activities that are administrative or compensation-driven. This could create inconsistencies in how different agencies count days.
Privacy Concerns: The lack of explicit provisions to protect sensitive personal information within the public SGE Database poses privacy risks.
Coordination and Costs: Establishing the SGE Database requires coordination between the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Government Ethics, potentially leading to delays or complications. The bill does not outline how increased administrative costs will be managed.
Public Disclosure of Financial Reports: While aiming for transparency, publicly accessible financial disclosures could inadvertently expose sensitive information, presenting security risks.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the bill seeks to ensure that the employment of special Government employees is transparent and limited in duration, potentially increasing public trust in governmental operations. By limiting these roles to 130 days, the bill attempts to prevent potential abuses or extended influence by individuals not subject to regular government employment rules. Public access to financial disclosures might also serve to scrutinize conflicts of interest.
However, there are concerns regarding how effectively the bill protects personal employee information while fulfilling its transparency goals. Mismanagement of this data could abuse individuals' privacy, leading to broader public skepticism towards the bill's implementation.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Special Government Employees themselves are directly impacted by this bill. Limiting their employment to 130 days could affect their job security and opportunities within the government. The requirement for public disclosures could also deter qualified individuals from accepting SGE roles due to privacy concerns.
Executive agencies are another stakeholder, tasked with implementing the new processes and maintaining databases, which could stretch resources and lead to increased administrative burdens without additional funding or staff.
The public, particularly watchdog organizations and advocacy groups focused on government accountability, may benefit from increased transparency and regulation over special Government employees. However, balancing transparency with protecting sensitive information will be a critical challenge that affects public perception.
Overall, while the bill's goals of transparency and regulation are commendable, its practical impacts need careful consideration to avoid unintended consequences on individual privacy and government operations.
Issues
The counting of days of service may lead to disputes as Section 2(c) includes purely administrative tasks exceeding an hour, which could cause disagreements over what constitutes as 'service' towards the 130-day limit.
The establishment and maintenance of the SGE Database under Section 3(b) lacks clear provisions for protecting the privacy and security of sensitive information, posing potential exposure risks of personal employee details.
The requirement of a public database for covered special Government employees may raise ethical concerns, as detailed in Section 3, about the necessity versus potential overexposure of individuals without ethical concerns.
Section 2(b) establishes a 130-day limit for special Government employees without providing a rationale for this specific duration, which could lead to questions regarding the choice's justification and necessity.
Public availability of financial disclosure reports, as mentioned in Section 3(c), raises security risks as it lacks clear guidelines for the redaction or handling of sensitive information that does not include national defense information.
Section 3(b) lacks detailed provisions for managing or minimizing potential increased administrative costs associated with establishing and maintaining the SGE Database.
The coordination efforts required between the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Government Ethics to establish the SGE Database, as per Section 3(b), could result in delays or coordination challenges.
The bill, particularly in Sections 2 and 3, lacks clarity regarding the implementation, scope, and specifics, which may hinder proper assessment on financial implications or wasteful spending prospects.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the act states its official name, which is the "Special Government Employees Transparency Act of 2025".
2. Limitation on the use of special Government employees Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, a "special Government employee" is defined as someone working for a part of the executive branch under specific legal conditions. It sets a rule that these employees can only work in this capacity for up to 130 days within a year. Once they reach this limit, their employer must determine their new job classification and inform them of their rights. The section also explains how to count the days of service toward this limit, including any administrative tasks, preparation for work, and compensated days.
3. Transparency for special Government employees Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, a database called the SGE Database is established to ensure transparency about special Government employees by publicly sharing information such as their names, job titles, and pay rates. The section also requires that financial disclosure reports for these employees be made available to the public, except for reports involving sensitive national defense information or certain other exemptions.