Forest Service: Culture, History, Morale, Organization, Future

U.S. Forest Service faces civil right claims in Colorado, N.M. Read more: U.S. Forest Service faces civil right claims in Colorado, New Mexico

by

Here’s the link and below is an excerpt. For those tracking what papers (local, regional, national) publish what articles, this is from the Denver Post.

The Northern New Mexico Stockman’s Association has sent a letter to Vilsack and a White House senior policy adviser in response to a federal review that shows the U.S. Forest Service in New Mexico and Colorado was not complying with several civil rights requirements, including policies aimed at helping people who speak limited English.

The review also found the agency was inconsistent in implementing policies and procedures, namely when it came to the termination or suspension of grazing permits.

“The issue of access to grazing permits is of vital importance to the minority Hispanic and Native American ranchers in Colorado and New Mexico and has long been a source of conflict with the (Forest Service) over complaints of discriminatory practices,” the ranchers told Vilsack in their letter dated Jan. 6.

The Forest Service did not directly address the lack of civil rights compliance or the ranchers’ claims of discrimination.

The USDA’s Office of Compliance, Policy, Training and Cultural Transformation conducted a review last spring, interviewing about 100 agency managers and employees and more than 135 permit holders.

The report states that civil rights training has fallen by the wayside for many employees and the training that does take place is largely ineffective. Also, the agency’s anti-discrimination statement was consistently omitted from key documents, including grazing permit applications, and there was no evidence that brochures or websites were offered in any other language than English.

Forest Service representatives are supposed to meet with ranchers to discuss annual operating plans. However, the report found that employees prepared the instructions and told the ranchers to “take it or leave it” with little or no discussion.

According to the report, ranchers told the reviewers that Forest Service staff uses “Gestapo” intimidation tactics, such as constant threats, suspension of permits, retaliation and discrimination.

Agency officials in Washington, D.C., said the compliance reviews are done each year.

“The Forest Service takes the recommendations in the programmatic review seriously and views this report as an opportunity to better serve its constituents,” spokesman Larry Chambers said.

The report, which was issued in June as an internal document and obtained by the ranchers six months after filing a public records request, stated that the Forest Service must develop a detailed corrective action plan within 60 days. It is unclear if that has been done.

The question in my mind is whether these are truly discriminatory or it is about Regulators and Regulated Not Getting Along. Like People Not Getting Along at Work, sometimes it’s really hard to tell if the root cause is discrimination or others of the many forces that cause difficulties among different people.

FS Office of Communication Investigation FOIA Request

by

For those not following the missing, but now found, Forest Service employee contact information (started as a post by Andy Stahl and most recently updated here), Billy Schneider sent this in. While relevant to that thread, it also seemed interesting on its own. Here’s the link he sent and below is an excerpt.

This is a FOIA request related to the USDA Forest Service’s Office of the Chief, Office of Communication, Misconduct Investigation that was launched in 2013 and specifically the report that was produced from the investigation.

We all understand the sensitivity of releasing such reports which contain information protected by privacy laws. However, members of USDA’s legal counsel can, I’m sure, find an appropriate balance between privacy and the public’s right to know.

Regarding a similar misconduct matter, here’s a quote from a DOD IG spokeswoman who explained the balancing act between privacy and the public’s right to know. “Because such investigations involve information that may address the privacy concerns of the subject as well as witnesses and persons interviewed, reports of investigations frequently must be redacted extensively prior to release to the public. It has been the long standing practice of our office to release these reports in response to FOIA requests.”

Note the last line that, “It has been the long standing practice of our office to release these reports in response to FOIA requests.” Things should be no different at USDA.

Quote source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2013/11/07/smokey-bear-says-only-you-can-prevent-government-officials-misconduct/

He’s also requesting a count of veterans employed in the office.

Employee Search To Be Restored

by

An employee sent me this link which gives some temporary links..

Employee Search Temporarily Unavailable
Our Employee Search capability is currently offline. We are working to restore this service and hope to have it back as soon as possible. We apologize for any inconvenience and appreciate your patience.

It’s good to find out the answer, but I wonder if Andy ever heard back from any of the folks he called.

