why are we putting crackheads in postitions of authority?

“I’m 60 years old, and I want to live to see 61.”

On a serious note, the scope of suggestions/ideas, cautionary notes, historical context, and skeptical analysis in this thread is really of the highest caliber.

The Beast Who Slumbers never ceases to be amazed by what DL readers can bring to the table.

He urges those in the Markell Administration who read this blog to seriously incorporate what DL readers have provided into their deliberations.

Just great stuff!

I’m not so sure that would apply here. With Markell making the announcement, as well as already appointing a sucessor, why would he have to shield the communication?

“The executive privilege is not absolute. Unlike most evidentiary privileges, it is for the benefit of the public, not the executive who asserts it. The privilege serves the purpose of protecting the effectiveness of the overall governmental system. Thus, in a criminal case, where ‘the very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts’ the legitimate need for disclosure of relevant evidence may outweigh a generalized claim of public interest in the confidentiality of Presidential communications. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 709. Conversely, in a civil case, ‘when the danger of possible unjust censure of a candidate for appointment . . . is balanced against the need for effective pre-appointment screening of prospective appointees, the latter interest is far more compelling.’ Nero v. Hyland, 386 A.2d at 853. Whether a claim of executive privilege is sustained, therefore, depends upon whether the need for protecting the confidentiality of executive communications outweighs the litigant’s need for disclosure.”

I suspect that under this standard, Secy Pfeiffer’s recommendations to the governor would not be required to be disclosed.

Liberalgeek, did you get a chance to talk to your econ friend?

I’m still baffled at how a comparatively young and reportedly talented secretary of finance can quit 6 months into his job amid a financial crisis.

The only precedent I can think of was when Mike Hargrove [like Pfeiffer, 57 years old] resigned his manager’s job two years ago this week, saying he no longer had the passion for the job. The difference: the Mariners were on an 8-game winning streak, Hargrove had 16 largely successful years as a manager, and decided after 35 itinerant baseball years to enjoy life with his children’s mother.

No such explanation for the short-term Secretary of Finance. No doubt Gov. Markell’s disappointed.

This would be dangerous. Revenue is a 12-month cycle, with constant emergencies and the need for a departmental memory. The Division of Revenue has to address to chiselers, non-reporters, tax evaders and others who game the system. It can’t do so with the civil-service equivalent of rent-a-cops.

Obviously. But if it speeds the decision by 6 months to a year, it does what it is intended to do. Everyone in every job will retire (or die trying). The savings come when those guys at finance go home and talk to their spouses tonight and decide if they can make it on what they have now.

An early attempt at IT standards – I think its just been carried over from year to year. (I doubt that the current leadership at DTI even knows its there. But I digress…)

LG – the relevant issue is not how many people retire. Its how many MORE retire because of this change than would have retired anyway. Otherwise, this is just window dressing on activity that would have occurred anyway.

But even more than that, one would hope that some detailed analysis went into this – including some risk assessment. What exactly was the thought process that went into this? Who was a part of it? How was this analysis communicated to the Governor’s office?

Lets not forget, Finance is not a small agency. It collects the lions share of revenue for the state and touches every single taxpayer in the state (and many outside it).

If anything the Markell Administration has done during its first 6 months in office warrants public scrutiny, this is it.

Anon has raised a depressing, but plausible, possibility. Either Treasurer or (even worse) Auditor. That’d be the ultimate coverup.