An issue that is not new, but had not gotten a lot of attention, burst to the surface this week when several members of Congress called for the dismissal of NASA Inspector General Robert Cobb. The letter, signed by Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC), chair of the investigations and oversight subcommittee of the House Science Committee, and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), chair of the space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, came in response to receiving a report on an investigation of alleged misconduct by Cobb, (a summary of which is posted on the web) including claims of an abusive work environment and a lack of independence, performed by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE). A cover letter included with the report concluded that members of the PCIE’s integrity committee believed that “disciplinary action up to and including removal, could be appropriate.” A proposal by NASA administrator Michael Griffin for Cobb to develop an “individual leadership/management plan” while attending a training course was deemed insufficient by the committee.
The House Science and Technology Committee followed that announcement late Monday with one on Tuesday asking for unredacted copies of the PCIE report and continuing to call on President Bush to remove Cobb, hinting that hearings on the subject could take place in the near future otherwise. The press release cites “press reports” where the Bush Administration endorses Griffin’s proposal (one such report apparently being this Florida Today article), but, as you might expect, Miller, Nelson, and committee chairman Bart Gordon “respectfully disagree” with that assessment.
Heh, Bush forms a council on Integrity and Efficiency. That’s so quaint!
After reading that report, wow, IG Cobb is really an class 1 A-hole. I’m not going to say his kind aren’t rare, but it’s like he was trying to get in trouble.
Although they may be indicative of a broader patterns of behavior, it appears that the worst of the allegations against Cobb boil down to some R-rated name-calling at one of his lawyers in front of other legal staff and a disagreement with the Texas Rangers over a “crime stoppers” press release based on dubious allegations about the theft of a ring from a Columbia astronaut’s body.
Cobb may be a royal jerk, and IGs must hold themselves to higher standards than other federal appointees. But I fail to see how such minutae rises to the level of the U.S. Senate. NASA has a plethora of real and big problems, any one of which is more than worthy of actual Congressional oversight:
— An Ares 1/Orion design that, despite statements to the contrary by ESMD senior managers a couple months ago, is still 700 kilograms short of closing and will have no margin or flexibility to accommodate future weight growth over the next eight years of design and development, even if it does close.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/03/213056/orion-struggles-to-lose-excess-weight.html
— An ESAS implementation plan for replacing the Space Shuttle that, even setting aside its questionable safety assumptions and cost numbers, is proving to be unimplementable from a political and budgetary standpoint. When Griffin rolled out ESAS in September 2005, the projected initial operating year for Ares 1/Orion was 2012. It’s now April 2007 — only a year and a half later — and the projected initial operating year for Ares 1/Orion has slipped by three (3!) years to 2015 due to various NASA-internal, White House, and Congressional budgetary setbacks. (The cosmologist in me notes that the Shuttle replacement date is receding at twice the rate of time in our universe!)
— No realistic, or even concrete, Shuttle workforce transition plan. The Senate itself held a hearing on this a week or two ago, but NASA failed to produce any details regarding what it plans to do with various Shuttle positions and workers, or even the steps necessary to develop such a workforce plan. NASA is only three and a half years from ending the program, and is actually shutting down certain Shuttle functions now, but is not transferring or terminating any Shuttle jobs and has no plans to do so. If NASA stays on the current path with the Shuttle workforce, it will create a huge budget liability that will hit in 2010-11 and likely burden the Shuttle’s successor systems for years, maybe decades, to come, potentially costing taxpayers billions or tens of billions in unnecessary overhead. For it’s part, the Senate failed to show much interest or competence in its own hearing. Senator Hutchison, who represents the JSC workforce in Texas and should have a huge interest in this subject, was MIA, and Senator Nelson’s questioning had more to do with budget data his committee staff should already have supplied him with than with the subject at hand.