USDA Gets A for Plain Writing

by

plain language

As a veteran of several bouts of regulation writing, I think the idea in the Government Executive piece below for plain English regulation is great. I always suggested we start with the policy ideas in plain English, get those hashed out, and then convert to legalisms required in rule language. Unfortunately, that’s not the way it goes, so policy issues get worked out in each word, sentence and paragraph, bouncing around in agreements with different internal and external actors until a regulation is almost incomprehensible (and not necessarily internally consistent).

I think it’s an experiment worth trying, anyway. During one round of one regulation, we attempted to get all the people in the room and finalize various policy calls, but politicking went on after that with different players (whoops, did not send the right people to the meeting). The nature of people influencing rulemaking may make it impossible for clarity, except perhaps for a project with a timeline of infinity ;).

From an FS source:

For this year’s Plain Writing report card USDA received a grade of A for compliance with the Act and a grade of B for demonstrating clear writing principles, which matched our grades in the 2012 report card. Surely the Forest Service played a role in those grades, though I also see the Department received a ClearMark Merit Award for its online plain writing course (https://aglearn.usda.gov/customcontent/OES/OES-PlainWriting-web/Player/launchPlayer.html?courseID=1455&courseCode=USDA-PWTR01) and APHIS received an Award of Distinction for its “Hungry Pest” outreach materials (http://www.hungrypests.com/partner-tools/HP-Brochure-FL.pdf)

And the piece from Government Executive:

Analysis: The High Cost of Gobbledygook

By Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa

November 19, 2013

Do you experience a creeping sense of dread when a letter arrives in the mail from a government agency or before you sign an official government form? Do you find yourself asking, “What does this mean?” or “What happens if I’m mistaken?”

You are not alone. Confusing language is frustrating. But beyond our frustration are real consequences if we misunderstand government documents and regulations. Confusing language leads to mistakes that have dramatic consequences for our health, safety and financial security. Think of the ramifications of failing to understand changes in our mortgages, or being confused by Medicare prescription drug information, or not having enough income taxes withheld from our paycheck.

Confusing government language also places a tremendous financial burden on individuals, businesses and taxpayers. When we don’t understand the letter we got explaining that our interest rates are going up or telling us what our new health care plan covers, we pick up the phone and call the help center. It takes labor, money and time to fix problems created when people are confused.

Busy call centers are just one hidden cost of confusing language. The National Small Business Association has estimated that businesses with fewer than 20 employees pay an extra $7,600 per employee annually to comply with confusing regulations.

There’s a lot of disagreement in Washington about the scope of government – whether certain regulations or even whole agencies should even exist. But regardless of where you fall on the partisan spectrum, I think we can all agree that if a government regulation, rule, form or document exists, it should be written in language that can be understood by the intended audience.

Fortunately, there’s a movement building among good government groups and concerned Americans to reform the way the government communicates with American citizens. Together, we’ve championed two proposals that would save taxpayers billions of dollars and instill more confidence in government.

In 2010, President Obama signed into law the Plain Writing Act, legislation I wrote that requires federal agencies to write public documents in easy-to-understand language.

This week, the Center for Plain Language released its second “Plain Writing Report Card,” grading federal agencies on their efforts to implement the requirements of the Plain Writing Act. The report card predictably identified a reluctance by federal agencies to change ingrained habits. Several agencies are lagging far behind the requirements of the law. But progress is being made.

The Center also just opened nominations for its 2014 ClearMark Awards, applauding examples of plain writing at its best. (The Center also awards the WonderMark Award, a sort of “Razzie” award designed to shame the worst of the worst.)

The next frontier for reform is the Plain Regulations Act, legislation that would expand plain writing requirements to federal rules and regulations. Federal regulations are often the worst violators of plain writing best practices. We’re working to build momentum behind this common-sense proposal and remain hopeful about the possibility of passing this bill into law.

You deserve to receive information from federal agencies in language you can understand. Join the plain language movement today, and insist on clearer communication tomorrow.

Click here to view the 2013 Plain Writing Report Card.

Here’s a related TED Talk by Alan Siegel.

Welcome Back, Feds!

by

welcome back

It was great to hear your voices again … we missed you :)!
Had the occasion to call a Supervisor’s Office.. told the receptionist that I was glad to have them back and I appreciate their service. Please consider doing suchlike when you talk to your favorite Fed (or even a random one you happen to be talking to). Positive words are cheap, yet effective at making the world a better place, IMHO.

