If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
US Senate Confirms Airline "Fox" To Head FAA "Henhouse"
Just after it is revealed that the FAA permitted an aircraft
manufacturer, Boeing, to self-certify their own products for FAA approval, resulting in the crash of two airliners loaded with passengers, now the US Senate approves the former head of an airline, Delta, to the safety watchdog FAA head over the airline industry. And, the Republican majority US Senate confirms an airline industry insider as FAA Administrator who failed to disclose on a questionnaire he submitted to the Senate Commerce Committee that he is involved in allegations of retaliation against two whistle blowers at Delta who alleged there were training and pilot fatigue issues at the airline, and violation of Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88, the fuel tank flammability requirements that were a result of the in-flight explosion of TWA Flight 800 in 1996. This should make the flying public feel safer during their airline travel. :-) ---------------------------------------------- https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/...administrator/ Dickson Confirmed As New FAA Administrator Russ NilesJuly 24, 20193 In a vote along party lines, the Senate approved the nomination of former Delta VP of flight pperations Steve Dickson as the next FAA administrator on Wednesday. Dickson, who was a line pilot with Delta before going to the head office, was nominated by President Donald Trump in March. While at Delta, he served on key committees designing the future of airspace and air traffic control in the U.S. that led to the formation of the NextGen Advisory Committee on which he served until his retirement from Delta. Dickson will succeed Acting Administrator Dan Elwell who has been in that post since the beginning of 2018. The news was greeted warmly from commercial aviation given Dickson’s decades of service and experience in aviation. “We’re confident he’s the right man for the job,” NBAA President Ed Bolen said, citing years of working with Dickson on NextGen-related issues. NATCA President Paul Rinaldi said he too has spent a lot of time with Dickson. “I have personally experienced his leadership in the aviation safety community,” Rinaldi said. Dickson had a rough road to his confirmation after it was revealed that he had been involved in allegations of retaliation against a whistleblower at Delta who alleged there were training and pilot fatigue issues at the airline. She was sent for a psychiatric evaluation after taking her complaints to senior Delta officials, including Dickson. Dickson said the exam was done for safety reasons. The Senate voted 52 to 40 to accept Dickson with all Democrats opposing his confirmation. ------------------------------------------------------------- https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...-administrator The confirmation of Dickson, who was nominated in March by President Donald Trump, ran into some unexpected turbulence when it was reported that he failed to disclose on a questionnaire he submitted to the Senate Commerce Committee a situation involving a past complaint filed by a Delta Air Lines pilot who claimed she was retaliated against by the carrier after she reported concerns about safety issues. -------------------------------------------------------------- https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ickson-1607658 .... Dickson’s nomination quickly became embroiled in concerns about an ongoing administrative complaint against Delta in which a pilot, Karlene Petitt, contends that the airline retaliated her, including ordering her to undergo a psychiatric exam, aftershe reported concerns about pilot training, fatigue and other matters to Dickson and another executive. Dickson has said the evaluation was done for the sake of safety. Senators didn’t learn about Petitt’s case, or a deposition that Dickson had given for it, until after his nomination hearing. Dickson said he didn't disclose it because he'd interpreted a Senate Commerce questionnaire as asking after "my personal conduct, my behavior both in general and as an officer of a large public company, or any instance in which I was a named party to a proceeding." Democrats and some safety advocates seized on the accusations to argue against confirming Dickson, saying he does not represent the reset the FAA needs after the two Boeing 737 MAX crashes that killed 346 people and raised doubts about U.S. leadership in aviation safety. The vote on Dickson's nomination is still pending, but he is expected to prevail. On Tuesday, shortly before Dickson passed a key procedural hurdle, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said it's "clear to me he is not the right person for the safety culture that we need today at the FAA.” She also referred to a prior party-line vote in committee to move his nomination forward as “distressing,” saying “we should have found consensus on a nominee for the FAA given all the concerns the public has about flying safety.” “Someone who takes safety seriously and listens to the pilots is what we need on the front line,” Cantwell said. Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, the pilot at the controls of the “Miracle on the Hudson” flight in 2009, cited the whistleblower allegations in publicly opposing Dickson's confirmation. “His actions and words raise grave concerns about his ability to act with the integrity and the independence the next FAA administrator must have in order to navigate the challenges of the ungrounding of the 737 MAX and to rebuild global trust in the FAA’s competence and ability to appropriately certify new aircraft designs,” Sullenberger said in an interview with POLITICO. “This is absolutely the worst time” for any concerns to be surrounding the FAA’s new administrator, said Peter Goelz, former managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board, an independent federal agency that investigates transportation accidents. The FAA’s reputation has “been damaged in part because I think there is a perception, particularly among other regulatory agencies, that the FAA is not proven to be independent of Boeing, that it has not exercised its regulatory oversight in an aggressive manner,” Goelz said. “And it’s going to take some time for the FAA to regain its worldwide leadership position.” .... Lawmakers tasked with overseeing the FAA have suggested that the agency may have become too close to Boeing, and that its process for delegating increasing amounts of authority to manufacturers — as Congress has repeatedly encouraged — doesn't allow enough oversight. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who opposed Dickson's nomination, said his Delta career “should be read as calling into question his independence and ability to put the FAA back in charge of safety.” At the agency, there needs to be “clear independence, not only an expression of independence, but a public perception and a guarantee of independence because of the claims that the FAA has been, in effect, delegating too much responsibility to the airlines,” Blumenthal said. At his hearing in May, Dickson defended the practice of delegating certain certificationresponsibilities to the private sector, though he noted his personal experience with delegation doesn't have to do with aircraft approval but rather with pilots. “It’s made the FAA a much better regulator and it’s made the carriers, I think, safer and improved the quality of pilots that are being qualified,” Dickson said.... ------------------------------------------------------ https://www.ajc.com/business/former-...IvlK2pABUe9CP/ The pilot, Karlene Petitt, filed an Occupational Safety and Health Administration complaint against Delta in 2016. She alleged that after she came forward, the airline grounded her and referred her for a psychiatric examination by a company doctor who then diagnosed her with bipolar disorder. Subsequent medical examinations determined Petitt did not suffer from bipolar disorder, and she has since returned to flying for Delta. But Petitt alleges she was removed from flying for 22 months as a result of Delta’s “adverse and retaliatory actions.”“From our perspective at Delta, they used psychiatric evaluation as an alternative to discipline,” said Petitt’s attorney Lee Seham.Delta denies Petitt was referred for a medical assessment in retaliation, and says she was referred for a medical evaluation after her behavior and statements raised questions about her fitness to fly.The Delta executive who oversaw pilots at the time, Steve Dickson, has now been nominated by President Donald Trump to the position of FAA administrator. The Senate commerce committee held a hearing on Dickson’s nomination last month. Steve Dickson at a Senate commerce committee hearing for confirmation of his nomination as FAA administrator. Photo: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution But after media reports on Petitt’s OSHA case, the committee has hit pause on the process to confirm Dickson’s nomination. Dickson said he decided moving forward with a medical review of Petitt “was a sound course of action,” according to a deposition in the OSHA case. Dickson is not named as a party to the suit.Committee chairman Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said in a written statement that since the hearing, “new information has come to the committee’s attention that merits further examination.” The committee is reviewing the information and asked the White House to also review it, according to Wicker. Dickson has been cooperative with staff requests, according to a committee aide. Sen. Roger Wicker is head of the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which is considering Steve Dickson’s nomination to lead the Federal Aviation Administration. The White House issued a statement saying it “has complete confidence in [Dickson’s] nomination and expects him to be confirmed.”OSHA in 2018 found there was insufficient evidence to determine a violation occurred. Petitt appealed, and an administrative law hearing was held earlier this year. A ruling isn’t expected until next year.In a report Petitt submitted to Delta, she raised concerns about the management style of Delta’s Flight Operations department, saying it had an “Old school military and completely hierarchy mode of operation.” Petitt at the time was pursuing a Ph.D. in aviation safety and raised concerns about the company’s culture as part of its safety management system — the company’s approach to managing safety risk.She also wrote of how she felt she was treated differently than other pilots and retaliated against for posting on her blog about aviation and other activities.According to a Delta executive’s testimony, the woman who interviewed her for the internal