I had rough plans with a friend this weekend while the husband is down at MAL, but as usual with this friend a house emergency came up (leaking roof this time) so I'm flying solo. I told the husband I looked forward to him complaining about the number of comics I'll read this weekend (complaining because he then has to sort and file them all at once).

Spent the work day on a last minute emergency that is only an emergency because a) lawyers who worked at the agency before me gave bad advice; and b) our public affairs shop can't plan things in the normal federal budget cycle. The agency has an anniversary next year with a big number and what should have happened was that planning should've started 2-3 years ago so that we could've asked for the budget authority to do the big shindig they now want to hold, but which they didn't start planning until last year (an agency develops their budget plan each spring for the fiscal year that starts almost two years later; so for 2025 they would've had to develop it internally back in the spring of 2023). When they did approach me about it, I got to tell them that no, we don't have any authority to pay for food for a shindig, and in fact there's a statute that affirmatively says we may not pay for food for a shindig, and by the way here's the two Justice memos that back me up on this. The previous lawyers had told them that a certain pot of cash we have didn't have to follow the normal rules, which is horse shit. I did tell them how to get the authority to pay for food (ask for a one-time increase in a special reception budget, or ask for permanent authority to pay for food at shindigs. Or, preferably, both), and I've told this to everyone in management who will listen, but the game of telephone based on the previous bad advice is still going strong and people don't want to hear the bad news. Oh well.

Let me spell out why I'm upset at my field office, the one balking at following the directions from headquarters.

When a contracting officer of the U.S. federal government signs a contract, on behalf of the government, he or she assumes personal liability for any screw-ups he makes in the course of letting that contract. If he orders a contractor to do something, without the funds or authority to compel the contractor to take that action, he can be personally liable for the debt owed by the government to the contractor. That's a Big Deal, no matter how you look at it, given that a great deal of my Big Gubm'nt Agency's (BGA's) contracts are worth multiple-millions of dollars, well in excess of the typical federal government employee's salary.

In my role as legal counsel, looking at the fiscal responsibilities of the federal government and its accountable officers, my professional opinion rendered in the course of my employment can relieve a contracting officer of personal liability. If I tell an employee to take a certain action and that action is later found to be incorrect by a competent tribunal, the employee who followed my advice will not be held liable for following that advice. He or she sought the advice of counsel, and followed it, for better or worse. That's a big deal, because we're dealing with the public's money, and if someone truly defrauds the taxpayers, they should be held liable for that fraud. So letting someone off that hook is not something to be done lightly.

Obviously I have no desire to defraud the government of funds; this money is my tax money as well as the usual federal taxpayer's, and I don't want to see it misspent when I can avoid it. So it's distressing to me, personally, when a field office of my BGA questions my integrity, implicitly, by continuing to question the opinion my office has rendered in a particular case. The idea that I would casually hang a fellow federal employee out to dry, or that I would place the finances of my BGA in jeopardy, is personally abhorrent to me, and it causes me a great deal of distress when our field personnel assume that I would be so cavalier with their and the taxpayer's finances. I think that's what stressing me out about this latest brouhaha with the field, that implicitly they are questioning whether I am acting properly in my role as counsel to protect them and the head of my BGA. And the idea that they think I'm acting against their and the taxpayer's interests, whether overtly or subtly, is a smirch on my professional integrity, and not something I take lightly. Thus, I'm distressed over the situation, as much as they are likely distressed as they contemplate taking an action which might cause them a great deal of personal debt. I don't want that for them, nor do I want something to go wrong for the taxpayer or the administration (regardless of party), so I'm stuck in a very difficult situation until I can convince them that we're not going to subject them to personal liability, something they're not quite ready to accept.

Originally published at Of Moose And Men.

Our new political leadership, at the urging of certain offices who have an axe to grind, has decided that the lawyers in the BGA are the source and instigators of all delay or other ills affecting the BGA. I actually had one political tell me to my face, in regard to some impossible language coming our way in the upcoming appropriation, that we collectively were being "insufficiently creative." As if all there is to lawyering is to wave our hands and declare that red is green to suit the immediate political desires of the leadership. As I recall the last administration had their attorneys do some "creative" lawyering, and that turned out just swimmingly (not). Little twerp.

Needless to say, this has not made working terribly pleasant at the moment, especially in the face of the extraordinary demands on us under the stimulus act.

Adding to the difficulties are the normal issues with any transition, getting the politicals on board and up to speed, and also just getting our senate-confirmed folks nominated and through the senate vetting process. The tax woes of earlier nominees have caused an increased scrutiny of all nominees by the white house, thus further slowing the process (plus the desire to have cabinet secretaries all in place before lower appointees are nominated).

