[BostonCard]

When he was first announced, I liked the appointment of Slaoui  as an experienced guy to head up operation Warp Speed, the multi-billion dollar effort to accelerate development of a COVID-19 vaccine (one of the few moves the administration has done that I wholeheartedly support).  However, this doesn't sit right:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/pau...arns-delay

The chief adviser to Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s program investing billions of dollars into discovering a coronavirus vaccine, says media scrutiny of his stock ownership may delay a vaccine or make its discovery less likely because it is distracting him from his work.

I'm sorry, but media scrutiny of his stock ownership and potential conflicts of interest are appropriate, especially given his unusual arrangement that has him heading the operation as a contractor and exempts him from ethics rules.  Given the accelerated nature of the project and the importance of people trusting the resultant vaccines of being safe and effective, if anything, greater scrutiny of the individuals running it is indicated. You want to bend over backwards for Warp Speed and the entire process to look 100% clean.

I also think the quote from the HHS secretary of public affairs was a pretty low blow.

“The American people need to understand that the media often times are lying to them because they don’t want a vaccine, in order to defeat Donald Trump,” Caputo said at one point.

I have not seen any evidence of the media not wanting a vaccine.  Generally speaking, the media coverage of Operation Warp Speed and the early trial results has been cautiously positive (perhaps a bit too positive about the Moderna vaccine, in my opinion, given the safety data observed to date).  Obviously, "the media" is brobdingnagian and it would be impossible to see everything that media has said and done, but again, I've seen no evidence of systematic concern trolling about the vaccines.

BC

[BostonCard]

When he was first announced, I liked the appointment of Slaoui  as an experienced guy to head up operation Warp Speed, the multi-billion dollar effort to accelerate development of a COVID-19 vaccine (one of the few moves the administration has done that I wholeheartedly support).  However, this doesn't sit right:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/pau...arns-delay

The chief adviser to Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s program investing billions of dollars into discovering a coronavirus vaccine, says media scrutiny of his stock ownership may delay a vaccine or make its discovery less likely because it is distracting him from his work.

I'm sorry, but media scrutiny of his stock ownership and potential conflicts of interest are appropriate, especially given his unusual arrangement that has him heading the operation as a contractor and exempts him from ethics rules.  Given the accelerated nature of the project and the importance of people trusting the resultant vaccines of being safe and effective, if anything, greater scrutiny of the individuals running it is indicated. You want to bend over backwards for Warp Speed and the entire process to look 100% clean.

I also think the quote from the HHS secretary of public affairs was a pretty low blow.

“The American people need to understand that the media often times are lying to them because they don’t want a vaccine, in order to defeat Donald Trump,” Caputo said at one point.

I have not seen any evidence of the media not wanting a vaccine.  Generally speaking, the media coverage of Operation Warp Speed and the early trial results has been cautiously positive (perhaps a bit too positive about the Moderna vaccine, in my opinion, given the safety data observed to date).  Obviously, "the media" is brobdingnagian and it would be impossible to see everything that media has said and done, but again, I've seen no evidence of systematic concern trolling about the vaccines.

BC

[Goose]

When he was first announced, I liked the appointment of Slaoui  as an experienced guy to head up operation Warp Speed, the multi-billion dollar effort to accelerate development of a COVID-19 vaccine (one of the few moves the administration has done that I wholeheartedly support).  However, this doesn't sit right:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/pau...arns-delay

The chief adviser to Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s program investing billions of dollars into discovering a coronavirus vaccine, says media scrutiny of his stock ownership may delay a vaccine or make its discovery less likely because it is distracting him from his work.

I'm sorry, but media scrutiny of his stock ownership and potential conflicts of interest are appropriate, especially given his unusual arrangement that has him heading the operation as a contractor and exempts him from ethics rules.  Given the accelerated nature of the project and the importance of people trusting the resultant vaccines of being safe and effective, if anything, greater scrutiny of the individuals running it is indicated. You want to bend over backwards for Warp Speed and the entire process to look 100% clean.

While I understand what you are saying about wanting to ensure there are no potential conflicts of interest, that would be impossible given that Saloui owned that stock when he took the job, and when he signed on to be paid a dollar it was in the full knowledge that he wasn't going to divest himself. It may be that a "true patriot" would do so, but that wasn't the deal.
In point of fact, almost anybody who is knowledgeable about a given topic has conflicts of interest. Some are that you previously worked for X and now love/hate them. Right now, the forms to actually take a government job make having a 401K plan that you manage yourself problematic.

From the article:

“Dr. Slaoui doesn’t seem to understand that what he perceives as attacks aren’t personal and they aren’t ‘fake news,’” said Zupnick. “They are about making sure that the public can trust that Operation Warp Speed is operating in the best interests of patients and public health and not engaging in the cronyism and corruption that is so pervasive through the Trump administration.”

Of course it is personal. The fact that he owns stock is relevant only if one believes that he would act improperly to increase the value of said stock.  If there is no doubt about his integrity and that he wouldn't do so, it is irrelevant. It is clear that Zupnick thinks it is relevant because anyone who works in the Trump administration is willing to engage in "cronyism and corruption". I want to see him say the same to Mad Dog's face.
It was of course equally personal when it was reported Hunter Biden worked for a company in Ukraine who payed him lots of money. Obviously that is relevant only if you believe that Hunter Biden would attempt to influence Joe Biden in some way, and that Joe Biden would be so influenced.

I also think the quote from the HHS secretary of public affairs was a pretty low blow.

“The American people need to understand that the media often times are lying to them because they don’t want a vaccine, in order to defeat Donald Trump,” Caputo said at one point.

I have not seen any evidence of the media not wanting a vaccine.  Generally speaking, the media coverage of Operation Warp Speed and the early trial results has been cautiously positive (perhaps a bit too positive about the Moderna vaccine, in my opinion, given the safety data observed to date).  Obviously, "the media" is of immense proportions and it would be impossible to see everything that media has said and done, but again, I've seen no evidence of systematic concern trolling about the vaccines.

