Remember when DOGE tried to get rid of probationaries, which was problematic because the FS had hired so many people (Chief Moore said 5400) many of them on authorities that had two year probationary periods? And many of whom (as we heard complaints at the time) were not in field oriented positions? Without an apparent plan of what positions were most important to fill?
But then a court case said “you can’t do that” and so the FS in this Admin had to use voluntary authorities. So let’s circle back to something Chief Moore said last fall:
And you know us once we get going, we are very successful. We actually hired about 5,400 people, you know, we didn’t have a governor in there, you know. We it didn’t it didn’t just stop, you know. So 5,400 people.
And so when you talk about what the Forest Service was behind, it was never $700 million, what was mentioned. It was about $500 million. But here’s the thing. Our plan, we had 10 years to spend that money. More like eight years to spend that money. On the average, we lost about 2,000 employees a year through attrition. So, we know that at worst, we could reach that 5,000 employees over two and a half, three years. And that’s what we were looking at doing, but we needed to hire a lot of people to do that additional work that we’re being asked to do. And so, that’s why we hired the additional 5,000 people.
What occurred to me recently is that..if the FS first discovered the deficit in 2024 (based on this September 17th all-employee call) then the extra hiring must have been done prior to that. Let’s say 2022-2023.
Based on..the concept that the extra people (hired with soft money) would be balanced out by those who were retiring.. so in 2026, the FS would have ended up by losing the same number of folks. And because of the court case against the DOGE going after probationaries, those are people who went voluntarily. It seems as if we put those pieces together, and realize that this is 2026, the FS would have lost that number anyway, even if the previous Admin had continued with their plans.
Were those folks who left different folks than would have “naturally” retired? I’m not sure we know. In fact if the models of losing 2K people a year to retirement were correct, programs like VERA may have caused the FS to lose more than the 5300 or whatever it ended up being.
But the next time you hear or read, “the Forest Service lost 20% of its workforce due to DOGE” or whatever, you will know that the real story, as usual, is likely a great deal more complicated.
Yes indeed it is a lot more complicated, the real story. It is a legitimate and maybe even necessary discussion to have, reforming the Forest Service. I can’t argue with an effort to make positive changes to the Forest Service that will stand the test of time. However, Chief Schultz took over the reigns of the FS literally a few days after Elon Musk sent out 3400 IDENTICAL LETTERS to probationary employees, with only the names changed at the top, and identical wording stating that they were removed immediately for poor performance. Not only did he not insist on a review of the termination methods used by DOGE, he has since doubled down in support of those methods by appealing Judge Alsup’s well reasoned, thoughtful ruling in favor of the probationary employees (see Alsup: Northern District of California/AFGE v. US Office of PM, No. 3:25-cv-1780 WHA). I personally know a couple of these probationary employees, who have shared their letters of termination and their most recent job evaluations. Being recommended for and receiving a cash award for “excellence” (the exact wording in the job evaluation ) does not smell like “poor performance”- in fact , it has the aura of a potentially superb young “next generation” land manager. Brooke Rollins and the USDA joined Chief Schultz and the USFS in the appeal of the Alsup ruling. So my question is this- do we have to accept the DOGE terminations (specifically the way in which they were handled with the heaviest of hands) as the new norm within the Forest Service hierarchy, and more specifically as the way in which OUR OWN GOVERNMENT operates? The fact that the Chief of the Forest Service has approved of the way these terminations were handled (how can we conclude anything else in light of the fact he did not call for a review of how the probationary employees were fired, and since has joined in the appeal of Judge Alsup’s thoughtful and impeccable ruling? ) Delve into the particulars of the good Judge’s reasoning and you can only conclude one thing- that he is on the right side of this equation and that the Chief has failed us all in his approach to the appeal. Tacit approval of Elon Musk’s methods smells pretty bad from my perch. It is not too late for the Chief to initiate a review of the termination methods – it needs to happen and it can’t happen fast enough. A first step would be to withdraw the appeal of the Alsup ruling and simply admit that the WAY in which the firings were initiated and carried out was sickening by any standard of fairness and decency. Until this happens the Chief diminishes himself and the position he holds within our government.