We'll get through this, but it would be nice to have more, and less hostile, political leadership in place in the face of these extraordinary needs.

Originally published at Of Moose And Men.

Looks like we're getting funded through March 6th, with lots of plus-ups for inaugural activities. Whee. They stuck in the raise for calendar 09, too (yay), but didn't provide any additional funds to pay for it, so we have to suck it out of existing cash on hand (boo). A couple of other problems in there for my BGA, but we'll deal.

Spastic day, what with the bill language being released at midnight, the House voting to pass it, and multiple phone calls and meetings over various provisions. Glad the work day finally ended. Tomorrow will be slightly less spastic, I hope, with a nice break in the middle for a going away lunch for a coworker who's leaving us for another BGA.

Cleaned up more junk here, and just test-fired the oven (empty) to see how the temps match my oven thermometer. Seems to be slightly cooler than the dial, so I'll see if there's a way to adjust the dial, or I'll just have to keep in mind that it's not quite 25 degrees cooler than the dial says it is. Caught up on Heroes from Monday, and zapped more junk out of the queue without watching it (The Last Samurai? Ew). Now it's early crash time. I missed the bike ride this morning because of an early meeting, so perhaps I'll get back out there tomorrow morning instead. Depends on how well I sleep - definitely on a deficit so far this week.

Originally published at Of Moose And Men.

Wanted to jot down some quick “day after” thoughts on the in re Marriage Cases decision that was handed down yesterday in California.

Procedurally, the case is now remanded back to the Court of Appeals for action consistent with the Court’s opinion. Clearly, part of that action is the invalidation of the parts of the marriage law, both for in-state and for recognition of out-of-state marriages, which limit “marriage” to opposite-sex couples. Same-sex couples will be able to marry once the Court of Appeals takes action. What is less clear is the status of those who have entered into domestic partnerships under California law. The Court did not explicitly address the domestic partnership statutes in the final part of their decision. It’s now unclear how the Court of Appeals and/or the legislature will address the issue.

From my limited view of California law (culled pretty much entirely from the decision), part of the elligibility for a domestic partnership was inelligibility for marriage. If the courts were to read the new availability of marriage as invalidating current domestic partnerships without making the partners go through the usual 6 month process for dissolution of the partnership, that might not be a bad thing. What I don’t see them doing is automatically converting partnerships to marriages, at least not by the court alone. The legislature could make such a thing a possibility, and I would hope they would do so for partnerships where one of the partners has died (since other rights and responsibilities for partnerships were added retroactively even for partnerships where one member was deceased, according to the decision), but I would not impose the full structure of marriage on those who entered into a partnership without their express consent.

The other thorny issue is those partnerships where the main reason was for support of the elderly, and not for “marriage light.” Not even going to touch that one, but it would be good if they kept that part of the partnership law in place.

In any case, those folks who are in valid domestic partnerships under California law now find themselves in a legal limbo, not knowing where they’re going to come out. Will the courts declare them de facto married? Will their partnerships get dissolved without being married? Will they have to go through the six month process to dissolve the partnership in order to get married? The Court didn’t address this, which was a weakness of the decision, in my opinion.

The other interesting note in the decision was the Court’s explanation of how the Governor was correct to veto the two attempts by the legislature to pass full gay marriage statutes. In essence, because Prop 22 was passed by initiative and because it did not allow for the legislature to change the law without putting the change to a vote, as is required by the California constitution. The statutes would not have been upheld by the courts, and as such the Governor was simply exercising his constitutional duty to veto legislation which he (properly) did not feel was constitutional. See footnotes 16-17 and the surrounding text. Knowing that puts his veto in a much better light, especially viewed together with his opposition to the current attempt to amend the state constitution to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.

I won’t get into the classification of “sexual orientation” as a suspect class under California law except to say, “Wow, that was unexpected, yet quite, quite cool.” Smarter folks than I would better address all of the ramifications of that.

View this post at the Glen.

I feel irrationally nervy about today’s announcement from the California Supreme Court in their consolidated same-sex marriage cases.

View this post at the Glen.

I’m attempting to sleep because I have to be up in about 5 hours to go to an early morning swim clinic halfway across the city. I say attempting because there’s about a dozen young persons outside my window playing, foot racing, and generally making far too much noise outside my window (which has to stay open because it’s too warm out to keep the place closed off).

So, being a curmudgeon, for the second or third time since I moved here I just called the police to have them come enforce the DC curfew law. If it’s like the last time, the police’ll be out after a bit, and the kids will be sent home with no arrests made. And I’m fine with that, as long as they urchins go inside and stop keeping me awake.

View this post at the Glen.

