I did not read his statement as a blanket statement; it hadn't occurred to me that anyone would until I saw your comment. As a matter of fact, the 2nd sentence seems to explicitly preclude that interpretation.
Since he's a political actor, and we know that regulatory capture exists, this could call into question whether it's appropriate for him to continue being a regulator. That's the argument.
See the history of our JQB (before voters questionably decided to give control to the legislature this election).
I think you mean:
Before the legislatures questionably took control after putting favorable wording on a ballot that the average uninformed voter read as a no brainer.
More fun was that State Rep. Johnnie Caldwell of Griffin, GA (formerly Judge Caldwell before being approached by the JQB and resigning due to allegations of sexually harassing a female attorney) was one of the co-sponsors of the amendment.
We don’t see any reason they would submit information that wasn’t truthful
It's one thing to suggest that in general, the companies are believed to be honest. That's a fairly reasonable statement.
It's another thing to be blind to the benefits of giving untruthful information. If all companies were honest and compliant, there would be no need for a Director of Regulatory Compliance.
But it's not always the case, sometimes people are just thick or we lack a complete picture.
An easy fix would be to contact retailers like Walmart or Kroger to see what they're paying for chicken. Hopefully the liars would offset and end up closer to the truth.
You haven't been on the internet much have you?
Get out before it sucks all the optimism out of you and replaces it with cynicism.
I feel it's a non-reversible process.
So, get out before you actually get informed about how the world runs?
Others don't give a damn, and they're happier because of it.
Bad things will happen to you personally eventually (assuming they haven't yet). I have enough of that to deal with already, why would I want more?
Who said we have no control on the world? Do you think one has to be The President or some mogul to have a say in the world? Was Rosa Parks anybody important when she did what she did?
And even if it's not about changing the world, being aware of the pitfalls instead of blindly optimistic can let people avoid lots of dangers of the "it can't happen here" or "it can't happen to me" type...
These are social issues. There are no monetary interests at work.
In the (very, very) long run nobody really cares who you marry.
These are just the little things given to us to fight over so we don't notice what's really going on (i.e 3 wars, but still no healthcare? Come on.)
From slavery and Jim Crow laws, to seggregation and redlining, there were tons of monetary interests at keeping the blacks down.
Strip the organization of resources over time, put politically appointed people in charge of work that should be performed by civil servants, and create a situation where the inmates run the asylum.
Even if nobody applies pressure, there's an implied threat of reprisal when the an appointed former garden blogger turned director of whatever gives an undesired answer. That job should be a civil service gig protected from direct reprisal.
Compare this ridiculous methodology compared to something more robust like the CPI calculations performed by the US DOL.
That timeframe coincides with a wave of privatization within the state, including the divestment of IT from state governance to an outsourcing deal and broad tax cuts that devastated local government and education.
I'm not engaging in knee-jerk partisanship. The playbook for modern republican governance calls for contracting services out, diminishing the role of civil servants, and making tax reduction a cornerstone policy position. When you replace civil servants with political appointees of any party, this sort of thing happens. It just so happens that republicans are the offenders in this story.
I'm sure those chicken companies appreciate the tax break though.
I assume that you're talking about Atlanta.
The Marta? Nope. Not even close. It's great if you want to go downtown, but not much else. Also it closes before the bars do.
Don't even get me started about the highways there.
Not knowing the broader GA situation, can you shed light on "strip the organization of resources over time"? I don't see that in the article. It does sound like he could have used more support, but that can be the case in many jobs, in industry or government.
From what I see, Schronce has been a civil servant since October 1996.
PDF: http://atlantacityga.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&...
Oct 1996 - August 2014 Director of Public Affairs, GA Dept of Agriculture
August 2014 - Marketing Representative for Municipal Market Board for City of Atlanta
I wasn't able to fill in the gap between working for the Municipal Market Board and returning to the Dept of Agriculture.
His blog was part of the Dept of Agriculture website. Describing the situation as "former garden blogger turned director of whatever" is an unfair characterization of the situation. I don't see in the article whether the Director of Public Affairs is an appointed position or not, nor could I find information about that online. He has a background in agriculture, a horticulture graduate of North Carolina State University. If it was an appointment, it doesn't appear to be purely political.
http://agr.georgia.gov/artys-garden.aspx
I also don't see an indication from the article that he was worried about reprisal. I agree it's important to shield regulators to let them do their jobs as free of influence as possible.
He did write a memo, raising the issue. With the light that's now been cast on the situation, hopefully it'll get fixed. No system is perfect. What makes a difference is whether it gets fixed now that the issue is known.
The particulars of the Georgia Dock aside, how does this compare with other states, red, blue, or purple?
Not everything in this world requires knee-jerk political name calling.
Like, sure, I get it, it's easier to work with companies if you demonstrate a trusting relationship, but you're in an adversarial position by the nature of your job, the companies should feel a little uncomfortable around you.
> “My training was inadequate, inconsistent and sometimes in error,” Schronce wrote of his preparation for calculating the Georgia Dock.
I feel like this statement makes Asbridge unsuited for his job as director of regulatory compliance. Willful obliviousness implies a conflict of interest.