Thanks to everyone who responded to the previous question! Especially those currently working.
Since our last post on this, we have found out about the election. But looking over what people have written, it’s interesting how much is within the purview of the Forest Service itself to improve and fix. And like we used to do in NEPA in the WO, we can take good ideas, and argue for them in a way that appeals to the new Admin’s interests and goals. As with other years, we can generate our own TSW Transition Recommendations.
So let’s dig deeper into the discussion.
Here’s my first cut at Things We Agree On (and if we don’t, let me know)
1. More funding for LE
2. More funding for access and encroachment issues.
3. Data systems should be built to answer the questions line officers and specialists face on a regular basis that could help them make decisions, define trade-offs, and communicate such to the public. This includes funding and accomplishments of grantees.
4. Making sure that appropriate orientation is given new employees.
***************************
Then we have the organizational stuff. Both FS and BLM have experiences with this.. for example, reducing or eliminating the RO in Region 9 (was anyone here involved? How did it go? Why did they go back? And then the story of the BLM removing a layer during Reinvention and restoring it. Then there was an effort (I don’t think it was called Reformation, but the names all run together) when I worked in the R-2 RO where the engineers carefully outlined the different kinds of tasks they had (budget formulation, quality control, and expertise) and reoriented and downsized their staff. Probably many other staffs in other Regions did this as well. So there’s a great deal of knowledge out there. But what has changed since then? The budget, work at home, more new employees and so on.
Jim Furnish: “I also favor getting rid of Regional Offices (but leave a small cadre there to deal with States, interagency stuff). The computer era can deal with budget formulation/distribution. Yes, get more people back at the RD level.
As everyone knows, I am not a political animal. So I don’t know if the idea of a Regional Forester gives the FS more political heft than a group of Supes. And that may vary by state. Maybe have a State Director instead of an RF, like the BLM? And if there is interagency stuff, wouldn’t the State have to pull from forest people to do the work, which defeats the purpose of getting more work to the ground. I guess there’s a workload for Interagency Stuff Bigger Than One Forest (say a lynx amendment). Which perhaps leads us to Greg’s suggestion:
Thorough analysis of all permanent positions as to what they are really contributing.
Or getting some idea of what the work actually is. I think this is particularly important today, as with agreements like the Keystone Agreements, there is potential for grantees to be doing certain kinds of jobs previously thought to be federal. It seems like this would help the FS be conscious of which work to farm out and which work to keep.
Then we have some really big picture thoughts from Jim Zornes:
Remove NFS from the WO and make it its own entity. Take all the other Deputy Areas (Business Ops, CIO, Planning, Lands and Special Uses, S & PF, Research and HR) and put them together with the BLM! Reorganize that mess to remove repetitive functions between the two Agencies, making one service area for everything but NPS. NFS would be extractive resources; mining, timber, wildlife, range and recreation. I may have missed something – sorry. Close all Regional Offices and supercharge the Supervisors Offices with those RO staff areas in SO’s that would make sense for that old Region. Those SO’s would become the only other management center between the BLM/FS and RD’s.
That organization would remove at least 1/3, if not 1/2 of the employees, saving $ and streamlining work on the ground. Fire would be in NFS, but not stovepiped as it is now. More boots on the ground – cross trained in resource management and fire/fuels. LE & I would not be under the NFS.
I’ve probably told the story that when we in Region 2 had trouble getting our folks paid through ABQ, our Regional Forester (Rick Cables) talked about contracting with BLM at their Denver Center for HR). On the other hand, as I’ve also said, for some HR topics (employee relations), human to human relations are critical
I’m not with Jim on planning (although an analysis and maybe modernizing NFMA might be good), and lands and special uses actually need more attention. Pulling S&PF out of the FS would tend to break down their natural alliances with NIFA-Extension and NRCS (although someone might want to look at all three for gaps and overlaps). R&D would be folded into USGS which I think would be bad for the linkage to real-world problems with FS folks.
I would be wary of getting too much with the BLM due to their political bent. However, it might be helpful to go back and look at past successes to streamline position sharing, budget exchanges, harmonizing shared regulations (to help the public understand better) and dual delegation. On interspersed lands, visitors can’t tell whose ownership they’re on and how different the rules might be, nor even to whom they should direct questions and complaints. I remember we had two Public Lands Centers at one time in Region 2 (and we conducted a joint administrative review with the BLM on the San Juan Public Lands Center) and there the public liked it, as well as many employees.
**********