— Almost countless reductions, deferrels, and terminations in NASA’s exploration, science, and aeronautics priorities, ranging from the terrestrial and concrete (various Earth Science missions, Next Generation Air Transportation System technology development, search for dangerous asteroids, etc.) to the cutting-edge and inspiring (missions and research supporting the search for habitable worlds and life, lunar robotic missions, human lunar exploration hardware development, etc.), all to feed a duplicative Ares 1 launch vehicle that needlessly reinvents the EELV wheel and an Orion crew vehicle that is needlessly oversized.
— A commercial human space flight development program (COTS) that is underfunded by at least several factors when compared to similar Air Force launch vehicle development programs (EELV), that NASA is competing against with its own internal program (Ares 1/Orion), and whose future budget for ISS services has been raided to pay for Ares 1/Orion and replaced by human space flight management promissory notes (“budget challenges”) that have never panned out in the past.
— An International Space Station research budget that has been cut back year after year to fund the Shuttle and Shuttle successor programs that are suppossed to support and enable that research. This budget has been cut back to the point that it’s dubious that any significant research outcomes will be generated by this multi-ten billion program before its operational life comes to an end.
— An astronaut corps that is many times bigger than what is needed to fly out the Space Shuttle, keep the ISS operational, and prepare for human lunar exploration (assuming the next White House doesn’t cancel the lunar return effort), needlessly costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars per year.
So enough with the IG bread-and-circus routine. We don’t vote in national races to see our elected representatives waste their time quibbling over whether some appointee called someone else a “f***stick”. (Heck, our sitting Vice President used the same language in reference to a congressmen and our sitting President swears in conversations with the British Prime Minister.) Even from a purely partisan standpoint, Cobb’s swearing and procedural errors come nowhere close to the alleged transgressions at the Department of Justice by Attorney General Roberto Gonzales. It’s a dry hole — no one in the press or public is going to care if Cobb has a dirty mouth.
Senator Nelson, his staff, the committee staff, and anyone else associated with this worthless endeavor need to grow up, ignore the playground antics, and go after the real and large issues of fraud, waste, abuse, and poor decisionmaking and planning at NASA. There are plenty to go around.
What a joke…
Anonymous:
When you talk about investigating “fraud, waste and abuse”….isn’t that what the IG is supposed to look into? Isn’t that his job. He’s supposed to do it thoroughly and independently, and report to NASA management and (from time to time) Congress so they can do proper oversight.
I think the critics believe he wasn’t doing his job because (a) he was too close to the NASA administrator, (b) he intimidated people who might have revealed these problems through inappropriate behavior, (c) he wasn’t much interested in pursuing certain matters, and (d) he was more focused on making NASA and the bushadmin look good than exposing the very “fraud, waste and abuse” you decry.
This is probably indictative of larger behavioral problems with this administration and political appointees in agencies. This came out in Congressional testimony when they showed how an oil industry lobbyist with no scientific background was rewriting reports on global warming. And let’s not forget the college student in NASA PAO. Those things were worth a hearing. Why not this?
“When you talk about investigating “fraud, waste and abuseâ€â€¦.isn’t that what the IG is supposed to look into? Isn’t that his job.”
Yes, that’s right.
“I think the critics believe he wasn’t doing his job”
But to be clear, it doesn’t appear that the allegation is that Cobb wasn’t (or couldn’t or isn’t capable of) doing his job, or that he broke any laws, or that he violated any enforceable rules applying to IGs. Rather, the allegation is that Cobb swore while doing his job and that Cobb may have showed poor judgement in disagreeing with the release of a “crime stoppers” report. Excuse my eye-rolling (not directed at you Mr. Messier), but whoop-de-freaking-doo.
(As an aside, anyone who lived through Dan Goldin’s regime on the HQ 9th floor would view themselves as lucky to have a boss as intemperate and quick-to-judge as Cobb. And people work daily with much worse bosses than even Goldin in the private sector. Heaven forbid that highly paid government lawyers get cussed out for not meeting expectations in front of their peers…)
“Those things were worth a hearing. Why not this?”
I agree with you that those past incidents and issues are worth investigation. They represent a substantial subversion of the scientific and political institutions that we rely on to make proper judgements and take proper action on global warming and other issues with national and worldwide consequences.