investigation said Petitt “was quite emotional” and that she was concerned “that something would happen to her, that Flight Operations was out to get her.”After the interview, Delta said it referred Petitt for a medical evaluation, and out of an abundance of caution followed its medical review process in its pilot contract. In the end, the process concluded she was fit to fly.The company said Petitt received pay and benefits for the period she was grounded, and said it stands by its decision.It’s not the first time a pilot has claimed Delta has used medical evaluations in such a way.A former pilot, Michael Protack, filed suit against Delta last year for wrongful termination and retaliation. Protack alleges that after he reported safety concerns about airplanes and complained about pay cuts and pension changes, Delta falsely claimed he was medically unfit to fly and required a psychiatric evaluation to fly again. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/03/polit...wer/index.html FAA nominee OK'd retaliation against pilot whistleblower, lawsuit says Curt DevineDrew Griffin-Profile-Image By Curt Devine and Drew Griffin, CNN Updated 10:06 PM ET, Mon June 3, 2019 (CNN)A Senate committee is investigating President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the Federal Aviation Administration, Stephen Dickson, for his involvement in a case in which a Delta Air Lines pilot alleged the company retaliated against her -- including sending her to a psychiatrist -- after she shared safety concerns with him. The case, which has not been previously reported, involves Dickson's time as a senior vice president at Delta Air Lines and a Delta pilot who argues the company retaliated against her after she met with him in 2016. Dickson did not disclose the case on his nomination questionnaire to the Senate Commerce Committee. As Delta's then-head of flight operations, Dickson approved sending the pilot, Karlene Petitt, to a psychiatrist weeks after she gave him and another flight operations manager a report that listed what she described as FAA violations by Delta, according to documents. The psychiatrist diagnosed Petitt with bipolar disorder and the company grounded her for more than a year. Two subsequent examinations found that she does not have that disorder, and she is currently flying for Delta. Petitt is suing Delta in a Department of Labor administrative case that remains pending. In a deposition, Dickson said he had ultimate responsibility over the decision to refer Petitt for a mental evaluation and called it a "sound course of action." Dickson retired from Delta last year. Petitt's attorney, Lee Seham, told that CNN Dickson allowed what amounted to retaliation against his client. "This was all a terrible mistake, but it was a terrible mistake that went on for a year and a half because of the lack of diligence that Captain Dickson accepted," Seham said. Commerce committee staffers are currently examining the case, which they learned of after Dickson's confirmation hearing on May 15, according to two committee aides. .... On his Senate questionnaire, Dickson stated, "During my Delta employment, from time to time and in the ordinary course of business, Delta was involved in various judicial, administrative or regulatory proceedings relating to its business, although I was not a named party in any such actions." On another section that asked for "additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in connection with your nomination," Dickson responded: "None." .... Initial complaint and bipolar-disorder diagnosis Petitt's ordeal began more than three years ago when she compiled a list of concerns about Delta. In addition to being a pilot for decades, Petitt has a PhD in aviation. Petitt had witnessed a variety of events and practices involving Delta employees, training and scheduling practices that she believed violated FAA standards. She compiled her concerns into a report that described "numerous areas where safety culture and ... compliance conflict with the FAA's (2013) outlined requirements and the airline's core values," which she presented to Dickson and Delta's then-vice president of flying operations, Jim Graham, in January 2016. In a deposition, Petitt said that Dickson said during that meeting, "Some people like to sit in the back of the room and throw spit wads," which she interpreted as dismissive of her claims. Dickson said in a deposition he did not remember making that statement. A Delta employee-relations manager then conducted an interview with Petitt in March 2016 about some of her claims, during which Petitt became frustrated, and her eyes filled with tears, according to her attorney. That manager reported that Petitt believed "something bad eventually will happen either to her or to a Delta flight," according to documents. Graham held a teleconference with that manager and others and decided to ground Petitt and mandate that she receive a psychiatric evaluation, with Dickson's approval, according to court documents and Petitt's attorney. The mental health evaluation by a Delta-hired psychiatrist resulted in Petitt's bipolar-disorder diagnosis, which rendered her unable to fly. During this time, the FAA sent Petitt a letter in September 2016 that notified her an investigation had substantiated one of her safety concerns. The FAA determined Delta had failed to count employee "deadheading," where the airline provides