Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government United States Politics

Energy Department Refuses To Give Trump Team Names of People Who Worked On Climate Change (businessinsider.com) 858

The Department of Energy said Tuesday it will reject the request by President-elect Donald Trump's transition team to name staffers who worked on climate change programs. Energy spokesman Eben Burnhan-Snyder said the agency received "significant feedback" from workers regarding a questionnaire from the transition team that leaked last week. From a Reuters story, syndicated on BusinessInsider: The response from the Energy Department could signal a rocky transition for the president-elect's energy team and potential friction between the new leadership and the staffers who remain in place. The memo sent to the Energy Department on Tuesday and reviewed by Reuters last week contains 74 questions including a request for a list of all department employees and contractors who attended the annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations within the last five years. "Our career workforce, including our contractors and employees at our labs, comprise the backbone of (the Energy Department) and the important work our department does to benefit the American people," Eben Burnham-Snyder, Energy Department spokesman said. "We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department," he added. "We will be forthcoming with all publicly available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Energy Department Refuses To Give Trump Team Names of People Who Worked On Climate Change

Comments Filter:
  • Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by networkBoy ( 774728 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @01:52PM (#53477377) Journal

    The management has to know this will get them sacked, and yet they still protected their team.
    Good on them, and may they be showered by job offers once sacked.

    • Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Informative)

      by networkBoy ( 774728 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @01:54PM (#53477397) Journal

      Also, since te website won't render properly with basic security enabled in the browser, here's the page source copypasta:

      >

          WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Energy Department said on Tuesday
          it will not comply with a request from President-elect Donald
          Trump's Energy Department transition team for the names of people
          who have worked on climate change and the professional society
          memberships of lab workers.

          The response from the Energy Department could signal a rocky
          transition for the president-elect's energy team and potential
          friction between the new leadership and the staffers who remain
          in place.

          The memo sent to the Energy Department on Tuesday and reviewed by
          Reuters last week contains 74 questions including a request for a
          list of all department employees and contractors who attended the
          annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations within
          the last five years.

          Energy Department spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said Tuesday the
          department will not comply.

          "Our career workforce, including our contractors and employees at
          our labs, comprise the backbone of (the Energy Department) and
          the important work our department does to benefit the American
          people," Burnham-Snyder said.

             

          "We are going to respect the professional and scientific
          integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and
          across our department," he added. "We will be forthcoming with
          all publicly available information with the transition team. We
          will not be providing any individual names to the transition
          team."

          He added that the request "left many in our workforce unsettled."

          Reuters reported late Monday that former Texas Governor Rick
          Perry is expected to be named by Trump to run the Energy
          Department. The agency employs more than 90,000 people working on
          nuclear weapons maintenance and research labs, nuclear energy,
          advanced renewable energy, batteries and climate science.

          The memo sought a list of all department employees or contractors
          who have attended any meetings on the social cost of carbon, a
          measurement that federal agencies use to weigh the costs and
          benefits of new energy and environment regulations. It also asked
          for all publications written by employees at the department's 17
          national laboratories for the past three years.

          Trump transition officials declined to comment on the memo.

          "This feels like the first draft of an eventual political enemies
          list," a Department of Energy employee, who asked not to be
          identified because he feared a reprisal by the Trump transition
          team, had told Reuters.

          Republican Trump said during his election campaign that climate
          change was a hoax perpetrated by China to damage U.S.
          manufacturing. He said he would rip up last year's landmark
          global climate deal struck in Paris that was signed by President
          Barack Obama.

          Since winning the Nov. 8 election, however, Trump has said he
          will keep an "open mind" about the Paris deal. He also met with
          former Vice President Al Gore, a strong advocate for action on
          climate change.

          (Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)

    • Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The Rizz ( 1319 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @01:56PM (#53477415)

      Oh, how I would love for EVERY department of the US Government to do this to Trump's team. Those people were hand-picked to destroy the very departments they will oversee. It would be glorious for every department of the government to simply rebel this way and refuse to acknowledge these new anti-leadership goons and just continue to do their jobs as if they don't exist.

      • Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:01PM (#53477477)

        Yes but don't you see how this plays into their hands? If the people who believe climate change is real all stand up for it and get fired then they will just get replaced with more cronies.
        Its better to stay employed and do what you can from the inside.

        • Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by JohnFen ( 1641097 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:21PM (#53477699)

          Its better to stay employed and do what you can from the inside.

          If the institution has turned against what you believe is right, then the odds of making any positive change "from the inside" are extremely low.

          • Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:35PM (#53477833)

            If the institution has turned against what you believe is right, then the odds of making any positive change "from the inside" are extremely low.

            I don't believe this is true. Bureaucracies have tremendous resilience, and are notorious for their institutional resistance to change. For once, this force may be used for good.

            Bureaucracies also have a long history of turning "reformers" into allies of the status quo as they "go native". It is easy to advocate destruction of, say, the EPA, but once you are the chief of the EPA, then is is your organization, and there is a natural desire to defend your turf. The people you wanted to fire are now real people sitting in your office and doing your bidding.

            • It is easy to advocate destruction of, say, the EPA, but once you are the chief of the EPA, then is is your organization, and there is a natural desire to defend your turf.

              But if you're the head of the organization and the rest of the organization don't obey your orders, it's not "your" organization, is it?

              And if you think the organization should be disbanded, or gutted and rebuilt in your image, this gives you just a DANDY excuse. It's "insubordination" (the bureaucratic equivalent of "mutiny") and cause

        • Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by colinrichardday ( 768814 ) <colin.day.6@hotmail.com> on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:29PM (#53477789)

          Aren't they civil servants? Good luck firing them.

          • Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Interesting)

            by slack_justyb ( 862874 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:58PM (#53478065)

            Good point and brings up one of the rally cries Trump has made during the campaign. Reform of Federal employee rights. He's not been shy one bit about it either. He intends to remove the protections many of the civil servants enjoy under his soon to be purposed "Reduction on Government Waste and Spending" program. So yeah, they are protected like you said, but Trump is literally gunning to remove that very thing and fire anyone who isn't an ass kisser. So great point you bring up but already addressed. This proposal from Trump to Congress is all but a forgone conclusion. The bigger question will be if Congress will give the President this new power. Who knows, but if anything is for sure, it's that there will be massive amount of spin from every direction when it finally hits committee.

            • Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @03:13PM (#53478203)

              The strength of government comes largely from the fact that the civil servants who actually know their jobs and do the work do not change every four years. The skilled boots-on-the-ground can make up for the incompetence of the political-appointee-of-the-week. Government competence concentrates in the middle.

              It is very different from private industry, where (according to legend) people rise through the ranks based on skills and accomplishments, and you would never put someone in charge of a trillion dollar company on the basis of a Prom Queen contest. Corporate competence concentrates at the top. So they say.

              If Trump really does manage to turn the whole government into a top-to-bottom herd of bootlicking sycophants that completely reverses policy with every election, he will destroy the stability that makes USD the global currency.

              • Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Interesting)

                by avandesande ( 143899 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @04:28PM (#53478867) Journal
                That is a real crock if I ever heard one. I worked in an agency once and people were constantly changing position like a game of musical chairs, presumably to increase pay grades. There was no continuity at all.....
              • Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)

                by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @04:47PM (#53478987) Journal

                It is very different from private industry, where (according to legend) people rise through the ranks based on skills and accomplishments, and you would never put someone in charge of a trillion dollar company on the basis of a Prom Queen contest. Corporate competence concentrates at the top. So they say.

                "So they say". Exactly, the people at the top claim this. In reality it is more a competition to be the most ruthless and confident bullshitter.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                If Trump really does manage to turn the whole government into a top-to-bottom herd of bootlicking sycophants that completely reverses policy with every election, he will destroy the stability that makes USD the global currency.

                Uh, the problem is that it's already filled with a herd of bootlicking sycophants. In a pre-election poll, 35% of federal workers said they'd consider quitting if Trump won. Hopefully they'll do it - we can easily get by with 65% of the federal government.

          • Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by OhPlz ( 168413 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @03:22PM (#53478305)

            Reagan had no problem doing so.

      • by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @07:01PM (#53480029)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Informative)

      by sl3xd ( 111641 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:40PM (#53477889) Journal

      Short version: There is more than a century of precedent to protect federal employees, both their privacy, as well as their employment.

