|
The panel discussed
various issues related to Homeland Security, the economy and
resulting pressures on the public budget, and shifting responsibilities
between the federal government and localities. There was a
sense that we need to renegotiate the unspoken contract between
the federal, state, and local governments. NAPA can provide
important leadership in this arena, whether in its traditional
convening role or by identifying new approaches to move forward.
The participants agreed that the panel should
focus on a variety of issues with a relationship to homeland
security in the year ahead, meeting 7-8 times a year on a
regular schedule. Panel meetings and participation from members
outside of the DC area will be encouraged.
Among the topics suggested for future Federal
System Panel meetings:
1. Racial Profiling (possible joint meeting
with the Panel on Social Equity)
2. Potential Regional Approaches as well as Broad Collaboration
of Public/Private/Nonprofit Sectors.
3. Fiscal Issues and their Impact on New Security Agenda (e.g.,
cuts in local programs, lack of insurance. Are we spending
money on the most critical priorities?)
4. Bioterrorism: Interdependency of Public Health System (CDC
has good resources; serious gaps among first responders and
local managers)
5. Technology and Homeland Security Collaboration (Dave Muchini,
Fairfax County CIO a good resource to tap)
6. Model of Management that Supports Collaboration (What does
"good" or "bad" collaboration look like?
What tools promote effective collaboration? Does the federal
government have a culture that discourages or prevents collaboration?
Assess and inventory what is happening now across levels of
government.)
7. Transportation Security Agency
8. What Does Changing Role of FBI Mean to Local Communities
(shifting roles, responsibilities, and priorities)?
9. Legal and Constitutional Questions (as raised by homeland
security initiatives)
10. What Should Be Decentralized (i.e., carried out by local
governments)? Centralized (handled by federal agencies)? What
Should Be Connected?
Homeland Security Discussion
Costis Toregas talked about fragmented national standards
for electronic governance, which creates problems for dealing
effectively with homeland security. But he observed that for
many local governments, security issues are an "inside
the Beltway" discussion.
Bob Matson saw the issue somewhat differently.
He said that even in Montana the local authorities have been
paying attention to homeland security and they have concerns.
For one thing, the high profile that the Administration and
media have given to homeland security has raised public expectations.
Many agencies (e.g., the CIA) are working to change their
organizational culture, to begin to share more information
with other security organizations. In those places where people
have begun to work on improving first response mechanisms,
they are waiting for the rest of the federal system to "get
its act together."
One of the critical governance dimensions
to the terrorist attacks has been the shift in thinking about
emergency management, said Scott Fosler. It’s no longer
enough to focus on prevention, response, recovery, and mitigation.
Now detection of a problem has become a much more important
concern. How will we detect a bioterrorism attack, for example?
In the State of Maryland, Pat Florestano
said that the Board of Regents for the 13 higher education
institutions is looking at security issues. She said there
is a love/hate relationship about the interactions with local
governments. Some of this comes from "NIMBY" protests.
With 41 of the 50 states showing some fiscal stress, higher
education is bracing for the worst as it is always the first
to be cut.
Jonathan Howes said that after 9/11, the
UNC campus became much more concerned about security issues,
particularly at large events. The NC state budget crisis is
the worst in years and is affecting many public institutions.
The 1994 tax cut is hitting the state hard now, along with
a number of natural disasters.
Deil Wright echoed Jonathan Howes’
observations about natural and fiscal disasters. With Hurricane
Fran in 1996 and Hurricane Floyd in 1999, North Carolina has
garnered a great deal of experience with intergovernmental
cooperation in the face of a disaster. He said that the collaboration
was impressive. The trust that has built up between the state
and local governments is something to build on with the new
threats of terrorism. City and county cooperation in the state
is especially good. At the same time, the sharp downturn in
the state’s economy poses the greatest challenge to sound
intergovernmental decisions.
Several fellows noted that the impact of
the federal tax cuts on the states was not given much attention
when Congress passed its tax cut plan last year. They are
being hit hard by the resulting decline in tax rates at the
same time the economic downturn is reducing state tax revenues.
Most state economies are in trouble, observed
Enid Beaumont. As states and localities have become global
players in business, this globalization affects homeland security
as well as state and local economies.
With defense contracts rolling into Connecticut,
David Walker said that has helped to shore up the state’s
shaky finances: a $100 million deficit most recently. He noted
that the organization of response to 9/11 by Arlington County,
Virginia, and the region as a whole was most impressive, and
wondered why federal agencies are reluctant to trust local
law enforcement. He also observed that in the present climate
in Washington, responsibilities for law enforcement seem to
be simultaneously centralizing and devolving. He expressed
concern that some of the Attorney General’s actions had
preempted the states.
Beryl Radin also was impressed with the
presentation the Arlington County Assistant Fire Chief made
to the EOM panel. In Arlington County, there are good standard
operating procedures and trust between local, state, and federal
authorities. She raised a concern about the federalization
of the nation’s airports.
The changing role of the INS and the FBI
may also be affecting local governments in a significant way.
The INS has changed procedures and is now drafting local authorities
to check green cards. Don Borut said that as the FBI is taking
on additional terrorism work, local police departments are
concerned that they will be left with responsibility for whatever
the FBI makes less of a priority. For example, drug enforcement
and white collar crimes may become more of a responsibility
for localities.
Don Borut complimented the Academy for the
timeliness of the focus on Homeland Security, with the announcement
of the President’s proposal to create a new Department
of Homeland Security scheduled for the same day as the meeting.
There was much to discuss about functions of federal agencies
and organizational culture. Borut said that OHS Director Tom
Ridge has worked hard to reach out to state and local governments
as he works on security issues. Director Ridge was concerned
with the new Transportation Security Agency’s lack of
coordination with his office and with state and local governments
before launching some of the new airport security measures.
For example, the action taken to remove the National Guard
from airports and to order localities to replace them with
local law enforcement personnel had not been given enough
thought. Questions about liability, local priorities, and
compensation needed to be considered before changes were ordered.
Camille Barnett expressed concern that federal
agencies were not giving sufficient attention to the importance
of regional approaches to homeland security.
Bernie Ross said that there may be a reason
for the lack of understanding about the intergovernmental
system. He noted that most schools don’t offer a course
related to the intergovernmental system so many senior staff
have little idea about how to implement programs effectively
across different levels of government.
There was also considerable discussion
about the desirability of NAPA obtaining funding to study
various homeland security issues, including the proposed new
federal department. One option mentioned would be an earmark
in the Congressional appropriations process, which participants
suggested NAPA staff might be able to pursue by reaching out
to appropriate Fellows who could help contact committee staff
on the Hill. Fellows wondered if this issue might connect
in some way to the work of the NAPA Centers (e.g., Local and
State Solutions).
|