WATCHDOG: The post where we say nice things about the Forest Service

by

from the Rapid City Journal here.

WATCHDOG: The post where we say nice things about the Forest Service
Print Email
18 hours ago • Joe O’Sullivan Journal staff

“The older I get the more I admire and crave competence, just simple competence, in any field from adultery to zoology.” ~ H.L. Mencken

It’s surreal to thank people for just doing their job, because, after all, they’re just doing their job. But there are few consequences to breaking public records laws, and many government entities don’t — or won’t — comply quickly (or at all) to requests for records. Or even public information.

And while Public Records Watchdog focuses on the latter half of the carrot-and-stick approach, I thought I’d throw a carrot out there.

U.S. Forest Service: congratulations, have a carrot.

Last week, two separate Forest Service regions helped get us information for our story on how exploding targets are causing wildfires. The Black Hills National Forest folks helped make available a fire investigator who could speak with authority on the growing number of wildfires started by exploding targets used by shooters.

The regional office that oversees the Nebraska National Forest and Grasslands wouldn’t let us interview a local patrol captain about last year’s Spotted Tail fire near Chadron. But Forest Service spokeswoman Cyd Janssen called us back on deadline and got us the information we needed. Good on her.

[The regional office should answer for why no law enforcement at Nebraska National Forest and Grasslands is allowed to talk to the press about an investigation financed by public money about a fire on public land, and extinguished with fire trucks paid by the public. But that’s for another day.]

The Forest Service also sent me this week a series of Black Hills National Forest logging contracts that I’d requested in May through the Freedom of Information Act. A spokesperson told me that the disc containing the contracts was being held by law enforcement, but the Forest Service worked it out and got us requested documents. Considering FOIA requests often take months or years for federal government agencies to complete, two months for a fat stack of contracts isn’t bad.

We’ll be writing about the logging contracts soon, so stay tuned. In the meantime, open government people, keep the faith. And Forest Service, enjoy your carrot.

Sharon’s note: Anybody who quotes Mencken has earned some warm fuzzies from me. What a difference a forest can make! Good on you, Nebraska and Black Hills!

Privatization vs. Insourcing

by

Thanks to Kitty Benzar for this link … Below is an excerpt.

The most commonly reported reason for insourcing is inadequate service quality, followed by inadequate cost savings. Using 2002 and 2007 survey data from the International City/County Management Association, researchers examined why city managers decided to bring previously privatized services back in-house. In both years, the top reasons were problems with service quality and lack of cost savings when the service was privatized.

Of the local governments that insourced services, 61% said that the reason was a decline in service quality, while 52% said that there were insufficient cost savings.2 The researcher concluded that citizens prefer local services to be locally controlled and publicly delivered.3
Insourcing is a viable and popular option.

Research shows that from 2002 to 2007, the rates of outsourcing and insourcing among local governments were about equal. 11% of municipalities surveyed contracted out services previously performed by city employees, while 12% took contracted functions back in-house.4 Insourcing has also gained traction in the federal government, as agencies including the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Army, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of Defense are increasingly bringing contractor jobs back to the public sector to successfully save money and reduce debt.

Insourcing creates good jobs, while saving money.

A recent study by the Project on Government Oversight showed that the federal government pays almost twice for contracted services than what it would cost if public workers performed the same job, even when accounting for the long-term employee benefits of federal workers. The study found that even though many public employees are paid higher salaries and receive better benefits than contractor employees, the lower compensation of the contractor employee was more than offset by the overhead, executive compensation, and profits that the contractor company charged the government.6 By bringing contracted functions back in-house, the government is often able to create good family-supporting jobs, while saving valuable taxpayer funds. For example, when the Department of Homeland Security insourced 200 previously contracted technology jobs, the agency was able to save $27 million that year not by lowering employee pay, but by cutting out the fees that they had to pay the private contractor.

In my experience, the desire to contract is more about ideology than reality. Plus it comes with the creation of separate lobbying needs.. remember Eisenhower and the “military industrial complex”? That’s how I feel about the risk of concessionaires.

