[BostonCard]

While I understand what you are saying about wanting to ensure there are no potential conflicts of interest, that would be impossible given that Saloui owned that stock when he took the job, and when he signed on to be paid a dollar it was in the full knowledge that he wasn't going to divest himself. It may be that a "true patriot" would do so, but that wasn't the deal. 

In point of fact, almost anybody who is knowledgeable about a given topic has conflicts of interest. Some are that you previously worked for X and now love/hate them. Right now, the forms to actually take a government job make having a 401K plan that you manage yourself problematic.

Slaoui is obviously qualified, but he is not the only qualified person to lead the effort.  It should have been 100% clear that the job wasn't for someone unwilling to divest 100% from his CoI and enter all the money into a blind trust.  When you are dealing with that much money, and when there is that much discretion, you simply can't have the head of the department with a potential conflict of interest.  Working for a dollar makes it even worse; then someone feels entitled to helping themselves by steering money towards companies in which they have an interest because they are not getting anything directly for their work.  A salary is not just compensation for the work you are doing for the government; it creates an obligation to your employer (the taxpayer).  Taking a dollar in order to be able to maintain your conflicts of interest and not divest is not a deal that is advantageous to the taxpayer.

Of course it is personal. The fact that he owns stock is relevant only if one believes that he would act improperly to increase the value of said stock.  If there is no doubt about his integrity and that he wouldn't do so, it is irrelevant. It is clear that Zupnick thinks it is relevant because anyone who works in the Trump administration is willing to engage in "cronyism and corruption". I want to see him say the same to Mad Dog's face.

It was of course equally personal when it was reported Hunter Biden worked for a company in Ukraine who payed him lots of money. Obviously that is relevant only if you believe that Hunter Biden would attempt to influence Joe Biden in some way, and that Joe Biden would be so influenced.

I don't think Slaoui lacks integrity, but that conflict can create an unconscious bias in the decision making that can lead to sub-optimal decisions.  There may come a time where he will have to make a tough call that could cost his portfolio millions of dollars, and he might hesitate to make it, costing the taxpayer billions, or let the conflict affect his judgment even as he is unaware of it.

Here's an old paper about it:
http://journal.sjdm.org/10/91104/jdm91104.pdf

The results suggest that judgments are easily influenced by affiliation with interested partisans, and that this influence extends to judgments made with clear incentives for objectivity. The consistency we observe between public and private judgments indicates that participants believed their biased assessments.

In other words, not only will conflicts of interest affect judgments, but the affected person is not even aware of their bias; they legitimately think they are giving what they think is their best assessment, even as it is sub-optimal.  This isn't impugning Slaoui; it is impugning human nature.

BC

PS - Of course Hunter Biden shouldn't have accepted the job in Ukraine; the whole reason he was hired was, in part, to put his father in a conflict and influence Ukrainian government officials fearful of upsetting the United States.  Joe Biden should have recused himself from decision-making, and members of the administration spoke out against the appearance of a conflict of interest.  At least one Obama administration official noted that it interfered with America's goal of fighting corruption in Eastern Europe.  As best I can tell, Biden's decisions and actions vis a vis Ukraine broadly comported to what the international community expected, and I expect that in most cases Slaoui's decisions will be based on fairly straightforward comparative assessments of the various vaccine candidates.  However, that doesn't mean that the conflict couldn't have influenced Biden's decision making if the facts had been a bit more ambiguous, or that Slaoui won't be influenced by his conflict if there is a close call to be made.

Also, one key difference is that Biden was elected and accountable to voters, who have the choice to vote out an incumbent, which is why the CoI rules in government are less strict for elected officials than appointed ones.  Slaoui is an appointed official (not even one confirmed by congress), accountable only to Trump and himself.  That's why ethics rules are tougher on appointed officials.

BC

[BostonCard]

While I understand what you are saying about wanting to ensure there are no potential conflicts of interest, that would be impossible given that Saloui owned that stock when he took the job, and when he signed on to be paid a dollar it was in the full knowledge that he wasn't going to divest himself. It may be that a "true patriot" would do so, but that wasn't the deal. 

In point of fact, almost anybody who is knowledgeable about a given topic has conflicts of interest. Some are that you previously worked for X and now love/hate them. Right now, the forms to actually take a government job make having a 401K plan that you manage yourself problematic.

Slaoui is obviously qualified, but he is not the only qualified person to lead the effort.  It should have been 100% clear that the job wasn't for someone unwilling to divest 100% from his CoI and enter all the money into a blind trust.  When you are dealing with that much money, and when there is that much discretion, you simply can't have the head of the department with a potential conflict of interest.  Working for a dollar makes it even worse; then someone feels entitled to helping themselves by steering money towards companies in which they have an interest because they are not getting anything directly for their work.  A salary is not just compensation for the work you are doing for the government; it creates an obligation to your employer (the taxpayer).  Taking a dollar in order to be able to maintain your conflicts of interest and not divest is not a deal that is advantageous to the taxpayer.

Of course it is personal. The fact that he owns stock is relevant only if one believes that he would act improperly to increase the value of said stock.  If there is no doubt about his integrity and that he wouldn't do so, it is irrelevant. It is clear that Zupnick thinks it is relevant because anyone who works in the Trump administration is willing to engage in "cronyism and corruption". I want to see him say the same to Mad Dog's face.

It was of course equally personal when it was reported Hunter Biden worked for a company in Ukraine who payed him lots of money. Obviously that is relevant only if you believe that Hunter Biden would attempt to influence Joe Biden in some way, and that Joe Biden would be so influenced.

I don't think Slaoui lacks integrity, but that conflict can create an unconscious bias in the decision making that can lead to sub-optimal decisions.  There may come a time where he will have to make a tough call that could cost his portfolio millions of dollars, and he might hesitate to make it, costing the taxpayer billions, or let the conflict affect his judgment even as he is unaware of it.

Here's an old paper about it:
http://journal.sjdm.org/10/91104/jdm91104.pdf

The results suggest that judgments are easily influenced by affiliation with interested partisans, and that this influence extends to judgments made with clear incentives for objectivity. The consistency we observe between public and private judgments indicates that participants believed their biased assessments.

In other words, not only will conflicts of interest affect judgments, but the affected person is not even aware of their bias; they legitimately think they are giving what they think is their best assessment, even as it is sub-optimal.  This isn't impugning Slaoui; it is impugning human nature.

BC

PS - Of course Hunter Biden shouldn't have accepted the job in Ukraine; the whole reason he was hired was, in part, to put his father in a conflict and influence Ukrainian government officials fearful of upsetting the United States.  Joe Biden should have recused himself from decision-making, and members of the administration spoke out against the appearance of a conflict of interest.  At least one Obama administration official noted that it interfered with America's goal of fighting corruption in Eastern Europe.  As best I can tell, Biden's decisions and actions vis a vis Ukraine broadly comported to what the international community expected, and I expect that in most cases Slaoui's decisions will be based on fairly straightforward comparative assessments of the various vaccine candidates.  However, that doesn't mean that the conflict couldn't have influenced Biden's decision making if the facts had been a bit more ambiguous, or that Slaoui won't be influenced by his conflict if there is a close call to be made.

Also, one key difference is that Biden was elected and accountable to voters, who have the choice to vote out an incumbent, which is why the CoI rules in government are less strict for elected officials than appointed ones.  Slaoui is an appointed official (not even one confirmed by congress), accountable only to Trump and himself.  That's why ethics rules are tougher on appointed officials.

BC