6 ms·

The punishment should be even more severe. It’s a national security risk. The federal government needs more internal audits.

dc-programmer 4y ago
This is why folks like Michael Flynn should be no where near positions of power in the military hierarchy
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  I agree but I think the corruption has existed for a long time and it is going to take a lot of changes and legislation. Basically, maybe in 30 years or more.
  - dc-programmer 4y ago
    I saw a gap to make that point and shot it. There is definitely formidable institutional inertia blocking meaningful change. I’m hoping history does rhyme and we’ll see an adoption of civil service reform policies by both parties like in the late 1800s
    - Spooky23 4y ago
      I’m sure you will. Post COVID hiring will almost certainly result in a lot of idiots as .gov compensation is way out of line with the market.
- PolygonSheep 4y ago
  I don't think Michael Flynn did a lot of purchasing of parkas and submarine hull castings.
  - netsharc 4y ago
    Corruption spreads down, just look at the "mighty" Russian military. If an org is corrupt (example: Trump admin), the competent, honest, people would stay away, and you just attract idiots, whose motivations might be different to doing the best job possible.
  - dc-programmer 4y ago
    He definitely was not involved in the low level grifts but the fish rots from the head
    - PolygonSheep 4y ago
      He must have done quite a lot of rotting in the whole three weeks he was a national security advisor, especially considering that role has nothing much to do with purchasing components, uniforms, or anything else really.
      - dc-programmer 4y ago
        Not sure if you’ve heard but he got in a little trouble for not registering as a foreign agent
triggercut 4y ago
More Internal (or external) audits in this case would have no impact. The organisation performing the tests was most likely performing their own internal audits, had that process certified and demonstrated that satisfactorily to certifiers and customers. The only way to counter the risk of a rogue operator trying to cover their tracks is to have a second run from another operator (the risk is then the organisation not the individual), or ideally, and more expensively, have another organisation perform the same tests and a third party confirm an absence of discrepancies. I would prefer the latter as standard but audit is always a trade off between peace of mind and cost. You can demonstrate that a process is superior and mitigates known risks (however unlikely they are) but there will be those that despite operating under in "no failure" environment will ignore the low likelihood, high impact risks because their risk process puts it in the "green" and there are far more pressing things to spend attention and money on.
unwise-exe 4y ago
Past some point, I've heard that more excessive punishments don't do much for deterrence. What does help is a certainty of getting caught.
Spooky23 4y ago
The government audits a lot. My brother works for a gov agency and he has a unit in his business unit dedicated to audit management. Iirc about 7 employees, who are very busy who just reply to audits. They are an effective tool, but they don’t address all issues.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  My experience working with the government is that audits usually addressed compliance with said audits.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  Officials at the Pentagon boast that they can't be audited. Your brother probably works at a more reliable agency. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/19/997961646/the-pentagon-has-never-passed-an-audit-some-senators-want-to-change-that https://www.npr.org/2021/05/19/997961646/the-pentagon-has-ne...
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    Who is boasting?
  - _djo_ 4y ago
    There's a big difference between financial audits, especially at a massive organisation's scale, and process/compliance audits. The claims in that article from Senate aides are a bit misleading, as it's not that unexpected or unreasonable for a department as large and complex as the Pentagon to take years to reach 100% clean audits. After all, it took DHS a decade. It's because interventions don't take effect immediately, with process changes taking time to be planned, rolled out, and have an impact on reporting. As long as the trend keeps moving upward the country is better off than not having audits. The US DoD as a whole has always done a huge amount of compliance auditing both internally and of suppliers, as well as financial auditing at most project and unit levels, outside of the new Congress-mandated top-level auditing requirement.
    - jessaustin 4y ago

dc-programmer 4y ago

This is why folks like Michael Flynn should be no where near positions of power in the military hierarchy

encryptluks2 4y ago
I agree but I think the corruption has existed for a long time and it is going to take a lot of changes and legislation. Basically, maybe in 30 years or more.
- dc-programmer 4y ago
  I saw a gap to make that point and shot it. There is definitely formidable institutional inertia blocking meaningful change. I’m hoping history does rhyme and we’ll see an adoption of civil service reform policies by both parties like in the late 1800s
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    I’m sure you will. Post COVID hiring will almost certainly result in a lot of idiots as .gov compensation is way out of line with the market.
PolygonSheep 4y ago
I don't think Michael Flynn did a lot of purchasing of parkas and submarine hull castings.
- netsharc 4y ago
  Corruption spreads down, just look at the "mighty" Russian military. If an org is corrupt (example: Trump admin), the competent, honest, people would stay away, and you just attract idiots, whose motivations might be different to doing the best job possible.
- dc-programmer 4y ago
  He definitely was not involved in the low level grifts but the fish rots from the head
  - PolygonSheep 4y ago
    He must have done quite a lot of rotting in the whole three weeks he was a national security advisor, especially considering that role has nothing much to do with purchasing components, uniforms, or anything else really.
    - dc-programmer 4y ago
      Not sure if you’ve heard but he got in a little trouble for not registering as a foreign agent

triggercut 4y ago

More Internal (or external) audits in this case would have no impact. The organisation performing the tests was most likely performing their own internal audits, had that process certified and demonstrated that satisfactorily to certifiers and customers. The only way to counter the risk of a rogue operator trying to cover their tracks is to have a second run from another operator (the risk is then the organisation not the individual), or ideally, and more expensively, have another organisation perform the same tests and a third party confirm an absence of discrepancies. I would prefer the latter as standard but audit is always a trade off between peace of mind and cost. You can demonstrate that a process is superior and mitigates known risks (however unlikely they are) but there will be those that despite operating under in "no failure" environment will ignore the low likelihood, high impact risks because their risk process puts it in the "green" and there are far more pressing things to spend attention and money on.

unwise-exe 4y ago

Past some point, I've heard that more excessive punishments don't do much for deterrence. What does help is a certainty of getting caught.

Spooky23 4y ago

The government audits a lot. My brother works for a gov agency and he has a unit in his business unit dedicated to audit management. Iirc about 7 employees, who are very busy who just reply to audits. They are an effective tool, but they don’t address all issues.

sidewndr46 4y ago
My experience working with the government is that audits usually addressed compliance with said audits.
jessaustin 4y ago
Officials at the Pentagon boast that they can't be audited. Your brother probably works at a more reliable agency. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/19/997961646/the-pentagon-has-never-passed-an-audit-some-senators-want-to-change-that https://www.npr.org/2021/05/19/997961646/the-pentagon-has-ne...
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  Who is boasting?
- _djo_ 4y ago
  There's a big difference between financial audits, especially at a massive organisation's scale, and process/compliance audits. The claims in that article from Senate aides are a bit misleading, as it's not that unexpected or unreasonable for a department as large and complex as the Pentagon to take years to reach 100% clean audits. After all, it took DHS a decade. It's because interventions don't take effect immediately, with process changes taking time to be planned, rolled out, and have an impact on reporting. As long as the trend keeps moving upward the country is better off than not having audits. The US DoD as a whole has always done a huge amount of compliance auditing both internally and of suppliers, as well as financial auditing at most project and unit levels, outside of the new Congress-mandated top-level auditing requirement.
  - jessaustin 4y ago