How Qualified Is Qualified Enough To Head A Federal Agency

[jyl]

Since the topic of the qualifications of political appointees has become a topical issue, what do you think of this nominee?

Proposed position is as head of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, which "has more than 20,000 employees and a budget of approximately $4 billion. Its personnel investigate immigrant, drug and weapon smuggling, and illegal exports, among other responsibilities."

Experience is "After working as a federal prosecutor in Brooklyn, N.Y., for two years, Myers held a variety of jobs over the past four years at the White House and at the departments of Commerce, Justice and Treasury, though none involved managing a large bureaucracy. Myers worked briefly as chief of staff to Michael Chertoff when he led the Justice Department's criminal division before he became Homeland Security secretary.

Myers also was an associate under independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr for about 16 months and has most recently served as a special assistant to President Bush handling personnel issues.

Her uncle is Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the departing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. She married Chertoff's current chief of staff, John F. Wood, on Saturday.

In written answers to questions from Congress, Myers highlighted her year-long job as assistant secretary for export enforcement at Commerce, where she said she supervised 170 employees and a $25 million budget"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901930.html

[Joeaksa]

A lot of people do not realize that the top person does not have to be an expert at the type of organization they are leading. THEY HAVE TO BE A LEADER!

Its the departmental managers and the people who brief the head of any company who are the experts. These are the people who the boss depends on to help him or her guide the company.

Joe A

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
A lot of people do not realize that the top person does not have to be an expert at the type of organization they are leading. THEY HAVE TO BE A LEADER!

Its the departmental managers and the people who brief the head of any company who are the experts. These are the people who the boss depends on to help him or her guide the company.

Joe A

There is some truth to this statment, we have all read about some top CEO going from one industry to the next, and often ending up heading some huge non-profit organization completely unrelated. However this kind of cross-over is not typically found in govenment, as govenment is different than any other organization or business (not for the better either).

[RallyJon]

Qualifications? You don't need qualifications to run a federal agency. You just need to be morally pure and never, ever have hired anyone to watch your kid or cut your grass without running a full background check on them.

Ask Bernie Kerik, who would have made a kick-ass head of homeland security. I only wish that the senate witchhunters would have some hindsight here and maybe we'll get qualified people in critical positions regardless of how many hookers they bang at a time or whether they did drugs in the '60s.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by RallyJon
and maybe we'll get qualified people in critical positions regardless of how many hookers they bang at a time or whether they did drugs in the '60s.

That would open up the field to many of the people on the Pelican board too.

[Mule]

This is simple. Political patronage is not going away. When someone new gets elected folks expect them to put their people in. The key is that they put COMPETENT people loyal to them in. Remeber, everybody beat on Louisiana for having state officials of questionable competency. But Brown was with 'em step for step.

[vash]

again, this is government work. the higher you go, the less you do. at the top, you are nothing more than a figurehead, or scapegoat.

[Superman]

Interesting question, and interesting replies. I'm guessing some of you have wondered when I would chime in. Well, here's my two cents. Or maybe just one cent.

I worked in a fairly responsible government position for a dozen years, and still serve a public agency as a consultant today. I agree with Joe that, at the head of any large organization, what is so sorely needed and so unfortunately rare is LEADERSHIP. That is such an important and valuable characteristic. And unfortunately, it is more rare in public service than in private. For a very simple reason I should not even have to state. Public service does not pay its leaders hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Nor is it fun to go to a dinner party and answer the question "What do you do for a living?"

And this is twisted. Twisted because some of the most influential and momentous decisions made in our society are made not by auto company execs, but by public servants. It is in public service that we need that rare leadership quality the most.

Joe suggests that knowledge of the specific subject matter is not as important, and there is some truth to that. Leadership is far more important, at the very top. But a leader of a public agency also has to have a particular mindset and awareness that a private sector executive would probably not come with, and may have a hard time picking up. You're not there to make every one happy. You're not there to impress a Board of Directors. You're not there to improve short term profits. You're there to pursue a mission or mandate. In my case, the agency I worked for protects working men and women. Through safety regulations, wage regulations, worker compensation insurance, etc. I'm proud to say I managed to vigorously pursue that worker-protection mandate while maintaining the respect of the employer community. Even though they could easily see that it was my agenda to protect working folks.

But right now, I have a more impressive title, I make more money and I have FAR FAR less responsibility. If society worked the way it should, public servants would be respected, talented and compensated accordingly.

[jyl]

I wish this Admin, and others, didn't favor lawyers so much for these big management jobs. Almost no legal job will give you experience managing more than a handful of people. Prosecutors included, unless they are very senior, and then they manage maybe 50-100 people. In my experience, lawyers tend to be quite poor managers.