BC

For sure there is no evidence "the media" is lying because they don’t want a vaccine in order to defeat Donald Trump. First of all, the vaccine, if and when it comes, isn't going to be ready before November. It can't help Trump. Second, the media isn't lying, at least in this case. Saloui does own the stock.
The statement from the director of HHS public affairs is just plain stupid. Once again, it is somebody attacking the supposed motive for the action, not the action itself. Zupnick apparently believes Saloui is corrupt, based on the fact Zupnick reported this stock ownership and followed up with a statement associating Saloui with an alleged pattern of corrupt actions by the Trump administration. That is a sufficient reason and explanation for Zupnick's actions. No "media conspiracy" is needed to explain those actions.
What Caputo could have, and should have said is that Saloui took the job owning that stock, we knew that, we don't care. If he does something you can prove is improper, let us know and we will investigate. End of discussion.

[Goose]

When he was first announced, I liked the appointment of Slaoui  as an experienced guy to head up operation Warp Speed, the multi-billion dollar effort to accelerate development of a COVID-19 vaccine (one of the few moves the administration has done that I wholeheartedly support).  However, this doesn't sit right:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/pau...arns-delay

The chief adviser to Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s program investing billions of dollars into discovering a coronavirus vaccine, says media scrutiny of his stock ownership may delay a vaccine or make its discovery less likely because it is distracting him from his work.

I'm sorry, but media scrutiny of his stock ownership and potential conflicts of interest are appropriate, especially given his unusual arrangement that has him heading the operation as a contractor and exempts him from ethics rules.  Given the accelerated nature of the project and the importance of people trusting the resultant vaccines of being safe and effective, if anything, greater scrutiny of the individuals running it is indicated. You want to bend over backwards for Warp Speed and the entire process to look 100% clean.

While I understand what you are saying about wanting to ensure there are no potential conflicts of interest, that would be impossible given that Saloui owned that stock when he took the job, and when he signed on to be paid a dollar it was in the full knowledge that he wasn't going to divest himself. It may be that a "true patriot" would do so, but that wasn't the deal.
In point of fact, almost anybody who is knowledgeable about a given topic has conflicts of interest. Some are that you previously worked for X and now love/hate them. Right now, the forms to actually take a government job make having a 401K plan that you manage yourself problematic.

From the article:

“Dr. Slaoui doesn’t seem to understand that what he perceives as attacks aren’t personal and they aren’t ‘fake news,’” said Zupnick. “They are about making sure that the public can trust that Operation Warp Speed is operating in the best interests of patients and public health and not engaging in the cronyism and corruption that is so pervasive through the Trump administration.”

Of course it is personal. The fact that he owns stock is relevant only if one believes that he would act improperly to increase the value of said stock.  If there is no doubt about his integrity and that he wouldn't do so, it is irrelevant. It is clear that Zupnick thinks it is relevant because anyone who works in the Trump administration is willing to engage in "cronyism and corruption". I want to see him say the same to Mad Dog's face.
It was of course equally personal when it was reported Hunter Biden worked for a company in Ukraine who payed him lots of money. Obviously that is relevant only if you believe that Hunter Biden would attempt to influence Joe Biden in some way, and that Joe Biden would be so influenced.

I also think the quote from the HHS secretary of public affairs was a pretty low blow.

“The American people need to understand that the media often times are lying to them because they don’t want a vaccine, in order to defeat Donald Trump,” Caputo said at one point.

I have not seen any evidence of the media not wanting a vaccine.  Generally speaking, the media coverage of Operation Warp Speed and the early trial results has been cautiously positive (perhaps a bit too positive about the Moderna vaccine, in my opinion, given the safety data observed to date).  Obviously, "the media" is of immense proportions and it would be impossible to see everything that media has said and done, but again, I've seen no evidence of systematic concern trolling about the vaccines.

BC

For sure there is no evidence "the media" is lying because they don’t want a vaccine in order to defeat Donald Trump. First of all, the vaccine, if and when it comes, isn't going to be ready before November. It can't help Trump. Second, the media isn't lying, at least in this case. Saloui does own the stock.
The statement from the director of HHS public affairs is just plain stupid. Once again, it is somebody attacking the supposed motive for the action, not the action itself. Zupnick apparently believes Saloui is corrupt, based on the fact Zupnick reported this stock ownership and followed up with a statement associating Saloui with an alleged pattern of corrupt actions by the Trump administration. That is a sufficient reason and explanation for Zupnick's actions. No "media conspiracy" is needed to explain those actions.
What Caputo could have, and should have said is that Saloui took the job owning that stock, we knew that, we don't care. If he does something you can prove is improper, let us know and we will investigate. End of discussion.

[BostonCard]

While I understand what you are saying about wanting to ensure there are no potential conflicts of interest, that would be impossible given that Saloui owned that stock when he took the job, and when he signed on to be paid a dollar it was in the full knowledge that he wasn't going to divest himself. It may be that a "true patriot" would do so, but that wasn't the deal. 

In point of fact, almost anybody who is knowledgeable about a given topic has conflicts of interest. Some are that you previously worked for X and now love/hate them. Right now, the forms to actually take a government job make having a 401K plan that you manage yourself problematic.

Slaoui is obviously qualified, but he is not the only qualified person to lead the effort.  It should have been 100% clear that the job wasn't for someone unwilling to divest 100% from his CoI and enter all the money into a blind trust.  When you are dealing with that much money, and when there is that much discretion, you simply can't have the head of the department with a potential conflict of interest.  Working for a dollar makes it even worse; then someone feels entitled to helping themselves by steering money towards companies in which they have an interest because they are not getting anything directly for their work.  A salary is not just compensation for the work you are doing for the government; it creates an obligation to your employer (the taxpayer).  Taking a dollar in order to be able to maintain your conflicts of interest and not divest is not a deal that is advantageous to the taxpayer.

Of course it is personal. The fact that he owns stock is relevant only if one believes that he would act improperly to increase the value of said stock.  If there is no doubt about his integrity and that he wouldn't do so, it is irrelevant. It is clear that Zupnick thinks it is relevant because anyone who works in the Trump administration is willing to engage in "cronyism and corruption". I want to see him say the same to Mad Dog's face.

It was of course equally personal when it was reported Hunter Biden worked for a company in Ukraine who payed him lots of money. Obviously that is relevant only if you believe that Hunter Biden would attempt to influence Joe Biden in some way, and that Joe Biden would be so influenced.

