Here’s the final answer from the WO Press Office:
Regarding the employee directory, in addition to this administrative burden of maintaining this information taking away from key mission focused work federal Freedom of Information Act often require withholding employee rosters due to privacy concerns, those two reasons made the removal of this information, which is often inaccurate, a priority. As Mason stated in a prior message, those outside of the agency wishing to engage with agency staff should look to their local unit or established connections or listed contacts on agency actions for engagement.
It still seems to me that using the directory meant you already knew the last name. There’s certainly a tension between transparency and privacy. At the same time, it seems like it was something that made it easier for outside folks (who already know their last names) to interact with employees. Which we want, right?
Let’s reread (and attempt to decipher) the first sentence of that response:
“Regarding the employee directory, in addition to this administrative burden of maintaining this information taking away from key mission focused work federal Freedom of Information Act often require withholding employee rosters due to privacy concerns, those two reasons made the removal of this information, which is often inaccurate, a priority.”
Yikes…this is the best the professional communications staff of the WO Press Office can do? In a college freshman English class, that sentence would be a C- at best. It is, however, a great example of “bureaucrat-ese.” If this is the best explanation senior level communications professionals can provide, they don’t seem to have much of a justification.
Simply stated, “We are not competent enough to maintain an accurate directory that allows the public we serve to contact us. Therefore, we will eliminate the directory.”
I have to agree with you here.
I’ve always wanted the Forest Service to ‘walk its talk’, but if the talk is so confusing, the walk must be ‘interesting’, indeed.
There are some people out there on the Web who wouldn’t think twice about trying to destroy an employee’s career. They might even use the Employee Directory to focus their efforts to get someone ‘fired’. I was once reported to the Chief, but I doubt it made it through his ‘filter’. There is also the danger of actual violence against specific people. Sadly, some people see this as an avenue for their grievances.
Potential answer of a more structural nature. If turnover has likely increased and increased, is it possible that maintaining the (accurate) directory indeed proved an issue?
A- that’s a good question. I’d rather have one that was inadequate (like the current one, that after all, we were still using happily despite it being out of date). than none at all. For example, onboarding and offboarding, “hey, we have an employee directory, if you want to be on it fill in these blanks”, if you’re leaving here’s how to delete yourself.
Maybe ask the users “how accurate does it need to be”? I wonder if there’s a paper with a rationale somewhere, or whether there is no way to figure out who the users are to be able to ask us.
As a retiree I completely understand the complex world of USG IT and why many apparently easy things can’t be done. At the same time, I have to wonder if I can be geolocated by anyone seeking to sell me things, how hard could it be to provide new employees with an online form? As for me, I don’t even care where they are, just their email based on their known last name.
If the FS didn’t know how many employees it had (hence the need for the recent “hiring assessment” to determine if we could even pay everyone), why would you expect them to know where everyone is located?
I actually didn’t care where they were located. I didn’t care if they were on a detail. I didn’t care if they got a new job five years ago. I just wanted to know if I was looking for Raul Menendez’s email, that I could figure out if it was Raul P. Or Raul J., if there is more than one Raul. Or if someone goes by Wendy Jo, for example, is her email wendy. or wendyjo, or maybe wendyjoe? People are, and have always been, the most important part of the Forest Service, IMHO. I understand the need for privacy but I am not a fan of efforts that make it more difficult to contact people who are doing the work. Certainly if there are twenty Bill Smith’s knowing the location or job helps you figure out which one you want. On the other hand, you can usually figure it out from past jobs.. currency is not really required.
I guess their argument is “it’s not current and there are privacy concerns”, my point is that it was never current but it was still useful. My guess is that they didn’t understand how people use it.
“People are, and have always been, the most important part of the Forest Service, IMHO”
Some employees don’t want to be harassed endlessly by the public for the decisions and agendas of line officers, who flagrantly ignored the scientific opinions or input of their specialists/staff, or even just initiated a project that staff find out *after the fact* about. They’re people as well.
If line officers make decisions that do not align with the recommendations of their staff, the good line officers will explain their rationale—the “why.” That said, line officers often have far less decision space that one might suppose (or hope). Any number of internal or external forces may be at play, pushing a line officer to a decision even they might not like.
this is so frustrating. Take something that works well and either make it so complex no one can use it, or, barring that option, take it away. I just call the front office at our local forest and ask for a copy of the directory, since the only people I need to talk to are the specialists on our forest.
Do they have a directory that they give the public?
Many FS offices have vacancy rates of 20-30% and some positions go vacant for 2-3 years and go through multiple 4-month “detailers” to keep things going. That level of vacancies and flux is not easy to keep up with.
Picture, if you will, a long Southern drawl that says, in essence, “Horse Manure” (the polite version)!
Really? And, I’m in agreement on the quality of writing and language choices from Public Affairs folks; most have no clue in telling what needs to be told, there are exceptional employees gifted with such abilities, but they must be doing all this “mission-critical” stuff.
Good grief! I reckon this is the new normal……
Hi Sharon. I was off grid backpacking in your backyard (northern Colorado from Rahwahs to Eagles Nest) July-August so missed discussion on FS employee directory. I am not interested in the argument over politicization of line officers or even employee need for privacy. But what I didn’t read from anyone, maybe I missed it, is that the directory was a great resource for the public that has been removed. It makes the FS seems much more insular and self-protective to me as this resource was available for decades. As an example, I wanted to send Black Hills Forest Supe a concerned message about something I saw while visiting the forest but had to send it to the staff mailbox in hopes it would be forwarded. Line officers should be accountable to the public even though it is a hassle. I say this as former line officer, national and regional spokesperson, PAO and an environmental reporter. Dropping the directory tells me the Forest Service does not think so. Sorry to come in late on this issue.
Agree w CC! What did you see on BHNF??
Hi Jim! We noticed the BNF has not changed the name on Harney Fire LO. The highest peak in the forest/ wilderness/ SD was changed from Harney (named after an Indian killing military guy) to Black Elk, a Lakota prophet, by U.S Board on Geographic Names in 2016 after Lakota Sioux had sought name change for 50 years. Area is Black Elk Wilderness and Forest Service has changed name of trail/ trail signs etc to Black Elk (Peak). But 100s of visitors are seeing that offensive name. I asked the supe (at least indirectly) in email to mailroom when they would get around to changing name on the huge stone tower (built by CCC). I pointed out that undersecretary of Agriculture had just told WILD12 (a meeting we attended in Rapid City) that forest had signed co-management MOU with Lakota Sioux. Seems that would be nice first step!
That needs to happen! Thought you might have seen expansive overstory removals that are just “Wha!! the heck””