Ben Carson has HUD buy $30k table for office, demotes person who cited law & refused

[fredtoast]

(02-28-2018, 11:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Also I didn't see where she was demoted; simply reassigned.

"Foster was reassigned to be HUD's chief privacy and FOIA officer, a position that reports to an official that was once her subordinate."

[*bfine32*]

(03-01-2018, 12:06 AM)fredtoast Wrote: "Foster was reassigned to be HUD's chief privacy and FOIA officer, a position that reports to an official that was once her subordinate."

Yeah, I folks that work for me that I used to work for and they were not demoted. 

[fredtoast]

(03-01-2018, 12:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, I folks that work for me that I used to work for and they were not demoted. 

Then you must have been promoted and there is no indication that happened in this case.

[*bfine32*]

(03-01-2018, 12:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Then you must have been promoted and there is no indication that happened in this case.

Sure was and there's no indication that is not the case in this situation. Furthermore folks are often moved laterally in and out of supervisory positions without demotion and/or promotion. But as I've said since jump: Our bias will determine our thoughts on this situation. Seems only one of us is making assumptions in this situation as nothing states she was demoted, except biased commentary,

[BmorePat87]

For the record, in her previous role she was reporting directly to the Deputy Secretary who reports directly to the Secretary (or acting Secretary in this example). She ran administration.


In her current position, Chief FIOA Officer, she reports to the Chief Human Capital Officer, a position under Chief Administrative Officer in terms of the chain of succession at the department.

So she reports to someone whose position is considered lower than her last. Usually we call that a demotion, but that use of reason is probably just my personal bias.

[*bfine32*]

(03-01-2018, 01:09 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: For the record, in her previous role she was reporting directly to the Deputy Secretary who reports directly to the Secretary (or acting Secretary in this example). She ran administration.


In her current position, Chief FIOA Officer, she reports to the Chief Human Capital Officer, a position under Chief Administrative Officer in terms of the chain of succession at the department.

So she reports to someone whose position is considered lower than her last. Usually we call that a demotion, but that use of reason is probably just my personal bias.

Nah, there were plenty other things in this thread that showed your personal bias. Your definition of demotion was not among them

[BmorePat87]

(03-01-2018, 01:27 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, there were plenty other things in this thread that showed your personal bias. Your definition of demotion was not among them

solid defense of you accusing Fred's fact backed claim as being a biased assumption.

[Griever]

(03-01-2018, 02:21 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: solid defense of you accusing Fred's fact backed claim as being a biased assumption.

why you acting so shocked?

[*bfine32*]

(03-01-2018, 02:21 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: solid defense of you accusing Fred's fact backed claim as being a biased assumption.

Of course it's an assumption and one built on biased opinion. We were given an explanation as to why she was reassigned and it was not simply because she balked at this purchase. The reason given to counter is from the employee. So yes, it is a biased assumption to assume she got "demoted" simply because of this purchase.

I take it as she was not demoted; simply reassigned. Just because the person you report to changes; does not mean you were demoted; that's just an assumption unless we see something that states she was demoted.

I provided a "solid defense" when I replied to Fred and explained how government employees are often moved laterally. But you and Fred know how it works better that I; so roll with the assumption of demotion; although, there is no mention of it; simply who she report to.

[*bfine32*]

(03-01-2018, 12:02 PM)Griever Wrote: why you acting so shocked?

I didn't take it as him being shocked. Do you have anything to add to the discussion?

[BmorePat87]

(03-01-2018, 01:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it's an assumption and one built on biased opinion. We were given an explanation as to why she was reassigned and it was not simply because she balked at this purchase. The reason given to counter is from the employee. So yes, it is a biased assumption to assume she got "demoted" simply because of this purchase.

I take it as she was not demoted; simply reassigned. Just because the person you report to changes; does not mean you were demoted; that's just an assumption unless we see something that states she was demoted.

I provided a "solid defense" when I replied to Fred and explained how government employees are often moved laterally. But you and Fred know how it works better that I; so roll with the assumption of demotion; although, there is no mention of it; simply who she report to.

We know for a fact what her first job and second job were. We also know, thanks to a well publicized bureaucracy, that the first job was below her second job in rank. 

So by using these facts and the definition of "demote", we know that she was demoted.

There's no assumption or bias in this, just facts. There can be assumptions and bias in why it occurred, but the fact that you didn't do any research doesn't change the facts. 

