Agents against change

“Only a director from outside the service, removed from organizational traditions and personal relationships, will be able to do the honest top-to-bottom reassessment this will require.” President Obama rejected that assessment by a special panel probing the operations of the U.S. Secret Service when he tapped a 27-year veteran of the service to lead the troubled agency. While the jury is still out on Mr. Obama’s appointment, we’re wondering whether he is having second thoughts in light of the latest allegations to embarrass the agency.

Two senior Secret Service agents are under investigation for allegedly crashing a government-issued car into a White House barricade after an evening of drinking. This is only the latest in a string of scandals.

Congress held hearings. Agency Director Julia A. Pierson was cashiered. The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service, created the independent panel to examine the agency’s problems.

The panel concluded that the agency was starved for leadership and strongly recommended the hiring of an outsider with fresh perspective. Mr. Obama opted instead for Joseph P. Clancy. Mr. Clancy, named permanent director just last month, has forced out much of the senior management team, and he made the right call in bringing in the inspector general to investigate the March 4 incident.

But the need for deep change seems more urgent with each mortifying incident, and the argument for an outside change agent grows more persuasive. Why, for example, did the Secret Service not even divulge the latest problem until the Washington Post came calling? That kind of self-protection does not reflect a reformed spirit. So far, thankfully, the consequences of failure have not been more serious than embarrassment. The stakes are far higher.