EIIP Virtual Forum Presentation — April 23, 2008
How Would YOU Advise the Next President?
A Group Discussion on New Directions in Emergency Management Policy
Valerie Lucus, CEM CBCP
Emergency/Continuity Manager
University of California, Davis
Amy Sebring
EIIP Moderator
The following version of the transcript has been edited for easier reading and comprehension. A raw, unedited transcript is available from our archives. See our home page at http://www.emforum.org
[Welcome / Introduction]
Amy Sebring: Good morning/afternoon everyone and welcome to the EIIP Virtual Forum. We are expecting a very lively discussion today on the topic "How Would YOU Advise the Next President?" Regardless of which candidate you personally favor, this is an exciting time as we look forward to the general election and a new administration.
We are using policy issues from the National Homeland Security Consortium's recent white paper, Protecting Americans in the 21st Century: Imperatives for the Homeland, to frame our discussion. Unfortunately, natural hazards are not emphasized in the white paper, so please expand your thinking to consider them as well.
If you have not already looked at them yet, please take a moment to look over the ten pre-posted discussion questions, which you can access from today's Background Page or at http://www.emforum.org/vforum/080423.htm#QUESTIONS
Now it is my pleasure to introduce today's speaker, who I came across while researching today's topic. Valerie Lucus, CEM CBCP, is the Emergency/Continuity Manager for the University of California at Davis and has been a frequent EIIP participant over the years.
We discovered that a radio program produced by Texas A&M University called "Homeland Security Inside and Out" has also been posing this same question in a series of interviews over the last several months, and Valerie was interviewed this past December. You can hear her in an excerpt from the program, which is included in our Preview Podcast. I was unaware of this resource of archived radio programs, and you may wish to check it out at http://homestation.typepad.com/hlsinsideandout/
Valerie has been in the Emergency Management/Business Continuity field for over 15 years. She is a member of IAEM (International Association of Emergency Managers), CESA (California Emergency Services Association), BRMA (Business Recovery Managers Association), ACP (Association of Continuity Planners). She currently serves on IAEM's University/College committee and the Editorial Board.
Welcome Valerie and thank you for being with us today. I now turn the floor over to you to start us off with some introductory remarks on our topic.
[Presentation]
Valerie Lucus: Thanks Amy. Welcome everyone! I am happy to be here.
One of the functions of government is to protect its citizens from the devastating effects of a manmade or natural disaster. Certainly, citizens and the private sector have a corresponding responsibility to prepare themselves.
Right now, we -- collectively -- are not doing a very good job. These would be my top three recommendations for the next President:
1. Our most important need right now in emergency management is experience and strong leadership. THEREFORE, I would recommend the next President appoint a FEMA director with professional credentials in this field - a CEM and/or CBCP -, demonstrated ability to facilitate coordination and collaboration between diverse and opposing parties, and the vision of a future where emergency management principles are integrated into the fabric of our daily lives.
2. Another important need is to reinstate and/or create programs that support disaster resiliency. We know that every dollar spent on mitigation now saves many dollars on response and recovery later. THEREFORE, I would recommend the next President reinstate and strengthen programs like DRC Disaster Resistant Communities and DRU Disaster Resistant University programs.
3. Finally, our funding priorities related to emergency management have to be revised. One of the emergency management axioms is that all disasters are local. Providing funds for local government to develop solid emergency management programs enhances our ability to prepare, respond and recovery from disasters. THEREFORE, I would recommend the next President reinstate and increase EMPG funding to allow local public agencies to maintain and enhance their all-hazards emergency management capabilities.
I am very much looking forward to our discussion today, and now turn the floor back over to our Moderator to start us off.
Amy Sebring: Thank you very much Valerie, and now we will move to our discussion questions.
Moderator:
Question 1. The first recommendation of the white paper is on the topic of Communication and Collaboration. "Establish a robust, sustained and consistent process for soliciting local, state, tribal, territorial and private sector engagement on the full breadth of homeland security issues." What would you advise the next President to do to ensure stakeholders are included in all aspects of policy development, (vs. "top down") and if so, how?
Valerie Lucus: SINCERE communication and collaboration breeds trust. Top down management systems rarely produce enthusiastic or sustained results. I would suggest paying closer attention to listservs that draw on the diversity of emergency management and other groups interested in emergency management: the IAEM discussion group, the DRU listmail, other EM and BCP discussion groups. That is where issues, concerns and ideas tend to emerge.
Comment:
Christopher Effgen: I read the Consortium’s recommendation as: special interest groups, bureaucrats, and Congress should get together and establish policy, just like they did before 911. I believe that we need to explicitly establish risk/threat management principles and ensure that the public is involved in the development of policies to cost effectively achieve the goals implicate in those principles.
Comment:
Avagene Moore: Organizations like IAEM and NEMA do a great job taking the EM/HS message to the appropriate congressional committees. However, they have to continually plead with their members to actively push the message from their respective jurisdictions. Both levels must use the full potential of their clout. This is an educational thing and requires work on the part of the vested individuals. Everyone must speak up and support these efforts and establish ongoing relationships with their elected representatives. I would advise the President to listen to practitioners and establish a credible means of continually monitoring the needs and concerns outside the Beltway.
Comment:
Rick Cox: I like the idea of getting the "officials" more involved in discussion groups etc. In the groups I'm on I can't recall ever seeing anyone above the state levels.
Comment:
Ray Pena: I would advise the next President not to change a thing regarding policy development. Individuals, groups and communities are already involved in all aspects of policy development. It is up to the community emergency manager to make sure the community has the information it needs to make necessary emergency management decisions, including policy decisions. "Community" means municipal, state, tribal, regional, national.
Comment:
Amy Sebring: My advice would be to engage stakeholders much earlier in the process than has been done in recent years. That will save time in going off on the wrong track and producing guidance that is unacceptable to stakeholders.
Comment:
Steve McGee: Listen to groups as meta - groups e.g., NENA and APCO and strength in numbers. NENA and APCO are doing just that; joining forces. The President should be prepared to listen to more than one group at a time.
Comment:
Ric Skinner: We need a clearinghouse and collaboration portal for all the great ideas to come together.
Comment:
Rick Tobin: I would request the new President to establish the concept of open conversation without reprisal. Right now many officials hold back from engaging openly and fully as their opinion and input may cost them their position.
Moderator:
Question 2. The second recommendation on Intelligence and Information Sharing is, "Preserve progress to date and continue to implement and expand efforts to ensure timely and effective sharing of information." A sub-item is, "Sustain federal funding for state and local information sharing and make it predictable and not limited to a single threat or hazard." There have been numerous, non-integrated, attempts to enhance information sharing with limited success. What would your recommendation be?
Valerie Lucus: Analogy here (I like analogies): If emergency management is like an orchestra, and the emergency manager is the conductor ensuring all those individual instruments are in tempo and on key -- everyone has to be playing from the same page. Communication and collaboration can't exist if information isn't shared. We have to find a way to get beyond the turf issues and integrate information systems between local government, state government, federal government, NGO's and the private sector
Comment:
Ric Skinner: I would suggest the President delegate domestic emergency preparedness to the Vice President.
Comment:
Amy Sebring: My recommendation would be to convene a national level symposium on information sharing to discuss the issues and achieve consensus. The issue of sustained funding is significant across the board for state and local emergency management programs. Even the state fusion centers are very concerned about sustained funding.
Comment:
Ray Pena: Community emergency managers transform information about hazards, vulnerabilities, demographics, geography, capabilities, deficiencies, etc. into organized common knowledge through preparedness activities-planning, training, exercising, etc. I would recommend the next President assure federal agencies take full and unfettered advantage of information sharing technologies.
Comment:
Christopher Effgen: If as proposed here, we extend the use of this system to private industry, the system could be used to deprive any person their life, liberty, and property, without their knowledge of the process. We need to have a national discourse about this issue.