an employee with a flight to another location, as flight time for computing daily and weekly flight limits, which Petitt said could affect pilot fatigue. The FAA did not substantiate three of her other allegations. While Petitt remained grounded, a panel of doctors from the Mayo Clinic rejected Delta's psychiatric evaluation. Due to the disagreement, Delta's psychiatrist and the Mayo Clinic doctors selected a neutral medical examiner who in turn determined Petitt was medically fit. She began flying for Delta again in 2017. Petitt's attorney Seham said he has no doubt that the decision to ground Petitt, overseen by Dickson, was linked to the safety report she shared, which he said amounts to retaliation by Delta and sends a troubling message to the company's pilots. "What's the impact of safety in terms of the message to 12,000 pilots that after you submit a safety report you're off to a psychiatrist?" Seham said. "Captain Dickson did nothing in terms of stopping what happened." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- https://christinenegroni.com/second-...y-faa-nominee/ Second Delta Pilot Claims Retaliatory Action by FAA Nominee Christine Negroni June 10, 2019 Substantial allegations against Steve Dickson, the nominee to head up the Federal Aviation Administration have been made by two pilots who worked for him. These suggest the former senior v.p. of Delta flight operations may be the wrong choice to head up a government safety agency with monumental tasks before it. Already the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has slowed the confirmation process to investigate Dickson more thoroughly. A number of news outlets have reported the charge that Karlene Petitt, a Boeing 777 pilot with two decades of commercial flying experience and a Ph.D. from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, was grounded after reporting safety concerns to Delta management including Dickson. Within weeks of submitting her critique, the airline forced her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation that determined she suffered from bipolar disorder. Dickson ratified the decision to have her examined, saying it was a “sound course of action.” But two later exams found that the initial diagnosis of bipolar disorder was unfounded. Petitt returned to work then filed a whistleblower suit claiming the mental health exam was retribution for reporting safety issues. Dickson failed to disclose that he had been deposed in the lawsuit, which is required. There’s a larger issue, though, that goes to the heart of aviation safety. What kind of advocate for the flying public will Dickson be, if in his job with Delta, he seemed more inclined to target the messenger than investigate the message? Members of the Senate committee should be hyper-focused on this question as the FAA faces one of the most consequential periods in its recent history. The next few years will likely put much scrutiny on the role of businesses in overseeing their own safety certifications as a result of the grounding of the Boeing 737 Max. While Petitt is back flying the line, another Delta pilot who was fired after reporting safety issues under Dickson’s watch remains out of work, his whistleblower suit not scheduled to be decided until the end of this year. Karl Seuring flew for Delta for over 30 years but when not flying for the airline, he had a side business doing technical consulting on fuel tank safety as the holder of a supplemental type certificate (STC) for 737 auxiliary fuel tank systems. Sometimes he supplied parts and assisted Delta with its contract maintenance business. In 2016, while Delta was servicing a 737 for a foreign head of state, the airline opted to return the airplane to its home country without complying with the full SFAR-88 fuel tank flammability requirements that were a result of the in-flight explosion of TWA Flight 800 in 1996. Seuring and Delta’s technical operations folks apparently disagreed as to whether the flight was legal under post-TWA 800 fuel tank safety regulations. Delta’s argument appears to be that since the plane was destined for another country, the regulation did not apply. Seuring claimed the flight would operate over U.S. airspace and therefore the flight “exposed the plane, its occupants and Delta to safety risks.” As a holder of the STC, Seuring claimed he was responsible to the FAA. Months after the dispute, which Capt. Seuring elevated to the FAA, he was fired from his pilot’s job. Delta claimed he’d misused his travel passes and abused his sick leave. His whistleblower case against the airline is pending and, as in the Petitt case, Dickson failed to disclose to the Senate, his role in Seuring’s lawsuit. In a letter Seuring sent last month to Sen. Roger Wicker, chairman of the committee charged with vetting the FAA nominee, Seuring urged the committee not to rush Dickson’s confirmation. “Americans expect a safety leader to head FAA,” he wrote. The public expectation that the FAA will prioritize safety has already been undermined by the ongoing revelations about the 737 Max. Now we have two pilots telling their personal stories about the man who might lead the agency next. This is hardly the right stuff to elevate the expectations of the flying public. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
US Senate Confirms Airline "Fox" To Head FAA "Henhouse"
No! Please? Do they have to ruin everything?
