ADF&G kicked off Beluga science panel - could not be objective

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nerka
    replied
    Originally posted by Akres View Post
    An inside joke of sorts...those in the dept today, have no problem relating...one of our favorite passtimes...mess with their minds. That and I can't help but think...you are joshing me.
    OK I was. We cannot take this too seriously Akres. It is only fish for gosh sake.

    Leave a comment:


  • Akres
    replied
    Originally posted by Nerka View Post
    This post makes no sense which I find typical and sad. I really hope you are not in charge of any emergency stuff as communication is not one of your best skills.
    An inside joke of sorts...those in the dept today, have no problem relating...one of our favorite passtimes...mess with their minds. That and I can't help but think...you are joshing me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nerka
    replied
    Originally posted by Akres View Post
    Suggest you leave the politicking to those that know how it works...Danged hard to be "a professional" in all areas. Each of us are challenged in some way or another...or in some cases blinded by our superior intellect over all matters human and earthly. Or continue with the rant on how 3 state employees gathered around the water cooler, whispering in hushed tones, passing top secret, incriminating emails to their breathern, have all the answers to worlds ill's. I must say...It adds a bit of levity to my day...carry on!!!
    This post makes no sense which I find typical and sad. I really hope you are not in charge of any emergency stuff as communication is not one of your best skills.

    Leave a comment:


  • alaska4ever
    replied
    Originally posted by Akres View Post
    "Squondrels"....a) Those not worthy of consideration for Professional Service nor Consultation. b) Unsavory individuals bent on self admiration. c) State Employees whom bow to the East (Washington DC) d) a group of naysayers, commonly found grouped around water coolers or huddled in cubicles peeking over the dividers in an attempt to get a glimpse of the world.


    OK, I looked it up in the dictionary and couldn't find it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Akres
    replied
    Originally posted by alaska4ever View Post
    Sorry, I'm not as educated as you are, what does "squondrels" mean?
    "Squondrels"....a) Those not worthy of consideration for Professional Service nor Consultation. b) Unsavory individuals bent on self admiration. c) State Employees whom bow to the East (Washington DC) d) a group of naysayers, commonly found grouped around water coolers or huddled in cubicles peeking over the dividers in an attempt to get a glimpse of the world.

    Leave a comment:


  • alaska4ever
    replied
    [QUOTE=Akres;940251]IF the bio's were indeed as you purport...Would they not have quit their State Job, that they obviously despise and independantly continue to serve on the panel?
    Something tells me these two are squondrels from the start. As with any job the employer sets the standard and rules by which the employees must follow...or else...their choice.
    Let's hope these two get stuck on the Hooligan Study...[/QUOTE




    Sorry, I'm not as educated as you are, what does "squondrels" mean?

    Leave a comment:


  • Akres
    replied
    Suggest you leave the politicking to those that know how it works...Danged hard to be "a professional" in all areas. Each of us are challenged in some way or another...or in some cases blinded by our superior intellect over all matters human and earthly. Or continue with the rant on how 3 state employees gathered around the water cooler, whispering in hushed tones, passing top secret, incriminating emails to their breathern, have all the answers to worlds ill's. I must say...It adds a bit of levity to my day...carry on!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Nerka
    replied
    Originally posted by Akres View Post
    I have yet to see anyone seated on a board without bias and prejudice's. This one is no different. The State recognized the direction of the path selected and chose to NOT PLAY...I don't blame them...not one bit!

    Nerka..."our agency"??? How so?
    Maybe Akres you have not been in a professional situation where your personal opinion differs from the employer opinion. As a former State employee I have been in that situation numerous times. If I am representing the State then I have to follow the opinion of the employer with qualification. If the employer is not telling the truth, puts my ethics into question, or is doing something illegal I have no obligation professionally to present the employer position. I also do not have to give up my job. Just for the record I worked in a geotechnical consulting firm where engineers were faced with this issue all the time. A client wants to build something on a risky slope in California and one supervisor wants to say it is fine and another no the risk is too great. The firm may tell the client to go ahead and the individual may to protect his license from the State advise against it. I have seen this happen so I have first hand knowledge of this.

    However, in the case we are talking about the State agreed to the rules - which meant the individuals were released from the State position. However, under the table the State wanted them to present the State's position as an individual position- in other words lie about their involvement. That is not ethical no matter how you look at it. You also fail to understand that the State choose to play not what you state above. They wanted to play but cheat in the game - another ethical lapse and they put the reputation of the scientists from the State at risk because of the threat of loss of job or other punishment. That is also unethical.

    No matter how you want to cut it the State is wrong here. What other people do on the panel or how their organizations behave is not the issue. Two wrongs do not make a right and I thought most of us learned that in kindergarten.