I don't think Slaoui lacks integrity, but that conflict can create an unconscious bias in the decision making that can lead to sub-optimal decisions.  There may come a time where he will have to make a tough call that could cost his portfolio millions of dollars, and he might hesitate to make it, costing the taxpayer billions, or let the conflict affect his judgment even as he is unaware of it.

Here's an old paper about it:
http://journal.sjdm.org/10/91104/jdm91104.pdf

The results suggest that judgments are easily influenced by affiliation with interested partisans, and that this influence extends to judgments made with clear incentives for objectivity. The consistency we observe between public and private judgments indicates that participants believed their biased assessments.

In other words, not only will conflicts of interest affect judgments, but the affected person is not even aware of their bias; they legitimately think they are giving what they think is their best assessment, even as it is sub-optimal.  This isn't impugning Slaoui; it is impugning human nature.

BC

PS - Of course Hunter Biden shouldn't have accepted the job in Ukraine; the whole reason he was hired was, in part, to put his father in a conflict and influence Ukrainian government officials fearful of upsetting the United States.  Joe Biden should have recused himself from decision-making, and members of the administration spoke out against the appearance of a conflict of interest.  At least one Obama administration official noted that it interfered with America's goal of fighting corruption in Eastern Europe.  As best I can tell, Biden's decisions and actions vis a vis Ukraine broadly comported to what the international community expected, and I expect that in most cases Slaoui's decisions will be based on fairly straightforward comparative assessments of the various vaccine candidates.  However, that doesn't mean that the conflict couldn't have influenced Biden's decision making if the facts had been a bit more ambiguous, or that Slaoui won't be influenced by his conflict if there is a close call to be made.

Also, one key difference is that Biden was elected and accountable to voters, who have the choice to vote out an incumbent, which is why the CoI rules in government are less strict for elected officials than appointed ones.  Slaoui is an appointed official (not even one confirmed by congress), accountable only to Trump and himself.  That's why ethics rules are tougher on appointed officials.

BC

[BostonCard]

While I understand what you are saying about wanting to ensure there are no potential conflicts of interest, that would be impossible given that Saloui owned that stock when he took the job, and when he signed on to be paid a dollar it was in the full knowledge that he wasn't going to divest himself. It may be that a "true patriot" would do so, but that wasn't the deal. 

In point of fact, almost anybody who is knowledgeable about a given topic has conflicts of interest. Some are that you previously worked for X and now love/hate them. Right now, the forms to actually take a government job make having a 401K plan that you manage yourself problematic.

Slaoui is obviously qualified, but he is not the only qualified person to lead the effort.  It should have been 100% clear that the job wasn't for someone unwilling to divest 100% from his CoI and enter all the money into a blind trust.  When you are dealing with that much money, and when there is that much discretion, you simply can't have the head of the department with a potential conflict of interest.  Working for a dollar makes it even worse; then someone feels entitled to helping themselves by steering money towards companies in which they have an interest because they are not getting anything directly for their work.  A salary is not just compensation for the work you are doing for the government; it creates an obligation to your employer (the taxpayer).  Taking a dollar in order to be able to maintain your conflicts of interest and not divest is not a deal that is advantageous to the taxpayer.

Of course it is personal. The fact that he owns stock is relevant only if one believes that he would act improperly to increase the value of said stock.  If there is no doubt about his integrity and that he wouldn't do so, it is irrelevant. It is clear that Zupnick thinks it is relevant because anyone who works in the Trump administration is willing to engage in "cronyism and corruption". I want to see him say the same to Mad Dog's face.

It was of course equally personal when it was reported Hunter Biden worked for a company in Ukraine who payed him lots of money. Obviously that is relevant only if you believe that Hunter Biden would attempt to influence Joe Biden in some way, and that Joe Biden would be so influenced.

I don't think Slaoui lacks integrity, but that conflict can create an unconscious bias in the decision making that can lead to sub-optimal decisions.  There may come a time where he will have to make a tough call that could cost his portfolio millions of dollars, and he might hesitate to make it, costing the taxpayer billions, or let the conflict affect his judgment even as he is unaware of it.

Here's an old paper about it:
http://journal.sjdm.org/10/91104/jdm91104.pdf

The results suggest that judgments are easily influenced by affiliation with interested partisans, and that this influence extends to judgments made with clear incentives for objectivity. The consistency we observe between public and private judgments indicates that participants believed their biased assessments.

In other words, not only will conflicts of interest affect judgments, but the affected person is not even aware of their bias; they legitimately think they are giving what they think is their best assessment, even as it is sub-optimal.  This isn't impugning Slaoui; it is impugning human nature.

BC

PS - Of course Hunter Biden shouldn't have accepted the job in Ukraine; the whole reason he was hired was, in part, to put his father in a conflict and influence Ukrainian government officials fearful of upsetting the United States.  Joe Biden should have recused himself from decision-making, and members of the administration spoke out against the appearance of a conflict of interest.  At least one Obama administration official noted that it interfered with America's goal of fighting corruption in Eastern Europe.  As best I can tell, Biden's decisions and actions vis a vis Ukraine broadly comported to what the international community expected, and I expect that in most cases Slaoui's decisions will be based on fairly straightforward comparative assessments of the various vaccine candidates.  However, that doesn't mean that the conflict couldn't have influenced Biden's decision making if the facts had been a bit more ambiguous, or that Slaoui won't be influenced by his conflict if there is a close call to be made.

Also, one key difference is that Biden was elected and accountable to voters, who have the choice to vote out an incumbent, which is why the CoI rules in government are less strict for elected officials than appointed ones.  Slaoui is an appointed official (not even one confirmed by congress), accountable only to Trump and himself.  That's why ethics rules are tougher on appointed officials.

BC

[Goose]

When you are dealing with that much money, and when there is that much discretion, you simply can't have the head of the department with a potential conflict of interest.  Working for a dollar makes it even worse; then someone feels entitled to helping themselves by steering money towards companies in which they have an interest because they are not getting anything directly for their work.

So you believe that inevitably anybody working for a dollar will rationalize decisions that they know are being made just to benefit themselves? Sorry, I don't believe that. I do believe that CAN happen, but to say it will happen is I think outside our experience. I guess "Wild Bill" Donovan is an exception because he drew no pay?