[Superman]

I considered law school, but decided on an MBA degree. The reason? I want to have a piece on the game board. I see the lawyers as the guys reading the instructions while the rest of us play the game. I wanted to play in the game. Overall, I wouldn't expect lawyers to make the best decision-makers. From my perspective, they are a tool. And they tend to be more risk-averse than players.

I used to ask the attorneys for their advice. Now, I just tell them what I'm going to do, and ask how much trouble is it going to cause.

[speeder]

I was listening to conservative talk radio last night and they were saying that this is the worst example of political hack/crony appointing that they could remember. And that, "didn't Bush learn anything from the whole Brown episode"?

It is an important post, and immigration enforcement is the single most important aspect of "Homeland Security". What a frikking joke.

[jyl]

Originally posted by Superman
I considered law school, but decided on an MBA degree. The reason? I want to have a piece on the game board. I see the lawyers as the guys reading the instructions while the rest of us play the game. I wanted to play in the game. Overall, I wouldn't expect lawyers to make the best decision-makers. From my perspective, they are a tool. And they tend to be more risk-averse than players.

I used to ask the attorneys for their advice. Now, I just tell them what I'm going to do, and ask how much trouble is it going to cause.

It depends on the lawyer's role. I didn't have much experience in transactional work (drafting a contract, etc) but the little I had was unexciting, servile, and tedious. When you get to litigation and courtroom work, it is a lot more fun and there Mr. Client takes the back seat - pay the bills and follow counsel's advice. Which is as it should be, from the lawyer's POV :-)

[Superman]

True. The lawyers handle the law stuff. And it's a pretty competitive game. I notice that attorneys do have....ummmm....a bit of a competitive streak, generally speaking.

But when you invite them into your strategic discussions, their advice is uber-predictable. They suggest the safest course, from the legal perspective. Playing the safest game is not the first priority of management. So, we get into trouble. Then the attorneys clean up the mess.

[jyl]

Originally posted by Superman
True. The lawyers handle the law stuff. And it's a pretty competitive game. I notice that attorneys do have....ummmm....a bit of a competitive streak, generally speaking.

But when you invite them into your strategic discussions, their advice is uber-predictable. They suggest the safest course, from the legal perspective. Playing the safest game is not the first priority of management. So, we get into trouble. Then the attorneys clean up the mess.

The best client is one who gets in big trouble, does it all by himself, can pay to be extricated, and keeps doing it.

:-)

[turbo6bar]

No Bad Deed Goes Unrewarded

[kach22i]

Originally posted by turbo6bar
No Bad Deed Goes Unrewarded

Elizabeth Warren
No Bad Deed Goes Unrewarded in This Administration

Today Ameriquest set aside $325 million in anticipation of a flood of lawsuits from defrauded customers. And at the same time, financial reporters have uncovered some very tricky accounting gimmicks used to keep the mortgage industry looking healthy.

President Bush had a quick and decisive response: Today he nominated Ameriquest’s owner and chairman to be ambassador to the Netherlands.

Even with the company sinking in lawsuits over its predatory lending practices, Mr. Bush had a compelling reason to appoint the CEO of Ameriquest to the ambassadorial post: Mr. Arnall and his wife "contributed $5 million to a pro-Bush committee in 2003 and chipped in another $1 million for Bush’s second inauguration party." Arnall, his wife and their companies "have been the biggest political contributors to Bush since 2002."

Never let it be said that this president let little things like defrauding the public stand in the way of taking care of his friends.

This **** never freak'n stops.

[Superman]

This is the most unabashed "administration" America has ever had. Only the truly and completely uninformed (or the completely indoctrinated, as we know from our discussions here) could possibly miss what's going on. We are being fleeced in broad daylight.

[RallyJon]

C'mon now--appointing big contributors to ambassadorships is a time honored practice. If you want to point to an example of "fleecing" and wave your arms around and jump up and down, there are better examples.

Only the truly uninformed actually believe that the current administration invented patronage.

[speeder]

I think that he was referring to the company formerly headed by the VP making $mega-billions off the war that he was instrumental in selling to the public and then starting.

[Superman]

Yes Denis, I was referring to that, and a an unbroken, ongoing myriad of appointments, contract awards and various other decisions. I know this administration did not invent cronyism. In fact the Dems are just as beholden to benefactors. What I'm saying is that this administration excercises no carefulness about it. Most administrations sneak in as burglars. This administration is just mugging in broad daylight. It's as though Karl Rove has convinced the administration that nobody is watching. And the saddest part is that Mr. Rove is probably correct.