The Bush administration’s decision to revive the practice of awarding cash bonuses to some political appointees – after being prohibited under the Clinton administration – likely was made with the best of intentions. Career federal employees, after all, get such bonuses when exceptional performance warrants and there is no reason to believe that appointees do not also go above and beyond.

The way this decision was made is troubling – a March 29 internal memo from White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card to agency heads was made public only recently, and then only after disgruntled Justice Department employees complained about it.

About 2,100 appointees, many with salaries already topping $100,000, are eligible (White House employees and appointees confirmed by the Senate are not). While bonuses for career employees are based upon ongoing, documented reviews, that is not the case with appointees: Agency heads can make awards of up to $10,000 before any outside review is required; $10,000 to $25,000 requires review by the Office of Management and Budget; bonuses can exceed $25,000 with the approval of the president. Defense and the IRS, however, can award up to $25,000 with no external review. Any policy with that much potential for abuse, inconsistency and hard feelings deserves a thorough public debate before being initiated and clear guidelines thereafter. It is precisely that potential that led President Clinton to ban these bonuses in 1994.

Adding to the trouble is the context in which the decision was made. The president recently cut Congress’ proposed pay raise for all federal employees from 4.1 percent to 3.1 percent, saying the money was needed for the war on terrorism. It comes at a time of widespread discontent within the federal career ranks over the personnel policies of the Bush administration, in particular the policy that exempts employees of the new Department of Homeland Security from many worker-protection rules. And it comes at a time when frugality is the watchword – Treasury employees, for example, are asked to use personal frequent-flier miles and to stay with friends or relatives when traveling on government business.

It is not by accident that the renewal of this program was leaked out of Justice, where many career employees are openly unhappy about what they perceive as being shut out of decision-making by Attorney General John Ashcroft and his top appointees.

Certainly, good, hard work should be rewarded and a great many federal employees – both career and appointed – have turned in extraordinary performances in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and the subsequent war on terrorism. These trying times call for modest recognition but they do not warrant windfalls.

Most federal departments are slowly, some painfully, divulging details of the amount of their rewards and the criteria by which they were determined. One department not having to do so is Commerce, where Secretary Donald Evans decided against handing out checks to his appointees because, “We have a certain amount of resources and those need to be properly directed towards our priorities.”

Give that man a (modest) bonus.