A salary is not just compensation for the work you are doing for the government; it creates an obligation to your employer (the taxpayer).  Taking a dollar in order to be able to maintain your conflicts of interest and not divest is not a deal that is advantageous to the taxpayer.

Always? Seems a bit of a strong statement. I think it depends a lot on the situation. FWIW, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find people who are qualified to work for the Government. It was always a problem, because the jobs don't usually pay as well as private industry. However, it was reasonable for somebody to say "OK, I will take a pay cut to help my nation. I can do that". But today we also tell them "Oh, by the way, you have to relinquish control of all your assets into a blind trust that will be a bitch to unroll and may massively tank while you work for less money". Most good, smart, people simply aren't going to do that. Of course, it is doubly hard if you are asked to work for Donald Trump, but even in "normal" times it is an issue.
This preoccupation with eliminating conflict of interest is a relatively new thing in our history. Did FDR transfer all his assets to a blind trust when he became Assistant Secretary of the Navy? It used to be we assumed people were "honest" until they proved they weren't. Now we insist the must remove any possible conflict of interest or else we can't use their services. While I understand the theory, I think the costs are higher than we realize.

I don't think Slaoui lacks integrity, but that conflict can create an unconscious bias in the decision making that can lead to sub-optimal decisions.  There may come a time where he will have to make a tough call that could cost his portfolio millions of dollars, and he might hesitate to make it, costing the taxpayer billions, or let the conflict affect his judgment even as he is unaware of it.

Here's an old paper about it:


http://journal.sjdm.org/10/91104/jdm91104.pdf

The results suggest that judgments are easily influenced by affiliation with interested partisans, and that this influence extends to judgments made with clear incentives for objectivity. The consistency we observe between public and private judgments indicates that participants believed their biased assessments.

In other words, not only will conflicts of interest affect judgments, but the affected person is not even aware of their bias; they legitimately think they are giving what they think is their best assessment, even as it is sub-optimal.  This isn't impugning Slaoui; it is impugning human nature.

BC

Yes, it is human nature. But note the quote you provided references "affiliation with interested partisans". That doesn't just mean money. That means if you have any frame of reference to the subject matter you will have "unconscious bias " toward many of the factors involved in the decision. I have already pointed out that you may have actually worked for one of the "bidders" 10 years ago. Your bias may be very conscious and you hate their guts, or alternatively you love them. No money involved, so that's OK, right? Alternatively, you lost money in a company run by the guy who is now president of one of the "bidders". Unconsciously, you don't trust him. You also may be exactly right in feeling that way. Or, maybe you intend to sit on somebody's board when you leave the Government. Of course, that never happens, so that won't bias you in any way. Or, maybe you think mRNA vaccines just aren't practical. You don't say so publicly, but that is just how you feel.
Everyone's decisions are a product of their experience. You do the best you can to make an "honest" decision. Trying to eliminate anything that could be "unconscious bias " is IMHO impossible.

PS - Of course Hunter Biden shouldn't have accepted the job in Ukraine; the whole reason he was hired was, in part, to put his father in a conflict and influence Ukrainian government officials fearful of upsetting the United States.  Joe Biden should have recused himself from decision-making, and members of the administration spoke out against the appearance of a conflict of interest.  At least one Obama administration official noted that it interfered with America's goal of fighting corruption in Eastern Europe.  As best I can tell, Biden's decisions and actions vis a vis Ukraine broadly comported to what the international community expected, and I expect that in most cases Slaoui's decisions will be based on fairly straightforward comparative assessments of the various vaccine candidates.  However, that doesn't mean that the conflict couldn't have influenced Biden's decision making if the facts had been a bit more ambiguous, or that Slaoui won't be influenced by his conflict if there is a close call to be made.

True. If Slaoui does something that is really off the wall that favors his investments, I would expect our free press to bring it up. I would also expect the injured firm(s) to file suit. In fact, I expect some firms to file suit "just because" before Warp Speed is over. Somebody somewhere will have done something that they shouldn't.

[Goose]

When you are dealing with that much money, and when there is that much discretion, you simply can't have the head of the department with a potential conflict of interest.  Working for a dollar makes it even worse; then someone feels entitled to helping themselves by steering money towards companies in which they have an interest because they are not getting anything directly for their work.

So you believe that inevitably anybody working for a dollar will rationalize decisions that they know are being made just to benefit themselves? Sorry, I don't believe that. I do believe that CAN happen, but to say it will happen is I think outside our experience. I guess "Wild Bill" Donovan is an exception because he drew no pay?

A salary is not just compensation for the work you are doing for the government; it creates an obligation to your employer (the taxpayer).  Taking a dollar in order to be able to maintain your conflicts of interest and not divest is not a deal that is advantageous to the taxpayer.

Always? Seems a bit of a strong statement. I think it depends a lot on the situation. FWIW, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find people who are qualified to work for the Government. It was always a problem, because the jobs don't usually pay as well as private industry. However, it was reasonable for somebody to say "OK, I will take a pay cut to help my nation. I can do that". But today we also tell them "Oh, by the way, you have to relinquish control of all your assets into a blind trust that will be a bitch to unroll and may massively tank while you work for less money". Most good, smart, people simply aren't going to do that. Of course, it is doubly hard if you are asked to work for Donald Trump, but even in "normal" times it is an issue.
This preoccupation with eliminating conflict of interest is a relatively new thing in our history. Did FDR transfer all his assets to a blind trust when he became Assistant Secretary of the Navy? It used to be we assumed people were "honest" until they proved they weren't. Now we insist the must remove any possible conflict of interest or else we can't use their services. While I understand the theory, I think the costs are higher than we realize.

I don't think Slaoui lacks integrity, but that conflict can create an unconscious bias in the decision making that can lead to sub-optimal decisions.  There may come a time where he will have to make a tough call that could cost his portfolio millions of dollars, and he might hesitate to make it, costing the taxpayer billions, or let the conflict affect his judgment even as he is unaware of it.

Here's an old paper about it:


http://journal.sjdm.org/10/91104/jdm91104.pdf

The results suggest that judgments are easily influenced by affiliation with interested partisans, and that this influence extends to judgments made with clear incentives for objectivity. The consistency we observe between public and private judgments indicates that participants believed their biased assessments.

