Sean O'Keefe Departs

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_10608.shtml

"Tkalbfus1" wrote in message

One is, why doesn't the salary of this position reflect its importance.
NASA's
budget is around $15 billion a year, being responsible for managing an
organization that spends this amount of money has got to be an important
position, there is no other space agency like it, yet Sean O'Keefe would
rather
be President of one University among many. So if a Non-profit University
is
offering him $500,000, why is the position of Administrator have only a
salary
of $150,000.

The second question is this: There are alot of people who are interested
in
space who would gladly accept the position of Administrator for $150,000,
because they are interested in Space, not because $150,000 is alot of
money!
$150,000 is enough to support a family, but a space enthusiast would
accept the
position because it would give him a chance to make important decisions on
space. Somebody with vision should have been chosen. If being
Administrator is
just a job or a way to earn a living to someone, that is the wrong person
for
the job.

That's a little unfair. I think you've got to be realistic. College is not
cheap. I don't believe at all that it was "just a job" for Mr. O'Keefe, and
I applaud his focus on his family needs. [Did you read his resignation
letter?] And, an interest in space doesn't translate to exceptional
management skills - which, for the space agency I believe is the key
requirement. I will add that I certainly agree with your first point, that
the NASA administrator position (as well as other similar positions in other
government agencies) should be rewarded commensurate with the
responsibility, and with performance, in order to keep really good people.

Jon

Tkalbfus1 wrote:
If salary was the deciding criterion, it makes you wonder why Sean O'Keefe was
picked as Administrator in the first place. Was the position of Administrator
just a job for him? There are two sides to this issue:

One is, why doesn't the salary of this position reflect its importance. NASA's
budget is around $15 billion a year, being responsible for managing an
organization that spends this amount of money has got to be an important
position, there is no other space agency like it, yet Sean O'Keefe would rather
be President of one University among many. So if a Non-profit University is
offering him $500,000, why is the position of Administrator have only a salary
of $150,000.

The second question is this: There are alot of people who are interested in
space who would gladly accept the position of Administrator for $150,000,
because they are interested in Space, not because $150,000 is alot of money!
$150,000 is enough to support a family, but a space enthusiast would accept the
position because it would give him a chance to make important decisions on
space. Somebody with vision should have been chosen. If being Administrator is
just a job or a way to earn a living to someone, that is the wrong person for
the job.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside...ry _and_perks

"The First U.S. Congress voted to pay George Washington a salary of
$25,000 a year — a significant sum in 1789. Washington, already a
successful man, didn't take the money. Since 2001, the President has
earned a salary of $400,000 a year."

Generally, you don't do government work for the money

"The First U.S. Congress voted to pay George Washington a salary of
$25,000 a year — a significant sum in 1789. Washington, already a
successful man, didn't take the money. Since 2001, the President has
earned a salary of $400,000 a year."

Generally, you don't do government work for the money


If being an Administrator is a sacrifice, the job becomes just a stepping stone
on to better things, such as being president of a University. A person would
accept the job of Administrator in order to build up on his resume so that the
University would offer him the job.

Perhaps NASA would be better served, if it had an administrator that wanted to
stick around. Having an insufficient salary is a discouragement to doing that.
The University that hired Sean O'Keefe recognized the importance of his job at
NASA, which is why they offered him they $500,000 job. But do we really want
NASA managers that accept the job so that other organizations will notice him
for his accomplishments there, or do we want people that take the job who want
it for its own sake?

Also if a very talented individual is offered a job at NASA and he realizes
that he can get better pay elsewhere, the more competant people will go
elsewhere while the less competant people will remain to take the job.

A person who accepts the job at NASA for the lesser salary may be considered to
be "paying his dues" in order to be considered for a more important position of
a lesser organization.

Is it really a healthy situation when many of the the CEO of NASA contractors
get paid more that the "CEO" of NASA. Just imagine what its going to be like,
if the CEO of an important NASA contractor invites the NASA Administrator over
to his mansion in order to show off his proposals, and maybe hints that their
company could use someone of his talents in the near future.

Tkalbfus1 ) wrote:
: If salary was the deciding criterion, it makes you wonder why Sean O'Keefe was
: picked as Administrator in the first place. Was the position of Administrator
: just a job for him? There are two sides to this issue:

: One is, why doesn't the salary of this position reflect its importance. NASA's
: budget is around $15 billion a year, being responsible for managing an
: organization that spends this amount of money has got to be an important
: position, there is no other space agency like it, yet Sean O'Keefe would rather
: be President of one University among many. So if a Non-profit University is
: offering him $500,000, why is the position of Administrator have only a salary
: of $150,000.

: The second question is this: There are alot of people who are interested in
: space who would gladly accept the position of Administrator for $150,000,
: because they are interested in Space, not because $150,000 is alot of money!
: $150,000 is enough to support a family, but a space enthusiast would accept the
: position because it would give him a chance to make important decisions on
: space. Somebody with vision should have been chosen. If being Administrator is
: just a job or a way to earn a living to someone, that is the wrong person for
: the job.

