> With regards specifically to Phyllis Fong, I have no confidence that an Inspector-General that occupied the office for twenty two years straight[1] can ethically perform their prescribed role. I am in complete agreement with her termination, we need someone (anyone) new and different in there.
Are you "in complete agreement" because of actual things Fong did, or because you think that 22 years experience in a position is disqualifying?
>because you think that 22 years experience in a position is disqualifying?
Yes.
An Inspector-General is in charge of inspecting and auditing, as the name would suggest. That requires being impartial in absolute terms, because you must be able to call out problems no matter how inconvenient they are.
Being in a position of power means an inevitable accrual of reputation and influence, and 22 straight years of accrual is ridiculous. Her excessively long tenure is also unusual; the longest-serving Inspector-General besides her served for 8 years, shortest being 2 years not counting acting IGs, average is about 4 years each IG not counting her 22 year tenure.
So yes, I support her termination because her long tenure lends me no confidence she can perform her duties ethically anymore. There must be a regular changing of the incumbent to head off the office being bought or otherwise corrupted. There are millions of other D.C. bureaucrats to replace her with, and even more Americans overall. There is no reason to keep her specifically for this long and I daresay that the lack of a term limit for this office has to be an oversight.
You got it. I would also support this termination if Biden or Harris had done the same. 22 years is way too long of a tenure by any reasonable measure for an office like this.
What is wrong with being reappointed to the same job for 22 years? What if she's just...competent? Your argument seems to be that anyone having the same job for that long must be corrupt in some way, but you don't provide anything to support that premise. Ironically, you're implicitly endorsing the resort to illegal means for her removal, rather than following the process defined in law.
Are you arguing Phyllis deserved to be fired because she had a lot of experience and was a dedicated employee? That's a pretty hot take. I hope for your sake you are independently wealthy, lest someone who can impact your life comes along and determines you shouldn't be employed anymore because you've been doing it too long. You think twenty two years is too long to be in a profession, perhaps the next person will think 10 years or 5 years are too long, gotta get someone (anyone) new and different in there, and you out.