      Longer version:

      From the US Merit System Protection Board [mspb.gov]

      Employees should be retained on the basis of adequacy of their performance, inadequate performance should be corrected, and employees should be separated who cannot or will not improve their performance to meet required standards.
      Employees should be protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes

      Also see the Wikipedia Article [wikipedia.org]

      And for an even longer version, read up about the US "Spoils System" [wikipedia.org], and how it lead to the assassination of a President. It was then replaced by the Merit System, in 1883.

  • by clonehappy ( 655530 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @01:52PM (#53477379)

    The Most Transparent, Ever!(tm)

    • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @01:57PM (#53477427) Journal

      Yes, let the purge of climatologists began. After all, King Trump will demonstrate, unlike King Canute, that he can stop the tides!

      • Yes, let the purge of climatologists began. After all, King Trump will demonstrate, unlike King Canute, that he can stop the tides!

        I think the term we've chosen is "Orange Julius Caesar"

  • Good luck.... Refuse a lawful request from your new employer.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Refuse a lawful request from your new employer.

      It is not a lawful request since like the illegal act Bush performed, the act is designed to fire people who were doing their job and upholding the Constitution. Not rubber stamping an edict.

      Also, Trump is not their new employer. They are employed by the taxpayers. Trump is only their manager and from what is being shown already, and as he has shown throughout his life, a very poor manager. One who refuses facts but quick to blame others for his inco
    • by JohnFen ( 1641097 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:24PM (#53477733)

      Refuse a lawful request from your new employer.

      They have done no such thing. Trump isn't their employer yet.

    • How the fuck did this guy get modded up?
      Trump is NOT his employer. Trump is fucking civilian until he actually takes the office.

      • by crunchygranola ( 1954152 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @03:37PM (#53478453)

        How the fuck did this guy get modded up? Trump is NOT his employer. Trump is fucking civilian until he actually takes the office.

        And even then he will NOT be their employer (and he will still be a civilian). He does not own the United States or Federal Government. He is temporary management hired by the voters, and lacks unlimited powers, even within the executive branch which he manages. We do not elect gods, or kings, or tyrants (only tyrant-wannabes).

  • by mi ( 197448 )

    "We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team."

    Come January 20th and the team stops being "transition team" and becomes "Executive Government". Though we'd rather not, we can wait 'till then...

  • by Wycliffe ( 116160 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @01:57PM (#53477429) Homepage

    Instead of just immediately refusing the request, has anyone bothered to ask the Trump Transition Team why they want the list? Everyone seems to think they want this so they can blacklist them. Maybe they want this so they can hire the proper people for certain cabinet positions. Especially to ask for the list this early in the game, it seems weird that it would be for a blacklist. Generally you would wait until you were in office to go after the opposition.

    • by Ralgha ( 666887 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:06PM (#53477537)
      Nothing Trump has said makes anybody think they would want this list for anything good. Trump is an ignorant, egotistical fool. I'm not even sure he means well, I think he's doing the whole president thing solely for his ego. While the backlash that would occur should the electoral college not install Trump would be massive, I think they would be fully justified in not voting for him. This is exactly why the electoral college exists, but it's unfortunate that there are no good alternatives to Trump right now. At least the alternatives wouldn't be doing it for their ego, and wouldn't be completely ignorant about pretty much everything.
    • by JoeyRox ( 2711699 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:42PM (#53477913)
      Sure, just like the scene from Mars Attacks where the Martians kept repeating "don't run, we are your friends" as they walked through the streets evaporating humans with their phasers.
    • by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @03:25PM (#53478329)

      Everyone seems to think they want this so they can blacklist them. Maybe they want this so they can hire the proper people for certain cabinet positions.

      Then why did he make a climate change denier the head of the EPA to start with?

  • by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @01:59PM (#53477455) Journal

    Gov: Whatcha huntin' Doc?

    Trump: Ducks.

    Gov: This is wabbit season.

    Trump: Why. You. Little.... Grrrr (steam comes out of ears).

  • by fredrated ( 639554 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:12PM (#53477599) Journal

    and rejects this monstrosity. Not likely, but that's the reason they exist.