In other words, not only will conflicts of interest affect judgments, but the affected person is not even aware of their bias; they legitimately think they are giving what they think is their best assessment, even as it is sub-optimal.  This isn't impugning Slaoui; it is impugning human nature.

BC

Yes, it is human nature. But note the quote you provided references "affiliation with interested partisans". That doesn't just mean money. That means if you have any frame of reference to the subject matter you will have "unconscious bias " toward many of the factors involved in the decision. I have already pointed out that you may have actually worked for one of the "bidders" 10 years ago. Your bias may be very conscious and you hate their guts, or alternatively you love them. No money involved, so that's OK, right? Alternatively, you lost money in a company run by the guy who is now president of one of the "bidders". Unconsciously, you don't trust him. You also may be exactly right in feeling that way. Or, maybe you intend to sit on somebody's board when you leave the Government. Of course, that never happens, so that won't bias you in any way. Or, maybe you think mRNA vaccines just aren't practical. You don't say so publicly, but that is just how you feel.
Everyone's decisions are a product of their experience. You do the best you can to make an "honest" decision. Trying to eliminate anything that could be "unconscious bias " is IMHO impossible.

PS - Of course Hunter Biden shouldn't have accepted the job in Ukraine; the whole reason he was hired was, in part, to put his father in a conflict and influence Ukrainian government officials fearful of upsetting the United States.  Joe Biden should have recused himself from decision-making, and members of the administration spoke out against the appearance of a conflict of interest.  At least one Obama administration official noted that it interfered with America's goal of fighting corruption in Eastern Europe.  As best I can tell, Biden's decisions and actions vis a vis Ukraine broadly comported to what the international community expected, and I expect that in most cases Slaoui's decisions will be based on fairly straightforward comparative assessments of the various vaccine candidates.  However, that doesn't mean that the conflict couldn't have influenced Biden's decision making if the facts had been a bit more ambiguous, or that Slaoui won't be influenced by his conflict if there is a close call to be made.

True. If Slaoui does something that is really off the wall that favors his investments, I would expect our free press to bring it up. I would also expect the injured firm(s) to file suit. In fact, I expect some firms to file suit "just because" before Warp Speed is over. Somebody somewhere will have done something that they shouldn't.

[oldalum]

 
In point of fact, almost anybody who is knowledgeable about a given topic has conflicts of interest. Some are that you previously worked for X and now love/hate them. 

I would call that experience, not a conflict of interest. No expert can be a tabula rasa for their area of expertise. I think the term in this context should be reserved for more direct financial conflicts of interest, because financial motivation is more readily understandable, disclosable, and dealt with.

[oldalum]

 
In point of fact, almost anybody who is knowledgeable about a given topic has conflicts of interest. Some are that you previously worked for X and now love/hate them. 

I would call that experience, not a conflict of interest. No expert can be a tabula rasa for their area of expertise. I think the term in this context should be reserved for more direct financial conflicts of interest, because financial motivation is more readily understandable, disclosable, and dealt with.

[Goose]

 
In point of fact, almost anybody who is knowledgeable about a given topic has conflicts of interest. Some are that you previously worked for X and now love/hate them. 

I would call that experience, not a conflict of interest. No expert can be a tabula rasa for their area of expertise. I think the term in this context should be reserved for more direct financial conflicts of interest, because financial motivation is more readily understandable, disclosable, and dealt with.

I know what you mean Oldalum. However, the consequences of saying that you can't continue to manage your own investments and that you must not invest/own anything that might be affected by your decisions results in most qualified people simply refusing to work for the Government. You already will take a salary hit, but maybe you can accept that to "do a good thing". But now you have to shred your entire portfolio as well? So yes, it is easily dealt with if you don't count the people who just say "Sorry, no". Heck, even filling out the disclosure forms is a major task.
I totally agree that nobody comes to the job tabula rasa (at least we hope not). However, they may bring with them bias that is just as bad or worse than the financial ones that come with owning stock in Boeing. We accept one, why not the other? As I pointed out, this requirement of "financial neutrality" is relatively new, and lots of people who did great work in the past for the USA wouldn't have met it. So how universal do we want it to be? I think a disclosure requirement is reasonable and that most potential government employees wouldn't object to that. Then if the do anything that is fishy, we would know it. I think making potential employees divest or create a blind trust is such a disincentive we need to remove the requirement.

[Goose]

 
In point of fact, almost anybody who is knowledgeable about a given topic has conflicts of interest. Some are that you previously worked for X and now love/hate them. 

I would call that experience, not a conflict of interest. No expert can be a tabula rasa for their area of expertise. I think the term in this context should be reserved for more direct financial conflicts of interest, because financial motivation is more readily understandable, disclosable, and dealt with.

I know what you mean Oldalum. However, the consequences of saying that you can't continue to manage your own investments and that you must not invest/own anything that might be affected by your decisions results in most qualified people simply refusing to work for the Government. You already will take a salary hit, but maybe you can accept that to "do a good thing". But now you have to shred your entire portfolio as well? So yes, it is easily dealt with if you don't count the people who just say "Sorry, no". Heck, even filling out the disclosure forms is a major task.
I totally agree that nobody comes to the job tabula rasa (at least we hope not). However, they may bring with them bias that is just as bad or worse than the financial ones that come with owning stock in Boeing. We accept one, why not the other? As I pointed out, this requirement of "financial neutrality" is relatively new, and lots of people who did great work in the past for the USA wouldn't have met it. So how universal do we want it to be? I think a disclosure requirement is reasonable and that most potential government employees wouldn't object to that. Then if the do anything that is fishy, we would know it. I think making potential employees divest or create a blind trust is such a disincentive we need to remove the requirement.

[oldalum]

 
In point of fact, almost anybody who is knowledgeable about a given topic has conflicts of interest. Some are that you previously worked for X and now love/hate them. 

I would call that experience, not a conflict of interest. No expert can be a tabula rasa for their area of expertise. I think the term in this context should be reserved for more direct financial conflicts of interest, because financial motivation is more readily understandable, disclosable, and dealt with.

