USFS Employee Directory?

Folks, the USFS had had an online, all-employee directory, which I have found very useful over the years. The link no longer works and I haven’t found a new link. Anyone know if there’s a new link, or if the directory is no longer public?

There’s a Forest Service Organizational Directory here, but it has contact info only for top-level staff.

 

26 thoughts on “USFS Employee Directory?”

  1. I noticed this too last week. Not a good look for an agency that keeps saying it values the public and partners: how can we reach our “partners” if we don’t have their information?

    Reply
  2. I had the same issue about a month ago when I needed to contact an employee. I have no idea how we can find employees that are not top top level.

    Reply
    • Hi Steve/ Sharon. That would be useful. I am very disappointed in the loss of this resource. All I found were complex USDA and private (for a fee) directories. Was just trying to use it today. Let me know if you find a new one.

      Reply
      • When I spoke with an FS person a few weeks ago, he suspected it was due to a Department server update, so not intentional. I actually brought it up to the Chief at a fortuitous meeting yesterday and he gave me a new contact person to try.

        Reply
          • I’ve probably said this here before, but I wish the USDA hadn’t implemented the One USDA initiative. The fs.fed.us email addresses tell you that this is a USFS address, while usda.gov is all too generic.

            Reply
              • Not to mention their thousands of acronyms for everything else, too! This has always been purposeful obfuscation by government officials and insecure academics in my opinion — particularly when couple with Latin names, metrics and insider-abbreviations.

                As one example, I am currently working on an article about wild horses under government management. BLM is in charge, so I went to their website and learned that they adhere to an arbitrary determination called “AML.” So then I went to the appropriate BLM secret decoder-ring page and learned that an AML is “Abandoned Mine Lands.” I had to ask a private citizen for the actual answer: “Appropriate Management Level.” Of course, if this were actually spelled out, people would want to know more about the word “Appropriate” — to whom and how derived? So, “AML.”

                According to their EMS, information on the WHB is based on a SRB in which AMLs are used to determine HMAs derived from HAs documented by GIS and UTMs. “Publicly available information” freely given on their website. And total BS.

                Another gross waste of taxpayer dollars paying government bureaucrats to learn how to cover their tracks. In my opinion. I mean, IMHO.

                Reply
                • Acronyms annoy me too. They are highly useful to those who regularly use them, but a barrier to everyone outside that circle. In short, acronyms facilitate discussion within an insider group, while stymying communication with everyone who is not a part of that small circle. Acronyms are especially rude when there are no readily visible definitions.

                  Reply
            • All about control and stripping the identity from the agency. USFS has a huge identity issue and yes a huge loss was the “Green Fleet”.

              Reply
  3. Several years ago, during a time when BLM employees were receiving threats, the BLM removed all the local names, emails and titles from its websites. I made complaints and inquiries at the BLM over several administrations for the return of this important information. I made the same argument – how can a federal agency serve the public, when the public does not know how to contact the agency. To no avail – I was told this was done for employee safety and no change would be made. It is very frustrating.

    Reply
    • I don’t think that was the reason for the FS, as they already had the directory working for a long time. How the BLM and the FS can have such different views and yet co-manage landscapes and serve the same public, is difficult. Perhaps there’s a need for a “multiple use agency cross-department harmonization” effort.

      Reply
      • Service First https://www.fs.usda.gov/working-with-us/partnerships/servicefirst was one such attempt. When I was in Bush administration, BLM and FS had shared offices under Service First in CO, OR and several other places where shared landscapes and a desire to be more user-friendly encouraged this type of coordination. But that initiative lost support over the years. In the Wildfire policy area there was also an effort to harmonize policies and budgets. The latter was a huge challenge for the FS. These land managers have different organic acts, different cultures and different authorizing committees that make it a challenge to harmonize. But on the issue at hand – there should be agreement by BLM/FS that transparency through public directories is the right thing to do.

        Reply
        • I co-led with a BLMer a joint review of the (then)San Juan Public Lands Center when they had dual delegation for both agencies. As far as I could tell, the people in the area were extremely supportive, and (many people I spoke with) in both agencies considered it a plus.

          My thoughts were more humble.. focus on the low-hanging fruit that stakeholders deal with regularly and have a common statutory basis .. like FOIA regulations, and then work up to the harder ones.

          Reply
          • Sharon – the San Juan example worked because the people made it work…put different people in the same system and you get a failure.

            Reply
            • That’s very thoughtful, Tony. I wonder how you make organizations less dependent on individuals’ inclinations. There’s empowerment (good) and everyone doing their own thing (not so good).

              Reply
              • One thought…develop a system that most people can execute so it can be successful. But, do not develop a system where only high-perfomers can make it successful.

                For “Service First”, I wonder why Rebecca believes the effort lost support. The people in those offices certainly worked hard to make the concept work.

                Reply
                • I was a HUGE fan and supporter of Service First as was AS/Deputy Secretary Lynn Scarlett. We wanted Service First in more area because it made sense on so many levels – better service to the public, opportunity to more efficient and make better use of federal dollars by not duplicating “back office” functions that could be shared. My recollection is that in the Obama/Salazar administration support for Service First waned for reasons I don’t know. That could be a flawed recollection but something changed.

                  Reply
                    • Inertia can be a pretty powerful force (and it doesn’t leave much evidence). I think it might literally take an act of Congress to create the necessary “harmony.”

  4. They work for us. The public should absolutely have easy access to a full directory of public employees, and those employees should be responsive.

    Reply
    • Total agreement. Since they started “working from home” I have found it nearly impossible to connect with USFS or BLM representatives with even minor decision-making authority or even useful information. This never used to be a problem at all — but has been manufactured for unknown (probably political) reasons. Maybe not so much an “employee safety” issue so much as embarrassment. At least that would be more understandable.

      Reply

Leave a Comment