Comment:
Ric Skinner: Stop funding yet another reinvention of the emergency management solutions wheel. Pause, and form a National Academy of Preparedness to identify the best of the best in systems already out there.
Moderator:
Question 3. The third recommendation pertains to the Use of the Military. "Protect the Constitutional role of states regarding control of their National Guard forces and clarify the circumstances as well as the command, control and coordination procedures under which federal active duty forces are to be employed in operations within the homeland." A sub-item is, "Continue to remove bureaucratic obstacles and streamline processes for deploying federal military resources in support of civil authorities in times of local, regional or national disasters or emergencies." What would you recommend regarding the use of the military?
Valerie Lucus: Well unless we want to change the framework of our constitution, the responsibility for managing disasters falls to the most local political jurisdictions. There are exceptions, of course. We have to assume the elected officials in those jurisdictions understand this responsibility, and one of those responsibilities is to determine when it is time to call in reinforcements
State and Federal military resources can play an important role "in support of civil authorities". Removing obstacles and streamlining procedures is a great idea -- unless it includes bypassing the local authorities. Then it is more like an invasion.
Comment:
Steve McGee: A congressional directive states "nothing less than network centric homeland security akin to network centric warfare". Therefore, network centric warfare procedures that have been transitioned from the military to the DHS several years ago should be transitioned to the state / local level through the PSAPS.
Comment:
Christopher Effgen: Our military’s first object is to provide for a national offensive and defensive capacity. I don’t believe that any circumstance could come about, outside of the need to perform that mission, which would justify the operation of our military within the States without the military being subject to the authority of that State’s government.
Comment:
Ray Pena: I would encourage the next President to take measures necessary to make full and appropriate use of the Military’s capabilities during disaster. The military is a major National asset and should be available when there is national disaster-caused need.
Comment:
Amy Sebring: I have just been reading some excerpts from the recent GAO report on NORTHCOM. From the report, and the Congressional reaction, it is clear we have a long way to go in coordinating NORTHCOM with the states.
Comment:
Rick Tobin: I would recommend to the President to set a Presidential Directive to be enacted through Congress that no less than 5% of the amount for national defense projects be set aside annually for civilian emergency preparedness. This would tie questions 2 and 3 together as it would draw the attention of the DOD in a new and very effective way.
Comment:
Barbara: I would like to see advocacy of a new volunteer force cease and have more attention paid to existing USNG auxiliaries such as the Maryland and Virginia Defense Forces which are growing and have excellent track records. This issue was raised in an opinion piece in DomPrep without specifics on the defense forces/sanctioned militias.
Comment:
Steve McGee: The new president does not need to increase the size of the standing army -- it needs to increase support of the Guard and Reserves!
Comment:
Scott: The active, reserve, and Guard military forces are stretched too thin across the globe. Between fighting terrorism overseas, preparing for a potential pandemic flu outbreak, and readiness at home, the need for more "integration" between civilian, military response forces, and volunteers and change the laws that prohibit organizations to provide support to each other.
Moderator:
Question 4. The fourth recommendation pertains to Health and Medical. "Improve efforts to enhance the full range of health and medical readiness to address trauma and exposure related injury and disease." There are several pertinent sub-items relating to issues of funding, surge capacity, volunteers, standards of care, and the roles of federal agencies. What would you advise? Could public health and hospital planning in your community be better integrated with your overall emergency management program?
Valerie Lucus: This is usually one of those exceptions to control by local political jurisdictions. The disintegration of our public health system became extremely apparent during the pandemic planning discussions. There are many initiatives and programs designed to increase that capability and integrate it with the community. Too many of them, unfortunately, come to the local political jurisdiction as unfunded mandates.
Comment:
Ric Skinner: Provide funding so that every medium to large healthcare facility has at least 1 FTE dedicated to emergency management & disaster planning. Make it a funding requirement to have senior management take an active documented role in EM/DP. Establish a "National Academy on Healthcare Preparedness" to identify the best of the best systems and programs and make that a model for all healthcare facilities and systems to adopt. Currently, preparedness is an afterthought and just more task added onto someone list of daily responsibilities in most healthcare facilities.
