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.

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.

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.