USNA Board Slams IG Slush Fund Report

Just_A_Mom said:
Bullet - get out the Webster's and look up "retroactive".

CC - whom to believe? They ALL work for the evil government, and thus all must be liars. I am not sure an IG auditor is any more ethical than a Congresswoman or an Admiral. Perhaps you have inside knowledge. Honestly, I thought she would get points for being a Republican, since we all know that all Democrats are liars but only half the Republican's are liars. I guess she lost point for being female. :wink:

Have both of you personally scrutinized the spending practices of the AF academy and their athletic expenditures? Don't be surprised to find some changes occuring at the other SA's as a result of this. When that occurs I hope you both will take an aggressive stand at their prior practices and their administrations as well.
Click to expand...
So, if we don't agree with you, and see it your way, we must be narrow minded, sexists, bigots, conspiracy theorists, etc... Because we sure in hell can't be capable of free and analytical thought. Because if we were, we would most definitely think the way you do. After all, we all know that you are one of the few people that can actually view a scenario objectively and without any bias. I am so glad that we have you here to keep up in check. Maybe some day I'll grow up and gain the experience necessary to view life rationally and without prejudice. Hopefully then, I won't have to burden you so much to keep me in line.
 
Bullet said:
But you know what? I haven't read the IG report.
Click to expand...
Obviously. Very noticable from your initial post on this thread. You are 'big' on your suppositions about motives and intent. What does this say about your own motives and intent?
 
......Because we sure in hell can't be capable of free and analytical thought.
Click to expand...
See your post #11. That answers your question (even if you failed to punctuate with a question mark)

PS - I thought you had me on 'ignore'?
 
^^^^

About the same thing that is said by your start of this thread: we all have biases.

But as opposed to you, I am willing to acknowledge mine and discover truth from the original source. Again, LINK PLEASE (for the IG report, which from what I heard from every source I querried, except you, deals with a slush fund as it's primary finding).

Another question for you (But I don't expect an answer to this one either, keeping your record on answering questions a perfect "O-fer"): Did YOU get a copy of the official report and read it?
 
Bullet said:
About the same thing that is said by your start of this thread: we all have biases.
Click to expand...
This really bothers you doesn't it? I simply posted an article that, in my opinion, was very relevant to a previous discussion on this forum. A lot of posts have been made for a lot less legitimate reasons. And you're the one who seems to want to continue it, to the point of chastising me for not responding to you. And being unable to dispute the message, shoot the messenger.
Bullet said:
Another question for you (But I don't expect an answer to this one either, keeping your record on answering questions a perfect "O-fer"): Did YOU get a copy of the official report and read it?
Click to expand...
No. And as evident from your posts, neither did you. (Oh, let me guess. Some of your high-ranking Navy buddies have read it). And obvious from news articles, neither did the reporters. Congresswoman Johnson is the only individual, to my knowledge, who has read the report and made a public comment about it. Why do we disparage her?

Answering questions? I make an effort to answer every legitimate question. Specifics please.
 
Last edited:
Bullet said:
And quite frankly, I am a little angered by your assumption that if this was occurring at the AFA (or USMA, or any of the other Service Academies for that matter) I would not be so quick to point out the integrity issue. Sorry, I'm just not that petty in my "support all things AF" stances as you obviously think I am. I prefer to stand for good examples of leadership an integrity, wherever the example may be from, whatever service demonstrates it.
Click to expand...
Second hand paraphrased story. The academy superintendents all get together occasionally to discuss issues common to service academies in general. Back in the ‘80s, USNA made headlines when a female midshipman was chained to a urinal. While walking out of the meeting immediately after this, the USNA Supt commented to the AFA Supt that “I guess you feel pretty good that this didn’t happen at AFA?” The AFA Supt responded that “No, I feel relieved. With the type individuals service academies attract, mixing young adults of both genders and alcohol, it is only a matter of time until it happens to us.” That’s kind of the way it is concerning the GAO with gifts, fundraising, and donations in what is essentially a college environment. The regulations that apply to a NAS just doesn’t cover this very necessary venue. Next time you go to a Navy air show, check out who is presenting it. It is always a wives club or some such entity. Simply to keep the funds separated.

I am sure both AFA and WP went over the IG report with a fine tooth comb. And I will bet dollars to donuts that changes have been incorporated. No slam at all. Just proactive management.

To anyone who has actually read the report prior to offering their opinion, this is all relatively evident.
 
scoutpilot said:
Uh, nope. It's too much fun to pretend to be a military expert for it to ever be a burden.
Click to expand...
Surely you are not endorsing the concept of some on this forum that legitimacy is gauged solely upon the seven degrees of separation from an actual live real active duty member?
 
Mongo said:
Surely you are not endorsing the concept of some on this forum that legitimacy is gauged solely upon the seven degrees of separation from an actual live real active duty member?
Click to expand...

