If you've had experience with the federal government you know that the
appointees that really make the decisions on day to day activities are
the Deputies and Assistant Secretaries.  I've been watching the news
like others and I don't believe, except in one or two cases, the lower
levels have been announced.  A few of the names bantered about have
previous government experience.

Take a look at previous administrations going back to LBJ's and you
will see that appointees came from all types of backgrounds; some in
government while others the private sector.  Just because someone has
previously worked in government at any level doesn't mean they won't
do something shady - we've seen it happen time and time again.
Ultimately it is the responsibility of the Senate to ask pertinent
questions and then, based on the answers, either confirm the nominee
or vote no.  That is how our form of government works.  And if we are
worried about a nominee we as citizens have the option to contact our
senators and let them know our concerns.

To me the answer is simple - if one is really concerned that they
could potentially be asked to "break the law" then they should even
consider applying in the first place.  This applies to any industry
and sector.  And if during your tenure you are asked then you should
document and notify the Department's Inspector General.

Bruce White, CRM, PMP
Radnor, PA
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
LinkedIn:  http://www.linkedin.com/in/bblanco

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Christopher Ferry
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Don,
>
> I've been (indirectly as a contractor) in government RM for over 15 years
> as well. The DOJ job as described just sounded like potentially walking
> into a lion's den of conflict between current staff, new political
> appointees, expectations from the public, records policy, and larger
> responsibility to history. A fair amount of the folks in the Trump
> transition team have less previous government experience than in earlier
> transitions - and more importantly to me there seems to be a view that this
> inexperience is a benefit and a tool to change policy.
>
> I wasn't questioning any RM folks professionalism. I was instead asking
> what sort of pro-active steps you'd take to hold to policy and professional
> standards if you were asked to bend or break rules (either out of intent,
> ignorance, or even as part of formal changes to policy). How would you
> document your position? In a political world that has been called
> "post-truth", do RM folks have increased responsibilities or will
> tried-and-true instincts of career staff serve us just fine?

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]