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.
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?
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……