I know what you mean Oldalum. However, the consequences of saying that you can't continue to manage your own investments and that you must not invest/own anything that might be affected by your decisions results in most qualified people simply refusing to work for the Government. You already will take a salary hit, but maybe you can accept that to "do a good thing". But now you have to shred your entire portfolio as well? So yes, it is easily dealt with if you don't count the people who just say "Sorry, no". Heck, even filling out the disclosure forms is a major task.
I totally agree that nobody comes to the job tabula rasa (at least we hope not). However, they may bring with them bias that is just as bad or worse than the financial ones that come with owning stock in Boeing. We accept one, why not the other? As I pointed out, this requirement of "financial neutrality" is relatively new, and lots of people who did great work in the past for the USA wouldn't have met it. So how universal do we want it to be? I think a disclosure requirement is reasonable and that most potential government employees wouldn't object to that. Then if the do anything that is fishy, we would know it. I think making potential employees divest or create a blind trust is such a disincentive we need to remove the requirement.

Seems reasonable to me, especially for appointees who have to be confirmed and make their disclosures for the confirmation process. I think there is little to no practical way to deal with "bias", which is much more difficult to define, evaluate, and deal with: one person's bias is another person's insight.

[oldalum]

 
In point of fact, almost anybody who is knowledgeable about a given topic has conflicts of interest. Some are that you previously worked for X and now love/hate them. 

I would call that experience, not a conflict of interest. No expert can be a tabula rasa for their area of expertise. I think the term in this context should be reserved for more direct financial conflicts of interest, because financial motivation is more readily understandable, disclosable, and dealt with.

I know what you mean Oldalum. However, the consequences of saying that you can't continue to manage your own investments and that you must not invest/own anything that might be affected by your decisions results in most qualified people simply refusing to work for the Government. You already will take a salary hit, but maybe you can accept that to "do a good thing". But now you have to shred your entire portfolio as well? So yes, it is easily dealt with if you don't count the people who just say "Sorry, no". Heck, even filling out the disclosure forms is a major task.
I totally agree that nobody comes to the job tabula rasa (at least we hope not). However, they may bring with them bias that is just as bad or worse than the financial ones that come with owning stock in Boeing. We accept one, why not the other? As I pointed out, this requirement of "financial neutrality" is relatively new, and lots of people who did great work in the past for the USA wouldn't have met it. So how universal do we want it to be? I think a disclosure requirement is reasonable and that most potential government employees wouldn't object to that. Then if the do anything that is fishy, we would know it. I think making potential employees divest or create a blind trust is such a disincentive we need to remove the requirement.

Seems reasonable to me, especially for appointees who have to be confirmed and make their disclosures for the confirmation process. I think there is little to no practical way to deal with "bias", which is much more difficult to define, evaluate, and deal with: one person's bias is another person's insight.

[BostonCard]

I think a disclosure requirement is reasonable and that most potential government employees wouldn't object to that. Then if the do anything that is fishy, we would know it. I think making potential employees divest or create a blind trust is such a disincentive we need to remove the requirement.

I believe Slaoui's position exempts him from even having to fill out the disclosure requirements.  At a minimum, there should be disclosure, and divestment from the companies covered by Warp Speed.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think a disclosure requirement is reasonable and that most potential government employees wouldn't object to that. Then if the do anything that is fishy, we would know it. I think making potential employees divest or create a blind trust is such a disincentive we need to remove the requirement.

I believe Slaoui's position exempts him from even having to fill out the disclosure requirements.  At a minimum, there should be disclosure, and divestment from the companies covered by Warp Speed.

BC

[Goose]

I think a disclosure requirement is reasonable and that most potential government employees wouldn't object to that. Then if the do anything that is fishy, we would know it. I think making potential employees divest or create a blind trust is such a disincentive we need to remove the requirement.

I believe Slaoui's position exempts him from even having to fill out the disclosure requirements.

You are correct. His compensation is below the cut-off for such disclosures. That is a loophole that should be closed. However, even that gets complicated. If you own an index fund that buys and sells outside your control, does that count? How often do you have to disclose? Immediately on a transaction? Once a year? Something can be done. but if it is administratively complex, people like Slaoui will just opt out.

 At a minimum, there should be disclosure, and divestment from the companies covered by Warp Speed.

BC

If you own stock in companies covered by Warp Speed, it is a tailor-made recipe for conflict of interest. Even if you behaved perfectly, the other companies may not stand for it. For that reason, I think disclosure is sufficient. If the other companies think highly enough of you to not object, why should anybody else? What if you own stock in several (pretty probable if you collected options during your career)?
We need the best and the brightest. To get them, especially for $1 a year, we will have to accept some ambiguity. In the past, we did this regularly. Disclosure is enough to protect us from corruption IMHO. It may not protect us from all bias, but nothing will do that.

[Goose]

I think a disclosure requirement is reasonable and that most potential government employees wouldn't object to that. Then if the do anything that is fishy, we would know it. I think making potential employees divest or create a blind trust is such a disincentive we need to remove the requirement.

I believe Slaoui's position exempts him from even having to fill out the disclosure requirements.

You are correct. His compensation is below the cut-off for such disclosures. That is a loophole that should be closed. However, even that gets complicated. If you own an index fund that buys and sells outside your control, does that count? How often do you have to disclose? Immediately on a transaction? Once a year? Something can be done. but if it is administratively complex, people like Slaoui will just opt out.

 At a minimum, there should be disclosure, and divestment from the companies covered by Warp Speed.

BC

If you own stock in companies covered by Warp Speed, it is a tailor-made recipe for conflict of interest. Even if you behaved perfectly, the other companies may not stand for it. For that reason, I think disclosure is sufficient. If the other companies think highly enough of you to not object, why should anybody else? What if you own stock in several (pretty probable if you collected options during your career)?
We need the best and the brightest. To get them, especially for $1 a year, we will have to accept some ambiguity. In the past, we did this regularly. Disclosure is enough to protect us from corruption IMHO. It may not protect us from all bias, but nothing will do that.

[BostonCard]

The $1 a year is stupid.  Warp speed has a budget of $10 billion and will influence federal spending of several times that.  Paying Slaoui 6 figures would be a rounding error.  Even paying him market rate is a small expense compared to the overall amount a stake.