**** this world. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
US Senate Confirms Airline "Fox" To Head FAA "Henhouse"
No. **** the bankers/Wall Street, military profiteers (the military industrial complex), Charles Koch, Mercers, Adelson, Putin's Russia, Eric Prince and his sister Betsy DeVios, and the neo-Knight's Templar spreading their corrupted evangelical new-world-order dogma throughout the world. Have a look here, and you will begin to understand who is behind today's worldwide unraveling of democracy: https://www.netflix.com/title/80063867 https://people.com/politics/why-the-...ip-foundation/ But, we can vote the bums out of office if we can get everybody to the poles in 2020. On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 00:52:18 +0000, wrote: No! Please? Do they have to ruin everything? **** this world. Here's a clue: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...strative-state How Trump is dismantling a pillar of the American state Donald Trump is presiding over the most withering, devastating, and trenchant attack on the American administrative state this nation has ever known by Jon Michaels Main image: ‘In a little more than nine months, Trump has taken aim and hit his bull’s-eye.’ Composite: Getty Images Tue 7 Nov 2017 08.36 EST Last modified on Thu 5 Jul 2018 16.47 EDT There is no shortage of adjectives to describe the Trump presidency. Venal. Shameless. Bigoted. Impulsive. Feckless. Amid the never-ending stream of scandals and outrages, it is easy to lose sight of just what this administration is doing well – and where it is proving to be spectacularly disciplined, calculating and effective. Donald Trump is presiding over the most withering, devastating, and trenchant attack on the American administrative state this nation has ever known. The latest major Trump resignations and firings Read more The administrative state, a pillar of modern American government, is tasked with making and enforcing economic and environmental regulations, designing and running social welfare programs, fighting crime and corruption, providing for the national defense and so much more. Yet, in a little more than nine months, Trump has taken aim and hit his bull’s-eye. Far from the public’s gaze, he’s rescinded, rolled backed, and reversed countless environmental, labor, education, transportation, food and drug, and consumer protection rules and regulations. Cast largely as liberty enhancing, these deregulatory efforts endanger the safety, health, and welfare of all Americans, not to mention a good deal of the rest of the world who depend on the United States to do its part to combat global warming, banking and securities fraud, and worker exploitation. At the same time, Trump is vilifying the professional bureaucracy, that vast community of apolitical, career officials whose work it is to design, administer, and demand compliance with administrative regulations—and who are, by congressional design and longstanding practice, well positioned to question and challenge the directives of an abusive, impulsive, or simply hyperpartisan president. Trump has repeatedly referred to the bureaucracy as a “swamp,” which must be drained; his surrogates have repeatedly alleged that these officials are part of a shadowy “Deep State” – and intent on subverting our democracy; and his deputies have taken steps to marginalize their involvement in federal policymaking. This one-two punch of policy deregulation and bureaucratic delegitimization is a combination that erstwhile White House strategist Steve Bannon gleefully calls the “deconstruction of the administrative state”. Already this deconstruction is turning back the clock, sometimes years, sometimes decades, on the kinds of protections and assurances that enable Americans to be confident and productive participants in the national political economy. Consider the Trump administration in action. While all eyes are drawn to the three-ring circus of White House saber-rattling, indictments, and Twitter wars, Trump and his cabinet secretaries have been quietly at work on this project of regulatory deconstruction. Let’s start with the basics. Donald Trump is hardly the first president to rail against the administrative state, or to promise a massive downsizing of the federal bureaucracy. But, so far, he’s been the most unflinching. Previous presidents – including Ronald Reagan who famously intoned: “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem” – either softened their stance once confronted with legal and technocratic arguments in favor of basic safety, health, and welfare rights and protections; or they took their hand off the deregulatory throttle once they encountered sufficient public or congressional pushback. Conservative folklore aside, public pressure during the Reagan years led to the preservation and partial