But there’s a huge difference between that and swearing at one’s staff or having an honest (if misguided) disagreement over the release of a document regarding the potential but unverified theft of one lousy ring (belonging to a dead astronaut or not).
I don’t want my congressional representatives or staff wasting their time on such minutae, especially when NASA is facing so many other issues that represent real wastes of millions or billions taxpayer dollars, misrepresentations of critical technical details, and neglect of proper planning and management. It’s a worthless investment of what limited time Congress has for NASA, and from a political perspective, it’s highly unlikely to produce much partisan fodder, either.
I suspect that Cobb is a little unqualified, in managerial temperament and decisionmaking skills, if not in legal background, for the position he’s currently in. But not much of national consequence is going to happen if Cobb continues to serve as IG. But if Ares 1/Orion never closes, if ESAS continues to be too large for appropriated budgets, if Griffin doesn’t start addressing workforce issues in a concrete way, etc., etc., real and lasting damage will be done to America’s public space program. Congress has much bigger fish to fry at NASA than one potty-mouthed, quick-triggered political appointee.
“it appears that the worst of the allegations against Cobb boil down to some R-rated name-calling at one of his lawyers in front of other legal staff and a disagreement with the Texas Rangers…”
Huh? The “worst of the allegations” are actually that the IG shut down or failed to begin investigations of real wrongdoing at the agency. That’s serious stuff. The claims that he played golf with the former administrator go to motive–that is, he failed to properly investigate the agency because he was too chummy with O’Keefe. If true, that’s quite serious.
The other stuff you list are policy issues, not in the same league. And it’s rather ridiculous now that any comments on the Internet inevitably end up at a discussion of how much somebody hates the ESAS report and the Ares. It’s like NASA’s version of Godwin’s Law. We should call it Ares’ Law: the longer a conversation about NASA goes on, the more inevitable it becomes that somebody will bring up the ESAS report and the unworkability of Ares. This was a post about potential malfeasance in the Inspector General’s office and you immediately flew into a discussion of ESAS.
“Huh? The “worst of the allegations†are actually that the IG shut down or failed to begin investigations of real wrongdoing at the agency. That’s serious stuff.”
I read the report summary and did not see such allegations, concrete or otherwise. The closest such allegation was that Cobb disagreed with (but failed to stop) a Texas Rangers’ “crime stoppers” release related to the missing (assumed stolen before all the evidence was in) ring of a dead Columbia astronaut because such a release could have reflected poorly on the agency (and by connection O’Keefe, but that’s like saying the recent antics of one lovestruck astronaut reflects poorly on Griffin).
“The other stuff you list are policy issues, not in the same league.”
They’re actually not policy issues, but I agree with you that the allegations in the report summary against Cobb not in the same league as allegations of actual investigative malfeasance. But I did not see any such allegations of investigative malfeasance, lawbreaking, gross misconduct, etc. in the report summary. Griffin agrees and writes as much in his letter accompanying the report summary.
“…the longer a conversation about NASA goes on, the more inevitable it becomes that somebody will bring up the ESAS report and the unworkability of Ares.”
Unfortunately, as much as I wish it were otherwise, ESAS study flaws and the political and budgetary (and continuing technical) infeasibility of Ares 1/Orion, along with a lack of Shuttle workforce planning, decreasing/non-existant ISS utility, and associated budgetary offsets to productive NASA programs are the biggest issues facing the agency. We can’t, and shouldn’t, ignore the 800 pound gorillas in the room.
“This was a post about potential malfeasance in the Inspector General’s office and you immediately flew into a discussion of ESAS.”
Please, no personal attacks.
Reread my posts. I flew into a discussion about what issues are and are not important for Congress to pay attention to at NASA. Any such list must include ESAS and Ares 1/Orion. To do otherwise is to stick our heads in the sand. But my list also includes Shuttle workforce planning (or lack thereof), science/exploration/aeronautics cuts, inadequate ISS research budgeting, inadequate COTS budgeting, and an oversized astronaut corps.
