House Oversight and Reform Committee Ranking Member Gerry Connolly, D-Va., demanded today in a letter to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that OPM rescind its memo issued earlier this month that redesignated Federal agency chief information officer (CIO) positions.
The Feb. 4 OPM memo called for redesignating CIO positions reserved for “career” roles as “general,” opening them up to be filled by career, noncareer, and political appointees.
“The memorandum is yet another attempt to use partisan political attacks to sideline and marginalize career professionals in the government under the guise of promoting government efficiency,” Connolly wrote.
“I am concerned that CIO leadership is the latest victim of the Administration’s anti-Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility crusade and broader effort to replace career civil servants with individuals who are, first and foremost, loyal to the President and his political agenda,” Connolly added.
Connolly said he sees the redesignation as an attack on the bipartisan work that he and others have done on House Oversight to help improve Federal IT.
“Better government technology management is an unalloyed good for the American people and repeated bipartisan action shows that this issue transcends party division,” Connolly wrote. “The DOGE operators currently wreaking havoc on government systems have shown the importance of dedicated, expert civil servants in IT positions,” he added.
Connolly further criticized OPM’s order, pointing out that Federal CIOs work on projects “crossing congresses and administrations.” He said Congress works with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to ensure CIOs can manage multi-year projects without worrying about funding appropriations.
“CIOs should not consider political winds but rather focus solely on robust engineering principles and effective technology choices,” Connolly wrote.
Connolly also asked to schedule a briefing with OPM Acting Director Charles Ezell by March 11 to discuss future personnel classification plans.
“Full compliance with our requests is necessary, in part to determine whether legislative reforms are needed to ensure the continued security of our federal government systems and privacy of federal employees’ sensitive personal data,” Connolly wrote.
