|
The main speaker was NAPA Fellow Michael
Rogers, then Executive Director of the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments (WashCOG) and now Executive Vice President
for Corporate Services for MedStar Health in Washington, DC.
He began by noting that he was on his honeymoon and out of
the country on September 11, 2001. That was a day that he
knew his job as a public servant had changed. When he got
back to Washington, he resolved to put together systems that
would help the region work together better to anticipate and
respond to emergencies.
He commented that from what he could tell,
"the response worked well at the Pentagon, in the city
as a whole there was panic, because communications were so
poor. The largest employer in the region, the federal government,
didn't tell the local government when it was releasing federal
employees," said Rogers, "which led to greater panic."
At Rogers' recommendation, WashCOG formed
a task force to develop a regional emergency coordination
plan. The task force was composed not just of WashCOG stakeholders
but of all the key parties in the region, including the federal
government, state and local governments, and the private sector.
Rogers noted that all the jurisdictions in WashCOG have their
own emergency response plans, so the task force did not attempt
to duplicate or supersede those, but simply to create an umbrella
framework under which the jurisdictions could carry out their
response plans in coordination with each other.
A major objective was to stimulate communications
across jurisdictional lines. WashCOG got the process started
by using emergency reserves and a $5 million federal grant
for planning. The task force began by creating a common language
to allow all the participants to communicate effectively with
each other. Then it built on the jurisdictions' existing emergency
support functions to develop an overall framework plan for
coordination. One of the primary recommendations, which has
been implemented by COG, was to establish the Regional Incident
Communication and Coordination System (RICCS) to permit immediate
conference calling among the top officials of all the member
jurisdictions in the event of an emergency and to permit ongoing
communication and coordination of their response. The system
was put to use during the sniper incidents in the Washington
area in fall 2002, allowing officials to make decisions together
about closing schools and government offices.
In order to improve the response to emergencies
in the region, WashCOG worked with the National Association
of Regional Councils (NARC) to draft legislation that would
give regional councils the role of emergency coordination.
Rogers emphasized the need to ensure that the region's decisionmakers
are making key decisions together, but he noted that the COG
does not have the authority to carry the final word to local
citizens in emergency situations. The message still has to
be delivered by individual leaders, but under a coordinated
system, it can be "one message through many voices."
Rogers noted that the federal government
is an essential part of the planning and response in the National
Capital Region. He observed that federal employees have attended
meetings with state and local officials in the region on homeland
security and terrorist threats, but the federal government
representatives have not truly engaged in the process. They
listened but they did not share with the state and local governments
what the federal role would be in the region and what resources
they would bring. "We need to coordinate our decisions
and actions," said Rogers. "There also has to be
some thought of what threat or threats we are focusing on."
Rogers and several other participants commented that the federal
government's color code system for security alerts did not
provide sufficient information for individuals, businesses,
or state and local governments to know what to do when an
alert is issued. Rogers noted that Virginia has translated
the alert system into guidelines for specific steps to be
taken in each situation and the entire region may adopt it,
which would mean the jurisdictions in the area would at least
take common approaches, even if the rest of the country did
not.
Frank
Fairbanks, City Manager of Phoenix, AZ, representing the
Standing Panel on the Federal System, commented that cities
and counties can be counted on to:
a) respond to an incident quickly, flexibly,
with anything they have and with an understanding of local
circumstances.
b) do some planning whether the federal government engages
with them or not
c) cooperate with each other
d) look for help and assistance from the federal government
Cities and counties rely on the federal
government for intelligence information, planning and a framework
or guidance for action, scientific and technical expertise
in areas such as biological and chemical threats, and mechanisms
for ensuring that all citizens have some measure of security
protection. Michael Rogers agreed that first responders such
as fire and police will be there in an emergency, but he urged
that public health officials also be included in planning,
because they may be the first responders if there is a chemical
or biological threat. He also noted that information has to
be shared with the top local officials, who at present may
not all have security clearance.
Fairbanks pointed out, some cities are at
the very limits of their financial ability to help their people
but they deserve as much protection as people in wealthier
areas. There may be a need for federal funds to help those
areas out. Enid Beaumont cautioned that when state and local
governments seek federal money, they may also face the danger
of losing their authority in exchange.
Dwight
Ink, representing the Standing Panel on Executive Organization
and Management, offered several examples of effective intergovernmental
cooperation on emergency response from the past, though he
recognized that there are no exact models the federal, state,
and local governments can follow to deal with current homeland
security challenges. He referred to a new EOM publication
that offers examples of what has worked in particular cases.
Ink specifically cited the recovery from the Alaska earthquake
of 1964, which at 9.2 on the Richter scale was the largest
ever recorded in the United States. The response required
coordination among four countries, the Russian Orthodox Church,
and every state agency. Ink emphasized the importance of being
flexible and innovative. The federal government was very careful
not to create an extra layer of bureaucracy to respond to
the earthquake, and tried to minimize any special systems.
Agencies acted on their pre-existing authority, though some
regional offices were beefed up and authority was decentralized
to the field.