It just so happens that what’s important at NASA right now is a myriad of issues stemming from and related to ESAS, Ares 1/Orion, and the general poor state of NASA’s current and future human space flight programs.
What’s not important is whether the NASA IG swears too much at his staff or delayed a “crime stoppers” release over one missing ring.
Congress has to get some perspective and start separating the wheat from the chaff. I want my elected representatives proactively dealing with NASA’s weightiest issues, not wasting their time on bread-and-circus sideshows of no real import to the agency or nation.
Well, if you think there are so much serious “waste, fraud and abuse” at the agency, what has Cobb done to uncover it? Has he been very aggressive? Shown competence? Independence? Where are these reports? Did I miss them? If so, point them out. If I’m wrong, fine.
It’s interesting, the list of things you indicate are wrong with the agency are exactly what I’ve been hearing privately for over 18 months. I’ve read part of it here. Some of it’s come out in GAO reports. But, I don’t see much coming out of the IG’s office. Maybe that’s asking too much of an IG, but if it does involve serious “waste, fraud and abuse” that’s what we should be seeing out of that office.
If things are really that bad, Congress needs all the help it can get in performing oversight and trying to help fix the problems. If they have an IG who’s not qualified through temperment or management abilities to do what he needs to do, they need to put someone else in there.
It’s also strange. Most media outlets don’t seem to have picked up on how serious things seem to be. Some outlets that one would expect to be aggressive in ferreting out NASA’s problems tend to note such negative news in a prefuctory fashion. Instead of watchdogs they act as lapdogs – or turn their attacks on NASA’s critics. It’s sad. And it really doesn’t do anyone much good.
From what I read in the report, the R-rated language was not the most serious allegation. The most serious was the failure to report the theft of the ITAR report, and the prevention of the crime stoppers report from going out, both of which created an appearance of a lack of independance. Mamma might have said appearance isn’t everything, but it is a show stopper for an IG. Heck, when I came into the government it was made clear that the appearance of impropriety was almost as bad as the wrongdoing itself.
As for the hostile work environment thing, I know some might think that a few(?) cuss words are no big deal (I definately need to work on my own bad language), but an office is a proffessional environment, and persons in that office, especially the management, should conduct themselves accordingly. In my experience a manager who doesn’t act proffessionally or enforces proffessional standards likely isn’t a very good manager at all. Should the Senate have to get involved? If NASA isn’t going to correct the problem itself, yes, I think they should.
“This was a post about potential malfeasance in the Inspector General’s office and you immediately flew into a discussion of ESAS.â€
“Please, no personal attacks.”
Where, exactly, did I “attack” you?
But I still think that you’ve gone off on a bizarre tangent. Inspectors General are supposed to be independent. That’s essentially their job description. If they aren’t, if they are shutting down investigations to protect the image of the agency, or if they are getting chummy with the agency head, then there is something seriously wrong. You and Keith Cowing seem to not understand that, but Cowing is at least being consistent in serving as guardian for the O’Keefe legacy.
My post merely pointed out that in a thread about the Inspector General, it’s odd (not to mention cliched) to _yet again_ bring up ESAS. There are plenty of threads for you to complain about that. It’s not relevant to the IG issue.
“Well, if you think there are so much serious “waste, fraud and abuse†at the agency, what has Cobb done to uncover it?”
I agree. I don’t think Cobb — or his predecessor, Roberta Gross — have been effective at investigating NASA’s biggest, most obvious problems. I think the IG’s office should investigate things like the sources of data used in the ESAS study, NASA’s inability to purchase commercially available services in accordance with the law (e.g., JSC vomit comets versus Zero-G), the oversized astronaut corps, etc., etc. And if Senator Nelson or other congressmen wanted to go after the NASA IG for his or her failure to address these kinds of issues, I’d be four-square behind them.
But that’s not what Senator Nelson or other congressional representatives and staff are doing. Instead, they’re wasting their time, our votes, and our tax dollars on piddling issues that are way beneath them like swearing in the workplace and a crime stoppers report on a minor, unverified theft.
