Dear Bev
Submitted by James on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 6:36pm
I don't know of any gentle way to say this, but what the heck are you thinking? You've just named revolving-door lobbyist Lanier Cansler to be the state secretary of health and human services? A lobbyist who up until a few days ago was working for Computer Sciences Corporation?
In case you missed the news, his client just won a $265 million contract in what the folks a NC Policy Watch describe as a contentious bid process. Sure he says he really didn't do lobbying ... he just introduced his client to legislators. Duh?
Cansler is arguably qualified for the job, but how in heaven's name can you expect him to hold CSC's feet to the fire when they fail to deliver what they've promised for the quoted price? And rest assured, that will happen, it always does. He's not going to cross his buddies, not for one second. Because then he won't be able to get his next lobbying gig when the door revolves one more time.
I don't know what you've been drinking, hon, but this isn't what I was thinking when you talked about transparency, accountability and fresh ideas.
Guess that means our honeymoon is over.
James
- James's blog
- 1486 reads
deleted my post, wrong thread
n/t
Progressive Democrats of North Carolina
Dam James, that was fast!
The honeymoon is over.
How she handles him when he fails to perform his duties is what I will be looking for. Hopefully he wont fail.
I hope she read him the riot act about doing exactly what your fearing.
She has had folks beat her up and she seems like a person who will listen. She is entitled to make these appointments.
I always said a new situation is like being placed in a hole in the ground. You are given a rope which is tied to a tree and a shovel. How you use the tools determines success or failure. Will you use the rope and shovel to help you climb out of the hole, or will you tie the rope around your neck and dig the hole deeper?
I don't think she is digging just yet.
About that Cansler fellow
I don't know, guys, I think maybe Perdue made a solid choice here.
Not that I'm a fan of Republicans by any stretch, but that Cansler has actual experience within the system at DHHS and knows where some of the knots are tied.
This was not a politics as usual appointment. This was an appointment based on what I would guess is a serious and committed effort to address one of state government's most pressing problems.
Thus, despite my many reservations about Perdue, I think I have to give her some benefit of the doubt points for this, and will wait to see how Cansler operates before deciding this was a mistake.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Fair enough
assuming we can actually "see" how he operates.
A guy who says he wasn't a lobbyist ... that all he did was introduce his little old client to a few little old legislators ... well, I don't find that especially reassuring.
That said, it's a done deal and all we can do is hope he's worth more than the baggage he's carrying.
Good to see you.
Cansler
You're right, our chances for "seeing" how anything actually gets done in state government are limited.
But that's true of everything in state government, not just of the operations manned by folks we're reading about lately.
I'm going to give Cansler the benefit of the doubt -- especially about the extent to which he actually was a lobbyist (not that being a lobbyist means he was somehow despicable). His explanation about how he was registered as a lobbyist only for the sake of covering his bases rings true to me. I've seen that done a lot in state government; the reason for doing it was to ensure that you couldn't be accused of having improper contacts.
It's a little ironic that a measure he took to ensure transparency would now be used to accuse him of something unsavory. The fact is that legal counsels for state agencies and most especially for private organizations have for years urged anyone who, because of his position, might possibly be asked to address legislators to register -- the better to ensure that no one could be accused of skirting ethics. On the Secretary of State's page for lobbyists, you will see a lot of people registered who have virtually no contact with the General Assembly but who are registered anyway out of an abundance of caution.
As for his introducing his clients to legislators -- there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. That's part of a job. And there's certainly nothing wrong with a person who knows the ropes of state government and the private sector. To assume that anyone who is in a position to introduce clients to state legislators is thereby to be distrusted is to assume that anyone with contacts is to be distrusted. Good lord, we'd never get any progressive measures through if we held our advocates to that kind of standard.
Again, I don't know Cansler, so have no opinion on whether he's a good egg or a bad egg, but based on what has been publicized about his record, I'd say he brings a lot of potential to a role that is pretty much guaranteed to be thankless.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke