Courtney Snowden: Still unethical

[Anonymous]

DC inspector general finds that Courtney Snowden used taxpayer-funded staffers to provide child care for her 8-year-old son:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-deputy-mayor-used-employees-for-babysitting-inspector-general-finds/2017/11/27/ee1462d8-d3b9-11e7-95bf-df7c19270879_story.html?utm_term=.28f17b8b1dd6

You may remember Snowden from the time when Crooked Kaya circumvented the lottery to place her son into Capitol Hill Montessori at Logan.

In a shocking development, Bowser sees no problem here at all.

[Anonymous]

DC is so corrupt! It seems like such a patronage system where jobs are handed out to loyalists and the "beneficiaries" of those jobs (not "employees") just carry on as they wish.

[Anonymous]

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!

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[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!

Did his secretary drive you around, too? That's what Snowden's employees did for her daughter.

[Anonymous]

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.

No, just no. I have been there and only you can be responsible for your child. She wasn’t some low level staffer, but she sure acted like one. Reschedule the meeting or make it a conference call. If she had had a similar level or even higher level staff member give her a hand, fine. But you can’t do that to lower level staff.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

Okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree with this. I was expecting much worse when I read the article.

The lottery is another story.

[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.

+1
This appears to be a pattern of unethical behavior. Won’t be surprised when another episode of shady and corrupt behavior by this person crops up in a few months. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

[Anonymous]

NP. Really? This sounds terrible to you? Neither you nor anyone you work with has every had to bring their child to work for whatever reason? Having someone drive him around in their car is a bit eyebrow-raising but is hardly as bad as OP is making it out to be.

I'm in Virginia, btw. This is a work-related/childcare issue, not a corruption issue, imo.

[Anonymous]

While her circumvention of the lottery makes me way more upset, this does show a pattern. And these are just the things she's been caught doing. Bowser should fire her, but won't.

[Anonymous]

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

Holy crap that's a lot of money -- for her and the 952 pages of DC government employees.