The private sector equivalent would be having the board of directors at a major corporation conduct a review every time a manager cussed out an employee or delayed a report about the theft of a company PDA.
Should corrective action, maybe even including firing, be taken against Cobb? Sure. Does the United States Senate need to get involved? Heck no. Does the United States Senate have way more important oversight issues to deal with at NASA? Hell yes.
My 2 cents… your mileage may vary.
“Should the Senate have to get involved? If NASA isn’t going to correct the problem itself, yes, I think they should.”
I would just point out that Griffin has taken steps to reprimand and improve Cobb’s behavior, as laid out in Griffin’s accompanying letter. If Senator Nelson or other congressmen don’t trust Griffin (or any other NASA Administrator) to deal with this one personnel issue, then they should not trust Griffin (or any other NASA Administrator) to manage any of the agency’s much bigger problems and issues.
Again, the key transgressions laid out in the report summary are way beneath the attention of Congress and are appropriately handled by management, which is apparently what’s happened. Congress should instead focus its oversight on the issues of real and vital importance to the nation’s space program, of which there are many.
“Where, exactly, did I “attack†you?
When you ascribed pejorative language to me and my actions, like “you immediately flew into” and “you’ve gone off on a bizarre tangent”. Debate the facts and the opinions, not me or my actions.
“Inspectors General are supposed to be independent. That’s essentially their job description”
Absolutely. But the summary report doesn’t allege that Cobb is not independent, merely that some of his actions lack the “appearance” of independence. Moreover, the worst of these actions — disagreeing with the release of a crime stoppers report about the unsubstantiated theft of one lousy ring — is hardly going shake the NASA IG office or the overall agency to its foundations.
Again, I’d make the argument that crime stoppers reports about unverified minor larcenies and any associated lack of appearance of independence are beneath the attention of Congress. As much as Senator Nelson might wish otherwise, Cobb is not Roberto Gonzales (the federal government’s top lawyer), and there’s no allegation that Cobb is subverting the nation’s legal system for White House political gain (as with Gonzales).
“My post merely pointed out that in a thread about the Inspector General”
But the thread is not just about the IG. Mr. Foust’s original post was a report on Congressional reaction to the allegations against the IG. And my opinion is that Congress’s reaction is an unwarranted waste of their time, our votes, and out taxpayer dollars.
“it’s odd (not to mention cliched)”
Since when are we debating fashion trends?
This forum (I think) is about political matters and policy issues of importance to the nation’s various space activities. To the extent that our elected representatives are not dealing with the most important of these matters and issues, it’s more than fair game to bring them up in a thread that starts with a post about what those elected representatives are spending their time and our votes and tax dollars on instead.
“to _yet again_ bring up ESAS”
I hate to repeat myself, but the point is not ESAS or Ares 1/Orion. If you want to debate ESAS or Ares 1/Orion, please do take it to another thread or forum.
The point is that Congress is not spending its time on ESAS or Ares 1/Orion or any of the other half-dozen issues of pressing and vital importance to NASA’s future that I listed. Instead, Senator Nelson and other congressmen are wasting their time on a personnel issue that is far beneath the attention of Congress, that is better left to management, and that has no substantial bearing on the future of the nation’s public space programs. Governance is all about setting and working priorities, and Congress is doing a pitiful job of it right now with respect to NASA.
I don’t know how to make that more clear.
Anonymous8 is right about a few things. Many discussions here eventually devolve into debates about ESAS and Ares and all the problems there. Recently there was a post about the sad state of NASA’s environmental and science programs. Same thing happened there.
He’s also right in that this involves, to some extent, a fight over O’Keefe’s legacy. Those close to him seem eager to protect it at all costs. As they did when he was running NASA. If you had an alternate view at the time, you were shouted down and told to sit down and shut up. Not much has changed.
It’s scary to see Dan Goldin’s name being invoked again. I thought after more than five years, we’d be done with him. But, nope. It’s funny how he was publicly criticized almost weekly for this very same type of behavior. Now he’s invoked almost as a defense. Everybody does it. Very strange.
