In late May NASA reassigned Constellation program manager Jeff Hanley, a decision most people first heard about during a House Science and Technology Committee hearing featuring administrator Charles Bolden. That decision triggered a strong reaction among some members of Congress who considered the move a form of retribution against a manager who opposed the agency’s plans to end Constellation. Two key senators, Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), the chair and ranking member respectively of the Senate Commerce Committee, went so far as to request an investigation by the NASA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) regarding “whether his removal as program manager was related to Mr. Hanley’s well-publicized efforts to preserve the Constellation Program.”
The OIG did conduct an investigation and, in a letter to Sens. Rockefeller and Hutchison on Tuesday, Inspector General Paul Martin reported no evidence of wrongdoing by the agency in its decision to reassign Hanley to a newly-created position at the Johnson Space Center. The reassignment, Martin said, was “a management decision” after Hanley “sent a series of e-mails to senior NASA officials that caused them to conclude that he could not effectively lead Constellation” during the program’s current political turmoil. In addition, Hanley himself “does not claim he was retaliated against”, and the OIG “uncovered no evidence of unlawful reprisal.” The reassignment, the letter added, did not “foreclose Congress’s ability to consider meaningful alternatives” to the FY11 budget proposal, echoing language in the original letter by the senators.
The seven-page letter provides a detailed chronology of events that led up to Hanley’s May 26th reassignment. In particular, we learn that Bolden considered removing Hanley from his position as Constellation manager almost a month earlier, in response to an email Hanley sent Bolden after the administrator spoke at JSC. In the email Hanley was sharply critical of the decision to cancel Constellation: “…to hear NASA leadership and administration officials further spread the spin and accusations of others without giving us a chance to rebutt [sic] or respond, does not align with the core values you recited to us today.” Bolden told the OIG that in “normal circumstances” he would have reassigned Hanley, but instead chose at the time to keep him in place, chalking up the email to frustration. Hanley was warned, but on May 18 wrote another email, this one to Doug Cooke, the associate administrator for exploration, criticizing the agency’s position on termination liability as “untenable”. A day later, according to the OIG, Cooke met with Bolden and both agreed that Hanley needed to be reassigned.
The conclusion of the so called investigation is a crock. The body of the report clearly shows that Hanley was given the royal order of the boot for speaking his mind and having the temerity to document it. NASA is clearly trying to cover themselves for the anti deficiency act gambit.
Yah! It seems we actually have a NASA administration now that treats dissent as it should be: a prelude to revolution. Maybe next they can put some effort into stopping all the leaks and actually get some decent public relations people. Before you know it, we might actually see ONE message coming out of NASA and the idea that NASA is a directionless mess will stop being a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The tangled web we weave,etc.
Good management would be nice at NASA particularly at a time like this but everything points to Bolden being incapable of good management. Not such a clever chap and frankly he is politically inept.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ July 13th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
The conclusion of the so called investigation is a crock. …
what evidence do you have of that? Nothing I bet, just your own personal viewpoints…which include the fact that there was WMD in Iraq or Saddam was part of 9/11…viewpoints which are only rooted in fiction.
Robert G. Oler
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ July 13th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
“The conclusion of the so called investigation is a crock. The body of the report clearly shows that Hanley was given the royal order of the boot for speaking his mind and having the temerity to document it. NASA is clearly trying to cover themselves for the anti deficiency act gambit.”
Hanley was not a political appointee, he was management. As such, in the real world I worked in, if someone in management wasn’t on-board with the big boss, then they would be kicked out the door.
If he had been in the Army, he probably would have been brought up on charges of sedition. This being a government job, he’s lucky to be moved to a decent project.
Besides, you seem to have overlooked the part that said “In addition, Hanley himself “does not claim he was retaliated against””.
This is very interesting. I was laid off about 2 weeks ago from NASA. I worked on the Ares rockets. Ironically a few weeks prior I was asked to scan some emails from Jeff Hanley to several people within the Program. I was asked to mark the emails as sensitive but unclassified. Now that I see this blog post it makes me think of those emails that I scanned.
This whole thing is turning into one big ugly mess and is ruining people’s lives.
Outside the NASA cocoon in the real world, if you publicly criticize your boss you get fired.
It’s amazing to me how big a disconnect there is between NASA employees/government contractors and reality.
Just T, not that I don’t believe you, but for which contractor did you work?
@ Trent Waddington,
if Just T. gives you that information, he might as well, sign his full name and address; I truly hope he is NOT that foolish;
Nope, I’m not that foolish.. hence the reason for the code screen name
I will say I worked for a subcontractor. Was working at NASA for 4 years.
@ Just T
Hope your doing well, and have something lined up; my thoughts are with all the people who are being messed around with the politics that surround this issue; saw the same thing happen 52 years ago, in Canada, with their Gov’t Aerospace Industry, and it never recovered;
Just T
Thanks for bringing some “human reality” to the debate. It might not help very much but best wishes for the future.
Just T wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
This whole thing is turning into one big ugly mess and is ruining people’s lives…
economic change is messy…the notion of space policy should be to do what is best for The Republic not simply keep people employeed in techno welfare.
Robert G. Oler
Just T, you basically answered my question, thanks.
But in general, people who are unwilling to sign their name really shouldn’t make claims about what they are, as there is no way we can verify those claims.
Not sure how I answered your question, Trent, but ok.
What difference does it really make what contractor I worked for? It’s irrelevant really.
I was just expressing how what I was asked to do while employed seemed relevant to the blog.