Courtney Snowden: Still unethical

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My dad worked in the private sector for a Fortune 500 company. I think his secretary babysat me after school for years. I’d come to his office and she’d play with me and help me with my HW. It never occurred to me that he was stealing from stockholders. Bad Dad!

Was your dad banging the secretary too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In other words, she's a single mom who, like all single parents, sometimes finds herself in a child care bind. I get that this violated rules and obviously she needs to find a better solution, but this is so far from something I'm going to demonize her for.

According to the most recent figures, Snowden's annual salary is $201,571. She can afford child care that does not involve her taxpayer-funded employees.

https://dchr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dchr/publication/attachments/public_body_employee_information_09302017.pdf

Did you actually read the article? This wasn't something she did on a regular basis, there were three incidents. Once she asked (and paid from her own pocket) a staff member to drive her son to a relative's house so the relative could watch him (no explanation in the article for why she needed the staffer to do it). The second time, she asked a staffer to pick him up from school because the staffer had booked her into a meeting when she was supposed to be doing pick-up. The third time she didn't actually ask anyone to watch her son, she left him in her office while she went to a meeting because the relative who was supposed to pick him up had car trouble. The finding by the investigator in that case was that since he was left unattended (at age 8, not 2), it was implied that the staff would supervise him. These are the kinds of binds working parents find themselves in all the time and have to cobble together a solution. Again, she needs to find a better one, but this isn't a case of someone who just doesn't want to pay for childcare dumping her kid on her assistant every day.

Of course I read the story. What I see is a pattern in which a highly paid DC government employee thinks her job entitles her to special treatment that 99.9999 percent of DC residents do not get (and goes against DC ethics laws, to boot). She did it once with the lottery shenanigans and did it again by forcing her employees to babysit her son, on multiple occasions. In most places, two strikes like this would mean a person is unfit for a taxpayer-funded office.

I also see a pattern in which DC's mayor actively condones this behavior.

Give me a freakin' break. Go pay attention to something that really matters like all of the money wasted in the educational system. Damn, you make it so that no one in their right mind would work for government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In other words, she's a single mom who, like all single parents, sometimes finds herself in a child care bind. I get that this violated rules and obviously she needs to find a better solution, but this is so far from something I'm going to demonize her for.

According to the most recent figures, Snowden's annual salary is $201,571. She can afford child care that does not involve her taxpayer-funded employees.

https://dchr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dchr/publication/attachments/public_body_employee_information_09302017.pdf

Did you actually read the article? This wasn't something she did on a regular basis, there were three incidents. Once she asked (and paid from her own pocket) a staff member to drive her son to a relative's house so the relative could watch him (no explanation in the article for why she needed the staffer to do it). The second time, she asked a staffer to pick him up from school because the staffer had booked her into a meeting when she was supposed to be doing pick-up. The third time she didn't actually ask anyone to watch her son, she left him in her office while she went to a meeting because the relative who was supposed to pick him up had car trouble. The finding by the investigator in that case was that since he was left unattended (at age 8, not 2), it was implied that the staff would supervise him. These are the kinds of binds working parents find themselves in all the time and have to cobble together a solution. Again, she needs to find a better one, but this isn't a case of someone who just doesn't want to pay for childcare dumping her kid on her assistant every day.

Of course I read the story. What I see is a pattern in which a highly paid DC government employee thinks her job entitles her to special treatment that 99.9999 percent of DC residents do not get (and goes against DC ethics laws, to boot). She did it once with the lottery shenanigans and did it again by forcing her employees to babysit her son, on multiple occasions. In most places, two strikes like this would mean a person is unfit for a taxpayer-funded office.

I also see a pattern in which DC's mayor actively condones this behavior.

Give me a freakin' break. Go pay attention to something that really matters like all of the money wasted in the educational system. Damn, you make it so that no one in their right mind would work for government.

Thanks for stopping by, Courtney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In other words, she's a single mom who, like all single parents, sometimes finds herself in a child care bind. I get that this violated rules and obviously she needs to find a better solution, but this is so far from something I'm going to demonize her for.

According to the most recent figures, Snowden's annual salary is $201,571. She can afford child care that does not involve her taxpayer-funded employees.

https://dchr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dchr/publication/attachments/public_body_employee_information_09302017.pdf

Did you actually read the article? This wasn't something she did on a regular basis, there were three incidents. Once she asked (and paid from her own pocket) a staff member to drive her son to a relative's house so the relative could watch him (no explanation in the article for why she needed the staffer to do it). The second time, she asked a staffer to pick him up from school because the staffer had booked her into a meeting when she was supposed to be doing pick-up. The third time she didn't actually ask anyone to watch her son, she left him in her office while she went to a meeting because the relative who was supposed to pick him up had car trouble. The finding by the investigator in that case was that since he was left unattended (at age 8, not 2), it was implied that the staff would supervise him. These are the kinds of binds working parents find themselves in all the time and have to cobble together a solution. Again, she needs to find a better one, but this isn't a case of someone who just doesn't want to pay for childcare dumping her kid on her assistant every day.

Of course I read the story. What I see is a pattern in which a highly paid DC government employee thinks her job entitles her to special treatment that 99.9999 percent of DC residents do not get (and goes against DC ethics laws, to boot). She did it once with the lottery shenanigans and did it again by forcing her employees to babysit her son, on multiple occasions. In most places, two strikes like this would mean a person is unfit for a taxpayer-funded office.

I also see a pattern in which DC's mayor actively condones this behavior.

Give me a freakin' break. Go pay attention to something that really matters like all of the money wasted in the educational system. Damn, you make it so that no one in their right mind would work for government.

Thanks for stopping by, Courtney.

Absolutely not Courtney, but someone who really watches DC government closely. I've worked in DC govt as well as for a mayor of another city. DC is dysfunctional, but this is really nothing!

[Anonymous]

I'm not a DC government employee, but am a regular mom who sometimes finds myself in a childcare jam. I call in favors from neighbors, friends, relatives, but NEVER NEVER my direct reports. Because that would be a terrible, exploitative, choice.