News-Record.com

In the same article Easley said his wife could make much more than that if she went into the private sector, but she chose to stay in the public. How noble of her. All that money and enough vacation time to travel to Europe on the taxpayers. I can't imagine the type of sacrifice she has had to make.

I think the Gov. is saying he could be married to
a man and it wouldn't be an issue.

Easley = Sleazy

Doug:

"Imagine the public reaction if, next year, either Cindy McCain or Michelle Obama lands a job in a federal agency and a nearly $200,000 salary. Will she get it because of her unique qualifications or because her husband is president (or is that a redundancy)?"

Gosh, just imagine!

If public opinion is as poorly informed as yours seems to be, the reaction may be negative. However, contrary to your insinuation, each woman does have "unique qualifications" for high-profile employment that are independent of her husband's career.

Michelle Obama is and has been successful in her own right. She graduated with honors from Princeton and obtained a law degree from Harvard. She worked in a large law firm, where she met Obama. She has held executive positions in the Chicago mayor's office. She now works at the University of Chicago and serves on corporate boards. A $200K per year federal job would represent a substantial cut.

Cindy McCain holds a master's from USC in special education and initially taught special needs children. Her family wealth subsequently allowed her to run a large charity. More recently, she has helped run her father's large company and helped with other charities. She too would have to take a substantial pay cut to move to a $200K per year federal job.

BTW, both women have accomplished this while also taking primary responsibility for raising their families' children.

Each woman would bring a wealth of executive experience to a federal job, and each is better-qualified than many political appointees.

Dave, I think you understand that's not the point. High office isn't supposed to be the gateway for putting your relatives in government jobs, even if they are qualified. So are lots of people who don't get government jobs and don't have family connections.

Doug:

What point did I miss? That you denigrated these women's substantial accomplishments? That there are actually highly qualified and successful women who happen to have political spouses? That people should be judged on their own merits, regardless of marital status or whom they married?

Your assertion is that Michelle Obama's and Cindy McCain's husbands' employment disqualifies them from government service--at rates of pay BELOW what they are making in the private sector. Taking a large cut in pay hardly seems like a "gateway" opportunity.

Previously ( http://blog.news-record.com/staff/offtherecord/archives/2007/08/is_hillary_clin.shtml ), you have been willing to consider people's qualifications first. My guess is that if you put the same effort into researching the backgrounds of Mrs. Obama and Mrs. McCain, you would see that they are each highly qualified.

Your reflexive dismissal of their qualifications suggests that you have not considered Mary Easley's either. Mary Easley was in Phi Beta Kappa and graduated with high honors from Wake Forest University; she returned there to graduate from its law school. She served as an asst. DA for a decade and in private practice for nearly another decade. Since leaving private practice she's served on a host of boards and commissions.

The bottom line should be whether she produces at least $170K in annual output for NC State. If she does, then she is being fairly paid. If she doesn't, then she and the administration of NC State have something to answer for. Unfortunately, no one is examining whether she is worth this salary; instead we just assume that there is either "outright favoritism" or that tried and true yet thoughtless fallback, "the appearance of it."

If she was earning half of what other instructors were making and complained of discrimination, you would immediately dismiss it. However, if she's making twice what others make, you immediately leap to the conclusion of favoritism and nepotism.

I can't dismiss the favoritism charge, but I'd sure like to see some additional evidence before leaping to that particular conclusion.

Dave,

It is an outright dishonesty on your part to say I denigrated the accomplishments of Mrs. McCain and Mrs. Obama. I offered a hypothetical that had nothing to do with their individual qualifications for federal employment. The fact is, neither will be given a paid position with the federal government if or when her husband is president because it would give the wrong appearance.

Appearance is important in regard to our elected leaders. It matters how things look, and you can't dismiss those concerns by demanding proof that the governor's relative was put on the payroll because he or she is the governor's relative or proof that he or she isn't producing enough to justify his or her salary.

It is for the purpose of avoiding these difficulties that many organizations enforce strict nepotism policies. I think that's a wise practice. It might cost your company the services of a potentially valuable employee, but it also can save a lot of discontent. It can be very damaging for organizational morale if the work force thinks someone was given her position because of a relationship to the boss.

Do you suppose someone else at State might be qualified for the job Mrs. Easley holds and might have been interested in it? Do you suppose that person might feel he or she had little chance against the governor's wife?

Would Mrs. Easley have an employment advantage? After all, the governor proposes in his budget how much state funding public universities should receive. Would university officials think it would be a good move to give his wife a nice job? It's probably impossible prove what their motives might haven been when they hired her, but it's a problem for the governor if the question even comes up.

It's not a question of her qualifications. It's a question of propriety. The next governor might have a bigger family than Easley.

Doug:

Posing an insult as an unanswered question and then tucking that inside a hypothetical strikes me as being more dishonest. And now you say that there is no factual basis to your own hypothetical (i.e., "the fact is" what I said won't happen), which seems more slippery yet.

