Bill Overview
Title: To make revisions in title 5, United States Code, as necessary to keep the title current, and to make technical amendments to improve the United States Code.
Description: This act restates current law concerning federal advisory committees, Offices of Inspector General, and financial disclosure requirements for federal personnel (including the President, Vice President, and executive branch officers and employees), as well as limitations on outside earned income and employment.
Sponsors: Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]
Target Audience
Population: federal personnel, including the President, Vice President, executive branch officers and employees, and advisory committee members
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The bill affects federal personnel, including the President, Vice President, and executive branch officers and employees.
- Federal advisory committees will also be affected, which involve various external experts and stakeholders.
- Offices of Inspector General and their procedures may be updated or clarified by this bill, affecting how their oversight is conducted.
- Financial disclosure requirements mean any federal employee or officer required to disclose finances will need to comply with updates.
Reasoning
- Given the policy focus on federal personnel and advisory committees, the interviews primarily feature individuals from those sectors, including a range of roles such as executive branch officers, auditors, and advisory committee members.
- The policy budget suggests that the changes are procedural and won't have a large direct economic impact on individuals. Therefore, individual wellbeing impacts are expected to be mostly related to job satisfaction and stress management from complying with new requirements.
- The policy's nature suggests impact levels will vary based on roles - those with more regulatory or compliance duties may see a higher impact, whereas less affected roles might see none or low impact in terms of wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Executive Branch Officer (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will likely increase my workload due to additional compliance requirements, which might create stress but it's part of the job.
- In the long run, these changes could streamline some reporting processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Federal Advisory Committee Member (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I do not see any significant changes to my role with these policy updates.
- Most of my work is advisory and temporary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Inspector General Auditor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These updates bring clarity but might increase the complexity of compliance audits.
- They also reinforce the importance of transparency in our work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Federal Employee - Administrative Role (Houston, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy changes seem administrative and might not change much in my day-to-day work.
- I am worried about having to learn new reporting systems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Federal Personnel Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These changes would mean more updates in HR protocols, but they also promote better standards.
- Retirement is soon, so impact is minimal personally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Federal Policy Analyst (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see these changes as beneficial in the long term since they bring a more streamlined approach.
- Initial adjustments might be a little hectic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Government Contractor (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a contractor, I foresee minimal direct impact, although some clients might face more compliance paperwork.
- It may result in more work for me in assisting with these requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Federal Legal Advisor (Boston, MA)
Age: 55 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These changes affirm the procedures we've supported for better governance.
- More work initially to adapt, but beneficial long term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Federal IT Specialist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There might be need for system upgrades to accommodate new disclosures.
- Requires careful planning but nothing mission-critical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Federal Compliance Officer (Denver, CO)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The heightened focus on disclosure fits into a broader narrative of transparency, reinforcing my role.
- Expected increase in work pressure initially but manageable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 2: $1200000 (Low: $800000, High: $1600000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $700000, High: $1300000)
Year 5: $900000 (Low: $600000, High: $1200000)
Year 10: $700000 (Low: $500000, High: $1000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Implementation of administrative changes may take time to take effect fully.
- Total costs and savings may depend significantly on the efficiency of federal agencies in adopting new guidelines.
- Balancing administrative compliance costs against long-term procedural efficiencies is crucial.