The discussion of the Employee Directory has taken us to some interesting places. I’m singling out one of our Anonymous commenters who said:
“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.
So I think there is one question- contacting the public- and again the employee locator is for people who already know the last name of the individual they’re looking for. I can’t speak for anyone else, but if I am looking for someone I will probably now try a couple of different possibilities, potentially wasting other peoples’ time.
Still, is being “harassed endlessly” by the public a new thing? What does it look like? Do people think getting rid of the Directory will help?
As you can imagine if you read The Smokey Wire (and I had pretty much the same views when I was working) I’ve had my input ignored quite a bit, from line officers and others at all levels. When I was asked what my leadership qualities were, I’d say “I lead in having most ideas dismissed by our Regional Forester.” Not to speak of political appointees, the fores supes, and representatives of the ENGO’s or ski associations (how dare I make suggestions at all?).
So I have six possible hypotheses for these differences:
a) Degree of ownership of project -things matter more the closer to the ground you are, you have more of yourself invested;
b) Proximity of Line Officer. you might expect to personally influence a ranger or supe, but not so much a DRF or RF,
c) Personality (of staff)– my two mantras “the pay’s the same” and “if you’re not the lead mule the scenery never changes.”
d) Personality (of line) some people have jerky tendencies
d) Culture are there are cultural issues that have changed through time.. a change in backgrounds or other characteristics of line officers? a change in expectations of roles at work?
e) Under appeciation of technological expertise as evidenced by..
Please feel free to add your own.
I know there are many TSW folks, line officers and staff, who are working and who have retired.
Please tell us about your own experiences, maybe a specific story, and help us understand.
Holy crap, I don’t buy it; I get some Line Officers are buttheads, but they are still Line. However, I believe the Agency has allowed Line Officers to achieve positions through more of a “task book exercise” than actually building necessary skills by dealing with issues in the trenches. I came up as a GS 03, and always knew I served at the discretion of my superior. And, I’m not sold on “people” being the most important part of the Forest Service, the mission is!
But, I’m different; I come from a family of FS technicians and never squandered my duty to those whom I led. I always treated everyone as an equal, whether I was a GS 04 or 15.
It used to be, the FS was on the cutting edge of technology, employing new ideas and techniques, at the service to the American people. Now it seems, the FS is on the edge of a cliff! If an employee feels the wrath of the public for decisions of Line, somebody (Line) ain’t paying attention!
I’ve worked as a Staff Officer on a District and at the Regional level, but mostly as a Line Officer – not bad for a chicken farmer, eh? The only time I saw a disconnect between Line and Staff was at the Regional Office. And as far as priorities, I can tell ya a Forest Sup certainly does not have the decision space as they once enjoyed…..
Jim – you make good points all around. Whether an employee is a line officer or a staff officer (or an employee in neither of these two groups), we all were/are public servants and should take that role seriously. Many of us have conversations outside the office with people we know who ask us what is going on. It helps to have that internal 2-way communication (Line telling employees what the decision was and the reason behind it, employees telling Line what the public reactions are to the decision).
I cannot argue that the FS seems to be on the edge of a cliff, not the cutting edge of technology or land management principles.
As for loss of decision space, I believe this all started when our Chief became appointed by the Dept. of Ag. I think many of us back then predicted that political influence would only increase as the years went by. Increased political influence = reduced decision space by line officers.
Anthony “,,,this all started when our Chief became appointed by the Dept. of Ag.”
Are you suggesting the FS picked its own Chief ? I don’t think so. Ever.
Do you mean when USDA appointed career professionals Peterson, Robertson, Thomas (“political appointee”), Dombeck, Bosworth?
What are you saying ??
Thanks for the distinction, Jim. In my ignorant FS youth (1980s), I thought our Chief was selected from within the FS ranks, though I was not aware of how that happened. I remember when Chief Thomas was selected, a big deal was made on how he was a “political appointee”, so I thought that was a distinct difference from how the Chief was selected in the past. I also thought the Chief Thomas’ appointment started a new trend in selecting the Chief – it seemed that the Dept. of Ag was more directly involved.
Maybe a history lesson on how the Forest Service Chief was selected over the decades would help.
Tony, I think it’s a bit more complicated than that..
1. Of course it was always a political appointee.. but how much did the Admin really care? Of course, any Admin has to feel OK with that person.
2. Chief Dombeck was thought to be more of a “political” choice but somehow involved with that was that he had not come through traditional FS channels. Plus he seemed to surround himself (this is my Auditor’s Building view) with advisors from outside ENGOs who weren’t FS employees.
Rumor had it that Chief Dombeck originally wanted the BLM job but.. I can’t remember.. someone wouldn’t support him? Someone else didn’t want the job?
3. Chief Thomas had two different things, he had not gone through SES training, and was from R&D and not NFS.
Anyway, what I perceived as a card-carrying WO drone, was that folks like Undersec Lyons were more directive and hands-on in the selection than had traditionally been the case..
Okay…thanks…that helps clear up my confusion.