Hardly. I'm endorsing the concept that expertise and experience go hand in hand, and that simply being on a forum for awhile does not substitute for experience in a military branch when it comes to discussing the intricacies of daily military life. My point goes beyond the bounds of this thread.
 
scoutpilot said:
Hardly. I'm endorsing the concept that expertise and experience go hand in hand, and that simply being on a forum for awhile does not substitute for experience in a military branch when it comes to discussing the intricacies of daily military life. My point goes beyond the bounds of this thread.
Click to expand...
This forum is primarily about admissions where both currency and accuracy are paramount. Us who have applied more than a dozen or so years ago are no longer current and candidates have a way of disappearing from the forum once accepted (or rejected). For better or worse, parents are often the best source of current policies and trends. My primary reason being here is what I learn from them. Since they are not salaried employees, I guess they can kinda post where they want. It is our job to keep them between the gullies, not run them off.
 
Mongo said:
This forum is primarily about admissions where both currency and accuracy are paramount. Us who have applied more than a dozen or so years ago are no longer current and candidates have a way of disappearing from the forum once accepted (or rejected). For better or worse, parents are often the best source of current policies and trends. My primary reason being here is what I learn from them. Since they are not salaried employees, I guess they can kinda post where they want. It is our job to keep them between the gullies, not run them off.
Click to expand...

I think you and I both know that keeping folks between the gullies is a herculean effort. As you said, it may be primarily about admissions, but as you said in the other thread: "Which has morphed into ROTC, OTS/OCS,PLC, Public and Privately Funded Military Colleges, Military News, etc."

There's a lot more to it than admissions now, and the less secondhand information that gets passed off as gospel, the better. That's all the more I'll say about it.
 
scoutpilot said:
I think you and I both know that keeping folks between the gullies is a herculean effort. As you said, it may be primarily about admissions, but as you said in the other thread: "Which has morphed into ROTC, OTS/OCS,PLC, Public and Privately Funded Military Colleges, Military News, etc."

There's a lot more to it than admissions now, and the less secondhand information that gets passed off as gospel, the better. That's all the more I'll say about it.
Click to expand...
My analogy is the parable of the six blind Indians and the elephant. Very true for the application process. Mine and your job is to ensure that all the Indians are correct. Typically, a specific event, while true for an individual case, is interpreted to a blanket statement, which is not true. The longer you are here, the more you will recognize the value of inputs from current candidate's perspective.
 
scoutpilot said:
Hardly. I'm endorsing the concept that expertise and experience go hand in hand, and that simply being on a forum for awhile does not substitute for experience in a military branch
Click to expand...

I agree; and I'll take it another step.

Simply being on a forum for awhile does not substitute for education and experience in the legal arena as well, but many folks here have no problem giving "legal" opinions and conclusions.

But, we digress.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just_A_Mom said:
See your post #11. That answers your question (even if you failed to punctuate with a question mark)

PS - I thought you had me on 'ignore'?
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with my post #11. You assume that if a person is an elected official, that their "%%% Doesn't Stink". Well, that simply isn't true. An elected office needs to be respected, not necessarily the person holding that office. Again, they WORK FOR ME, and you, and the other citizens. I don't report to them. And sorry, but the mini-bio of her you wrote, did not impress me. But like you said, it can't be because of her record. It must be because she's a female. Some of us just aren't capable of viewing such things objectively.

As for ignore, I simply ignore your PM's. They simply aren't worth my time. But if we don't agree in a public thread, it allows us to be exposed to additional perspectives by other posters. That's how we learn. "Hopefully".
 
You assume that if a person is an elected official, that their "%%% Doesn't Stink"
Click to expand...
I never said that. Not even implied it. You don't have to be impressed. She was a Congresswoman for a long time and to the best of my knowledge has not served time in jail.
I was simply pointing out that people will choose (based on their own personal biases??) whom they want to believe.
The players in this are a US Navy Admiral, a former Congresswoman (you can read her "pseudo-bio" who has yet to land in jail) and a Government IG Accountant.
After living through Enron, I am not sure that Accountant is any more credible than Congresswoman or Admiral.

BTW - there are no pm's from me to ignore. Seriously though, own up to the fact that you need to 'attack' everything I post simply because it's from 'me'. Rather petty doncha think? (fun for me though ;))
 
One serious question - how many of you have actively participated in a Government Audit. By that, I mean have you ever sat face to face with and auditor and defedend your accounting practices and bookkeeping.
Show of hands????
 
Just_A_Mom said:
One serious question - how many of you have actively participated in a Government Audit. By that, I mean have you ever sat face to face with and auditor and defedend your accounting practices and bookkeeping.
Show of hands????
Click to expand...

Every quarter. What's your point?
 
Folks, this thread has veered off topic and is devolving into a series of personal attacks. If you want to discuss the OIG report and/or VADM Fowler's funding issues in a civil and respectful manner, please continue. Otherwise, I'll be forced to shut down the thread and start handing out infractions. Let's not go there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top