Comment:
Christopher Effgen: I believe that the Federal, State, and local governments are making stepped progress in achieving these ends.
Comment:
Avagene Moore: It is gratifying to see public health and hospital planning brought to the forefront across the country of late. It is the logical next step to integrate this planning with the EM program if it is not taking place. I would suggest that the President ensure this is happening as it should on the federal level and encourage the dialogue and planning at all other levels as well - tie it to funding and make sure it happens.
Comment:
Amy Sebring: My recommendation would be to make sure that health and medical planning is reality-based, not pie in the sky. Remember the smallpox vaccination fiasco? Most communities will be overwhelmed by a significant number of casualties and surge capacity is overestimated.
Valerie Lucus: All those great initiatives have to be coordinated with the local jurisdictions; otherwise, they are not going to be effective.
Comment:
Rick Tobin: I would recommend to the President to work through Congress and the IRS to provide tax incentives to the hospital systems, HMOs, and other insurers when they meet certain standards and requirements each year to continue to provide, and improve, community integrated emergency preparedness.
Comment:
Ed Kostiuk: Preparedness and funding should be left up the states and local levels of government. This area should not include the Federal Govt. Many states under ASPR and CDC grants are pushing their hospital associations to the front and engaging them in exercises.
Comment:
Rick Cox: Exercises are important. Many facilities have never tested their evacuation or surge plans.
Moderator:
Question 5. The fifth recommendation pertains to Interoperability. "Continue to promote coordinated development of governance, technology and protocols necessary to enhance minimal capabilities for interoperable communications (voice, video and data) among all levels of government and the private sector." A sub-item is, "Develop a clear shared definition, vision and implementation strategy for nationwide communications interoperability." What would you advise the next president?
Valerie Lucus: This is a quote I have saved, but not sure who said it: "Intertalkability is easy...it's just hardware. Interoperability is much harder, it involves a collaborative attitude. One without the other is just a chaotic turf war with really good signal-to-noise ratio."
This is one instance where collaboration doesn't work as well as it should. There are so many public and private, federal and state, shades of grey conflicts, it might be easier to put somebody in charge and tell him/her to just make it happen.
Comment:
Ric Skinner: Follow SAFECOM's guidance regarding interoperability.
Comment:
Ray Pena: I would advise the next President that communities will use whatever means they have to communicate during disaster. Consequently we must achieve a better understanding of what is already out there and how to make the best use of it during disaster, before we look at new things.
Comment:
Christopher Effgen: The most cost effective means of communicating the disaster message is to the public. We need to work on improving the means by which all levels of government, and the private sector, communicates that message to the people. If we achieve this end we will have achieved the other.
Comment:
Avagene Moore: I would advise the President to make this a priority for the nation at all levels. It is an education issue plus overcoming turf issues are major problems. After many, many reports and huge amounts of money spent on this, it is time to quit talking about it and make interoperability a reality.
Comment:
Rick Cox: If ever there was a situation that stimulates "turf wars" this is it. Everyone has an opinion, but very few have a will to compromise.
Comment:
Amy Sebring: I would recommend that data interoperability be given a much higher priority than has been the case to date. I was also just reading parts of the USFA report on the Minnesota bridge collapse response. It was noted how integrated technology made a real difference in the response.
Comment:
Ed Kostiuk: The federal Government needs to give more emphasis to SAFECOM and its guidance as well as enforcement within the SAFECOM framework.
Comment:
Ric Skinner: And don't overlook that interoperability is not just about radios on the same frequency. It's also about data and information sharing and integration -- especially geospatial.
Comment:
Rick Cox: Data is a critical aspect.; not only traditional data, but also newer technology such as VOIP that uses data transmission paths.
Comment:
Rick Cox: Keep in mind that it's more than bandwidth, it's also true mobility, redundancy, etc.
Comment:
Steve McGee: Data interoperability -- TADLS, SADLS, USMTF, OTH-Gold -- recognize those formats? EM's don't -- the military and Northcom do. Huge disconnect.