I've had to fill out conflict of interest disclosure forms in the past, and they're not that impossible.  For someone like me, I have almost everything in index funds, and I was just required to disclose the funds (not their individual components).  For someone like Slaoui, he almost certainly has an accountant that can prepare the documents for him. 

If you own stock in companies covered by Warp Speed, it is a tailor-made recipe for conflict of interest. Even if you behaved perfectly, the other companies may not stand for it. For that reason, I think disclosure is sufficient.

Isn't this exactly why you shouldn't allow the conflicts?  Nobody is going to want to make waves about potential conflicts while they are still in the running, for fear of antagonizing Slaoui. But, as soon as the contracts are awarded to someone else, those companies may turn around and sue for a flawed process, which runs the risk of slowing down the whole thing.  Just look at what happened with the JEDI program and Amazon when Microsoft was awarded the DoD contract and untoward influence was alleged.

BC

[BostonCard]

The $1 a year is stupid.  Warp speed has a budget of $10 billion and will influence federal spending of several times that.  Paying Slaoui 6 figures would be a rounding error.  Even paying him market rate is a small expense compared to the overall amount a stake.

I've had to fill out conflict of interest disclosure forms in the past, and they're not that impossible.  For someone like me, I have almost everything in index funds, and I was just required to disclose the funds (not their individual components).  For someone like Slaoui, he almost certainly has an accountant that can prepare the documents for him. 

If you own stock in companies covered by Warp Speed, it is a tailor-made recipe for conflict of interest. Even if you behaved perfectly, the other companies may not stand for it. For that reason, I think disclosure is sufficient.

Isn't this exactly why you shouldn't allow the conflicts?  Nobody is going to want to make waves about potential conflicts while they are still in the running, for fear of antagonizing Slaoui. But, as soon as the contracts are awarded to someone else, those companies may turn around and sue for a flawed process, which runs the risk of slowing down the whole thing.  Just look at what happened with the JEDI program and Amazon when Microsoft was awarded the DoD contract and untoward influence was alleged.

BC

[Goose]

The $1 a year is stupid.  Warp speed has a budget of $10 billion and will influence federal spending of several times that.  Paying Slaoui 6 figures would be a rounding error.  Even paying him market rate is a small expense compared to the overall amount a stake.

True, but doing so would have made him liable to disclosure and divestment. He wasn't willing to do that. That is why he works for a dollar. This is a time-honored dodge going back at least 90 years.

I've had to fill out conflict of interest disclosure forms in the past, and they're not that impossible.

Not to quibble (much), but were they Federal forms for a GS job? Are you aware of the possible legal implications of making an misrepresentation? At one point my wife was considering it. These forms basically sealed the deal of "no way". We are far from "rich", but even for the average person it is a big PITA. Not to mention that she would have been required to sell a bunch of stock with what she thought was a big upside. 

For someone like me, I have almost everything in index funds, and I was just required to disclose the funds (not their individual components).  For someone like Slaoui, he almost certainly has an accountant that can prepare the documents for him.

Yes, but why do it? You are doing your country a favor and they are treating you like a criminal before you even work there. Not only that, but if somebody doesn't like how a contract award went, they can still sue because you knew what the index fund owned from "talk on the street".

If you own stock in companies covered by Warp Speed, it is a tailor-made recipe for conflict of interest. Even if you behaved perfectly, the other companies may not stand for it. For that reason, I think disclosure is sufficient.

Isn't this exactly why you shouldn't allow the conflicts?  Nobody is going to want to make waves about potential conflicts while they are still in the running, for fear of antagonizing Slaoui. But, as soon as the contracts are awarded to someone else, those companies may turn around and sue for a flawed process, which runs the risk of slowing down the whole thing.  Just look at what happened with the JEDI program and Amazon when Microsoft was awarded the DoD contract and untoward influence was alleged.

BC

Lawsuits are an issue for sure. However, as the example you cite shows, the Government can't insulate themselves from these suits even if everything "looks" on the up-and-up.

I know am not going to "win" this argument. We are moving towards more regulation and disclosure, not less. Unfortunately, it is driving many good people away from government service. There is also no evidence that I am aware of that shows our government is making better decisions as a result. In fact, I would argue the opposite.

[Goose]

The $1 a year is stupid.  Warp speed has a budget of $10 billion and will influence federal spending of several times that.  Paying Slaoui 6 figures would be a rounding error.  Even paying him market rate is a small expense compared to the overall amount a stake.

True, but doing so would have made him liable to disclosure and divestment. He wasn't willing to do that. That is why he works for a dollar. This is a time-honored dodge going back at least 90 years.

I've had to fill out conflict of interest disclosure forms in the past, and they're not that impossible.

Not to quibble (much), but were they Federal forms for a GS job? Are you aware of the possible legal implications of making an misrepresentation? At one point my wife was considering it. These forms basically sealed the deal of "no way". We are far from "rich", but even for the average person it is a big PITA. Not to mention that she would have been required to sell a bunch of stock with what she thought was a big upside. 

For someone like me, I have almost everything in index funds, and I was just required to disclose the funds (not their individual components).  For someone like Slaoui, he almost certainly has an accountant that can prepare the documents for him.

Yes, but why do it? You are doing your country a favor and they are treating you like a criminal before you even work there. Not only that, but if somebody doesn't like how a contract award went, they can still sue because you knew what the index fund owned from "talk on the street".

If you own stock in companies covered by Warp Speed, it is a tailor-made recipe for conflict of interest. Even if you behaved perfectly, the other companies may not stand for it. For that reason, I think disclosure is sufficient.

Isn't this exactly why you shouldn't allow the conflicts?  Nobody is going to want to make waves about potential conflicts while they are still in the running, for fear of antagonizing Slaoui. But, as soon as the contracts are awarded to someone else, those companies may turn around and sue for a flawed process, which runs the risk of slowing down the whole thing.  Just look at what happened with the JEDI program and Amazon when Microsoft was awarded the DoD contract and untoward influence was alleged.

BC

Lawsuits are an issue for sure. However, as the example you cite shows, the Government can't insulate themselves from these suits even if everything "looks" on the up-and-up.

I know am not going to "win" this argument. We are moving towards more regulation and disclosure, not less. Unfortunately, it is driving many good people away from government service. There is also no evidence that I am aware of that shows our government is making better decisions as a result. In fact, I would argue the opposite.

