3 ms·

Enough to be compliant with the law. The FDA’s original response to finish by the end of the century. Thats not a serious answer.

bumby 5y ago
I agree with you in principle but may disagree in the mechanism. Let's assume for a moment that the FDA's rate of review is accurate (for the record, I think they are severely low-balling it). They would need 100x the staff to review the records in time to meet the court order. Keep in mind the number of documents may be unique because of the scale of the pandemic (maybe somebody can fact check that). Knowing how difficult it is get rid of government employees, does it make sense to hire that many people for a once-in-a-century one-off event and then...what? Have them sit around and do nothing afterwards? I think trying to fit someone into a later role they weren't hired for is a terrible choice in my experience. But you say, "so what, it's the law"...so they're hired anyways. Maybe you get lucky and they're only hired as temp positions. Do you know how long the federal hiring practice takes? Because it's the government, most jobs have legalities around how they are posted, how long they need to be advertised, sometimes they require extending the ads internally first etc. due to union issues. If the job requires some sort of board approval, it may take months even after the selection is made, and they haven't even been trained yet. If you say, "well, all that can be fixed by just hiring contractors." The bid process runs into the same time-lag due to it being a government contract and needing to be open-and-above board. "Well, just use an emergency no-bid contract." Now you're running into all kinds of legalities to avoid political cronyism. The point being, it isn't nearly as simple as many seem to think. IMO the solution isn't "just hire more people to be compliant with the law" it's figuring out why your review process is so inefficient to only produce 50 reviewed/approved pages per month per employee. Really!? You can only average a little over a page-and-a-half of review per day? I think they need to hire an industrial engineer to revise the process, not simply hire more people. 100x'ing the number of people into what appears to be a broken process will likely make things worse.
- tagoregrtst 5y ago
  I work as a contractor to the government because Fed hiring is nearly impossible in my little corner. It took me months to get a $1000 piece of equipment I need to start my job. So, I know how long it takes and you’re right. That being said, Ive taken all the FOIA trainings, and all the “blah blah” about the public’s right to know. 500 pages a month is not a serious answer, its dodging. EDIT: “ Let's assume for a moment that the FDA's rate of review is accurate (for the record, I think they are severely low-balling it)” significantly low balling it indeed
  - bumby 5y ago
    >500 pages a month is not a serious answer, its dodging. I agree. That's why I think the focus should be on holding them accountable to a badly formed review process. I think where we disagree is I also think the answer of "hire 100x the people" is an equally invalid answer. They know that's a non-starter as well. They know they won't be authorized to hire that many and they also know that even if they could, they wouldn't be spun up in time to meet the deadline. I'd personally rather see an IG/GAO investigation into their process.

bumby 5y ago

I agree with you in principle but may disagree in the mechanism. Let's assume for a moment that the FDA's rate of review is accurate (for the record, I think they are severely low-balling it). They would need 100x the staff to review the records in time to meet the court order. Keep in mind the number of documents may be unique because of the scale of the pandemic (maybe somebody can fact check that). Knowing how difficult it is get rid of government employees, does it make sense to hire that many people for a once-in-a-century one-off event and then...what? Have them sit around and do nothing afterwards? I think trying to fit someone into a later role they weren't hired for is a terrible choice in my experience. But you say, "so what, it's the law"...so they're hired anyways. Maybe you get lucky and they're only hired as temp positions. Do you know how long the federal hiring practice takes? Because it's the government, most jobs have legalities around how they are posted, how long they need to be advertised, sometimes they require extending the ads internally first etc. due to union issues. If the job requires some sort of board approval, it may take months even after the selection is made, and they haven't even been trained yet. If you say, "well, all that can be fixed by just hiring contractors." The bid process runs into the same time-lag due to it being a government contract and needing to be open-and-above board. "Well, just use an emergency no-bid contract." Now you're running into all kinds of legalities to avoid political cronyism. The point being, it isn't nearly as simple as many seem to think. IMO the solution isn't "just hire more people to be compliant with the law" it's figuring out why your review process is so inefficient to only produce 50 reviewed/approved pages per month per employee. Really!? You can only average a little over a page-and-a-half of review per day? I think they need to hire an industrial engineer to revise the process, not simply hire more people. 100x'ing the number of people into what appears to be a broken process will likely make things worse.

tagoregrtst 5y ago
I work as a contractor to the government because Fed hiring is nearly impossible in my little corner. It took me months to get a $1000 piece of equipment I need to start my job. So, I know how long it takes and you’re right. That being said, Ive taken all the FOIA trainings, and all the “blah blah” about the public’s right to know. 500 pages a month is not a serious answer, its dodging. EDIT: “ Let's assume for a moment that the FDA's rate of review is accurate (for the record, I think they are severely low-balling it)” significantly low balling it indeed
- bumby 5y ago
  >500 pages a month is not a serious answer, its dodging. I agree. That's why I think the focus should be on holding them accountable to a badly formed review process. I think where we disagree is I also think the answer of "hire 100x the people" is an equally invalid answer. They know that's a non-starter as well. They know they won't be authorized to hire that many and they also know that even if they could, they wouldn't be spun up in time to meet the deadline. I'd personally rather see an IG/GAO investigation into their process.