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

[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.