[Speed Gibson,
Tuesday December 11, 2007 at 8:32pm]
The Verdict is In
Those of us in the private sector know what would happen if we let a subordinate rack up $26,000 in unauthorized charges. But it looks like only Minnesota Lt. Governor and Transportation Commissioner Carol Molnau will suffer the equivalent fate. Instead, three middle managers are getting reprimands, one oral, one written, one with a three day pass.
For once, though, I might have to agree with this course of action. Reading the redacted findings, it looks to me like yes, a dishonest employee (Pitt) took advantage of department transitions. It also looks to me like Pitt's days were indeed numbered. They were on to her before the bridge collapse, just much too slowly.
A name not in the paper is Deputy Commissioner Lisa Freese. MnDot uses the Soviet Embassy model, with the political head, Commissioner Molnau having just Deputy Freese and a public relations Assistant as direct reports. Freese actually runs the show day to day, like a Chief Operating Officer in a corporation. She is new to the position (Feb 2007), and therefore had plausible deniability. Two of those reprimanded report to her, the third to one of them. But again, positions and people were shifting during this time, so I think the punishments fit the crimes.
Pitt is gone, and I believe MnDot has learned its lesson. Other agencies no doubt will be more vigilant, too. Next case.
For once, though, I might have to agree with this course of action. Reading the redacted findings, it looks to me like yes, a dishonest employee (Pitt) took advantage of department transitions. It also looks to me like Pitt's days were indeed numbered. They were on to her before the bridge collapse, just much too slowly.
A name not in the paper is Deputy Commissioner Lisa Freese. MnDot uses the Soviet Embassy model, with the political head, Commissioner Molnau having just Deputy Freese and a public relations Assistant as direct reports. Freese actually runs the show day to day, like a Chief Operating Officer in a corporation. She is new to the position (Feb 2007), and therefore had plausible deniability. Two of those reprimanded report to her, the third to one of them. But again, positions and people were shifting during this time, so I think the punishments fit the crimes.
Pitt is gone, and I believe MnDot has learned its lesson. Other agencies no doubt will be more vigilant, too. Next case.