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

Since I had to get on LinkedIn for the SAF group (which is open to all and has interesting discussions), I also signed up for the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, which helps place federal lands issues within the context of other public debates.

They posted a link to this essay by Darin Atteberry, City Manager, Fort Collins, CO and Alliance for Innovation Board Member today. Here’s an excerpt:

While I cannot understate the character and commitment of public employees, it is crucial that we understand that public service is not solely the responsibility of government. All of us – from individual residents to global organizations – have to share in the responsibility of caring for our communities.

Our perception of public service must evolve. Governments at all levels no longer have the resources and ability to play the traditional role of problem solver. And quite frankly, the assertion that government has all the answers is an outdated and paternalistic model. Instead, governments, residents, organizations, the private sector, and nonprofits need to redefine our relationships. We must cultivate a collaborative problem-solving culture where we all have the responsibility to address challenges and prepare for the future together.

This is the true value of public service; it’s the ability to bring people together to accomplish a common goal. To help move beyond political beliefs, and beyond the hard lines we too often draw between your opinion and mine. I believe that people, at their core, care about their community, however that may be defined. Some may want less government, some may want more, but most want to live in a place that’s safe, welcoming, and where people genuinely care for one another.

If we can all agree that we play an important role as public servants, then we can elevate our conversations to address real issues. We can all take responsibility for our actions and speech. We can disagree while maintaining civility and an authentic commitment to find solutions that are best for our community. We can pledge to behave with integrity and candor with the intent to foster trust, because trust is imperative.

I believe public service reaches beyond a responsibility to our current community. We have a growing obligation to ensure that our current plans, investments, and actions do not harm future generations. We need to genuinely embrace a model of sustainability in which environmental stewardship, fiscal responsibility, and social awareness are equally important.

It’s our job as public servants to contribute to quality of life, to demonstrate transparency, to pursue excellence, to innovate, to collaborate, and most importantly to lead by example. This is not a profession to choose without thoughtful consideration. There is certainly more fortune, free time, and privacy to be found in other careers. But I can think of no other occupation more rewarding.

Theodore Roosevelt said it best, “Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.” By that definition, we’ve all earned the prize.

Do you agree? What do you think keeps “us” from that approach in federal land management?

Normally I try not to mix Society of American Forester business with this blog, except for the fact that I learn things from that work I share here and vice versa. In this case, though, I’m interested in getting as broad a set of ideas and experiences and thoughts as possible, and I know that folks on this blog have such a variety.

So here it is. The SAF has a position statement that originated in the 90’s on “Professionalism in Public Natural Resource Management Agencies.” Here’s a link. It has a historic perspective that I think is out of date (like SES is here to stay). I’m wondering what folks think the issues around professionalism (and here I am thinking more broadly, planning, wildlife, hydrology) are in the natural resource agencies you all work for or deal with.

Since I retired, I have no idea what’s current. In the year before I left the Forest Service, I was told “work on the Committee on Forest Policy has nothing to do with your job” and “if you give a talk at a professional conference you must pay your own way, use leave, and even if you do that, you should really not go, because people don’t know who is funding you and might think you are violating USDA travel policy.” I was required to call the program folks at one conference and have them change my Forest Service affiliation on the program (yes, I was proud to give my affiliation instead as the administrator of this blog). Fortunately, the organizers were used to Dilbertian requests and didn’t bat an eye.

Hopefully, my experiences were a rare warp in the space-time professional continuum. I hope that FS folks are generally following the spirit of Chief Dombeck’s letter on professionalism, which has not been rescinded that I know of.

Anyway, I’m curious about what folks see the issues of today to be.

This is always a popular post. Here’s the link. Indeed, there are many things worth exploring. I was surprised that in 2011 there was such an exodus of employees about 4.5k of 30.5 K or about 15%. What’s odd about that is that I was still working then and don’t remember hearing about it.

Does anyone know of any public or FOIAble reports attempts to understand more about this.. If you asked Public Affairs, “does this seem like a problem?” and “what actions have been taken?”, I wonder what the answer would be?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am way behind on posting, both on this blog and on Virtual Book Club, and with the quarter over, am working assiduously to catch up.

Here is a piece from Char Miller from the Journal of Forestry.

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.