strengthening of the Clean Air Act, the softening of the campaign promise to “mine more, drill more, cut more timber,” and the expansion of federal welfare and education programs that the Gipper regularly attacked. By contrast, Trump, in this respect, has been a conservative’s dream. Championing the interests of big business, Trump has engineered the rescission of 14 major environmental, financial, and labor rules. (Prior to 2017, only one other rule had been formally rescinded, in 2001 under George W Bush.) In addition, Trump has begun the process of withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement; relieved builders (just a couple weeks before the devastating hurricanes in Texas and Florida) of the responsibility to account for increased flooding, rising sea levels, and other manifestations of climate change in their design plans; reversed a ban on drilling for oil in the Arctic; and revoked an order requiring federal contractors to take affirmative steps to prevent and combat sexual harassment and discrimination as well as to reduce wage disparities between men and women. Trump’s surrogates – those hand-picked to lead the various administrative agencies – are proving similarly committed to the White House’s deregulatory agenda. Consider, for example, the current EPA chief, Scott Pruitt. A climate change skeptic and long-time critic of the agency he now runs, Pruitt has blocked or delayed dozens of would-be clean air, clean water, and carbon emission rules. He has also worked to rescind the heralded Clean Power Plan, and rejected the recommended ban on certain agriculture pesticides, reversing the expert findings of career staff detailing the disastrous effects of these chemicals particularly on low-wage farm laborers and their children. Pruitt is hardly alone. In department after department, Trump appointees are busy dismantling critical health and safety regulations – much of this work happening light years away from a spotlight hardly large enough to cover all that is salacious and scandalous in the Trump White House. For example, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has made the all-but-unprecedented recommendation that Trump declassify protected national monuments – sprawling tracts of land possessing significant natural, cultural, or historic significance. (No other presidential administration has sought to declassify a national monument in nearly 40 years.) Zinke has also moved to withdraw rules regulating the controversial drilling practice known as fracking. And he has shelved an important report documenting the health risks associated with specific types of coal mining – a report that would, under ordinary circumstances, serve as the basis for a federal rule banning or severely restricting such mining. Lastly, the Trump Labor Department has, among other things, delayed implementation of important enforcement provisions of a fiduciary rule requiring financial advisors to put their clients’ interests ahead of their own. This is hardly a comprehensive list. Many more regulatory reversals, big and small, have already occurred; and we should expect more in the weeks and months to follow. Indeed, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross recently gave voice to these expectations, urging wavering Trump allies to stay loyal, to overlook the administration’s glaring failures precisely because the Trump deregulatory agenda is so important to the American business community. But in many respects, the instant policy rollbacks and recissions aren’t the most profound or important ones. Trump hasn’t just taken steps to deregulate in the here and now. He and his lieutenants are also damaging the machinery of regulation, perhaps to such an extent that federal agencies won’t be capable of swinging back into action when outcry over lax environmental, labor, and health and safety protections propels a pro-regulation president into office. Through active campaigns to, again, “drain the swamp” and disable the “deep state,” the infrastructure of government—and not just the programs themselves—is eroding before our very eyes. To be clear, Trump’s regulatory successes have not been cakewalks. At nearly every turn, he and his agency heads have encountered career personnel who’ve challenged the administration’s decisions as unsound and, at times, illegal. But Trump has been waging and winning a battle of attrition. He’s set out to fire those he’s allowed to—think FBI Director James Comey, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, and US Attorney for New York Preet Bharara. He has also disbanded working groups of distinguished scientists – the Interior department alone has shut down the work of more than 200 such groups – and bullied those career experts protected against at-will termination. Among the administration’s preferred