CBS News has the story VA Secretary Eric Shinseki resigns.
Facing a growing outcry over the scandal at Veterans Affairs medical facilities, VA Secretary Eric Shinseki offered his resignation to President Obama on Friday, and the president accepted the offer.
“A few minutes ago, Secretary Shinseki offered me his own resignation,” the president said in a statement in the White House briefing room. “With considerable regret, I accepted.”
If Obama had wanted to avoid this resignation, he would have made the case that Shinseki was key to the solution and was not the problem. If facts stood in the way of making this case, then resignation was inevitable. It shouldn’t have taken this long to figure out what was what.
If the facts were on Shinseki’s side, then Obama really botched this situation. I have no idea what the facts are regarding whether or not Shinseki was actively working to solve this problem before it blew up in his face. If he had not been working on fixing the problem, then by my definition he was part of the problem whether or not the problem began before he took office.
This is a replay of what Governor Deval Patrick went through with the problems in the Massachusetts state DCF (Department of Children and Families) and its leader. If the leader was not part of the problem, in other words she was aggressively trying to fix the problem, then Deval Patrick should have made the case as his very first statement addressing the issue. Since he did not, one is left to assume that the head of DCF was not actively working on the problem when it blew up in their faces. If that assumption is incorrect, then Deval Patrick had the responsibility to tell us why. If the assumption is correct, then there is a deficiency in Deval Patrick’s management style.
I have a suspicion that the problems in both institutions have to do with chronic underfunding by the legislature. Who is holding the legislature’s accountable, as they point fingers at everyone else? What has the press got to say about their responsibility to dig deeper into the causes? What do the voters have to say about their responsibility to choose the elected representatives better?
How does an effective leader of an agency that is woefully underfunded handle that problem? Of course, the head tries to do the best possible job with the resources available. There is more that such a leader must do. Should the leader constantly harp on the fact that the agency is underfunded for the responsibilities thrust upon it? How should that leader carry out that part of the responsibility? Should the leader refuse to accept responsibilities that the agency does not have the resources to handle? Should the leader make clear how the agencies priorities are arranged to do the most good with the resources at hand? Should the leader make clear the risks involved with the priorities that are set as best as is possible? Or should the leader cover up the fact that there are problems so that the higher ups can feel good thinking that there are no problems?
How did the leaders of these two agencies perform with regard to what a good leader should do?