Blogspot.com cited as the No. 1 host for malware

It would be great if you would create
a blog on how the Federal Government is operating.

Department of Agriculture

Margo McKay appointment to senior government positions was based on her political ties, which outweighed her job qualifications. Therefore, no improvements have been made to the Department of Agriculture Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. Which held true when Vernon Parker held the position. It would be much better to return the position of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to the career civil service employees. Clyde Thompson previous Associate Secretary for Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights is a known sexual harasser. Mr. Thompson has been transferred around USDA like the plague. For now he is assigned to Rural Development Currently, Sherrie Hinton Henry is the Associate Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. She bragged to people about cursing James F. Fitzgerald, Chief of Staff for Rural Development Under Secretary Thomas C. Dorr. Ms Hinton-Henry was on leave and upon her return home discovered a FEDEX package on her doorstep. It’s rumored she is being investigated for falsifying documents concerning her brother’s death who died from an automobile accident while on leave from the military.
Clyde Thompson referred Michael Watts previous Director of Civil Rights for Food and Nutrition Service to Margo McKay to fill the Deputy Director for Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights positions. Nancy Montanez Johner, Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition andConsumer Services wasn’t pleased with Mr. Watts.
The Assistant Secretary for Civil is nothing but a drop off for undesirables. Forest Service didn’t want Clyde Thompson; Rural Development didn’t want Sherie Hinton-Henry. Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services definitely didn’t want Michael Watts.
Margo McKay and her management staff have been ineffective. Margo McKay as political appointees, and her career managers have not created a good working relationship between the federal employees. The majority of the managers under Margo McKay supervision are not qualified for their position. Margo McKay legacy will be lies, corruption and scandals. She will be known for establishing a close relationship with Department Administration Human Capital, EEOC, and MSPB and through that relationship she has destroyed more families than any other political or career SES without cause. Margo McKay and her management staff are home grown terrorist. In less than six months the Department of Agriculture Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights will have a new face. Perhaps a short-lived career management changes for the entire McKay entourage. The only way the agency can get off the ground is to place the agency into receivership. Thanks to Vernon Parker, and especially Margo McKay for there misguided leadership.

All through this Administration Federal employees have had to put up with ignorance and stupidity of political appointees and their management staff.

As a federal employee I would like to know if other employees are having the same problems we are having at Department of Agriculture.

I believe Department of Agriculture issue are through out the federal Government.

Violation of the Ethics Regulations
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) has affirmed the removal of an employee, based on sustained charges that the employee violated the general principles of ethical conduct regarding the improper use of nonpublic Government information (5 C.F.R. 2635.101(b)(3)) and the appearance of violating ethical standards (5 C.F.R. 2635.101(b)(14)), and that the employee falsified her financial disclosure report and concealed a financial interest.
In Suarez v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a former Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Housing Specialist used proprietary information of the Department to have an intimate friend put a bid on some HUD property. Suarez obtained a $20,000 loan for the purpose of lending money to her friend for the purchase of the property. Though the friend subsequently died, Ms. Suarez took ownership of the property prior to her death. Suarez was subsequently promoted to a position that required her to submit a financial disclosure report. She did not report ownership in the (Violation of Ethics Regulations)
property at issue or the liability she incurred in taking the loan. The MSPB found that Suarez provided nonpublic information that furthered a private interest violating 5 C.F.R. 2635.703(a) and 5 C.F.R. 2635.101(b)(3). Further, the MSPB found that Suarez violated 5 C.F.R. 2635.502 because she provided an interest-free loan to her friend from whom she later purchased the property (prior to the friend's death) for one dollar. The MSPB found this activity created an appearance of a conflict of interest for manipulating the system to purchase indirectly through a friend an investment property she could not have obtained directly for herself. The MSPB also held that Suarez should have disclosed the property ownership and loan in her financial disclosure report (OGE Form 450.) As a result of violating the above referenced ethics regulations and principle, Suarez was removed from Federal service.
The MSPB decision reversed a decision by an Administrative Judge (AJ) overturning the agency removal action. The AJ felt that circumstantial evidence, while convincing, was not enough to prove the offense. In an opinion worth reading, the MSPB noted that the agency was only required to prove its case by preponderant evidence, that is, by the degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested fact is more likely true than not true. In a case such as this, were there are only two people who were in a position to provide direct evidence in this case, one of whom is deceased, and the other of whom is the appellant, the agency would have to rely on circumstantial evidence to prove its case. The mere fact that there are no eyewitnesses to some of the crucial events does not, in and of itself, mean that the Board cannot draw whatever inferences the evidence suggests. If the agency provided enough circumstantial evidence to lead the Board to conclude that it is more likely than not that the appellant committed the charged misconduct, this is sufficient to meet the agency’s burden of proof, regardless of the absence of any direct evidence.
The MSPB decision only addresses removal under the Standards. It is unclear whether or not prosecution is likely or has been declined; however, the facts of the case arguably could provide a basis for criminal prosecution.
The case may be found at: <http://www.mspb.gov/decisions/2004/suarez_ph0... ;.