Last large government meeting I had to go to (earlier in the Spring), they were short a good # of power strips. They sent someone out to BestBuy or somewhere else nearby to buy the cords rather than trying to rent them.

I know the food catering costs ran fairly high (the meetings ran long enough each day that we had three meals plus coffee breaks catered), but from having used the same caterer myself before, I know the coffee didn't run anything near what the TSA paid--we just had plain black and decaf, not some Starbucks blend!

If a private organization tolerates charges like these, no problem by me. But when my earnings, for which I have worked hard only to have the government take a large percentage as taxes under penalty of imprisonment, are wasted in such wanton fashion, I get angry. Joe Sixpack and John Q. Public need to know about this angle of TSA - perhaps if they see the gaping holes in the system (unscreened airport/airline workers, unscreened cargo) in additon to the appparent lack of oversight on both policy and fiscal issues, the politicians in D.C. will get the message and abolish this un-American atrocity.

Abuse of public funds should be punished. That's how it was in the military and how I presume it to be anywhere else in the government. As a commander, I've taken UCMJ action against those in my command who abused government resources.

What I object to is the presumption that these practices are officially condoned by TSA. I think what's most likely happened in these instances are:

a) Ignorance of the law. People who were authorized to perform a legitimate function but went about it the wrong way by purchasing something that was outrageously expensive. There's no excuse for this, and the people responsible are still liable for their actions.

b) Unintended consequences. Similar to the first one except this is one where a legitimate purchase may have hidden costs that the buyer was not aware of. Still, no excuse. Part of resource management is a thorough research of a contract before finalizing the purchase. Again, the people responsible for this should still be held liable.

c) Deliberate violation. This is the ol' "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" approach, which I witnessed in the military. The real sticky issue here is with who ends up being the "stuckee" once it hits the fan. Usually ends up being the poor purchasing officer who was just following orders. Still, there's no excuse. The problem is that a good person (the purchasing officer) may end up being fried because he/she was following the orders of whoever it was that ordered the purchase. Whenever I served in the capacity as a contracting purchase officer or other job that entailed disbursement of funds, I always kept a file of memorandums for retribution, er, uh, I mean, memorandums for record, which I could later use as get-out-of-jail-free cards should something come up.

Point here is that TSA is not the only government organization to misuse government funds, and it certainly won't be the last. It draws attention because there's a lot of journalism mileage to be made by showing the contradictions between undermanned staffing and old technologies at checkpoints while headquarters is garnished in lavish luxury. Beats the hell out of trying to make the same point with GSA or the Post Office. Still, it should not be condoned, and I hope an investigation is initiated to punish the real culprits.

See, I'm a taxpayer, too. I also want to make sure my tax dollars are being spent wisely.

Bart, that was not the case when I was in the military. In fact, there was one situation where wasting public funds was very strong encouraged:

If it was close to the end of the fiscal year and there were still funds left over in a unit's budget it was almost mandatory to spend them. If you did not they would be returned to the Treasury and you would risk having future budgets reduced by an equivalent amount.

In the type of units that you and I both served in, ICF monies were the most at risk. By their very nature they were kept for unforeseen events and generally there was still quite a lot left over at the end of the year. It was interesting to see how creative commanders could become in finding ways to spend them.

Is this still the case in the military today? Is there a similiar situation at the TSA?

Yes, the end-of-year rush still exists; however, not as haphazardly. They must still comply with all the rules and regulations. The way I've seen it done is that commanders identify and prioritize unresourced requirements so that as funds become available, then they may be resourced. They still have to go through all the wickets and permissions as they would with resourced requirements. It's a matter of differentiating between the "gotta have" and "nice to have" but not in terms of luxury; usually in terms of mission priorities (need a new tactical vehicle first before purchasing an upgraded computer LAN).

As for the "other" funds, interesting point. I've seen people fried because they were off by a few bucks on their accounts, yet have also witnessed thousands of dollars spent on something that I couldn't quite comprehend as legit yet was somehow rationalized as such. I also saw it where we had to hang onto receipts and track everything by the penny yet in other instances wads of bills handed out like candy. It's a very strange and goofy world you and I participated in.

The CONUS DOD per diem rates are set by the GSA. So they are the same and are applicable to TSA.

Perhaps they had purchased those extension cords in advance for even less, and someone had all 14 in their carryon, but going through security they were SSSS'ed, the cords confiscated (you could tie up the crew and then hang hostages with them, and the metal wire inside could be braided into knifes), and $250 fines were issued. The fines will appear in the revised expense account.