    • by tsotha ( 720379 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @04:50PM (#53479013)
      Let's hope not. Let's hope the crazy people pushing for this wake up and realize it would result in a civil war.
      • by slimjim8094 ( 941042 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @08:29PM (#53480523)

        If it does, then we probably need one I hate to say. The Founding Fathers were very smart and chose to make the Electoral College full of people who could vote however they chose. They knew full well they could simply do the numerical apportionment we all assume today's EC is, but they didn't - it's people. The only reason that could be is because they were expected to make their own choice, and the only time that's meaningful is if it's different from what the popular vote in their state was.

        If the Electoral College exercises their intended autonomy and doesn't elect Trump, they are doing the very thing they're there for. If that - following the letter and intent of the Constitution - causes a revolution then we are a very sick country indeed.

        On the other hand, if the EC rubber-stamps Trump's nomination, I have to ask: what purpose does the EC serve? Under what circumstances would they exercise that autonomy? Do we even need an EC at all in that case? And if we're changing things, how should we elect the president considering the urbanization of the country? The current system gives far more weight to citizens in rural states than urban ones, and we should have a conversation about that as well.

        Honestly the country is very, very ill. I sometimes wonder if the "liberal" and "conservative" areas would consent to a sort of a "trial separation" - say 6 or 10 years, something with a fixed end date that would result in a vote to continue or reunite. The details are extremely complex but it's the only thing I can come up with that might get people appreciating their countrymates.

  • by gachunt ( 4485797 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:15PM (#53477631)
    "There are 3 managers that I will fire when I become Energy Secretary: Jane, Rick and... [pause] ...oops!"
  • 4 years from now (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pablo_max ( 626328 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:22PM (#53477713)

    I wonder what the US situation with respect to international relationships will look like in 4 years time.
    When I first heard that Trump had won, my first thought was, how much damage could he really do?

    As I see what he is doing, it seems a lot.
    Take for example China. Most of the EU countries have already privately told China that they will follow the status quo regardless of that Trump does or says.
    Most of the world is pretty angry about the anti-climate change stuff and there is already talk about locking the US out of the market.
    Naturally this would have a huge impact on EU companies as well.
    The more I see what this ass hat is doing though, the more I think this is really a turning point for the US and its decline in prominence from the world stage. I guess that is natural. Countries come and go, rise a fall. I do not imagine that will stop just because it is the present.
    It is not just about climate change either. Heck, he is even gutting the FCC and forbidding them to protect consumers. Remember how the FCC made those carriers stop the millions in over billing? Those days are over.
    The carriers, under Trump will literally be able to do what ever they want.
    I have customers who cant wait for Trump because they think they can stop testing their devices for the US market and just sell it.
    Still, I really do wish those of you in the US the best of luck. There is a good chance though that you fuckballs screwed us all. At least we dont have to worry about your F35 shooting down our planes though ;)

    • by Tom ( 822 )

      Never underestimate the power of the status quo. In the end, the government is run by the people working in the various government offices, departments and such. The boss at the top makes big waves, but underneath, the ocean is calm.

      The same was thought about Bush Jr. - he would destroy the USA, drive it against the wall, etc. etc. - in the end, he was a terrible president but the boat didn't sink.

  • by Goldsmith ( 561202 ) on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @10:22PM (#53481005)

    There certainly are records of who worked on what project, who traveled to what conferences, and who belongs to what professional society. You don't work at DoE without the government knowing that information, it's part of the job.

    Ignoring this request is easy: "We'll be happy to perform this important data collection, we think the budget required for this effort is approximately $2.4 million. As soon as Congress appropriates that, we'll get right on it." Delay, re-direct, give the task to the biggest fuck-up in the department... this could never get done.

    It's kind of mind boggling to me (as someone who worked as a government scientist) that the management would fight instead. You get constant calls for information reports and surveys as a federal employee. A good number of them are for nothing other than identifying political enemies of the current administration, the GAO, the EPA, some important Congressman, your Secretary... lots of people try this technique. Ignoring them carries far less risk than responding.

    Keep your head down, and work on what you're paid for, and you'll stay out of trouble. As a civil servant, any attention is bad attention. I've seen someone get hit with a BS lab safety investigation based on an award talk he gave.

    Fighting, on the other hand, is a sure fire way to lose your position and your project. There is nothing that management likes better than finding reasons to de-fund or transfer "troublemakers." Also, all government scientists are "troublemakers."

Those who do things in a noble spirit of self-sacrifice are to be avoided at all costs. -- N. Alexander.

Working...