I agree that the Chief’s selection has always been political, i.e., not decided by a committee of career civil servants. To remind readers, President Teddy Roosevelt personally selected Gifford Pinchot as the Forest Service’s first chief. How much more political can it get?
Sharon’s point that the degree of political involvement in the Chief’s selection varies by administration is a good one. As Jim Furnish has pointed out elsewhere (Seeing the Forest documentary https://alanhonick.com/seeing-the-forest-2/), the Forest Service invites political oversight when it misbehaves.
Jack Ward Thomas’s selection as Chief by the Clinton administration exemplifies Sharon’s and Jim’s observations. By the time of Clinton’s election, the Forest Service and associated federal agencies had misbehaved big time: “a remarkable series of violations of the environmental laws,” in the words of federal district court Judge Dwyer. The Forest Service violated NEPA and NFMA. The BLM violated NEPA. The Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act. All in defense of the indefensible liquidation of the Pacific Northwest’s ancient forests.
Is it any wonder that the newly-elected President Clinton, who had promised during his campaign to resolve the nation’s thorniest environmental/jobs conflict of the late 20th century, would want a Forest Service chief up to the task. Undersecretary of Agriculture Jim Lyons was assigned the unenviable job of picking up the shattered pieces of national forest policy. Jim selected JWT as point person to lead the Forest Service out of the morass.
I guess you had to be there, as Furnish was, to understand the challenges Clinton, Lyons, and Thomas faced. The Forest Service’s hide-bound, hard-core timber beasts were not going to give up without a fight. And fight they did. Even in retirement, some still continue their hopeless crusade to log national forest timber stands to the forester’s “regulated” forest ideal. [For the non-forester reader, a “regulated” forest is divided into equal-sized acreages of age groups from zero years old to rotation age, determined by financial or physical growth criteria. Christmas tree farms exemplify a regulated forest.]
Anyone who thinks that political problems should be left to civil servants to solve is either a civil servant or hopelessly naive.
Hi Andy: Thanks for this summary and insight. I do have one point of difference, though — I know a lot of “hard core timber beasts” that are still breathing, but I don’t know a single one who is for a “regulated forest.” Not one — I think that’s simplistic and unfair way to frame this ongoing controversy.
Most of the experienced foresters I have worked with through the decades were very concerned that the Clinton Plan’s aftermath would lead to widespread rural unemployment and catastrophic wildfires. These accurate predictions have been a result of major federal policy changes and have nothing to do with the feeble “climate change” excuse that has followed.
“Active management” does not equal a “regulated forest” and I think it is misleading to characterize these differences in that manner.
Bob: We’ll probably just have to agree to disagree. I helped teach the Forest Service how to use its FORPLAN computer model. FORPLAN’s fundamental algorithm is based on the regulated forest: “an equilibrium forest structure, where all age classes have the same number of acres, which delivers a constant timber flow over time.” Ahh, the stories I could tell about lying with FORPLAN. At best, FORPLAN was garbage-in, garbage-out. At worst, Forest Service planners manipulated timber yield tables to get the timber volumes the bureaucracy and its masters demanded.
Hi Andy: I think we are in full agreement. We both think FORPLAN was garbage, and even Norm thought it was more of an inventory tool than for planning to begin with. Almost every decent forester I knew at that time also thought it was garbage, although I did know a few professors and Christmas tree growers who favored a “regulated forest.”
The fact is that forest age classes typically graph as a “U” and not a straight line. That’s just a computer modeling bias. Trees get old and die, or else are killed in a fire or timber sale when mature, and are then replaced with seedlings. Volcanoes, floods, hurricanes, landslides, diseases, and shopping centers are also in the mix.
The point is that the Northwest Forest Plan is a spectacular failure, and has been for many years. The measure can be in wildfires, rural unemployment, air quality, business losses, educational resources, ugly landscapes, or dead animals and the results all point in the same direction — failure. And who has benefitted by this experiment most? Rhetorical question.
It could be argued that every national forest supervisor is “for a regulated forest.” If there are lands classified as suitable for timber production, “timber production” means managing for “regulated crops of trees” (36 CFR 219.19). And then the ASQ (which is/was important to forest supervisors) was based on growing regulated crops of trees on lands suitable for timber production. At least that’s the book answer.
Whoa, Andy, I was there too, just as much, and longer (albeit not among the powerful) than Jim. Rhey Solomon was my boss in RPA, and he kept getting pulled off because the FS had gotten a D on its environmental scorecard. I put up a No NEPA Allowed sign on his cubicle, but it didn’t work.
As an underling, and non-timber beast, I observed a certain air of self-righteousness and contempt for our employees that I personally found irritating. I don’t know how much that added to the less than positive relationships with other employees.
I remember that yours was the prevailing agency take on Jim Lyons, bordering on hostility. Cause/effect? In my own personal experience, he was perceptive and complimentary.