Indeed it is. We could trade stories on line but I have a feeling that we would both wind up in Federal court!

I agree that is one solution, but in some places it couldn't be implemented. The extension cords generally go to AV equipment (LCD projectors, sound mixers, laptop podiums, etc.), and many hotels won't allow anyone but their own staff to supply and set up the equipment. The resulting bill itemzes every piece of gear they use (I have even seen "gaffer's tape" listed, that being what they use to tape the cables down to the carpet so that people won't trip on them). The AV staff won't use your extension cords. They supply their own, or nothing doing. This goes double in a union town, where you can get into trouble with the union for moving a table ten feet.

For the conference that I mentioned previously, our AV costs have sometimes approached $20,000 for four days of presentations. This can always be negotiated with the hotel to make a complete conference package, but they're going to get their money, one way or another.

While I agree that $1540 is an unconscionable amount of money to spend to rent extension cords, hotels have no hesitation in charging it.

You get whatever the hotel supplies. Some hotels use Starbucks exclusively, and they usually advertise this. Considering the profit margin on coffee, they could use Jamaican Blue Mountain and still come out ahead.

I just looked at the price list for catering at the Boardwalk Hotel/Casino in Las Vegas, where there is another conference I am involved in planning. Coffee (plain old coffee, not Starbucks) is $21 per gallon or $13 per Silex. In my experience, this is a very good price.

TSA may not have negotiated well in planning their conference, which is typical for government meetings in my experience, but the prices they were charged are not all that out of line, either.

It's no different at the local government level. Our training division found themselves with about $5000 at the end of the fiscal year, and they weren't about to give it back. One of the things they bought was this fancy whiteboard that had a printer attached. Push a button, and whatever was on the whiteboard was printed onto a sheet of paper. Very slick, but the only time I ever saw it used is when some curious officer wrote his name or something else on the board and then pushed the print button to see how the thing worked.

Must have been nice to have left over money. While at the 101st we ran out of money and had to stop (aviation) operations for 5 days. Towards the end of Clinton we were buying batteries and aircraft cleaners out of our own pocket. What really irks me about this whole deal is that TSA won't allow money to go for such things as safety awards (plaques, coffee mugs,frames for safety certificates)but they are screaming about how high the injury rate is. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

This was in the SFBay area. Prices are higher there than in Tupelo, MS.

As for the elevator operator fee - I was at a union controlled construction site in Las Vegas last month, we had to fork over $500 cash to use the elevator to get to the top floor and conduct some tests. Back in Feb. I was at another union controlled building in downtown Chicago - 48th floor - I was not allowed back on the elevator until I produced some cash (200 asking price). I elected the stairs since I only had my briefcase and photo equipment.

You're kidding, right? What function would those items do?

Assuming you're not kidding, what would the criteria be? Most number of retaliatory secondaries? Fewest number of prohibited items missed? Number of bags searched?

The TSA is long overdue to set requirements on physical fitness. There are plenty of out of shape and people who do not (or cannot) lift the bags off or onto the CTX machine (as seen at IAD int'l connections, at SMF where the machine is in front of the ticket counters and DTW where they are right behind the UA ticket counter).

I'm sure there are some physically fit people who get injured, but having seen what I've seen, I would imagine physical fitness standards would greatly reduce the number of OTJ injuries.

You're right, but this is very difficult for an employer to implement for people already on the job. Law enforcement agencies have had this problem for years. Most have a physical fitness standard for hiring and during training, but nothing after that. This is how you get all those fat cops you see. Departments that have tried to put physical fitness standards for in-service folks into place have been countered with expensive lawsuits that the employees often win. Moreover, when these out-of-shape employees begin to exercise at the behest of their employer, they tend to get injuries from doing that.

My old department had an annual physical fitness test that everyone had to take, but that no one had to pass (no, I'm not sure what the point of it was, either). One of the tests was a sit-and-reach flexibility test. Every year, the same officer would take the test and then put himself in for an on-the-job injury to his back from overstrain. He would be off work for at least a month, and I have no idea what medical costs ensued.

Where the TSA is concerned, their OTJ injuries come from the same sort of activities that warehousemen and stock handlers perform - lifting and carrying things. Proper techniques, wearing back braces/lifting belts, and asking for assistance when something is too heavy can all prevent injuries, and safety awards promote this. It's a practice widely used in private industry, and tends to reduce injuries. If it didn't have a positive effect on the bottom line, private industry wouldn't do it.