Comment:
John Tommaney: The term should really be operability and something we all use everyday!
Moderator:
Question 6. The sixth recommendation relates to Critical Infrastructure. A sub-item is, "Begin transitioning from the current tactical approach to critical infrastructure protection to one of strategic continuum-based resilient critical infrastructure systems assurance against all threats and natural and man-caused hazards." Let's address this issue for our purposes to encompass ALL infrastructure in our communities-homes, businesses, schools, public facilities, as well as lifelines. What would you recommend that the next President do to support disaster resilient communities (i.e. mitigation)?
Valerie Lucus: Here is my soapbox opportunity! Mitigation saves lives. Mitigation saves property. Mitigation saves money. If we integrate mitigation into our community planning, we can save lives, property and money. Why aren't we doing that now? Because, we also know that resources are not infinite. We have to make choices about where we allocate our resources.
Remember Project Impact? It was powerful not only because it promoted local control of disasters, but did so by providing resources to create disaster resiliency at a local level. Project Impact was a choice made by the Federal government to allocated resources to develop and encourage resilient communities. Let's start by reevaluating our priorities. What is really going to create a secure homeland?
Comment:
Ric Skinner: To survive and prevail we must think in terms of the "ecology of preparedness" -- everything is connected to everything else and therefore what happens in one branch of the "disaster ecosystem" affects the other branches.
Comment:
Avagene Moore: I would recommend that the next administration emphasize public education (yes, we are responsible for own safety) and funding of proactive actions based on mitigation case studies to create disaster resilient cities and communities that serve all hazards including terrorism threat. This would significantly make better use of tax dollars.
Comment:
Ray Pena: The next President will understand how decisions are made in communities. If the next President thinks that certain mitigation activities are essential s/he will have to put $ there.
Valerie Lucus: Ray. I agree. She has a lot of background.
Comment:
Christopher Effgen: Let’s develop a risk/threat management policy, that cost effectively mitigates risk/threat; anything else is just politics.
Comment:
John Tommaney: It needs to be more than just prevention - this includes education, awareness and disaster impact reduction. Somehow, the term mitigation has fallen off the radar.
Comment:
Ed Kostiuk: We need a prioritization of Critical Infrastructure specific to each state. The Federal Govt. does not need to come to our state advising "they have created a template". We will create such a template for our needs
Comment:
Amy Sebring: More funding for pre-disaster mitigation (PDM) would always help. I support the NEMA position, which is PDM funds should be allocated on a state by state formula, and states decide how to allocate to communities, based on a well-defined strategy to reduce risk. By the way, a congressional hearing is coming up on PDM. Should be interesting. Check out our list of upcoming Webcasts for info.
[See http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetail.aspx?NewsID=604 ]
Comment:
Rick Cox: The concept of "everything is connected" is critical. I'm an Infragard member and I see no interaction between that group and my county EMA, etc.
Comment:
Steve McGee: I'm an Infragard member also. No mention of working with NORTHCOM / Military yet in four sessions.
Comment:
Rick Cox: No mention of Infragard working with any other organizations, outside of Federal, that I have seen.
Comment:
Barbara: I attended a conference this week where it was recommended that EMs have input into comprehensive planning. I am sure that is not a novel idea somewhere.
Moderator:
Question 7. The seventh recommendation relates to a Unified Capabilities Approach and includes recommendations as to a nationwide credentialing process, establishing "recovery teams," and baseline review of target capabilities? What would you recommend to the next President as an effective approach to enhancing our national capabilities?
Valerie Lucus: If you've been in emergency management for any length of time, you understand how helpful a nationwide credentialing process would be. It would eliminate the precious time it takes to verify the identity and qualifications for each respondent to your incident. How to put it in place, make it work, and assure its security is the hard part. I would love to see some good ideas here.
Comment:
Ray Pena: I would advise the next President rely on local EMAs to enhance local capabilities, state EMAs to enhance state capabilities and FEMA to enhance national capabilities. That is their job.
