FliesWay2Much

Well, the reign of King Neffy has begun. The vote was 81-1. I had to go to the foreign press to find the "1" who was Republican Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska.

Here is his well-thought out logic for his negative vote:

I was more interested in finding out the names of the 18 dedicated senators who didn't even bother to show up to vote. For this data, I had to turn to to the actual web site of the United States Senate.

Not surprisingly, several of the Gang of 18 are running for the Republican presidential nomination:

Boggie Dog

Is Neffenger still on active duty with the Coast Guard and if so does he have to retire before taking the post at TSA?

I wish him the best but have very low expectations of TSA being reformed or even being reformable. Heck, he may think TSA is fine as is.

FliesWay2Much

... And he's only got another 18 months unless Hillary keeps him on the job.

FliesWay2Much

I don't know for sure, but I can speculate with a level of experience. Since the USCG is part of the DHS (regretfully), the Secretary is the administrative head of the USCG, as he is for all other DHS agencies and bureaus. He has the authority to assign USCG officers to any other part of DHS as he sees fit. Further, in the haste and waste of the post 9/11 paranoia, I seriously doubt that the enabling legislation for the DHS and TSA does not specifically state that the TSA Administrator must be a civilian. (Somebody can check it out if they have the time.) So, the short answer to the legal question is: No, he doesn't have to retire.

Now, should he retire? Tough question. Retiring helps him in the short run but hurts him in the long run. If he retires, he would immediately draw his O-9 retired pay and his Level I executive pay: $201,700.

According to the 2015 military pay chart, and assuming he's a maxed out and capped O-9, his salary is capped at Level II: $181,500. (This doesn't include his non-taxable housing and subsistence allowances which add a few more tens of thousands. Assuming he can keep both salaries, he's in great shape.

But, the drawbacks are:

1. By retiring, he loses his non-taxable allowances
2. By retiring, he will now have to become a resident of the state in which he lives and pay state income tax.
3. He won't be in the SES long enough to draw a second pension.

If he wants the big bucks up front and can keep them, he probably should retire.

RandomNobody

He could be loaned over on an IPA, and the TSA pays the Coast Guard for his salary.

halls120

He is retiring from the Coast Guard. That way they can promote a two star to VADM.

Boggie Dog

Know anything about him?

halls120

Yes. He's one of the good guys. And he's crazy to take the job, which is what I told him after I heard about the nomination.

Often1

And your advice is borne out by the title used for him by the OP!

FliesWay2Much

I was with some USCG O-6s last week who told me the same thing. (Of course, all of those O-6s will be competing for the vacant RDML billet that will result from the daisy chain of retirements and promotions.)

Boggie Dog

I hope going to TSA doesn't rub the good off of him.

guflyer

Actually, I am concerned that he may make things worse and make going through security more annoying.

According to this blog post and cited article http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea....ess-efficient/

he said "But dealing with the problems exposed by the inspector general could tip the balance back toward stiffer security, he said.

'There may be a need to introduce some inefficiencies to address the recent findings of the inspector general,'"

This concerns me.

Boggie Dog

I think most people can accept reasonable security screenings and methods.

What needs to be looked at is why do a full blown shake down when it could be done in incremental steps based on building evidence that a higher level of screening is needed for that individual. Alarm and extra steps or taken. Have contraband then extra steps are taken.

But the first order of business should be a mandatory all hands directive that TSA employees treat travelers respectfully. Loud, abusive sounding orders from a screener should result in an immediate suspension. Retaliatory acts should result in firing the employee on the spot no matter the reason.

We all know that TSA or some other screening service is here to stay. But why does TSA need to treat passengers like convicts when it just isn't necessary.

I have greeted some TSA employees and had a snarl in returned. Not only is that type of act non-professional but it lacks basic courtesy.

In my opinion the biggest step forward for TSA would be to demand its employees treat passengers with dignity and respect with severe penalties for acting otherwise.

petaluma1

Jeh Johnson's remarks at the Neffenger swearing in:

http://www.dhs.gov/news/2015/07/06/r...-administrator

RadioGirl

Four months to retrain them?
Uh oh.
Okay, that's good. ^
I'm assuming this is the nude-o-scope, not the WTMD or bag x-ray for which (I believe) there are multiple manufacturers. (And, by now, surely even TSA understands how WTMD and x-rays work.) I would have thought they'd test it to see if it "performs as expected" before they, you know, bought quite so many of them. But that's probably just me.
Guessing NoS again. "Enhancing" the "operability"?
How about you just drop PreCheck and "inclusively manage" everyone? It would be faster, cheaper and at least as effective as what you've been doing so far.