[BostonCard]

Not to quibble (much), but were they Federal forms for a GS job? Are you aware of the possible legal implications of making an misrepresentation? At one point my wife was considering it. These forms basically sealed the deal of "no way". We are far from "rich", but even for the average person it is a big PITA. Not to mention that she would have been required to sell a bunch of stock with what she thought was a big upside. 

Listen, I think we are simultaneously arguing two different but related things.  The first is whether federal disclosure and divestment requirements are too onerous.  While I think there is a good reason they exist, I am willing to entertain that they may be overly restrictive; it certainly sounds like it in your wife's case.

The second point, which I am arguing, is whether Slaoui specifically should be exempt from them.  Now, I get that if you already think the requirements are too onerous, you might be more sympathetic towards someone skirting the rules.  The flip side of that is two-fold.  First, why do we insist that people like your wife fill out the forms and divest of their stocks, but allow people like Slaoui to take a "time honored dodge".  More importantly, people hired to lower level positions are not going to sign off on multi-billion dollar deals, so the stakes are higher in Slaoui's case.

My experience is that about 90% of public servants accept less money and added headaches because they believe in serving their country.  90% of the remainder are doing so temporarily knowing that they will be able to get a much better paying job in industry after they leave government service, but do faithfully serve while they are in government; they just have one foot out the door.  The remaining 1% are basically looking to loot the government to benefit themselves, their family, or their friends.  And unfortunately, because you don't know who's who, everyone gets "treated like a criminal before they even work there."

For someone like me, I have almost everything in index funds, and I was just required to disclose the funds (not their individual components).  For someone like Slaoui, he almost certainly has an accountant that can prepare the documents for him.

Yes, but why do it? You are doing your country a favor and they are treating you like a criminal before you even work there. Not only that, but if somebody doesn't like how a contract award went, they can still sue because you knew what the index fund owned from "talk on the street".

Lawsuits are an issue for sure. However, as the example you cite shows, the Government can't insulate themselves from these suits even if everything "looks" on the up-and-up.

That's the thing, there was a reasonable concern that everything wasn't on the "up and up".  It just wasn't a financial conflict of interest at the center; it was a question of whether there was undue influence out of a personal grudge.  Now, this was a case where no amount of regulation would have fixed; there was no financial conflict of interest and in any case, the President isn't subject to those restrictions.  But, having inserted himself into the conversation, Amazon could file a lawsuit and allege improporiety.

An aggrieved loser in the Operation Warp Speed race might be able to turn around and challenge the allocation of funds on the basis of a conflict of interest.  That strikes me as an avoidable risk.  Moreover, this will involve far more than just a single winner or loser; it is possible that multiple vaccines will emerge and then things like selecting the price the government pays and the allocation of doses.  Let's say a company he own's stock in is one of several companies to be successful at the end and gets awarded a contract for 100 million doses at $20 a piece.  Will Slaoui push to get that down to $19 a piece?  That price difference would be worth the taxpayer vastly more than even a market rate salary.  And it is not something that a different company will challenge in court.  So, I don't think disclosure alone is enough.

BC

[BostonCard]

Not to quibble (much), but were they Federal forms for a GS job? Are you aware of the possible legal implications of making an misrepresentation? At one point my wife was considering it. These forms basically sealed the deal of "no way". We are far from "rich", but even for the average person it is a big PITA. Not to mention that she would have been required to sell a bunch of stock with what she thought was a big upside. 

Listen, I think we are simultaneously arguing two different but related things.  The first is whether federal disclosure and divestment requirements are too onerous.  While I think there is a good reason they exist, I am willing to entertain that they may be overly restrictive; it certainly sounds like it in your wife's case.

The second point, which I am arguing, is whether Slaoui specifically should be exempt from them.  Now, I get that if you already think the requirements are too onerous, you might be more sympathetic towards someone skirting the rules.  The flip side of that is two-fold.  First, why do we insist that people like your wife fill out the forms and divest of their stocks, but allow people like Slaoui to take a "time honored dodge".  More importantly, people hired to lower level positions are not going to sign off on multi-billion dollar deals, so the stakes are higher in Slaoui's case.

My experience is that about 90% of public servants accept less money and added headaches because they believe in serving their country.  90% of the remainder are doing so temporarily knowing that they will be able to get a much better paying job in industry after they leave government service, but do faithfully serve while they are in government; they just have one foot out the door.  The remaining 1% are basically looking to loot the government to benefit themselves, their family, or their friends.  And unfortunately, because you don't know who's who, everyone gets "treated like a criminal before they even work there."

For someone like me, I have almost everything in index funds, and I was just required to disclose the funds (not their individual components).  For someone like Slaoui, he almost certainly has an accountant that can prepare the documents for him.

Yes, but why do it? You are doing your country a favor and they are treating you like a criminal before you even work there. Not only that, but if somebody doesn't like how a contract award went, they can still sue because you knew what the index fund owned from "talk on the street".

Lawsuits are an issue for sure. However, as the example you cite shows, the Government can't insulate themselves from these suits even if everything "looks" on the up-and-up.

That's the thing, there was a reasonable concern that everything wasn't on the "up and up".  It just wasn't a financial conflict of interest at the center; it was a question of whether there was undue influence out of a personal grudge.  Now, this was a case where no amount of regulation would have fixed; there was no financial conflict of interest and in any case, the President isn't subject to those restrictions.  But, having inserted himself into the conversation, Amazon could file a lawsuit and allege improporiety.

An aggrieved loser in the Operation Warp Speed race might be able to turn around and challenge the allocation of funds on the basis of a conflict of interest.  That strikes me as an avoidable risk.  Moreover, this will involve far more than just a single winner or loser; it is possible that multiple vaccines will emerge and then things like selecting the price the government pays and the allocation of doses.  Let's say a company he own's stock in is one of several companies to be successful at the end and gets awarded a contract for 100 million doses at $20 a piece.  Will Slaoui push to get that down to $19 a piece?  That price difference would be worth the taxpayer vastly more than even a market rate salary.  And it is not something that a different company will challenge in court.  So, I don't think disclosure alone is enough.

BC