Sean O'Keefe Departs

JRS: In article .com
, dated Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:36:23, seen in news:sci.space.policy,
posted :

We definitely want someone who will take the job for it's own sake. We
also want someone who will take it for everything BUT the money.
That's called dedication and excellence. That's what makes an
organization really good. That's called HAPPY WITH YOUR WORK. Take a
look at all the best leaders in every area- the top- if you look and
ask around- even if there is exhorbitant pay- that wasn't what they
really cared about.


NASA should be split into three portions, and a Co-Ordinator's Office.

A. Government. One part dealing with the technical aspects of public
dealings with the air/space business (shared with FAA) and the provision
of such air/space-related services as the State needs to control for
reasons of policy. That should be headed by a career public service
administrator with a technical background at or above first-degree
level, paid on the usual GS scale.

B. Commercial. One part dealing with the provision of services to other
air & space organisations that they cannot economically provide
themselves - for example, at the Cape there is provision of large areas
of near-empty ground (i.e. condo-free, etc.) from the middle of which
one can launch rockets. That should be headed by a Board of successful
career businessmen on the basis that business-type salaries will be paid
while the service runs profitably (Government subsidy allowed, if
Government wishes to provide it).

C. Spaceflight. A third part dealing with peaceful space research and
development, robotic and manned. This should be headed by a Director
with sufficient past success-record to be the highest qualified bidder
for the post - $100,000 p.a. might be a "reserve" figure. There should
be suitable deputy directors, on a cheaper basis, to keep the place
running while Director is in orbit; and a GS Administrative just to keep
the place running legally.

The need is for a Director who wants the job enough to buy it, and a
proven record enabling him to do so, and the youth to enjoy it.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm; quotes.htm; pascal.htm; &c, &c.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:06:10 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


: Half a million dollars is not an awful lot of money to a government that spends
: trillions annually, perhaps offering top salaries to top people will make the
: overall organization more efficient.

Where does it end though? I mean serving in the government used to be its
own reward. If it no longer is, then I blame the administration for not
making it so.

Of course you do.

Because, as we all know, everything bad that ever happens is the Bush
administration's fault, and everything good that ever happens is a
result of the previous administration, and bad things never happened
under any previous administration, (except other Republican ones).

Tkalbfus1 ) wrote:
: Okay, then how do you propose the government pay its employees to make
: their salaries comparable to that of the private sector?

: See what the going rate is in the Private sector and have the government match
: that. If you want a talented Administrator and you want to keep him, you should
: pay him more than the average Joe. Alot of privat companies find it economical
: to pay their CEOs millions of dollars, and they find that the performance of
: these CEOs justifies that salary. One salary for the head guy, even if its
: millions of dollars is a smal amount when compared with the overall budget. If
: a CEO is able to make a company profitable, giving the CEO the extra money
: turns out to be worth while. If you are making a profit on your investments, do
: you really care how much the CEO makes so long as he keeps the company in the
: black.

Okay, should the government offer O'Keefe $500K to keep him? What if he
didn't take that? Should the next candidate require $500K because that is
what O'Keefe was offered to stay?

: If an NASA administrator can run the agency smoothly and efficiently, don't you
: think its worth paying him half a million dollars in order to keep him? Half a
: million is not even enough to pay for a single space mission, but if he keeps
: NASA from wasting money, its well worth the tiny expense. I wouldn't want to be
: cheap in hiring executive talent, if that means paying him $150,000 and getting
: a wasteful, slothful, inefficient agency that plows money into questionable
: projects and then abandons them. For NASA $500,000 is not alot of money.

Again, are you willing to raise the whole DOD salary base? I mean the
sodiers are doing a good job and are risking their lives. A NASA
adminsistrator doesn't risk his life. Why not pay the soldiers more?
I
: don't care in the Administrator owns a luxury boat, has maids in the kitchen
: and spoils his daughter on all the latest fashions. If he associates with
: Donald Trump and flies around in executive jets, and holds wild parties
: inviting all sorts of celebrities from Hollywood, who really cares?

Not sure where lifestyle came into to this...

: Look I don't care about his personal lifestyle or whether its sufficently
: Proletarian, so long as he does his job properly. Paying high salaries is
: justifiable so long as we get the talent and the performance we need. I don't
: care about fairness or jealous government workers who complain about how high
: their boss's salary is compared to their own. A person's salary should be
: proportional to his talent. So long as all the other workers get paid a decent
: salary they can live off of, I don't see where their jealousy of someone else
: getting paid more really matters.

The private sector works that way, but not government. Why do you want to
force the private sector payscale onto the public sector?

: Does it matter more to you that you have a decent home to live in and feed and
: take care of your family, or is it more important, that others don't have
: incomes that are too much higher than your own?