This week was supposed to be a relatively quiet one, or so I thought. Then a cousin called, is in town, and we’re having dinner tomorrow, which means my hair appointment (for the 3rd of 4th time in a row?) gets rescheduled, hopefully to Wednesday, when I have a date with BC (dinner after haircut, I suppose). Thursday turns out to be election night for my cult co-op, so I’ll be getting some knitting in then. Busy, busy, busy.

The legs are a bit sore from yesterday’s short run, which is expected. Treated myself by making a nice curry tonight, though it reminded me why I don’t keep cashews in the house in a regular basis (*nom, nom, nom!*). This curry’s best with a light topping of cilantro & chopped cashews, so I went all out after a brief stop at the grocery store for the fresh stuff.

One of my larger projects is going to be picking up steam here in short order, so work’s going to get very busy with lots of the more tedious aspects of being an attorney. I think we know where we’re going with it, though, so hopefully it won’t be too painful.

I’m deliberately not commenting on all of the political posts I see all over the ‘net these days (well, except to share satire), mainly because I happen to like my friends and would rather not unduly antagonize those relationships.

View this post at the Glen.

There are days when you have all of the answers, and days when you don’t. Today, thankfully, was the former and not the latter. Tomorrow is anyone’s guess.

I’ve been thinking a lot about work and being an attorney. Next year is ten years out from law school for me, and despite the occasional clusterfuck at work, I think I’ve gotten into a pretty good groove where I don’t feel like I’m just acting confident when dealing with clients, I actually am self-assured, because I’ve been doing this long enough to know what I’m talking about in my practice area most days. It’s a confidence that sort of snuck up on me when I wasn’t looking, and was a bit startling to realize was there.

Not to say that I think I’m all that and a bag of chips, but the advice giving business is a lot easier when you know what I do about the BGA now that I’ve been there for almost four years. I’ve still got a ton to learn, but it’s nice not feeling like I’m faking it all the time.

Of course, this will all go right out the window once Congress gets around to changing the budget rules again, but for the moment it’s a good feeling.

Today was flying in and out of meetings, reassuring program staffs that they weren’t in trouble, promising things which will be delivered in short order, and generally was most people’s best friend. It’s so much nicer when you can be helpful and not have to say no (because you don’t have to, here). The nay saying will come back soon enough (and is occasionally nice in and of itself when your client is being a ninny, but is generally more of a pain than anything else - I mean, who wants to deliver bad news to someone?).

[side note - I’m so used to old-school WYSIWYG web editing programs which insert a paragraph tag when you hit a return and a break tag when you hit shift return, that this new version of WordPress is a bit disconcerting in its word-processor-like behavior when it inserts only a break when you hit return once, and a paragraph when you hit it twice. How new school. oh, and I miss the “html lookup” button, which appears to be obsolete now that it’s keeping tags visible in the editing screen.]

I put in a WordPress plug-in that will allow me to post more easily from the iPhone. I did confirm with it this morning that I have to be determined to post, though, since if I leave the browser to do a lot of other things it tends to lose the post. I’ll have to play with it more to see if it’s possible to save and come back to something.

The LiveJournal one is cross-posting stuff well, too, even if it doesn’t allow me to choose the user pic from WordPress any more.

And on that note, I’m exhausted and need to crash.

View this post at the Glen.

I just saw a woman wearing black Crocs with her pants suit. It's a shame they don't give us honorary fashion police ticket books, or she'd have gotten one.

I need to teach my clients the concept of "admission against interest." Just because someone has asked for information doesn't mean you have to divulge everything, only what they asked for, narrowly tailored to fit the request. This is not an opportunity to throw on a hair shirt and get out the scourge, folks.

Saw Stardust this weekend. Marvelous film. Will enjoy getting it on DVD once it's out - this was definitely an over-and-over-again type of film for me. And Michelle Pfeiffer was hot as the witch queen.

Rode out to BC's place on Saturday. If that type of commute is going to become a regular thing, which it may, I'll need to get another bike. I rode the tri bike, which meant carrying a bag on my back. Not terribly comfortable for 2 hours. I need a bike with a rack for panniers, and the mountain bike simply is not up to that kind of riding. Maybe in the spring I'll look for a road bike. And figure out where to store a third bicycle.

Getting back into the swing of things, post head cold and pre-races. The swim is still the most nerve-inducing part, but I expect it to go more smoothly than previous races. I'm less anxious about it than I have been in the past, and I think it'll be fine.

I'm glad I gave up the morning paper, I am making it through more in the way of other reading, but the magazine pile hasn't really diminished. I have made it through 1.5 books, though, and the last Harry Potter is sitting out, beckoning.

View this post at the Glen