Comment:
Rick Cox: National credentials would be huge. I have seen far too much confusion as to who is qualified to help, who to call for help, etc.
Valerie Lucus: California put together a credentialing plan for EOC positions. That is the most comprehensive start that I have seen.
Comment:
Ric Skinner: In the healthcare sector this is a sticky issue because of medical liability, competitive issues, state regulations, etc. But it must be solved.
Valerie Lucus: Healthcare tends to be private rather than public. That tends to complicate the issue.
Comment:
Christopher Effgen: For target capacities, it is possible to generate a force structure probability matrix, which could be stretched to cover any disaster.
Comment:
Rick Cox: In my state the Fire Service has MABAS, Law Enforcement has ILEAS, both serve to provide known backup assistance etc. There is nothing similar for EM that I'm aware of.
Comment:
Ed Kostiuk: HSPD-12 has been fought at many levels of Government including those with the Federal agencies. We need to move on this immediately and implement what HSPD-12 required as well as the original timeframe. We also need to follow what the State of Virginia has created on their credentialing system. The ability to move on this is available, but it seems to be fought at almost every level of government. Having served in various IC roles over the years I am concerned about our ability to "verify" in the field during a major disaster.
Comment:
John Tommaney: There needs to be leadership and coordination with stakeholders at all levels to make a national credentialing program work.
Comment:
Steve McGee: Mr. / Ms President: The goal/"grail" is to create a single integrated operational picture -- SIOP from cross-domain data fusion of N domains / Community Of Interest COI's.
Comment:
Amy Sebring: I believe EMAC should be enhanced and work more closely with local communities to incorporate their expertise and resources.
Comment:
John Tommaney: Part of the solution is to get various discipline groups to start using "industry standards". They exist in many forums but are not widely implemented.
Comment:
Rick Cox: This loops back to earlier questions, if we can't verify who can help then we don't know who we can be "interoperable" with.
Moderator:
Question 8. The eighth recommendation deals with Sustained Resources (funding) and Capabilities. A sub-item is, "Refine current homeland security funding approaches to ensure a national capacity to address the range and constantly changing nature of risk - from daily emergencies to natural disasters to acts of terrorism." Would you recommend to the next President that natural hazards be factored into vulnerability assessments in allocating homeland security grants? Do we need a comprehensive national risk assessment?
Valerie Lucus: The average citizen in the US is more likely to be effected by a local hazmat spill or major flood than an act of terrorism. Right now, homeland Security grants have tunnel vision -- all they can see are acts of terrorism. It is a stretch for some jurisdictions to come up with projects to qualify for this kind of funding and still mitigate the hazards they are most likely to experience.
A good vulnerability assessment and risk analysis includes *ALL* hazards. We should have a grant process that addresses the most likely hazards a community faces and includes ALL stakeholders.
Comment:
Christopher Effgen: Let’s develop a risk/threat management policy, that also cost effectively mitigates risk/threat; anything else is just politics.
Comment:
John Tommaney: Grant funding should ensure that all hazards approaches are addressed and not just on particular hazards of concern.
Comment:
Avagene Moore: In my opinion, I believe a comprehensive national risk assessment would show very clearly to the next President and Congress that our funding of the terrorism threat has been way off balance. Terrorism is only one threat and we are bombarded with daily emergencies and disastrous natural hazards events each year and every year.
Comment:
Amy Sebring: I do think we need a comprehensive national risk assessment. I think that if you are going to use "Planning Scenarios" many more of them need to be developed for natural hazards.
Comment:
Barbara: You can't arrest and detain a hurricane.
Comment:
Ric Skinner: In healthcare, the Joint Commission require all accredited facilities do an HVA (natural, tech, human-caused, HazMat). From the highest priorities hazards they construct an emergency plan and then exercise that 2/year. At least that's the way it's supposed to work. The healthcare HVA "model" could be adapted for a national, regionally customized approach.