I feel like using concessionaires for campgrounds is like being the pastor of a church and sending contractors to your flock’s bedsides when they are dying. When the public is with you camping or at other times, is the time to make a difference and really touch their lives (those folks who own our public lands). Even for kids at the campground be able to say “I want to work for the Forest Service, because they helped us, or I really learned from that ranger talk.. or ..” “I want to work in public service and wear a uniform with history.” All these things are very right-brained, but the important things in life are all that way (love, spirituality, art). Rearranging our lives around the apparently cheapest way to do things, regardless of implications to others, is not a compelling philosophy.

Our former RF would say that the Park Service has that right.. the brand, the uniform, the respect for people .. I would say presence is a sacred act, the most sacred to honor a person.

Kissing the Past Gently Good-bye

by

mandela

Yesterday I spent the day doing other things, so didn’t see Bob’s post on the Tinder Box book until last night.

We have posted on the book before (last October, even with a photo on the cover) with some interesting discussion here.

Here is a bit of my take and another side. But as folks can tell, it is kind of silly on the surface. I was in Region 5 before the Consent Decree and people were grumpy about “losing herbicides” and not having as much money as Region 6. They also didn’t understand how women in fire wouldn’t move down from Region 6 to take a downgrade! There was something very strange about the way it was (mis) managed in 5 compared to 6. But since the people running things at the time were not women, then it really couldn’t have been women’s fault. Similarly, the CD was only in Region 5, which is not equivalent to the Forest Service as a whole. Region 6, where I started, seemed to have an attitude “just get on with it, if we don’t do it on our own terms, we’ll do it on someone else’s.” Of course, they had more money.. and so on the conversation could go.

But I think Travis said something very pertinent in his comment here, and after all, as I understand it, Travis is one of the future generation:

I also liked that Travis quoted Faulkner “the past is not dead, it’s not even past”.

This is “a new century” for the Forest Service, as the blog title suggests. Misogynistic, spiteful, morally-wrong and legally-impossible arguments are not helpful in a debate about the direction of the agency in the 21st century.

I read that comment, and then saw the Mandela quote posted above.

What would it take for us to leave our past (timber wars in Oregon, diversity wars in California) behind and imagine a future as good as we could all mutually make it?

Federal workers would get cash for pinpointing government savings

by

Thanks to an alert reader for this submission:

Hope there is a panel of (volunteer) externals to review these for each agency..otherwise we’ll we might have suggestions like “answering the phone even less often when federal retirees call OMB..”

I think the FS might have done something like this during the Pilot period. It was very incentivizing! Hopefully retirees can also input suggestions and maybe get a half of one percent? How about contractors and the public?

P.S. I don’t know anyone who believes that end-of-year spending flurries are the optimum use of federal resources.

WASHINGTON — By MICHAEL COLLINS

Federal employees could soon have a big incentive to help the government save money: They could take home a share of the savings.

A bill filed Thursday by U.S. Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., would give bonuses to federal workers who come up with ways for the government to save money. The employees could receive 1 percent of the total cost savings, or up to $10,000.

Fleischmann said offering the bonuses would not only be a way to encourage workers to cut wasteful spending, it also could return to the U.S. Treasury millions of unused tax dollars that could then be applied toward deficit reduction.

“This is a bill that I think will appeal to all fiscally responsible members of Congress — Republicans and Democrats — because it’s just a good, common sense bill,” Fleischmann said.

Federal agencies are appropriated a certain amount of funds every year. “Right now, sadly, what happens is when a government agency is allotted funds, sometimes those funds are not really needed,” Fleischmann said.

Regardless, critics say, agencies rush to spend unused dollars in the last quarter of the fiscal year, encouraging a “use-it-or-lose-it” mentality.

Fleischmann’s bill, known as the EASY Savings Act, seeks to end that practice by encouraging government workers to look for and suggest ways to stop frivolous spending. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has filed the Senate version of the bill.

The legislation has bipartisan support and has been endorsed by the American Taxpayers Union and other government watchdog groups.

“In order to bring spending reform to Washington, we need to make fundamental changes such as improving the incentive structure,” said James Valvo, director of policy for Americans For Prosperity. “The EASY Savings Act would provide better incentives for federal agencies and grant recipients to return unused funds for deficit reduction.”