tactics to cow that last group of career employees into submission or, better yet, to push them out, has been to cancel, defund, or ignore their programs. That has happened, among other places, at the State Department and the EPA. He’s conducted investigatory witch hunts against career employees. He’s exiled some to positions far outside of their expertise and has directed others to advance legally and programmatically unsupportable policies. These tactics have been used against employees at the EPA as well as the Departments of Education, Interior, Justice, and State, to name just a few. This attrition campaign has paid dividends. Hundreds of frustrated senior officials have already left. The departed are, invariably, among the best educated and most talented – those scientists, engineers, economists, lawyers, and social workers most readily able to secure rewarding employment elsewhere. Those left behind must now compensate for the loss of their exceptional colleagues and thus are at an even bigger disadvantage in efforts to challenge unsound and unlawful deregulatory directives. As a result, we already see rudderless program administration, the withering of transnational alliances, legal flip-flopping in cases being argued in the federal courts, and inadequate responses to various crises. But, again, that’s just the immediate effect. Attrition will continue apace; recruitment shortfalls will soon become evident; after all, who wants the thankless task of working for federal agencies demonized both within and outside of government? In time, key agencies may find themselves incapacitated, lacking the talent, morale, and experience to carry out their congressionally mandated responsibilities. Wilbur Ross and others bent on a laissez-faire America may hold out hope that Trump is a Joshua to Reagan’s Moses, ready to lead the overtaxed and over-regulated into a libertarian Promised Land that until now has remained just out of reach. But Trump is no Joshua. His corrupt, abusive, and otherwise incompetent presidency proves as much. Instead, he’s Fonzie on water skis, and his campaign to deconstruct the administrative state may well be poised to jump the shark. Simply put, Trump’s bullying of the federal bureaucracy may serve to show Americans how much they need the administrative state, how important professional, apolitical civil servants are to the stability and well-being of the nation, and what a dangerous game we play when we let presidential surrogates demonize civil servants as part of treasonous deep state intent on subverting the government. Trump may, in fact, be the only man alive capable of making bureaucrats—bureaucrats!—popular. All of a sudden, we’re no longer primed to think of federal employees as lazy and lackluster, an all-too-frequent characterization in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Now we think of them as stellar scientists, lawyers, and diplomats—the very best this country has to offer—and conservatives and progressives both are mourning their untimely and largely involuntary departure from government employ. When the dust settles on this presidency, we should be ready and willing to encourage a bureaucratic renaissance—and make the necessary investments to redeem and restore an administrative state capable both of protecting our health, safety, and welfare and serving as a bulwark of the rule of law. For now, it is best to remember (and remind others) that bureaucracy was never a swamp but rather a deep reservoir of talented, loyal, and devoted experts, whose effectiveness turned in considerable part on their political independence. This independence enabled them to serve across presidential administrations; to develop technical proficiency uncorrupted by political fads; and to speak truth to power to Democrats and Republicans alike. Jon Michaels is Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. His latest book is Constitutional Coup: Privatization’s Threat to the American Republic. This piece is the first in a series of essays entitled ‘While you weren’t looking - how Trump is dismantling the administrative state’ As the crisis escalates… |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What are the Pros and Cons of using the "ForeFlight Mobile EFB" appin Sailplanes as opposed to, say, "iGlide" or "navITer" ? | jstodaro | Soaring | 4 | March 26th 17 05:04 PM |
"VideO Madness" ( Soldiers...) "GoD Hates FAGS!!! (He sO righteOusly DoES)" | Colonel Jake | Naval Aviation | 0 | March 1st 10 12:14 AM |
Broke Airline Pilot needs "stuff" for an ASW-15B | [email protected] | Soaring | 21 | October 30th 08 10:41 PM |
Airline VP Named COO of FAA ATC: Fox In Henhouse? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 4 | September 23rd 07 11:46 PM |
"Head Down" found harmful | Andrew Gideon | Piloting | 0 | February 21st 06 05:45 PM |