The federal response team in Alaska followed
all laws but had authority to waive any administrative regulations.
Ink said there were never any public hearings during the response
effort but they escaped controversy by sharing information
openly with citizens and all the affected parties, public
and private. Keeping the public informed was absolutely essential
for credibility and confidence in what the government was
doing, he said. While he offered those lessons to current
leaders and managers, Ink also acknowledged, "what we
have today is the most formidable intergovernmental challenge
the country has ever faced. I hope the government develops
the institutional and management capacity so we can manage
those challenges."
Enid
Beaumont, representing the Standing Panel on the Public
Service, spoke about the institutional challenges of organizing
the people who will have to do all the coordinating and communicating
even as they are merging into the new Department of Homeland
Security. Though the final legislation left out the provisions
that had been most feared by employees, she observed that
there are many new flexibilities to test. She urged the component
agencies of DHS to be learning organizations that develop
and build on the expertise of their employees, rather than
taking a hierarchical approach, although she acknowledged
that the prevailing internal model for managing people inside
the organization may be hierarchical.
Beaumont also posed a question of how the
freedom and flexibility the President has in the new Department
of Homeland Security will affect the merit system, and how
public servants should think about their careers in government
under the new approaches the government is adopting. As a
further challenge to employees, she noted that during the
same week the homeland security legislation was passed, the
administration also announced a proposal to make 850,000 positions
in the federal government subject to potential privatization,
including 450,000 in the next five years, though public employees
will be able to compete to continue to perform those jobs.
Jim Svara asked whether anyone had any experience
with how private providers work in emergency response. Rogers
said he has been a proponent of privatization and private
sector groups have to be included in emergency plans but he
would be very reluctant to contract out first response. He
suggested there are information management functions that
might make sense to contract. He also indicated that governments
don't do a very good job of managing contracts and should
develop improved capacity to oversee and track contracts.
Bill Dodge predicted that the new Department
of Homeland Security would be consumed in the next few years
with jockeying over how all the component agencies will be
organized while state and local governments would have to
organize to respond to security threats. He pointed out that
there have already been a lot of state and local actions,
which he documented in a recent report. He posed the question
of what could be done to prod the DHS to support state and
local action, and he suggested this issue would be a natural
one for NAPA to explore.
Beth Kellar noted that there have been some
good examples of the federal government working with state
and local governments, including FEMA, after a rocky start,
and the Office of Homeland Security under Governor Ridge.
GAO has also done some excellent work on these issues. She
emphasized the importance of learning from the positive examples
as the new department is launched.
Michael Rogers agreed that it will be a
substantial challenge to merge the cultures of the 22 agencies
from 9 departments that are being combined into the new department,
and the top leaders of DHS may well be preoccupied with internal
institutional matters for the first years of its existence.
His greatest concern is what will happen to national strategy.
Rogers suggested that one thing NAPA can do is to call attention
to the need to maintain a small office to deal with homeland
security within the Executive Office of the President, and
give them some funds to complete a national strategy and vision.
In his experience, $5 million made an enormous difference
in planning for homeland security. He observed, "When
those agencies get through their institutional reorganization--and
it will not be done in one month, two months, six months,
twelve months, two years--maybe they can help with national
strategy, but in the mean time, someone has to speak loudly
about national strategy and policy."
Jim Kunde cited the example of the certified
public management program that he helps to lead in North Texas.
Homeland security was one of the triggers. He commented that
NAPA might have a role in training the trainers who will be
needed to develop the workforce to deal with these new challenges.
He underlined the importance of effective management of critical
logistics systems such as fire protection, cross-silo management
across agencies of government, and citizen engagement, which
was so important in identifying sniper suspects in Washington
and reporting other security threats.
Gail Christopher suggested learning from
the successful examples of recent winners of Ford Innovations
in Government awards, many of which are involved in homeland
security. She also agreed that civic engagement is essential
to democracy, calling it the flip side of civil liberties.
Noting the recent report estimating that for every person
physically hurt in a terrorist incident, 50 others would not
be able to function effectively afterwards, she suggested
that NAPA's Center for Human Resources could think about the
training employees would need in order to be able to perform
optimally and sustain government services.
In wrapping up, Costis Toregas read an excerpt
from the new book, Linked: The New Science of Networks, by
physicist Albert-Laszlo Barabasi. Drawing on observations
of phenomena in physics, biology, information technology,
and human history, Barabasi shows the ubiquitous phenomenon
of networks and communication links that connect individuals
and groups. He maintains that it is impossible to inhibit
the urge to form networks; it is up to human beings to build
and use their networks for positive goals.
Turning to the panel members for a
final round of comments, Toregas asked them each to suggest
key words or phrases the other participants should remember
in thinking about how intergovernmental partners can work
together to achieve improved homeland security. Michael Rogers
highlighted the need for multisector and multidisciplinary
collaboration. Enid Beaumont offered a series of 'C' words:
collaboration, clusters, communications, common language,
challenge, and change. Dwight Ink concluded with a call for
qualified managers who can simplify coordination and teamwork.
|