Whether Congress should get involved or not….I don’t really know. Until the report’s released, it’s difficult to say. This may, however, be a reaction to the repub congress’ failure to do much oversight for years while Bush scattered inept cronies throughout the bureaucracy. The Democrats clearly believe the problems are more serious than Anonymous believes, and they don’t trust the bushadmin to fix them.
Why would that be? Katrina. Iraq. The CPA. Future Exxon-Mobil execs rewriting global warming reports. The list goes on. And, oh, the mess that Anonymous describes at NASA. They must have some inkling of it. You figured it out.
“Anonymous8 is right about a few things. Many discussions here eventually devolve into debates about ESAS and Ares and all the problems there.”
This thread did not, though. I counted ESAS and Ares 1/Orion on a list of a half-dozen examples of much higher priority issues and problems that Congress should be focusing on instead of IG Cobb. But there’s been no substantive follow-up discussion of ESAS or Ares 1/Orion in this thread (and there probably shouldn’t be).
“Recently there was a post about the sad state of NASA’s environmental and science programs. Same thing happened there.”
But that’s not surprising since many of the budget cuts to those programs were made to keep the ESAS plan and Ares 1/Orion schedule intact. Again, we can’t and shouldn’t ignore the 800-pound gorillas in the room, even if we’re only mentioning them in passing.
“He’s also right in that this involves, to some extent, a fight over O’Keefe’s legacy. Those close to him seem eager to protect it at all costs.”
I don’t see what IG Cobb has to do with an O’Keefe “legacy”. Other than seeing the agency through the Columbia disaster and getting the VSE through infant mortality, there’s not much else in the O’Keefe “legacy”, and Cobb certainly has nothing to do with either of those achievements. Moreoever, even if Cobb was convicted of some scandalous transgression, any reflection on O’Keefe and his achievements (or lack thereof) would be tenuous, at best. The White House nominates and the Senate confirms the NASA IG, not the NASA Administrator.
“If you had an alternate view at the time, you were shouted down and told to sit down and shut up. Not much has changed.”
I’d argue that’s a function of the everlasting tension between long-term civil servants and short-term political appointees. The former are set in their institutional norms and routines while the latter have only a limited amount of time to enact change and implement a new agenda. It’s a healthy tension — you don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater — but sometimes the blame lies as much with the civil servants’ resistance to necessary reprioritization and good reform as it does with poor decisionmaking by political appointees.
“It’s funny how [Goldin] was publicly criticized almost weekly for this very same type of behavior. Now he’s invoked almost as a defense.”
The point is that Congress never took Goldin to task for his angry tirades, swearing, and even physically intimidating behavior towards subordinates. And if Congress didn’t spend time on such behavior coming from the head of a major federal agency, why should they spend time on such behavior coming from the IG of the same agency?
“Whether Congress should get involved or not….I don’t really know. Until the report’s released, it’s difficult to say.”
I don’t think so. While it’s possible there’s some great scandal in the full report that wasn’t covered in the report summary, the summary should have covered it. And the summary explicitely details what the review committee apparently considers to be Cobb’s worst incidents, which, again, amount to repeated angry swearing at another lawyer in front of other legal staff and a disagreement with the Texas Rangers over the public release of a crime stoppers report regarding a potential minor larceny.
And again, I wouldn’t say those are good things to be noted in Cobb’s annual personnel review, but they certainly don’t merit congressional attention.
“The Democrats clearly believe the problems are more serious than Anonymous believes”
Just to be clear, it’s not really a matter of what I do or don’t believe. It’s all there in black-and-white in the summary report and accompanying letters. For example, NASAWatch highlights the following exchange of letters:
“The first letter, from Clay Johnson, Chairman of the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficency to James Burrus, Chairman of the Integrity Committee, asks Burrus to confirm a number of things with regard to NASA IG Robert Cobb:
“First, I asked for clarification of whether the Integrity Committee concluded that Mr. Cobb had broken any laws or acted illegally. You reported that he had not. Instead, the conclusions of the Integrity Committee related to management and appearance concerns.