[Griever]

now carson is saying he wants to cancel the order for the 31k office decoration

poor guy, thoughts and prayers

but man, after seeing ben carsons wife, no one here better say anything about michelle obama looking mannish, considering ben carson is married to one of bilbo's trolls

[*bfine32*]

(03-01-2018, 02:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There's no assumption or bias in this, just facts. There can be assumptions and bias in why it occurred, but the fact that you didn't do any research doesn't change the facts. 

Sorta like the new furniture photos.

I suppose it depends on your use of the word "rank". The vast majority of Federal Employees are paid on a General Scale (GS). If she were reassigned and was not forced into a position at a lower GS level she was not demoted, as we consider it in the GS system. Nothing I read in the article states that she was demoted. The only mention of it is in commentary and this thread. But I'll work on that research.

[fredtoast]

It was not just $30K for a dinning set.  It was also $160K for "lounge furniture."


"The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud) has agreed to spend $165,000 on “lounge furniture” for its Washington headquarters, in addition to a $31,000 dining set purchased for housing secretary Ben Carson’s office."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/27/ben-carson-spokesman-falsely-denied-expensive-table-bought


Funniest part of all of this is that when Carson was named head of HUD he was criticized for not knowing anything about housing.  his response was that he did not have to know anything about house.  Instead all he had to do was properly manage the people below him who did.  Now he claims he has no idea what the people below him are doing.

Also when he was called before congres to discuss cutting the HUD budget he refused to answer questions about specific amount because he "didn't want to open the books and look at the numbers".

Carson is not stupid.  He is doing all of this intentionally.  He is too smart to blame this all on being ignorant about what is going on in his department.

[*bfine32*]

(03-01-2018, 04:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It was not just $30K for a dinning set.  It was also $160K for "lounge furniture."

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud) has agreed to spend $165,000 on “lounge furniture” for its Washington headquarters, in addition to a $31,000 dining set purchased for housing secretary Ben Carson’s office.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/27/ben-carson-spokesman-falsely-denied-expensive-table-bought

The government overpaying for equipment is not new, but something that should require oversight from an external agency.

Don't they know about Overstock.com

[Benton]

(03-01-2018, 04:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The government overpaying for equipment is not new, but something that should require oversight from an external agency.

Don't they know about Overstock.com

They have that. Congress has to approve expenditures over a certain dollar amount for some types of purchases, like office furniture. It’s illegal to alter bills sunitted as a way to circumvent that process.

I look for congress to follow through and uphold the law by calling for Carson resign, and anyone else who had... well hell, I can’t finiah typing that sentence, I gave up lying for lent. Carson should do the same.

End of the day, this is a story about a beurucrat abusing the system and our checks not balancing because of the “our side” obstacle.

[ballsofsteel]

Sleepy Ben will be the next cabinet member to bite the dust.

[*bfine32*]

(03-01-2018, 02:17 PM)Griever Wrote: but man, after seeing ben carsons wife, no one here better say anything about michelle obama looking mannish, considering ben carson is married to one of bilbo's trolls

And I will tell you the same as I told them. These types of comments are in the poorest taste.

[BmorePat87]

(03-01-2018, 02:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sorta like the new furniture photos.

You mean when I phrased my post poorly and thanked you for clarifying it? definitely the same thing...

Quote:I suppose it depends on your use of the word "rank". The vast majority of Federal Employees are paid on a General Scale (GS). If she were reassigned and was not forced into a position at a lower GS level she was not demoted, as we consider it in the GS system. Nothing I read in the article states that she was demoted. The only mention of it is in commentary and this thread. But I'll work on that research.

Like I said, you can go to the HUD website and see the chain of command for the different departments yourself. She went from reporting directly to the Deputy Secretary and being a part of the order of succession to reporting to someone who reports to the Deputy Secretary and isn't on the order of succession. 


Probably would have been a far more prudent move than to continue to make baseless arguments for a few hours.

[*bfine32*]

(03-01-2018, 06:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You mean when I phrased my post poorly and thanked you for clarifying it? definitely the same thing...



Like I said, you can go to the HUD website and see the chain of command for the different departments yourself. She went from reporting directly to the Deputy Secretary and being a part of the order of succession to reporting to someone who reports to the Deputy Secretary and isn't on the order of succession. 


Probably would have been a far more prudent move than to continue to make baseless arguments for a few hours.

Ok, she has been demoted because she wouldn't OK the dining room suit, she was not simply reassigned for various other reasons.