By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Should chairmenships be handed out by merit instead of seniority?

I just read an article where the caption read...

 

"White House economist Austan Goolsbee (left), here with House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, uses a taco metaphor when he explains derivatives."


In otherwords... Barney Frank doesn't know jack about the economy.  Maybe we could still use seniority to decide which parties get chairmenships... but just have the house leaders hand them out according to ability and "Draft" based on whether republicans democrats or independents hold seniority.  If democrats have the oldest guy... they get first pick, second oldest 2nd pick, republican has 3rd oldest they get 3rd pick... etc.

I don't think it's too much to ask that the head of the freaking committee has some knowledge in what he is running.



Around the Network

When it comes to any hand-picked leadership by other members of leadership...It should always, ALWAYS be merit based. When people get elevated to rankings because of political favors, you can be sure integrity and quality will be degraded.

Novel idea:

Hire a HR firm to recruit people for key positions in the white house. Scrub all political affiliations from the list, and hire entirely based on portfolio and merit. You know, kinda like how the Big 10 is recruiting 3-5 new teams for the conference.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

OpenGovernment would be awesome. Everyone gets to vote on everything.
We'll just have people carry out the jobs and not have official ranks being the "king".