Comment:
Rick Cox: While we are looking at grant funding I think we also need to look at streamlining the grant request process. Too many agencies don't even apply because of lack of skills when it comes to writing the requests etc.
Comment:
Ed Kostiuk: We must somehow balance our needs for a national disaster (terrorism) and occurrences such as tornadoes, Hazmat spills, and other local disasters. Our leaders have somehow forgotten we deal with more tornado events than with terrorists hitting our rural communities.
Comment:
Ray Pena: I would advise the next President to consider whether it is appropriate for the federal government to support local and state emergency management programs. Money for local and state programs should be provided primarily, if not exclusively, by local and state policy-makers, in keeping with the principles that guide how our nation is governed. Yes, the nation needs a comprehensive risk assessment, just like every other community.
Comment:
Avagene Moore: While looking at grant funding, let's honestly look at what we are getting for the money. Accountability that is.
Moderator:
Question 9. We are going to skip the final recommendation area dealing with border security. Instead, let's address any additional recommendations that you may have that we have not covered during the foregoing discussion. Stafford Act? Federal vs. local role? NIMS/ICS? National Preparedness Goal or National Response Framework?
Valerie Lucus: Actually, I have two recommendations I want to get in here. First: We need to strengthen and support and examine programs in higher education that are training our next generation of emergency managers. Right now, they are all over the place in terms of what they teach and how they teach it. The work Wayne Blanchard has done in the FEMA Higher Ed program is awesome. We need to continue it.
Second: Disasters know no boundaries. Federal aid in disasters is often complicated by state lines. Presidential declarations are issued for states. What's wrong with this picture? Let's amend the Stafford Act to correspond with reality. Disasters that cross state lines shouldn't require each state to provide appropriate documentation to qualify for a Presidential. Disasters don't stop at the border. Presidential declared disasters ought to target the event, not the state it occurred in.
Comment:
Steve McGee: Ms / Mr. President: 50% of the DHS R&D budget is allocated to transitioning technology to the public sector. This being a given, will you direct the DHS to transition their template Situational Awareness system that was transitioned from the military two years ago to the EM / Pubic safety sector via your program of record Unified Incident Command and Decision Support System BAA0602 Phase II procurement?
Comment:
Christopher Effgen: The founders established three branches of government in order to protect the life, liberty, and property of the people of the United States. The danger that motivated them to do so was of a government whose employees were free to act in an incompetent, irresponsible, and lawless manner. Long before 911 our government obtained that state. Federal employees have reason to be afraid if they come forward to complain about bureaucratic and industry practices that endanger the lives of airline passengers, in this the seventh year after 911. The 911 Commission Report could not have been written without the testimony of Federal employees who subsequently suffered retaliation.
Comment:
Avagene Moore: I failed to get this in early but it applies in many federal program areas. I would respectfully ask the President to take a long look at the many projects proposed and / or underway within various agencies and departments. Someone at the top needs to see the big picture. Too many efforts are being duplicated - apparently the "left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing." Consolidating some of these efforts after listening to the needs of States and local governments would be a big help and best use of limited dollars in my opinion.
Comment:
Amy Sebring: I would recommend ditching the Target Capabilities approach as too bureaucratic. Instead, more emphasis on self-assessment and peer assessment along the lines of EMAP.
Comment:
John Tommaney: I agree with Amy and in developing a National Hazard, Vulnerability Assessment. The TCL is way too bureaucratic.
Comment:
Ed Kostiuk: Or perhaps TCL being more realistic as to what might really occur within our jurisdictions.
Comment:
Steve McGee: Both George Washington and Eisenhower warned of maintaining an ever growing military - industrial complex during their farewell addresses. There is a way to take the vast R&D budget available to the military / DHS in the billions and make it available to EM's and the Public Response sector.
Comment:
Isabel McCurdy: You need a single voice for emergency preparedness. Right now you have a lot of noise. A champion is needed!
Comment:
Barbara: Back to higher education. Undergraduates need to do a practicum based on being affected by a disaster and go through the process/experience that individuals, families and small businesses have to overcome.
