“We trust the companies we work with,” Alec Asbridge, director of regulatory compliance at Georgia Department of Agriculture, said earlier this month. “We don’t see any reason they would submit information that wasn’t truthful.”
I feel like this statement makes Asbridge unsuited for his job as director of regulatory compliance. Willful obliviousness implies a conflict of interest.
Uh, this makes no sesne to me. He's speaking specifically about the numbers reported for the Georgia Dock, which, from the reporting in this article, could very easily be completely legitimate. You seem to be interpreting his statement as applying to everything under his job description as director of regulatory compliance.
I did not read his statement as a blanket statement; it hadn't occurred to me that anyone would until I saw your comment. As a matter of fact, the 2nd sentence seems to explicitly preclude that interpretation.
The entire article provides reasons why the companies are incentivized to inflate the prices, because those prices are used in contracts which affect them. Asbridge is either not aware of this aspect of the incentives in his industry, which would imply incompetence (whether this is a minor incompetence or a gross incompetence, I don't have the knowledge to say), or he's not speaking carefully. He might actually think that the companies don't have a GOOD reason to provide false figures, but not that they don't have ANY reason. If he's not speaking carefully, then he may be specifically minimizing concerns about the figures to the benefit of the industry he's regulating.
Since he's a political actor, and we know that regulatory capture exists, this could call into question whether it's appropriate for him to continue being a regulator. That's the argument.
To give him the benefit of the doubt (not saying it's warranted), Georgia government interactions do seem to have a tendency towards "yelled at and fixed in a back room, face saving comments at the press conference."
See the history of our JQB (before voters questionably decided to give control to the legislature this election).
I feel like <20% of ballot measures are clearly worded, so that wasn't any surprise to me.
More fun was that State Rep. Johnnie Caldwell of Griffin, GA (formerly Judge Caldwell before being approached by the JQB and resigning due to allegations of sexually harassing a female attorney) was one of the co-sponsors of the amendment.
We don’t see any reason they would submit information that wasn’t truthful
This statement seems excessively naive for a Director of Regulatory Compliance.
It's one thing to suggest that in general, the companies are believed to be honest. That's a fairly reasonable statement.
It's another thing to be blind to the benefits of giving untruthful information. If all companies were honest and compliant, there would be no need for a Director of Regulatory Compliance.
Some people think that there is no need and they take political and regulatory positions specifically to undermine regulations. Something to think about when someone in a position to impact regulatory effectiveness does something that seems incomprehensible.
But it's not always the case, sometimes people are just thick or we lack a complete picture.
It sounds like they're only talking to chicken producers, and the producers have a pretty obvious incentive to lie to regulators if it increases the price they get for chicken.
An easy fix would be to contact retailers like Walmart or Kroger to see what they're paying for chicken. Hopefully the liars would offset and end up closer to the truth.
>Does it make you feel any better though? Do you prefer to be continuously disappointed over things you have no control on?
Who said we have no control on the world? Do you think one has to be The President or some mogul to have a say in the world? Was Rosa Parks anybody important when she did what she did?
And even if it's not about changing the world, being aware of the pitfalls instead of blindly optimistic can let people avoid lots of dangers of the "it can't happen here" or "it can't happen to me" type...
Strip the organization of resources over time, put politically appointed people in charge of work that should be performed by civil servants, and create a situation where the inmates run the asylum.
Even if nobody applies pressure, there's an implied threat of reprisal when the an appointed former garden blogger turned director of whatever gives an undesired answer. That job should be a civil service gig protected from direct reprisal.
Compare this ridiculous methodology compared to something more robust like the CPI calculations performed by the US DOL.
From 1872 to 2002 Georgia elected 37 Democrat Governors in a row. The Georgia dock chicken pricing goes back at least 56 years. So you might as well call it classic blue state governance.
Good info, but the article isn't referring to events that took place between 1872-2002. If you look at the details of the article these anomalies in pricing began in the 2007 timeframe, and the attached chart starts in 2005.
That timeframe coincides with a wave of privatization within the state, including the divestment of IT from state governance to an outsourcing deal and broad tax cuts that devastated local government and education.
I'm not engaging in knee-jerk partisanship. The playbook for modern republican governance calls for contracting services out, diminishing the role of civil servants, and making tax reduction a cornerstone policy position. When you replace civil servants with political appointees of any party, this sort of thing happens. It just so happens that republicans are the offenders in this story.
You are blaming red state governance for a program that dates back to at least 1966, 36 years before Georgia broke a 130 years streak of consecutive Democrat governors. The article doesn't say that the program has changed, but that poultry companies started supplying bad data. You are jumping to the conclusion that this was affected by outsourcing, tax cuts, or replacing civil servants with political appointees, none of which is stated in the article.
The article doesn't claim the problem went back to '66, but rather says it's a more recent problem in a previously successful program. Are you saying the problem goes back further than the article claims, or was this just a misunderstanding on your part?
I think his point was that the previous poster should not have been so quick to call it out as a partisan issue, not placing blame on Democratic governance.
As I read the article, the influence the industry has over prices is definitely a big problem, as are some of the statements of those in government defending the accuracy of the prices and basically covering themselves. The government officials sound like sadly typical "everything's fine, we're looking into it" language.
Not knowing the broader GA situation, can you shed light on "strip the organization of resources over time"? I don't see that in the article. It does sound like he could have used more support, but that can be the case in many jobs, in industry or government.
From what I see, Schronce has been a civil servant since October 1996.
Oct 1996 - August 2014
Director of Public Affairs, GA Dept of Agriculture
August 2014 -
Marketing Representative for Municipal Market Board for City of Atlanta
I wasn't able to fill in the gap between working for the Municipal Market Board and returning to the Dept of Agriculture.
His blog was part of the Dept of Agriculture website. Describing the situation as "former garden blogger turned director of whatever" is an unfair characterization of the situation. I don't see in the article whether the Director of Public Affairs is an appointed position or not, nor could I find information about that online. He has a background in agriculture, a horticulture graduate of North Carolina State University. If it was an appointment, it doesn't appear to be purely political.
I also don't see an indication from the article that he was worried about reprisal. I agree it's important to shield regulators to let them do their jobs as free of influence as possible.
He did write a memo, raising the issue. With the light that's now been cast on the situation, hopefully it'll get fixed. No system is perfect. What makes a difference is whether it gets fixed now that the issue is known.
The particulars of the Georgia Dock aside, how does this compare with other states, red, blue, or purple?
Even like a, "Trust but verify" attitude here would be more appropriate.
Like, sure, I get it, it's easier to work with companies if you demonstrate a trusting relationship, but you're in an adversarial position by the nature of your job, the companies should feel a little uncomfortable around you.
I feel like this statement makes Asbridge unsuited for his job as director of regulatory compliance. Willful obliviousness implies a conflict of interest.