one is too much - power

[Stan Gorodenski]

Ron,
You very nicely and in detail stated what was the jist behind a previous
post of mine, that post being:
"This is a hope or idealism.  In the real world, civil servants in
positions of authority become bureaucrats.  They have virtually
unlimited resources of the 'state' and will use these resources to their
advantage to impose their will upon the common citizen, even when they
are in the wrong or in a questionable position.  A common citizen has to
pay for an attorney, which is usually a limiting factor, but this is,
usually, no limitation to the bureaucrat - just charge it off to the tax
payer.  I know from experience.  What's that expression about power
corrupting?"


Ron Gatrelle wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Cherubini" <monarch at saber.net>
> 
> lots of snips
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> > Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:06:31 -0500
> > From: Wayne F Wehling <Wayne.F.Wehling at usda.gov>
> > Subject: Re: Rhode Island
> >
> > Paul,
> > Since when does "sufficiently uncommon" = "rare"
> > Decisions that I make are, and must be, respectful of state concerns.
> > Cheers,
> > Wayne Wehling
> 
> One word jumps out at me here --  I  --.   Now I know this is all pulled
> out of a much bigger picture, but the use of the word  "I" rather than the
> word "we" would disturb me no matter what the subject and discussion.  When
> one single non elected person (and this is not aimed at Wayne at all)  in
> the _employment_ of federal, state or local government has the solitary and
> sovereign ability to initiate and implement policy that concerns me
> greatly.
> 
> If the dispatcher who works for the Police dept., which works for the City
> Council, which works at the elected pleasure and will of the citizens,
> makes the decision that 911 calls will not be accepted between 12 noon and
> 1 o'clock (their personal lunch time) not only would the dispatcher be
> dispatched to the unemployment line, but the Police Chief that hired them
> (esp. if their cousin) would likely go too.
> 
> Having worked for Federal agencies on wildlife matters,  I know just how
> few people can be involved in decision making.   At times  I have been the
> _only_ researcher. Thus, my views and recommendations relative to the
> situation are 100% of what the government agency I was working for had to
> go on.  Some may see that as a lot of power (and it is).  I see it as a
> great responsibility on my part to make sure that what I conclude and
> recommend is science based and not personal in any way.  Yes, I trust
> myself.  But I don't expect everyone else to.
> 
> IF - someone in one of these one-man-decides-all positions does have an
> agenda, then the rest of us are screwed - and may never know it.  And as a
> bureaucratic decision, there is darn little we can do about it.
> 
> In the statement made by Wayne, he said he must be respectful of "state
> concerns".  (Again, I am not picking on Wayne - but am only using this
> situation as an opportunity to make a point.)  What if the "state concerns"
> are also only the concerns of 1 person there?  How would anyone ever know
> that?   Or let's say that the state concerns are of an entire state agency
> of 200 people - but, let's say their honest concerns were the result of
> them having hired one person (or mono-perspective group) to do a study and
> that because the one individual or one perspective group has an agenda to
> shut down Monarch releases that their "concerns" are actually based on a
> totally false report?
> 
> My point has nothing to do with a pro or con Monarch release philosophy,
> but with how easy it is for any process to be corrupted by the power of
> ONE.   I personally lean on the side on non-release as I am not sure how
> this all plays out in the genetic mixing of populations.  In that vein,
> Monarch releasing bothers me the least, Vanessa next and on down the line
> (or up the objection scale) as taxa become less migratory/dispersing.  I
> would be totally against, say, the release in the northeast US of Florida
> stock Black Swallowtails.
> 
> I am also for free enterprise as one man's money is just as green as the
> next guys.
> 
> Ron Gatrelle
> 
> 
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> 
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl