I don't want to start a firestorm.

I just hear about this stuff so often it gets me jaded and know of people getting hired through networking all the time, especially in government offices.

Is that not how every knows these things work? Networking is something they tell you to do it in the unemployment office.....Plus, can you blame folks for hiring those that support their agenda? The problem is of character in this country, not qualifications or skills.

Let's just leave it that as a retired Federal employee I have some 35 years of actual experience (kind of like a picture) to rely upon rather than a "just hear about this stuff" foundation for my position.

I am done on this issue.

Yo Larry B, yah might wanna point out for the folks here the example of the Head of BPA's Procurement (Head Contracting Officer -- a classic example of a diverse Glass Ceiling Doofus) organization is currently sitting in the Federal Pen in Sheriden Oregon. It seems our Diverse Glass Ceiling Gal wanted her hubby employed in a well paying YOB so she put the arm on a couple of BPA's large service contractors to sub-contract to her hubby, a definite criminal no-no. It was an attempt to "Hire" relatives but failed cause somebody knew and did not like the favortism and blew a whistle.

My point is that the problem is not so much hiring relatives, but hiring "Like Opinion Kind" or another favorite I like to point out from my BPA days, only hiring alumni from the Oregon State Electrical Engineering program. BPA became rather inbred by those two examples. And when I say only electrical engineers, I mean they hired them for a lot on non-engineering jobs for which they had no qualifications or experiences. Just look at another classic example, teachers, in particular NEA affliated teachers, a whole lot of inbreeding there.

MMMMMMM, not when I got hired, 1968. The then Superintendant, wanted people from all over the USA. His thoughts were to get different idea from many regions. He also liked Vetern's and older teachers......now that changed with different Administration changes...many "locals" got hired......heck, even a few of my past students were hired before I retired.

I fall in the middle on this one. As a federal employee, there is perks to having a family member IN the government and will more likely than not, get you in as well (eventually). Saying they're hording all the jobs for themselves and family members is untrue.

Gov't......the perfect love/hate organization.

Who here believes the line, "I'm from the gov't, and I'm here to help you." ????

[quote=stam
There is no point in trying to defend a system that is so completely broken that it is indefensible... Just bow your head, say "thank you" to those that pay your wages and hope that you never have to go job hunting in the real world.
[/quote]

Hmm, I don't recall trying to defend a system. In fact, if you can follow my earlier post I was far from apologetic for the actions of those employees at NOAA.

As far as having been a career Federal employee I do not owe you an explanation for my choice nor did I then or now bow my head in thanks. Truth be known the taxpayers got more than their monies worth out of me during that career.

Oh, and since we have never met (I'd certainly remember......) I was just wondering how you have developed information to attack me personally in this manner? Or maybe you don't have any such information......just an unfounded opinion.

They are spending your money so they don't care if they get any kind of deal. That's why you or I don't need an oversight committee and they do. We spend our money on us and look out to get the best deal. Who pays 300k for any Boston whaler in this planet anyway? The kind of effed in the head organization that tries to close the west side of San Juan to kayaks that may hurt a killer whale.

John Proxmire had his "Golden Fleece" award and AuntyM has her PITA award. Thank you AM, I shall wear it with pride! And yes, there were those who were happy to see me leave.

Stam, I suggest that reducing staffing by 25% and concurrently reducing pay by 25% is the wrong approach. If you want to reduce staffing then first look to reducing the programs which that staff is hired to support. But that is a whole different discussion and is not fishing related (but would certainly lead to less oversight and talent in the contracting field -those folks whose responsibility it is to try to control this kind of stuff).

Keeper, in a way you are correct. My experience is that many of the decision makers perceived (past tense as I am retired)
their budget as being "their" money. It is the responsibility of the procuring office and warranted Contracting Officer to try and enforce the procurement regulations and bring sanity into play. In this case the first Contracting Officer appears to have put up a good fight and the requiring activity later circumvented that CO and found another who, under pressure, found a way to give the appearance of competitive contracting but, in reality, failed miserably.

What is really so unfortunate is that the public is still only getting bits and pieces of this yet deserves a full accounting to include who (maybe only by position as non-criminal adverse personnel actions are generally not public info) was punished and the nature of that punishment. This reassignment pending full review is a start but (cynic that I am) will not result in any lasting punishment.

Saving money is a lip service only scenario. And here's why......if any department spends less each year, then they get less the following year. So what usually happens is that at the end of the cycle, any left over money in the department is quickly spent on a variety of "extras"....although they are not usually extravagant, mostly just office niceties, such as new chairs or desks, etc......not REALLY necessary to have new, but the money must be gone in order to ask for more.