Fans of the Dilbertesque British sitcom “The Office” will immediately recognize this oft-repeated exchange:
“Well, I am the Assistant General Manager.”
“No, you’re the Assistant to the General Manager. There’s a difference.”
Turns out that much the same difference was also lost on the folks over at, and above, FEMA:
Before joining FEMA, [Michael Brown's] only previous stint in emergency management, according to his bio posted on FEMA’s website, was “serving as an assistant city manager with emergency services oversight.” The White House press release from 2001 stated that Brown worked for the city of Edmond, Okla., from 1975 to 1978 “overseeing the emergency services division.” In fact, according to Claudia Deakins, head of public relations for the city of Edmond, Brown was an “assistant to the city manager” from 1977 to 1980, not a manager himself, and had no authority over other employees. “The assistant is more like an intern,” she told TIME.
The issue is now no longer whether Brown must be removed as Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Emergency Preparedness and Response (a/k/a “FEMA Director”); that ship sailed ran aground long ago. The two questions now are:
(1) Did Brown commit any crimes in providing a padded résumé to the government?
(2) Who submitted Brown’s name to the President in the first place? Whoever it was must also be fired, no matter how high-ranking.
People are dead because of this man, and because of whoever suggested him. Firing them hardly constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Hat tip to Hit & Run.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.kipesquire.net/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/tweet-this-small.png)
Tweet This
3 responses so far ↓
Link Chris Scoggins // Sep 9, 2005 at 10:35 am
Brown was brought on at FEMA by one of the former directors, who happened to be a long-time friend, as a staff lawyer. He was later promoted to the post of director, so your question should really be who promoted him, or who recommended that he be promoted. And will that prove incompetence, he worked at FEMA for two years after all.
Brown should be fired, no question, but there is no reason to turn it into a witch hunt.
Link KipEsquire // Sep 9, 2005 at 11:00 am
"Brown should be fired, no question, but there is no reason to turn it into a witch hunt."
I don't think it's a "witch hunt" to demand the firing of someone who either knowingly or negligently suggested that a patently unqualified candidate be put in a position of vital importance.
In the private sector, it's standard operating procedure.
Link Chris Scoggins // Sep 9, 2005 at 2:42 pm
You must work in a different private sector than I do. If someone is negligent at their job (even grossly negligent) they are fired and then they try to figure if there were any signs that they shouldn't have been hired. If it turns out that the person didn't have the right skills it is usually taken as a learning experience, if they were hired because nepotism, possibly the hiring manager would be fired, but nepotism is relatively rare in the private sector, at least absolute nepotism where the employee has no skills beyond knowing the right person.
The biggest difference, and the lesson that I think should be learned, is that no one in the private sector would have hired someone with no skills in the first place.
Leave a Comment
(Comments containing links are held for moderation.)