Slashdot Mirror
'Revolving Door' Spins Between AT&T, Government
An anonymous reader sends this quote from the Center for Public Integrity:
That AT&T just won an eight-figure contract to provide the federal government's General Services Administration with new mobile devices isn't itself particularly notable. What is: Casey Coleman, an AT&T executive responsible for "delivering IT and professional services to federal government customers," oversaw the GSA's information technology division and its $600 million IT budget as recently as January. ... While there’s no evidence anything illegal took place, the public still should be aware of, and potentially worried about, Coleman’s spin through the revolving door between government and companies that profit from government, said Michael Smallberg, an investigator at the nonpartisan watchdog group Project on Government Oversight. ... Federal government employees leaving public service for lucrative private sector jobs is commonplace. The Project on Government Oversight has called on the federal government to — among other actions — ban political appointees and some senior-level staffers from seeking employment with contractors that “significantly benefited” from policies they helped formulate during their tenure in government.
We're the Phone Company. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Surely the government's wasting our tax dollars
You really didn't need the rest of those words.
TFS does a fine job of pointing out the potential drawbacks of the fact that people at the top of their field tend to remain in that field as they change jobs. Since the potentially negative side is somewhat clear, I won't say more on that, just acknowledge it.
On the other hand, suppose you're hiring someone to negotiate contracts to build roads. Wouldn't it be a good idea to hire someone who knows something about road-building projects, and the contracts involved? A former manager of a road-building company is uniquely qualified to understand the issues, the ways a road company
company might try to screw over the taxpayers. They are far better able to protect the taxpayers' interests than I would ben for example, because I don't know anything about road contracts. So I WANT my taxpayer interests represented by someone with high level experience in the industry.
A well thought out post touching on the complexity in dealing with a contentious issue.
What exactly are you doing on slashdot?
This article and the one before it about hollywood vs google are indicators of the same problem. When government and industry collude, the public becomes the enemy.
the real solution here is to put pressure on the govt employees so there has to be a "cool down" time after they conclude their govt service and before going to a regulated company. For example 12 months. This way you can't be the lead govt guy, then jump to a private company when it's time to negotiate a multi-lucre contract. NOTE: the best way to put pressure on somebody is to have them sign to a "cool down" clause when they are hired. Typically you do this by $$$, i.e giving someone an extended vacation.
That is a valid point, but it overlooks that it doesn't have to be the exact same company. The question is, did ATT get the contract over another provider because of his involvement or because it was the best deal for the people? That question would not be there if a different carrier got the contract.
Verizon and AT&T are far from the only two reasonable choices for providers of mobile devices.
Going the other way, from government (back) to industry, our procurement systems are such that it takes a degree of expertise to navigate the process and actually get, then maintain, a contract. Often, the government could save money by just ordering from Walmart.com, but to avoid having a bureaucrat order from his brother, there's a huge procedure with a shit load of rules. So if you're trying to work out a contract with say, the FCC, there are real and legitimate reasons to hire someone intimately familiar with the FCC's procurement processes, their bureaucracy, and their priorities and culture. That may even benefit the taxpayer- I would do a better job of serving my agency's needs than some vendor who doesn't understand our business and culture would. Of course personal connections also help. The personal connections can be problematic, all the rest is good. I WANT my local fire department to get tools from former firefighters, who actually understand what it's like to work in a fire, getting doused with water and in heavy smoke. The guys who have been there and done that make better vendors, who provide more appropriate and effective products and services.
Again, I'm not saying there is no disadvantage, ever. There can be. Balance that against the advantages. As an example, we have experienced firefighters and snipers on staff. Our staff sniper better understands her former colleagues needs, thereby allowing us to better provide the services they actually need to get their job done.
The practice in common in many western countries that enjoy a good rank in corruption index. But in my opinion this should really be counted as corruption, the high salary being the bribe.
They always seem to be trying to make up their minds. On Star Trek doors go sheesh! but we have revolving doors that go Whump! Whump! Whump!
I'd have three revolving doors, two on the outside rotating in opposite directions and one in the middle that changes direction at random times, even when a person is in it. I'd put wheels on a potted plant and have it bumping along. I'd have one in a shaded area with a bright strobe light in it. I'd have a revolving door with mirror panels surrounded by a curved mirror and a curved, mirrored sliding shells that advance with the door on opposite sides and stop, to close off the tube completely and trap them for three full rounds, then advance again to present an opening as if it had always been there. I'd have a revolving door with rising and falling wedges that 'arrive' at the far end one step down or up. I'd have a camera at the top of the wedge looking down, and a bright LCD display set into the floor that is re-playing the top-down view from the last occupant, including a glimpse of the screen with the one previous, et cetera. I'd have a message that says, "say Hello!" and play back the hellos of previous occupants at random. I'd have a glass floor with a hypnotic spiral disc spinning quickly in the opposite direction. I'd have a narrow brightly lit aquarium with fish as door panels. I'd have a gauntlet of a dozen revolving doors synchronized to pass occupants on, each one lit with a progressive hue of the rainbow. And ping pong ball releases.
Next up at Slashdot: 'Escalator' Trundles Between Verizon, Government
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
i said it above. when a govt muckety muck signs a contract, include a clause with "forced paid vacation" after vacating your post. The duration of the vacation can vary depending on the mucketyness of the muck. as a result, nobody can jump from govt to industry to snap up a quick contract.
I'm not sure I understand how this is supposed to solve anything.
ok, here's the deal. A senior govt person has gained experience that can be valuable for decades. He should be able to switch to a top private job where he can make use of that value. The person has lots of insider knowledge of how a company can win big deals. But this knowledge has a very short shelf life. it is like having an inside scoop on who will win the next horse race. A commonsense solution, take the head honcho out of the game for a bit, and then he rejoins when any insider-type knowledge is stale. But he can still apply his wisdom and experience for the coming years.
the trade off is that the govt would have to cover it. This is why it is a "forced vacation". but the cost would be much less than any graft that would be avoided. The duration of the cooldown period would be titrated depending on the seniority or level of influence.
you're unbelievable! An employment clause! you know, you start a new job and you sign an agreement that says you'll get paid X, you'll get X weeks of vacation, X days of sick leave, and X weeks of paid cooldown when your employment is terminated. it's all completely legal, and there is benefit to both of the "afflicted parties".