Flyzik gets NYTed

Here is how described the story:I just finished the editorial for the 6.26 issue on this subject because these stories strike me as unfair. It seems that it is journalism a la Michael Moore – and I say that with deference to the NYT and to the reporter on that story. Both are duly respected with good reason. And they are right to look at DHS, which is fraught with problems. But does anybody really think that DHS is broken because of the issues addressed here?The crux of the story is that people are leaving government to higher paying jobs in the private sector and that vendors are in the business of making money. Furthermore, people are working in their area of expertise. Are either of these points shocking to anybody?And when you delve into the details of the story, it just doesn't seem to hold water. For example, lists 94 former homeland security officials now working and industry and who they are working or lobbying for. Among those people is Jim Flyzik, the former Treasury Department chief information officer who worked for the pre-DHS Office of Homeland Security in the White House. The NYT lists Flyzik as working for the Flyzik Group and for Unisys.Flyzik told me, however, that he does not work for Unisys nor is Unisys a client. "I am on a Security Leadership Institute that is 'sponsored' by Unisys," he said.To be honest, I was surprised by some of the comments on the story. , said: Again, does anybody really believe that the problems at the Homeland Security Department are really the result of issue? DHS has big problems. If anything, people are leaving because they are frustrated that they can't get stuff done.I am not discounting ethics at all. Ethics are essential - particularly for the government, which is dealing with the public's money. But its seems unfair to give these important ethical issues the Michael Moore treatment where we pull a few facts and roll our eyes and suggest that something is wrong. The simple fact is that agencies are increasingly dependent on industry for systems and those systems are increasingly complex. If people want to have a debate about whether government work should be done by vendors, that seems like a good debate to have. But this ethics fever makes it difficult for industry and government to talk about needs and requirements.Perhaps most important, it seems unfair to paint the important work being done in both government and industry with the overly broad brush of being unethical.