The former of course. But you make it seem like GSers don't have a choice.
Do you think that we have too few government employees and that they make
too little? I suspect that you are focusing too closely to O'Keefe's
situation and missing the big picture here. You can't pay a single gvmt
employee like a CEO and expect others not to want the same.

Eric

: Tom

Tkalbfus1 ) wrote:
: Perhaps. But I think it may be another case of "do what I say but not what
: I do."
:
: I and use Q-Tips.
:

: Does that mean that NASA should send the NASA Administrator to Mars, or that he
: should be on every shuttle flight?

No. Where did you get that from?

: Should the NASA Administrator be right up their with the Astronauts, putting
: his life in danger with the rest of them?

Maybe. In fact, didn't we have former astronauts as NASA heads in the
past?

: Do you want the NASA Administrator on the International Space Station along
: with his Russian Counterpart?

No.

: That would be doing as I do, wouldn't it?

Not really.

I think you miss the idea that we all have a choice of working in
government or private sector. .

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:06:10 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


: : Half a million dollars is not an awful lot of money to a government that spends
: : trillions annually, perhaps offering top salaries to top people will make the
: : overall organization more efficient.
:
: Where does it end though? I mean serving in the government used to be its
: own reward. If it no longer is, then I blame the administration for not
: making it so.

: Of course you do.

Well, what has Bush done to encourage working in the US Government? I
think he does better at training people to jump ship as soon as they can
cash in. I cite Powell, Ridge and O'Keefe as my examples.

: Because, as we all know, everything bad that ever happens is the Bush
: administration's fault, and everything good that ever happens is a
: result of the previous administration, and bad things never happened
: under any previous administration, (except other Republican ones).

Not true. Clinton wasn't flawless or blameless. Every adminstartions have
had their good points and bad.

Eric

In article ,
Dr John Stockton wrote:
B. Commercial. One part dealing with the provision of services to other
air & space organisations that they cannot economically provide
themselves - for example, at the Cape there is provision of large areas
of near-empty ground (i.e. condo-free, etc.) from the middle of which
one can launch rockets.

Uh, that's not done by NASA now. (The Cape proper, where all commercial
launches are done from, is owned and run by the USAF.)
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:32:35 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Okay, should the government offer O'Keefe $500K to keep him?

Civil service rules don't allow that. It would require an act of
Congress (unlikely to happen).

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:32:35 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Okay, should the government offer O'Keefe $500K to keep him?

: Civil service rules don't allow that. It would require an act of
: Congress (unlikely to happen).


I agree. I asked it as a rhetorical question for Tom, who seems to have a
real problem that GSers aren't making as much as people in the private
sector.

Eric

Dr John Stockton Dec 23, 10:24 am

***NASA should be split into three portions, and a Co-Ordinator's
Office.
***
Sounds good but that's simple management skill. A good manager does
that with one division and no need to split and have redundant
expensive non-communicative branch forces that congress outlines with
walled up laws.


***The need is for a Director who wants the job enough to buy it, and a
proven record enabling him to do so, and the youth to enjoy it.
***

It's great to know that thought process is always pull someone from
somewhere else that did a god job there and proved to be excellent.

IMO opinion what winds up happening is you get skilled individuals who
know very little about many things- and waste all sorts of resource
trying to learn what the new ship is and does and has done and will do.

It's balkanization of skill and experience, and is exactly what has led
to the tremendous salary battles in the private sector that make having
a non-mobile career a joke, and make things very expensive for all of
us.

Worse yet, excellence is often determined by the bottom line stock
price, which can easily be attributed to market factors or timing of
new product, and most likely a breakthrough at lower levels or market
changes that provided the boost.

So we have a very flawed system in determining excellence. It's very
tough on people's lives as well.

If they pick anyone it needs to be someone from the inner works of NASA
that has been there a decade or more and knows what is there already,
not some bloviated outsider with a feathered cap and whom knows what
gigantic lack of knowledge in the arena.

JRS: In article , dated Thu, 23 Dec 2004
21:39:11, seen in news:sci.space.policy, Henry Spencer
posted :
In article ,
Dr John Stockton wrote:
B. Commercial. One part dealing with the provision of services to other
air & space organisations that they cannot economically provide
themselves - for example, at the Cape there is provision of large areas
of near-empty ground (i.e. condo-free, etc.) from the middle of which
one can launch rockets.

Uh, that's not done by NASA now. (The Cape proper, where all commercial
launches are done from, is owned and run by the USAF.)

Never mind; it illustrates the principle, and, if there are no valid
examples, you merely end up with a taskless department. Such can always
be used to absorb useless staff. OTOH, while the present USAF personnel
probably do a good job, surely the USAF should in principle not be
indulging in commercial operations other than the acquisition and
disposal of (in a wide sense) military assets?

Anyway, I cunningly did not (quite) say that NASA currently did that.

Regards,

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm; quotes.htm; pascal.htm; &c, &c.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.