# 3 could possibly be ok if it was cost effective for the government. This could happen in a case where the G-ride costs are less than the per diem costs for the weekend. Someone in a travel or detail status can use a G-car for "personal comfort" uses (i.e. - meals, movies, etc). But I think this is limited to the commuting area where they are detailed. # 4 seems out of line. # 5 poses a big problem for the Agency because of liability issues. I always understood the rule to be no one in a G-car who was not part of the job.

Since the original message was posted, DIO McCabe was selected to be the DAD for Industry Ops so it may look like I'm playing Monday morning quarterback with my response. However, sometimes when we look to see the worst in things, we overlook some simple things. I understand the plans to have two DADs for Industry Ops is an idea that's been kicked around for a while. MidlevelArea51 sees this as some type of conspiracy, but my understanding is that it was a question of numbers. Currently, a single DAD oversees 25 DIOs. On the Criminal Enforcement side, there are 3 DADs over the 25 SACs. I think they wanted to make the job more manageable. There were 5 applicants for the DAD position. Three DIOs, an attorney, and a person from another agency. I know the three DIOs (two very well and one mostly by reputation). DIO McCabe is clearly the most experienced, and it's nice to see the system works with his selection. However, I don't think I would classify the other two as "non-seasoned". Both have been with the agency quite a while (approx. 15 years or more), and both worked their way up through the ranks. All three DIOs have strong ideas, and aren't afraid to express them. I'm not sure the "yes-men" and "yes-women" label applies here.