I think when you work for other people, as Chief Schultz does, your hands may be tied. I think many people don’t appreciate the work of “keeping superiors from doing the worst things” and “encouraging superiors to do better things” many folks are doing that in the FS right now. You said ” Brooke Rollins and the USDA joined Chief Schultz and the USFS in the appeal of the Alsup ruling”. In my experience, the Chief of the Forest Service works for the Secretary. The Sec has bigger fish to fry than the FS.
What would you prefer that the Chief had done?
It seems to be water under the bridge right now.
“when you work for other people. . . . . ” doesn’t he work for us all Sharon? to suggest this is “water under the bridge” completely missed the point of my post.
The way the executive branch works is that people get to vote and elected officials appoint people who decide.
If every federal employee got to interpret the “will of the people” it would be chaos.
What was the point?
The point is very simply that the way the firings took place, by our own government, was wrong by any measure of fairness, and that to accept it as “water under the bridge” establishes a nightmarish precedent for future Forest Service employees . Ask yourself this Sharon- if your niece had been fired for “poor performance” after having been given a cash award for “excellence” as a young land manager in training, might you feel different than your dismissive reply to my post? And to answer your question directly “what would i expect from Chief Schultz?” The Forest Service is his agency now and he is in a position to “prevent his superior’s worst instincts”- meaning he is in a premier position to sit down with his boss, Brooke Rollins, and state clearly he objected to the MANNER in which the firings took place (not the terminations themselves, but the MANNER). He may not have been able to effect the change he wanted, but as my Chief of the Forest Service, this is what i would have expected of him. He did not do this. He could have made a public statement softening the blow to the probationary employees- he did not do this. This is the tip of the iceberg of the story, there is a lot more context that makes it even harder to justify , and to dismiss as “water under the bridge”. It is anything but water under the bridge.
Hmm. I actually had a very similar experience. One year I received a cash award for performance, and the next year was moved out of my job and given a poor performance rating. When I grieved it, I was returned to my position. Kind of similar to the judge’s decision. Of course, I was old enough not to take bureaucracies too seriously in terms of anyone’s views about my performance. No, I definitely think it was a Bad Thing! Absolutely. However, being old, I have seen many Bad Things done to employees.
Maybe Chief Schultz did tell Secretary Rollins that it was a bad idea. I don’t think we know whether he did or not.
“He could have made a public statement softening the blow to the probationary employees- he did not do this.” I have two thoughts on this..
1) I don’t know what he said because it would have been on the internal server and someone would have had to send it to me.
2) But really, the same people criticizing him for not saying anything would have criticized whatever he said -“empty words” “hypocrite”.
Wow Sharon, this is all new information to me; you were removed? Over Colorado Roadless? 🤣🤣. I’m surprised I wasn’t just fired when I came in after you, I always had you as a pinnacle; something to strive to even be mentioned in the same breath as you! Well, I maybe am over exaggerating just a bit – but not much!
I was threatened with removal when I was on the Black Hills as Forest Sup; I believe it was stated as “if you can’t get it done (timber targets) we’ll find someone who will”! Luckily, I had already filed my retirement papers, I was trying to get back to spend some time with my mom, who was in failing health. That didn’t pan out after all….
Jim, I hope someone eventually writes a book about all that has happened on the Black Hills over the last 20 years. They definitely need to interview you! This whole saga will be a sad chapter for the Forest Service. I think the part that gets me the most is the lack of courage shown by many in leadership to deal with the situation. You told truth to power, and it sounds like you paid a price for it. Thanks for speaking the truth.
Dave, I’ve never seen the FS so hell bent on wiping out every standing tree that would make a board! And to think that industry was being led down a rathole, purposely…. I was old enough and stubborn enough to not take crap from weak leaders! I saw it from both inside and outside the RO, and was ashamed of the close-minded, self interest of some of my superiors AND coworkers!
But I LOVE retirement! 🤠
I forgot one thing Dave, those folks on the Black Hills were some of the finest I ever worked with! I wish I had found The Hills when I was younger, what a place! I always tell folks “you better lace up your boot straps up there because you are going to work!”
Well, I don’t really really know why exactly. That’s the beauty of political machinations and politically oriented employees… I have some great stories! If you’re ever in the Denver Metro or in Co Springs we should have a beer and I’ll tell you some.
My point was that there’s always going to be bureaucratic BS.. even Prez Reagan, when I started, was not a fan of federal employees. You can’t let it get to you, and it helps if you don’t take it seriously. Like really, all probationaries were OK, but this year, they’re not.