spokesman comments or lack thereof

The federal government is trying to find a way to move from the 50-some-odd-year-old system of paying employees to one based on an employee's performance. Rather than award workers for how many years they have put in at a federal agency, they are looking to award them based on how well they actually do at their jobs.

That makes sense to me, but considering this is the federal government we are talking about and evaluating employee performance requires more work, it could be some time before the old system is changed.

As I am reporting on a related story, I am faced with the quintessential example of why paying for performance is a good idea: the government agency press office. Since my first days of reporting on the federal government, I have come to see the agency press office as the bane of my reporter existence. When I call, I can picture them sitting around an office, gossiping, doing their nails, emailing, drinking coffee. When the phone rings, one of them rolls her eyes and takes a deep breath, mustering up the proper amount of miserableness and I-don't-give-a-shit attitude.

I called one agency press office today, asking for them to help put me in touch with some big dude and knowing if I didn't start with them, I'd be shut down immediately. With her rudest tone of voice, the half-listening woman on the other end basically acted like she could care less why I was calling, as if I had rung the wrong office and why would she be the one to help me. She starts to transfer to me some unknown office in the bowels of the agency, but I stop her, explaining that I will only be transferred back to her since I am a reporter. She then cuts me off mid-sentence and transfers me to some random voice mail where I would no doubt be ignored again.

This seems to happen every once in a while, really with any press office where I don't directly know the contact there. It's infuriating and frustrating, and often there are few other options. I wonder how many of these press people would be around if their job performance was evaluated. Or how their performance would change were it to be linked to their pay.

Surprisingly, I did get a call back not too long after I left the message. But perhaps unsurprisingly, the spokesperson pulled out the classic we-have-no-further-comment comments. The person you really want to talk won't comment, but sure I'll answer your questions, she tells me. As I start to ask them and get more and more in-depth, bringing out a few follow-ups to her statements, she continues to answer with about four stock phrases, regardless of the question. I could ask her what she had for breakfast, and her response would be "As I mentioned before, the agency chose to blah blah yadda yadda yadda."

Now, I understand there are answers you want that you just aren't going to get, especially if the story has a tinge of controversy or agency fault. But part of me wants the spokesperson to own up to that. It's not like I don't recognize that each answer sounds strangely similar to the last, and in fact that time it had nothing to do with the question at all. Would it kill you to just say, You know Sara, I have about three things I am authorized to say, so you can probe until you are blue in the face, but you ain't getting anything else out of me. In not so many words, I once had a spokesman say that to me, and for a second I felt like we were both humans stuck in a tough position on two sides of the story fence.