Comment:
Rick Cox: I'm not very familiar with EM higher education. Do students have any kind of "internship'? Are they required to do ride alongs?
Valerie Lucus: Rick -- it depends on the program. There is a group working on accreditation for higher ed programs that teach higher education curriculums. If anyone wants information, let me know. We need volunteers, support and funding. The Foundation of Higher Education. There is link on Wayne's Higher Ed site.
Comment:
Barbara: Further on higher ed point above, most courses I have seen that are called "recovery" are addressing IT.
Comment:
Rick Cox: That's not very reassuring. Sounds like too many graduate with no practical experience.
Comment:
James Warren: As a grad student I wish more places would offer internships.
Valerie Lucus: Accreditation would at least insure those graduates are getting what they need to understand this profession.
Comment:
Wayne Blanchard: Rick, there is a section of the EM Hi-Ed Program on EM Experiential Learning, http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/sl_em.asp.
Valerie Lucus: There are some wonderful testimonials from EM students on Wayne's site.
Comment:
Rob Schwartz: The University of Akron's emergency management program requires an internship.
Comment:
Don Hartley: Leadership who understands EM from bottom - up and not top - down is critical.
Comment:
Rick Cox: I would want to do mitigation surveys with practicing EM folks, etc.
Moderator:
Question 10. Finally, our last question, FEMA - In or Out? (For the sake of our discussion, let's assume "out" means a return to the arrangement under the Clinton administration where the FEMA Director was a Cabinet position.)
Valerie Lucus: Incorporating FEMA into DHS and taking it out of the Cabinet was a mistake. Responding to disasters requires swift action, flexibility, and unfettered access to resources. Response to disasters must be open and honest. It requires support and strength at the top. I voted "OUT". Can't wait to see the results!!
Amy Sebring: Stand by for results.
With a total of 58 votes cast the results are:
"In" 18 votes = 31% "Out" 40 votes = 69%
Comment:
Art Botterell: I think we definitely ought to revisit the notion of embedding a disaster-response function within a national security agency. It seems to create a bit of an internal conflict of interest, as though we were asking law enforcement to plan for its own failure. Especially when what's at issue isn't man-made but natural events.
Comment:
Ray Pena: The next President will have the option of keeping or discarding FEMA; s/he will not have the option of eliminating the emergency management process or the role the Nation plays in it. I would advise the next President to keep FEMA so long as it gets back to its mission of improving the Nation’s safety by maximizing the Nation’s commitment to the emergency management process, and get it out of DHS whose culture is fundamentally different from and opposed to FEMA’s.
Comment:
John Tommaney: I voted out also. When FEMA was placed in DHS, it caused a chain reaction in many states, counties and localities to diminish the importance of the emergency management program.
Comment:
Amy Sebring: I voted out also. Have you seen the most recent employee satisfaction surveys? Not so good.
Comment:
Rick Cox: There is a difference of culture between FEMA and DHS. There are also shared responsibilities. So while I think FEMA should be separated, they do have to work together very closely.
[Closing]
Amy Sebring: Time to wrap up for today. Thank you very much Valerie for an excellent job and thanks to all our participants today. Please stand by a moment while we make a couple of quick announcements.
Valerie Lucus: Thank you all. This was a lot of fun!
Amy Sebring: Again, the formatted transcript will be available later today. If you are not on our mailing list and would like to get notices of future sessions and availability of transcripts, just go to our home page to subscribe.
Before we adjourn, please take a moment now, or after you review the transcript to rate today's session and/or write a review or post your comments. You can access the form either from today's Background Page or from our home page. Also, you can use the review form to post any afterthoughts you may have on the discussion questions.
We also invite you to consider becoming an EIIP Partner as a way to show your support, and possibly help us to keep the services we provide available to you. It is easy to do; see the link to Partnership for You from our home page, and complete the simple form provided.
Thanks to everyone for participating today in a lively discussion. For first-timers, we hope you enjoyed the program and will come again. We stand adjourned but before you go, please help me show our appreciation to Valerie for a fine job!