noxiousdog wrote:Sweet, Farley, now we're in the same league as SH and Fed. Though, supes is much nicer than I am.Brettmcd wrote:
Yes it does, its the familiar sound of people acting like jerks.
I am moving up in the world.
Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
noxiousdog wrote:Sweet, Farley, now we're in the same league as SH and Fed. Though, supes is much nicer than I am.Brettmcd wrote:
Yes it does, its the familiar sound of people acting like jerks.
Ill try this again.
Yes I do think we would be better off with as limited governmental participation in most things as possible.
Profit is not a bad way to try and run things, as it many times (not always) leads to things being more efficient and other positive things. In too many areas government, because in our system there is really no one to answer to as we send 90+% of the idiots back to Washington year after year, the 'solution' they come up with is to throw more money at a problem, or create yet another commission to look at a problem they have already looked at a half dozen or more times before. At least with profit as a goal there is more accountability in many cases (again not all).
Auditors in the Department of Homeland Security inspector general’s office confirmed problems with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s performance in Louisiana — and in 11 other states hit over five years by hurricanes, mudslides and other disasters.
But the auditors’ boss, John V. Kelly, instead directed them to produce what they called “feel good reports” that airbrushed most problems and portrayed emergency responders as heroes overcoming vast challenges, according to interviews and a new internal review.
The watchdog concluded that FEMA’s response in Louisiana, where 13 people died in the disaster, was a huge success, a “remarkable,” “resilient and mission focused” effort that “provided hope and a way forward” for flooded communities.
Under pressure from Congress, the inspector general in 2017 retracted and purged from its website the Louisiana flooding report, and then followed the next year by retracting a dozen other audits of FEMA’s initial responses. The office called them “not compliant” with federal auditing standards.
Now the oversight agency, which evaluates the performance of FEMA and the rest of Homeland Security, has turned the spotlight on itself. Last month it released a 14-month internal review of how Kelly, a career government auditor who rose to acting inspector general in late 2017, chose to flatter FEMA’s staff in some reports, instead of hold them accountable.
Kelly’s staff routinely praised FEMA’s initial disaster responses from 2012 to 2017 with “superlative language,” investigators found — and they followed a formula. Each audit found the response “effective and efficient.” Some reports used fawning terms.
They identified challenges FEMA faced. But invariably they praised the agency for overcoming them. Other negative information, if it pointed to systemic problems, was removed from drafts and sometimes placed in separate “spin-off reports,” the internal review found. The audits made no recommendations for improvements.
Investigators determined that Kelly didn’t just direct his staff to remove negative findings. He potentially compromised their objectivity by praising FEMA’s work ethic to the auditors, telling them they would see “FEMA at her best” and instructing supervisors to emphasize what the agency had done right in its disaster response.
The review concluded the office had not met its own standards.
TSA is worse.Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:55 am WaPo
Auditors in the Department of Homeland Security inspector general’s office confirmed problems with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s performance in Louisiana — and in 11 other states hit over five years by hurricanes, mudslides and other disasters.
But the auditors’ boss, John V. Kelly, instead directed them to produce what they called “feel good reports” that airbrushed most problems and portrayed emergency responders as heroes overcoming vast challenges, according to interviews and a new internal review.
The watchdog concluded that FEMA’s response in Louisiana, where 13 people died in the disaster, was a huge success, a “remarkable,” “resilient and mission focused” effort that “provided hope and a way forward” for flooded communities.
Under pressure from Congress, the inspector general in 2017 retracted and purged from its website the Louisiana flooding report, and then followed the next year by retracting a dozen other audits of FEMA’s initial responses. The office called them “not compliant” with federal auditing standards.
Now the oversight agency, which evaluates the performance of FEMA and the rest of Homeland Security, has turned the spotlight on itself. Last month it released a 14-month internal review of how Kelly, a career government auditor who rose to acting inspector general in late 2017, chose to flatter FEMA’s staff in some reports, instead of hold them accountable.
Kelly’s staff routinely praised FEMA’s initial disaster responses from 2012 to 2017 with “superlative language,” investigators found — and they followed a formula. Each audit found the response “effective and efficient.” Some reports used fawning terms.
They identified challenges FEMA faced. But invariably they praised the agency for overcoming them. Other negative information, if it pointed to systemic problems, was removed from drafts and sometimes placed in separate “spin-off reports,” the internal review found. The audits made no recommendations for improvements.
Investigators determined that Kelly didn’t just direct his staff to remove negative findings. He potentially compromised their objectivity by praising FEMA’s work ethic to the auditors, telling them they would see “FEMA at her best” and instructing supervisors to emphasize what the agency had done right in its disaster response.
The review concluded the office had not met its own standards.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.