FatCratz

Why Porn at the SEC Matters

Last week, a story broke about an IG report at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that highlighted some cases of excessive pornography usage by senior level federal employees (most making north of $100K a year, some as much as $200K). There were some eye-popping anecdotes, including a senior SEC lawyer who purportedly surfed porn 8 hours a day, filled his hard drive, and was burning CD's and DVD's that were stored in boxes in his office. Excessive stuff.

Thomas Frank in the Wall Street Journal notes the political nature of the release of this report. Senator Grassley (and others) clearly sought to use the data to knock the SEC down a notch right when Democrats on the hill were pursuing legislation that would further empower federal regulators. I.e., if SEC lawyers have eight hours a day to surf for porn, do we need to be further empowering, funding, and staffing up the SEC?

Frank is right, in an important sense. This story only got any ink because of the salacious hook that "while the economy burned, SEC staffers were burning with lust." Frank rightly contends that the fact that there are a few bad apples surfing porn at a federal regulator is no real argument to oppose new or different regulatory powers. 

But lets parse this further. The real news here is that federal employees pulling down six figures have eight free hours a day during which to pursue personal hobbies, whether they be adult or otherwise in nature. But this is dog bites man story. The only reason Grassley et al got any ink is because they were able to link it to economic disaster and current policy debates. 

And today we learn that none of these employees have been fired. And this is the real key to this story. Federal employees are no more inclined to surfing porn than anyone else; I'm sure the private sector has its share of stuffed suits who spend hours a day viewing visual crack in the corner suite. But, how many of them, when caught in the act, would still be in their jobs months, or years, later? 

The problem with the federal bureaucracy is that the civil service has little to fear. Their positions are practically impervious. This doesn't mean that federal bureaucrats are bad people, but it means that they are poorly managed. The threats and incentives that help keep private sector employees in line are largely missing. The resultant culture encourages the worst in human nature.

Are there more people surfing porn per capita in the government than in the private sector? I'm willing to bet there are.

Neither Snow, Nor Rain, Nor Lack of a Date

A recent GAO report shows some questionable expenses on a government charge card by a postal employee:

A postmaster used a government credit card to subscribe to two Internet dating sites, the study said, and the employee also used a government computer to access pornographic sites. The postmaster racked up $1,100 in charges for the dating services, it said, and "the activity went unnoticed" by U.S. Postal Service for a full year. After an investigation, the employee paid back the $1,100, the study said. He was also removed from his position.

As for me, I think getting a Postmaster a date may be a legitimate expense.

Shockingly, the study found that nearly half of charges to government cards in 2006 were improper. Nearly half.

The article lists a number of colorful examples, but another group of USPS employees take the cake (and the appetizers, and the wine, and the cocktails):

In another case, USPS spent $13,500 on a dinner at Ruth Chris Steakhouse for employees who were attending a national postal forum in Orlando, Florida. The dinner included more than 200 appetizers and the agency paid for about $3,000 of alcoholic drinks, including more than 40 bottles of wine and top-shelf liquor, the study said.

But I'm sure the rest of the expenditures for the "postal forum" was money well spent.

FatCratz and Accountability

One of the defining features of a FatCrat is a lack of accountability. One of the great frustrations of being an honest public servant is serving under, or alongside, or in supervision of, colleagues who don't fear recrimination for misconduct.

A lack of accountability is an unfortunate side effect of government bureaucracies. Political appointees, career civil servants, and private contractors all find themselves holding positions of public trust, with little or no checks on their power, or efficiency.

Why else would government employees sit at their desks openly playing solitaire on their computers?

How Often Do You Have To View Porn at Work to Get Fired?

Apparently, 8 isn't enough, but 200 times a day is:

Nine D.C. government employees are being fired for viewing pornography on their work computers, including three who looked at inappropriate sexual images an average of about 200 times per work day in 2007, city officials said yesterday.

Each of the nine employees clicked on porn sites more than 19,000 times last year, according to the results of an internal investigation of 10,000 government computers, officials said. Three visited such sites more than 39,000 times apiece last year, the investigation found.

Thirty-two other employees who visited porn sites more than 2,000 times will receive letters of reprimand or suspensions.

Maybe someone in the DC government could help the folks at NSF out.

"I am trying to learn how to use cam2cam capability on asianbabes.com"

Forget everything we just said about computer literacy. It seems some National Science Foundation employees are very proactive about learning how to get the most out of their agency computers, even contacting tech support themselves on company time:

“I am trying to learn how to use cam2cam capability on your asianbabes.com site,” he wrote in an e-mail message to the site from his agency computer. “I do not seem to be able to do that.”

It seems that the NSF failed to detect the use of pornography in the office by more than 30 years over a period of 10 years. But we should cut them some slack... they're only the National SCIENCE Foundation.

Worse, in 5 of 11 cases, NSF failed to take any disciplinary action. One 20-year employee that acknowledged visiting adult web sites was not disciplined, because the agency was “unable to substantiate allegations sufficiently enough to support disciplinary action.”

How hard is it to discipline or fire federal employees? How much evidence does it take before a supervisor feels secure in carrying out action among even the most offensive employees?

"An Exaggerated Public View That They Are All Thieves."

The British official in charge of policing charged taxpayers $14 for two pornographic films.

Jacqui Smith... said it was "a mistake" that the adult movies, which her husband watched, ended up on her expense report. She apologized Tuesday, saying she was angry at herself for the slip-up, and has returned the cash.

No word yet on whether the $800 sink and $1,400 fireplace and the $1.30 bathtub plugs that Smith expensed were also mistakes.