I can well understand why Lyons might have ruffled Forest Service feathers. In his first week as USDA Undersecretary, Jim hopped a plane to Seattle to meet with the spotted owl plaintiffs’ lawyers. He did so unaccompanied by the usual agency handlers; in fact, he didn’t tell the Forest Service of his visit at all. Jim spent the better part of a week with us, successfully negotiating the terms of a partial settlement to the owl litigation. He did what no previous USDA official was willing to do; he talked to the “other” side. That he didn’t regard the environmental plaintiffs as the enemy was key to his success.
In my experience, Jim was bright and a pleasure to know. He knew who his bosses were — the Secretary and the President. Not the Forest Service. I never got the impression that he disrespected the Forest Service or its employees. Frustrated on occasion? Sure. Who wouldn’t be given the cards the Forest Service dealt him. Jim, more than anyone else, rescued the Forest Service from the worst legal and public relations debacle in its history. That was the job President Clinton assigned him. I thought the job was impossible. Jim proved me wrong.
I don’t want to be uncharitable about an individual here- we have all grown and changed. Nevertheless, I have plenty of experiences from that time period of the reaching down of the Politically Powerful and Connected to even district projects.. yes, that was all in the name of rectitude, I’m sure, but it felt like the exercise of political power in a way that was the first of its kind. When I worked on biotech regulation, I didn’t get the same kind of vibe from any other politicos, in fact at the end of the day the Clinton Admin CEQ backed down from our recommendations for regulation of genetically engineered organisms. I was reviewing the 2001 planning rule as part of clearance, and it seemed to me at the time that environmental concerns were politically fungible and maybe to some extent, rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies were inextricably entwined with which environmental concerns the Admin went after and to what degree.
There was also his proposal to combine R1 and R4 in Ogden, which didn’t go over well in Missoula.
Mike Dombeck was radioactive for the BLM Director in the Clinton Administration because he led the BLM effort in the Presidential proclamation of the Grand Staircase – Escalante National Monument in October of 1996, thus sealing his fate with the Senate.
Former Chief Christiansen, whose resume included state forester positions in Washington and Arizona, was named Chief in 2018 in the Trump Administration. While the Chief does not require a confirmation hearing, the appointee must be simpatico with the administration.
Vilsack has taken this to a new level with his open misogyny. He fired the first and second female chiefs. Now that is political!
Pecos Ranger: Maybe you’re privy to insider information unknown to the rest of the world. The Congressional Record has this to say about former Chief Gail Kimbell: “On July 31, 2009, Gail Kimbell will be retiring from the Forest Service with 35-plus years of service to that agency and our country.” Ditto for Vicki Christiansen, who retired after a 40-year career.
I see no evidence that Chiefs Christiansen or Kimball were fired. Put up or shut up, Pecos.
Pecos is spot on; the details of the firing of Kimball were laid out in OIG documentation, that was on the Internet – one day and time. It had to do with a Director at ASC during the early years, and financial shenanigans that were “misrepresented” as verdad! I have copies of the documents on my computer; needless to say, my mouth was agape over the validation. Did it cause Gail to be fired? Don’t know, I think it was a decision of her way or the highway!
No idea on Chief Christensen…….
No, I didn’t have any special mechanism of seeing the documents, like I say, they were on the internet! And to boot, I liked both of these female Chiefs……
1) “Did it cause Gail to be fired? Don’t know.”
2) “No idea on Chief Christensen …..”
3) “Pecos is spot on.”
Please explain to me how 1 plus 2 leads you to conclusion 3.
I’m being polite! Lots more I could say but won’t, that’s the way I roll, Andy……. Maybe I’d recommend searching on your own….
Jim, IMHO you should write up what you have on your computer. History is a thing. I read in a history book that was the textbook for a Colorado College (small but politically mighty liberal arts college) that the reason for the drop in timber in the PNW was that.. they had cut all the trees.
This is what I said at the time at one of our RLTs about Gail.. “they are making her life miserable because they want her out.” They don’t like her, for whatever reason. Their friends don’t like her? Politics? Who knows?
Even as far down the food chain as humble Regional Planning Directors, people have a way of making your life miserable enough so that you retire. I’m always amazed at how long Chiefs hang in there when every day is like “how are my bosses going to poke me today?”
Currently in Eastern Oregon and a long way from my home computer. When I get back in early October, I can post a link and let everybody surmise their own conclusions. To me, it was quite the eye opening to actually read the investigation; and, to be able to read it in the first place…..
I regard it as simply amazing that the FS enjoyed relatively little political interference in “who’s the next Chief?” for so long. Yes, this trend ended abruptly in the early 90s with the selection of JWT. As Dale Robertson noted, wryly, to his wife while watching Clinton name Gore his VP pick – “I’m a goner”. I think FS leaders had been pretty cagey and calculating in queuing up the next Chief. I recall Jeff Sirmon (Dep Chief and R-6 RF) saying they always wanted to have 2-3 worthy successors lined up, and the Chief often retired well prior to an election to make the transition less politically charged. Robertson decided to ride the bull. JWT was promised he would be transitioned to a career SES post; this did not happen. Yet even now (lone exception being JWT), Chief picks are STILL career professionals. FS remains perhaps unique in this regard.