Second, I asked for clarification as to whether all of the members of the Integrity Committee shared a common view about what would be the appropriate way to address the concerns raised about Mr. Cobb, and you indicated that there had been a range of views.
Third, I asked for clarification as to whether the Integrity Committee was not itself recommending removal as a disciplinary action against Mr. Cobb, and you told me that no such recommendation was being made by the Integrity Committee.
I also noted hat the original report does not appear to make an actual recommendation about steps to be taken in light of the Integrity Committee report’s findings about Mr. Cobb’s actions, and you confirmed that I read that correctly.
Please confirm that I have accurately summarized our conversation on these points.”
Burrus’ response states that Johnson’s letter “accurately reflects our discussions and the intent ofthe Integrity Committee.”
In summary, the Cobb has not acted illegally, not everyone on the committee reviewing Cobb’s conduct agrees that he’s even acted that badly, and the committee made no disciplinary recommendations with respect to Cobb’s actions.
I don’t know how else to interpret that exchange other than the allegations against Cobb don’t amount to much and aren’t very important. Again, if that’s right, then why the heck is our nation’s highest legislative body getting involved?
“Why would that be? Katrina. Iraq. The CPA. Future Exxon-Mobil execs rewriting global warming reports.”
I agree. These are executive branch problems worthy of intensive legislative branch oversight.
“And, oh, the mess that Anonymous describes at NASA. They must have some inkling of it.”
Based on recent behavior, I don’t think Congress does have an inkling of NASA’s real problems. Certainly not the staff on NASA’s Senate authorization committee or Senator Nelson.
I think if O’Keefe and Cobb had a chummy relationship and this affected the latter’s ability to be an effective watchdog over the agency, that doesn’t reflect well on either of them or their tenures. And it makes you wonder what didn’t get investigated.
It’s little surprise that the strongest defense of Cobb has come from NASA Watch. This web site styles itself as an independent watchdog of the agency. But, its editor is close to O’Keefe and has been the man’s principle booster/defender in the media. Anyone with a different opinion is told to sit down and shut up. And Cobb seems to be given a pass on charges of creating a hostile work environment while Goldin was criticzed all the time for similar behavior. It’s puzzling.
Why didn’t Congress get involved in this when Goldin was running things? I have no idea. You seem to be closer to the situation than I am. What’s your best guess?
I really don’t know what Congress knows. I do know, based on published reports, that they seem to be worried very much about schedules for the new vehicles and whether or not there’s adequate funding and what’s happening to other programs within NASA’s portfolio. But, it seems like not much is getting done to fix the problems. It’s my sense, based on the last 10-15 years, that a presidential administration tends to get what it wants in this area, for the most part. Congress tends to tinker but usually goes along in the end.
Poor Doug – Sean O’Keefe left NASA two years ago and yet Doug just can’t let go of this chronic obsession he has with me and O’Keefe. Everything I do supposedly runs back to this little fantasy he harbors in his head. So far I think I am blocking three different email addresses Doug uses to send me his little conspiracy notes. I’ve asked him to stop – multiple times.
Once again, a mature Dan Goldin-like response to criticism. You’re a true professional, Keith.
Poor Doug – he just can’t let go of this odd obsession with me …
Hey Jeff, any chance of deleting Keith’s posts here? They seem to be non-responsive to any actual point (as usual). Yet another attempt to take a discussion down into the gutter.
Gee Doug, you make some comments about me – questioning my motives as an individual – and you make these comments on your own initiative (not based on anything I posted here – it has been a long time since I have) – and yet when I reply to your personal comments about me, that is being “non-responsive”? Get a grip – you can’t have it both ways, Doug. If you don’t want me responding to you questioning your motives then don’t start a thread questioning mine!
I rest my case, your honor. I ask for an immediate summary judgment in my favor.
Comments are now closed for this post. You can probably figure out why.