Letter to the Editor

I have to agree with many of the readers responding to the article about limited (ab)use. [Letters to the Editor, March 22 and March 26, 2001.]

Although it makes sense on both sides, the issue that most comments focus on is that the user will abuse the resource. I have to agree.

But look at it from management's perspective. It's not a matter of focusing on the use of resources or equipment. It's another form of management indiscretion: How can managers target an employee who is doing the same thing everyone else is but make it seem that this one individual is not using government equipment in a limited way.

I can see this ending up costing President Bush's new budget more tax dollars than he expected in legal costs.

Frank Kenisky
Office of the Inspector General
Department of Veterans Affairs

WRITE US

We welcome your comments. To send a letter to the editor, use this form.

Please check out the archive of Letters to the Editor for fellow readers' comments.

Featured

  • Government Innovation Awards
    Government Innovation Awards - https://governmentinnovationawards.com

    Congratulations to the 2020 Rising Stars

    These early-career leaders already are having an outsized impact on government IT.

  • Cybersecurity
    cybersecurity (Rawpixel/Shutterstock.com)

    CMMC clears key regulatory hurdle

    The White House approved an interim rule to mandate defense contractors prove they adhere to existing cybersecurity standards from the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Stay Connected