Tom, look around the Bush Admin departees. Powell left. For a bigger
paycheck? Yet to be seen. Tom Ridge. He left to make more money. We has
PA govenor and a big donor to Bush. W repaid him by making him DHS head.
Now, Ridge leaves to make more money. Condi Rice. "Up or out" were her
words regarding what she would seek in a Bush second term. One can call it
ambition or self-serving. But I agree, NASA needs a visionary rather than
someone seeking a paycheck per se. It will be intersting to see who gets
picked.

Eric

Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: Tkalbfus1 wrote:
: If salary was the deciding criterion, it makes you wonder why Sean O'Keefe was
: picked as Administrator in the first place. Was the position of Administrator
: just a job for him? There are two sides to this issue:
:
: One is, why doesn't the salary of this position reflect its importance. NASA's
: budget is around $15 billion a year, being responsible for managing an
: organization that spends this amount of money has got to be an important
: position, there is no other space agency like it, yet Sean O'Keefe would rather
: be President of one University among many. So if a Non-profit University is
: offering him $500,000, why is the position of Administrator have only a salary
: of $150,000.
:
: The second question is this: There are alot of people who are interested in
: space who would gladly accept the position of Administrator for $150,000,
: because they are interested in Space, not because $150,000 is alot of money!
: $150,000 is enough to support a family, but a space enthusiast would accept the
: position because it would give him a chance to make important decisions on
: space. Somebody with vision should have been chosen. If being Administrator is
: just a job or a way to earn a living to someone, that is the wrong person for
: the job.


: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside...ry _and_perks

: "The First U.S. Congress voted to pay George Washington a salary of
: $25,000 a year — a significant sum in 1789. Washington, already a
: successful man, didn't take the money. Since 2001, the President has
: earned a salary of $400,000 a year."

: Generally, you don't do government work for the money

It was Truman that said that anyone that got rich in government service is
a crook.

Eric

Tkalbfus1 ) wrote:
: "The First U.S. Congress voted to pay George Washington a salary of
: $25,000 a year — a significant sum in 1789. Washington, already a
: successful man, didn't take the money. Since 2001, the President has
: earned a salary of $400,000 a year."
:
: Generally, you don't do government work for the money
:

: If being an Administrator is a sacrifice, the job becomes just a stepping stone
: on to better things, such as being president of a University. A person would
: accept the job of Administrator in order to build up on his resume so that the
: University would offer him the job.

: Perhaps NASA would be better served, if it had an administrator that wanted to
: stick around. Having an insufficient salary is a discouragement to doing that.
: The University that hired Sean O'Keefe recognized the importance of his job at
: NASA, which is why they offered him they $500,000 job. But do we really want
: NASA managers that accept the job so that other organizations will notice him
: for his accomplishments there, or do we want people that take the job who want
: it for its own sake?

: Also if a very talented individual is offered a job at NASA and he realizes
: that he can get better pay elsewhere, the more competant people will go
: elsewhere while the less competant people will remain to take the job.

: A person who accepts the job at NASA for the lesser salary may be considered to
: be "paying his dues" in order to be considered for a more important position of
: a lesser organization.

: Is it really a healthy situation when many of the the CEO of NASA contractors
: get paid more that the "CEO" of NASA. Just imagine what its going to be like,
: if the CEO of an important NASA contractor invites the NASA Administrator over
: to his mansion in order to show off his proposals, and maybe hints that their
: company could use someone of his talents in the near future.

Tom, you argue for a socialistic system where government salaries and free
enterprise slaries get blurred. If you implement a salary cap on corporate
CEOs, then you are headed to socialism. If you allow the government
employees to act as if they are free enterprise, then you risk heading for
communism, where any competition to the "government" corporation is deemed
illegal.

Do you want socialism or communism?

Eric

It was Truman that said that anyone that got rich in government service is
a crook.

Eric

The other side of the coin is that a government official who doesn't get paid
much is easier to bribe. Someone who got paid to little, by a government that
didn't appreciate his talents may look elsewhere. Someone might offer him a job
that pays more, but first the prospective employer might ask for a small favor
utilizing his capacities in his present position....

Tkalbfus1 ) wrote:
: It was Truman that said that anyone that got rich in government service is
: a crook.
:

: The other side of the coin is that a government official who doesn't get paid
: much is easier to bribe. Someone who got paid to little, by a government that
: didn't appreciate his talents may look elsewhere. Someone might offer him a job
: that pays more, but first the prospective employer might ask for a small favor
: utilizing his capacities in his present position....

I'm sure it happens all the time. But what makes yoy think that an
overpaid employee will automatically be less greedy?

Eric

Tkalbfus1 ) wrote:
: Tom, you argue for a socialistic system where government salaries and free
: enterprise slaries get blurred. If you implement a salary cap on corporate
: CEOs, then you are headed to socialism. If you allow the government
: employees to act as if they are free enterprise, then you risk heading for
: communism, where any competition to the "government" corporation is deemed
: illegal.
:
: Do you want socialism or communism?
:

: That's a big stretch from my arguing that goverment salaries should be
: compedative with the private sector.

Well when one argues that a private scetor salary should necessarily
nmatch a public fund salary you run the risk of making the public funded
segment too powerful.

I have always been fascinated by conservatives and others that swear that
communism is bad, but would head that way in a heartbeat due to not
thinking things through.

Eric

: Tom