My Gardener Has Better Credentials to be the USDA’s Top Scientist
I know it’s improper to be amused at catastrophe, but the excesses of the current administration are making that a little tough. Here’s what we’re getting with Trump’s nominee for the Department of Agriculture’s top scientist, Sam Clovis:
• Called progressives “race traitors” and “liars.”
• Called President Obama a socialist supported by “criminal dissidents who were bent on overthrowing the government of the United States.”
• Has no experience with agricultural research.
• Denies the human impact on climate change.
If you like disaster, that’s a near-perfect score, in my book.
Btw, my gardener is a kind and decent person, further heightening his credentials over Clovis’s.
Craig,
You have a gardener ??! 🙂
More importantly your gardener is a graduate of the US US Air Force Academy, an MBA, degrees in economics and a Doctorate in Public Administration ?
Wow, times must really be tough for academics in California !
Even more importantly, why do you feel it necessary to be disingenuous ?
The position previously occupied by Sam Clovis was “the White House representative at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in charge of coordinating White House and USDA policy and staffing under President Donald Trump “.
In that position, Sam Clovis fulfilled the function of a liaison officer between the Presidents office and the Department of Agriculture.
It’s a job of public administration, a position he’s well qualified to fulfill.
Likewise the position of “Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics” is an largely an administrative position, requiring economic and administrative qualifications.
The position requires oversight for the US Agricultural Research Service, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Library, and National Agricultural Statistics Service.
No doubt some scientific qualifications would be useful, but not essential.
The Department of Agriculture is a huge organization with a budget of $160 billion.
For nearly 26 years, the DoA was embattled in with a series of law suits and Congressional claims the DoA was discriminating against farmers from minority backgrounds.
The DoA wasn’t helped by revaluations of chaotic administration and unaccountability. The DoA had a long history of poorly conceived and uncoordinated programs.
Congress and the DoA finally settled the claims after considerable pressure from the Obama administration for a cost to the taxpayer of more than $2 billion.
Sadly, the misery hasn’t ended. The US General Accounting Office criticized the DoA’s lack of administration and reserved even more criticism for White house interference in the administration of the payments.
The GAO report identified widespread corruption, fraud and inadequate supervision in the dispersal of these funds. Estimating at least 40% simply stolen from fraud, 30 % from maladministration and of the remainder there was no evidence of any real benefit except for a small minority.
Regrettably the report also identified many deserving cases were denied access to the settlement, due to corruption or incompetence.
The position being filled by Samuel H. Clovis Jr. is largely administrative. Most of the department heads directly below the Under Secretary also hold qualifications in administration, not science.
As a generalization, most scientists don’t seek administrative or political positions. Dr. Ann Bartuska, the previous Acting Under Secretary is an exception with considerable administrative experience and leadership ability as well as scientific credentials.
The Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Purdue believes his predecessors lacked adequate control and supervision over the Department, and has made a priority of reestablishing administrative accountability.
My concern at the appointment of Sam Clovis is not his lack of scientific qualifications, but more that at 68 Clovis has never shown any ability to lead.
(His predecessor was a lawyer)
The appointment of Clovis, if confirmed, will always be criticized as being political and negative. If he was younger, less controversial, with an outstanding history of successful public administration,in difficult circumstances, the appointment may be better accepted.
Clovis appears to have been effective as White House liaison, and perhaps should have been content with that contribution.
IMHO, a better candidate should have been found.
The appointment does show the strengths and weakness of the administration.
From the Presidents point of view, he sees these appointment as a corporate CEO. If an appointment doesn’t work out, simply replace the executive until the right person is found.
Unfortunately, government service doesn’t work that way. Bureaucrats and the public require a greater level of security of tenure and stability.
That’s one of the problems of Executive Presidents, they either interfere too much or too little !
In the end, the appointment must be ratified by Congress who will be guided by among other things, the US Code.