    Leave a comment:


  • Akres
    replied
    Originally posted by Mike Echo View Post
    Nerka, this whole thing implies that every other person on the board is scientifically independent and unfazed by theior job. What are the chances of that?
    Mike
    I have yet to see anyone seated on a board without bias and prejudice's. This one is no different. The State recognized the direction of the path selected and chose to NOT PLAY...I don't blame them...not one bit!

    Nerka..."our agency"??? How so?

    Leave a comment:


  • Nerka
    replied
    I cannot speak to the other panel members as I do not know them. Some are from Universities which I assume means they can speak freely. I also assume the other agencies have agreed to the rules and are following them. As far as the individuals on the panel from the State they brought it to the attention of the panel and no one from what I know said no problem we are under the same restrictions by our agency. So I really cannot answer your question except with speculation which is not worth much.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike Echo
    replied
    Nerka, this whole thing implies that every other person on the board is scientifically independent and unfazed by theior job. What are the chances of that?
    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • Akres
    replied
    Originally posted by Nerka View Post
    You keep saying this same old bull but have provided no proof of any of your claims. Sounds like you made some bad decisions and are not getting a good retirement? Or are you in government and have the retirement and just do not want to say so? In any case your broad labeling of State employees makes you look shallow and mean spirited. Sorry that you live that life.

    Again, you fail to read the post. The State Administration agreed to the rules and then tried to change them via covert means. That is not ethical - plain and simple. I understand they teach ethics at UAA - interested??
    Sheesh Nerka...Don't take it so personal...Apparently you did not read my post...I did not paint all State Employees with the same, broad brush, but you seemingly like to infer that...I said "The bitter ones..."! And Yes, you know the one's I am referring to...

    Pullleeezz...spare me the pity, I do not accept your sorrow...bestow that excess you have on your compadre's still working in the dept...they can best afford it.

    I am well aware of the curriculum offered at UAA...having studied and "worked" it...Though, Not as a janitor, hall monitor or cubicle commando mind you.

    No...the State Administration is NOT in some sort of Conspiracy to undermine the Facts...But certainly veryyyyy wary of the Process!!!
    Sheesshhh

    Leave a comment:


  • Nerka
    replied
    Originally posted by Akres View Post
    State employees know full well what their duties are...They in fact are the Ethically Challenged if they insist on remaining in a position only for the bennies and not supportive of the administration that the people of Alaska have selected to do their bidding. The bitter ones come out of their cubicles, lob a few handgrenades and duck back in for cover. It has gotten old...old enough that some are doing something about it now...knowing there will be resistance. Reminds me of the old hag in the Dept of Corrections that continuously ranted about locking people up...she was a turnkey no less...hanging on for the retirement, swinging away at the dept heads all the time. She too was insanely crazy.
    You keep saying this same old bull but have provided no proof of any of your claims. Sounds like you made some bad decisions and are not getting a good retirement? Or are you in government and have the retirement and just do not want to say so? In any case your broad labeling of State employees makes you look shallow and mean spirited. Sorry that you live that life.

    Again, you fail to read the post. The State Administration agreed to the rules and then tried to change them via covert means. That is not ethical - plain and simple. I understand they teach ethics at UAA - interested??

    Leave a comment:


  • Akres
    replied
    State employees know full well what their duties are...They in fact are the Ethically Challenged if they insist on remaining in a position only for the bennies and not supportive of the administration that the people of Alaska have selected to do their bidding. The bitter ones come out of their cubicles, lob a few handgrenades and duck back in for cover. It has gotten old...old enough that some are doing something about it now...knowing there will be resistance. Reminds me of the old hag in the Dept of Corrections that continuously ranted about locking people up...she was a turnkey no less...hanging on for the retirement, swinging away at the dept heads all the time. She too was insanely crazy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nerka
    replied
    Originally posted by Akres View Post
    IF the bio's were indeed as you purport...Would they not have quit their State Job, that they obviously despise and independantly continue to serve on the panel?
    Something tells me these two are squondrels from the start. As with any job the employer sets the standard and rules by which the employees must follow...or else...their choice.
    Let's hope these two get stuck on the Hooligan Study...
    I think Hitler had that rule Akres. We rejected it in our society and when appointed to an independent science panel and the State at first agrees and then tries to get employees to violate that agreement then the State is ethically challenged. What are you a Director in a government agencies or something? Sounds like you would label your employees with little information about them. Calling the state employees names is typical of your responses to date. Sorry to see that since I know them to be honest and ethical people.

    Leave a comment:

Footer Adsense

Collapse
Working...
X