Federal Emergency Management Agency director Mike Brown said Monday he has resigned "in the best interest of the agency and best interest of the president," three days after losing his onsite command of the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
"The focus has got to be on FEMA, what the people are trying to do down there," Brown told The Associated Press.
His decision was not a surprise. Brown was abruptly recalled to Washington on Friday, a clear vote of no confidence from his superiors at the White House and the Department of Homeland Security. Brown had been roundly criticized for FEMA's bearish response to the hurricane, which has caused political problem for Bush and fellow Republicans.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Good. He should never have been hired for that post in the first place.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Get James Lee Witt back...oh wait the state of Louisiana has already hired him to handle the problem...
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: Brown had been planning on leaving the administration late this fall to go into the private sector.
I wouldn't hire him to handle horses at this point...or horse judges, to be more accurate. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Huh. He must have written his resignation right after he slept off that "stiff margarita" he said he was going to have.
Well-connected guys like him get taken care of. Industry won't be able to use him in a high-profile way - the kind of situation Brown's ex-boss has. But I'm sure someone will be giving him a low-visibility, high-paying job for falling on his sword.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I'd hire him. Seems like a useful guy to have around, really. You never know when you're going to need a scapegoat.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I read somewhere that FEMA has always been considered the prime patronage agency. Is this true? One thing I read somewhere (mainstream press - not a columnist or blog, can't find it not) said that the horse guy was better qualified than some past appointees.
If this is true, the only thing I can think is that there was a tacit agreement to let the civil service employees do everything and the appointees just looked pretty for the cameras.
Sheesh. Talk about an agency that should have fewer political appointees.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
The "stiff margartia" line just made my jaw drop when he said it. Could a person be more clueless?
"I'm going to go be idle and rich, while people desperately cling to survival because of my incompetence! Ha ha ha! I have a great life!"
Holy crap.
But yeah, the resignation is a good thing. Nothing like a disaster to make people go, "Whoah! Wait a minute! We need to have ACTUAL leaders in these positions!"
I wonder how many other organizations are currently headed by complete boobs whose boobishness we will not discover until someone dies or something blows up.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:I read somewhere that FEMA has always been considered the prime patronage agency. Is this true? One thing I read somewhere (mainstream press - not a columnist or blog, can't find it not) said that the horse guy was better qualified than some past appointees.
Dag, that's true if you don't count the Clinton years. Due to FEMA's poor performance during a major hurricane (I don't remember which one and don't have the links right now) during Bush senior's presidency, Clinton tightened the ship and appointed some good people to the agency. Note - this was an accident of timing. I'm not sure Clinton would have done any differently if FEMA had not come under fire during Bush I.
Our current president apparently decided to turn the clock back to pre-Clinton practices with FEMA.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Damn. I hope this is the last lesson we need.
Only four senators showed up to Brown's first confirmation hearing, which was 45 minutes long, and there was no hearing for his appointment as boss when the agency moved to DHS.
This is where I hold Bush the most responsible. When I assigned people to a client, I always viewed it as putting my entire business reputation - the only real asset I had - on the line. And that was just software development.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Why the HECK is competency apparently so low on everyone(outsideHatrack)'s scale of importance? I can see giving someone a job they need to grow into ... but you have to watch them and make sure they actually grow into it. If they're useless, kick them out and let them go somewhere where they can do some good! Like shoveling garbage or something.
That is something I don't get. Failed CEOs and government officials never shovel garbage as their next job. It seems to me that some people are rich or successful no matter what they do. They can be fired from every job they ever have, make compete asses of themselves in public, and yet if they have the right friends, they can continue to be placed in very responsible positions (which pay very well), without even having to earn them!
I don't know, if I screwed up really badly at something (like this dude did with the horse thing), I would EXPECT to do some lower-level type work for a while, and earn back some trust before moving into a more responsible position.
Yet all over the place, I keep seeing people get PROMOTED for being useless. Argh! Why! Why do I work so hard to earn my keep when other people can fail their way to the top?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Careful, Geoff. A little more thinking like that and you'd wind up voting Democrat. j/k
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I personally think that the Federal Government is not the place for jobs "you grow in to." Sure, if this guy Brown had been successful at a number of related jobs, knew how to deal with emergencies (there's a concept!), then give him a shot at FEMA (after all, you can't just have FEMA encumbents all the way down). But do you really want someone trying something out for the first time in his/her life at the upper, Federal levels?!?
I think not.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Frankly, I expect the appointed head of any agency, under any party's Presidency, to be pretty much a figurehead. Patronage jobs? That's how the game is played.
But I -also- expect that the people -under- the head, the deputies or the people below them, -will- know what they're doing. I expect there to be people just behind the throne, so to speak, who are competent, experienced, and able to advise and direct. It's in naming people to those lower-level appointed positions that I think Bush really dropped the ball.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
There had to be someone out there, with both a military and civilian crisis management background, that would have made a better choice. I read in another thread about Congressional approval for the head of FEMA which I think they should at least be able to have a say in, like they do with judges. If not the head of FEMA, then at least the head of Homeland Security who definitely should have a say in who will be the head of FEMA
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: That is something I don't get. Failed CEOs and government officials never shovel garbage as their next job. It seems to me that some people are rich or successful no matter what they do. They can be fired from every job they ever have, make compete asses of themselves in public, and yet if they have the right friends, they can continue to be placed in very responsible positions (which pay very well), without even having to earn them!
And some become President of the United States.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
They could always enforce the civil service level requirements. Or mandate that anyone appointed by the President who isn't already working for the government has to start in the mailroom for a year.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kayla: And some become President of the United States.
Sing it, sister!
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Boy, that resignation was a long time in coming.
Probably years too late.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Careful, Geoff. A little more thinking like that and you'd wind up voting Democrat.
The fact that I HAVE voted for Republicans in the past doesn't mean that I have some aversion to voting for a Democrat.
And yes, I know you were kidding, but still ... Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Thank goodness we've done away with that whole cronyism thing here. Now, the selection of companies that will help with the rebuilding won't be tied to friends of the administration. Oh wait. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You have no idea how upset I was when I learned that Halliburton was taking over the rebuilding of New Orleans.
There are not words.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Well, that's not fair. I mean just because they've abused their sweetheart deal in Iraq to the potential tune of $1 billion, that's no reason to deny them a second chance. This time I'm sure they'll be on the up and up.
With patriots like these, who needs traitors?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
If you wait a few minutes, you can get some frothy-mouthed Bush suporter to tell you why you're wrong, and why it's really all right to give out such sweet deals to your good friends at Haliburton etc.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It will be a lot harder for them to get away with it in New Orleans I'd think. Press coverage, and watchdog groups will be all over them looking for the same kinds of abuses.
Besides, who was better for the job? Not that I'm saying that they ARE best for the job, but show me the contractor that bidded for less?
What's that you say? There was no bidding process? Well, that certainly deserves some investigation...
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Oh, this I've GOT to hear.
*taps foot*
-pH
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You know, rather than build a new bridge in NO, I hear they have one in Brookyln for sale....
It isn't actually owned by Haliburton, but that won't stop them from selling it. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you wait a few minutes, you can get some frothy-mouthed Bush suporter to tell you why you're wrong, and why it's really all right to give out such sweet deals to your good friends at Haliburton etc.
Oh, well done. Way to dismiss other people's views without even having to hear them. *clap*
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Frothy-mouthed?..... I would just hate to disappoint you...
quote: The company has provided similar work after major disasters in the United States and abroad for more than 15 years, including in Florida after Hurricane Andrew.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
j/k
![[Smile]](smile.gif)