Your specific words were "Imagine the public reaction if, next year, either Cindy McCain or Michelle Obama lands a job in a federal agency and a nearly $200,000 salary. Will she get it because of her unique qualifications or because her husband is president (or is that a redundancy)?"

Perhaps I have misinterpreted your words, but doesn't the phrase in parentheses imply that the women have no "unique qualifications" for "a nearly $200,000" federal job other than potentially being a first lady? As we now know, each does earn or has already earned substantially more than this. Implying that they are not professionally qualified for jobs that pay less than jobs they've already held certainly does denigrate their accomplishments. If I said that you were unqualifed to write copy for the local shopper or if you said that I was unqualified to teach at the school that Sally Struthers advertises, we would doubtlessly each see this as denigration, no?

"Do you suppose someone else at State might be qualified for the job Mrs. Easley holds and might have been interested in it?" The answer is "absolutely yes." There are approximately 200 employees at NC State who make the same or more than Mary Easley makes and thousands there who make less. If Mary Easley were to leave the job, it might very well be filled by an internal or external appointment at a lower, equal, or maybe even higher salary. What's critical here though is that the reporting up until now has not shown that Mary Easley was unqualified; it has not shown that a more qualified person was turned aside, and it has not shown that the position or a similar one would not have been created for a similarly qualified candidate.

"Would Mrs. Easley have an employment advantage?" She might; however, given the Governor's potential to influence outcomes, she would have similar advantages at almost any other employer in the state. By that logic, no NC first lady or gentleman could work. Also, her husband's position might not be an advantage at all. As this incident shows, any reasonable employer should realize that a spotlight is going to be shown on Mary Easley's behavior and actions. Also, because state university employees' salaries and positions are public, the provost had to know that the terms of her employment would be public knowledge. That kind of attention can hardly be helpful to one's employment prospects.

Dave, when I used the term "uniquely qualified," my meaning should have been clear: Only she is qualified; no other.

A first lady might be considered uniquely qualified, in addition to her professional credentials, because she is first lady. Others may have similar professional capabilities, but no one else is first lady. To say that is not to suggest the first lady is unqualified.

I do not believe Mrs. Easley's employment would be an issue, or the public's business, if she were working in the private sector. The governor does not have any influence over budget or personnel matters related to private companies that I know of.

We accountants are required to remain independent of our clients in fact AND appearance. Both are equally important. I think the case can be made that the same should apply here.

Also, I think a big part of the issue is the 80% raise Mrs. Easley received. Did she somehow become 80% more "uniquely qualified" for her position?

And Dave, your argument does not make sense. (I realize that statement is independent neither in fact nor appearance, but it remains true.)

Doug:

There's still that pesky phrase "or is it a redundancy" that seems to call into question whether there are any qualifications at all.

Her employment would likely be an issue anywhere. The calls for the Obamas and McCains to share their tax returns (and specifically for Cindy McCain to share hers) suggest that there is considerable public interest in where and how spouses obtain their incomes.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose that Hillary is selected as Obama's VP or that Elizabeth Dole is selected as McCain's. Should Bill or Bob be prohibited from serving in either President's cabinet or in some other paid position? If some state university wanted to make Bob Eaves, Jr. (Beverly Perdue's husband and a successful businessman) a chair of entrepreneurship, do you think there would be the same objection or question of his "unique qualifications?"

Did that new job position get posted?
That would answer a lot of questions about how this job came about.

Kenny:

The not making sense part could apply to several of the comments that I made :) Could you be more specific?

"Would Mrs. Easley have an employment advantage?" She might

Also, her husband's position might not be an advantage at all.

these are the ones that don't make sense,

point one" she might "should say "she does"
point two "might not be" , are we talking about the same governor.

A position for Bill Clinton if HIllary is veep? Interesting idea. But the veep doesn't make appointments and isn't the boss of anyone, so it wouldn't be the same. More interesting, of course, would have been Hillary as president. Would she nominate her hubby for a cabinet post?

doug, you might want to send out a fyi that the web address has changed to beta, so if anyone has a link on site to change the address, just a observation

Didn't Michele Obama also have her salary doubled at university of chicago after her husband won a seat in the U.S. Senate?

Winning political office is the most sure-fire, get-rich-quick scheme in America. If you don't think corporate lobbyists don't give insider trading tips, then you are very naive. Look at how their spouses, sons and daughters land cushy, overpaid jobs. Look at how developers suddenly cozy up to them, and make them their business partners in real-estate and other failsafe ventures -- many of them have Whitewater type deals in the works. Look at how many of them arrive in office as upper middle class lawyers -- and, after just a few years in office, become multi-millionaires off of business partnerships and investments.

And, most disgustingly, look at how rich they are getting off the war in Iraq -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- which is the real reason they won't end the debacle.