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

To All Employees,

I write to you today for two reasons. One, to let you know effective March 3, I am retiring after 45 years with the Forest Service and two, to address our current situation.

Our agency’s work supports the nation’s wellbeing and its economy by providing community protection, jobs, goods and services and a place to retreat and enjoy nature’s beauty. Many small businesses generate their livelihoods through permits to operate on national forests and grasslands. We provide drinking water to over 80 million Americans. We also help provide energy independence to the nation, issuing nearly 3,000 oil and gas leases. I say that to say this: You and the work you do is vital to the American way of life and you are a valued employee who has performed admirably.

As you have likely read in the news or are personally experiencing, the federal government is undergoing a significant transformation. How agencies are structured, staffed, and operate is shifting and the Forest Service is not exempt from these changes.

The past several weeks has been incredibly difficult. As part of a broader effort to reduce the size of the federal government, we parted ways with colleagues we worked alongside, who successfully contributed to our mission, and who were valued members of our Forest Service team.

If you are feeling uncertainty, frustration, or loss, you are not alone. These are real and valid emotions that I am feeling, too. Please take care of yourselves and each other. I have been silent these last few weeks because these decisions are being made at a level above our organization, and I was and am learning about the changes the same time as many of you. Our focus now is on how we respond and adapt to new priorities and continue delivering on our mission with the workforce we have.

As we work together to meet new opportunities and expectations and leverage those we already deliver upon, give yourself and one another grace and support as our workforce evolves, including as we return to a stance of more in-office work (except for those of you who are always field going). Our workforce must be nimble and flexible, so we will not restrict ourselves to limited roles; instead, we will help one another across boundaries. I invite you to make suggestions about how we can continue to rise to the occasion and improve our service to the American people.

The workforce will continue to be unsettling for a while. Thank you for your dedication to our mission and for the work you carry out every day. You and the work you do are meaningful and do not let anyone make you believe otherwise.

As I end my career and reflect on it, I am validated in knowing and believing that the Forest Service is about its people and its worthy mission. Our impact is global in nature and our mission reaches people around the world. I am so proud of the work we have done together.

Thank you.

This was originally a comment, but should raise some interesting discussion.

*************

Transforming the Forest Service requires focus on a few simple things that will change the agency over time. Preparing a complex document on transforming the agency is just a way of insuring failure.

The ONE organizational change that is needed is to move District Rangers into the small communities next to the National Forests. The agency needs lot more contact with those folks.

Then build a organizational structure to support small Ranger Districts. The Ranger Districts don’t have to be staffed with a full complement of specialists. The Ranger Districts just need access to people that can do the needed work, they don’t need to be stationed at a Ranger District.

But the District Ranger needs to be there in the community.

Second, there have been many comments of the failure of leadership in the Forest Service. Leadership starts with the people you hire at the GS 5/7 level. The Forest Service needs to hire better employees and train them.

The needs to look at DOD. Those folks understand how to work in a large organization while at the same time know how to get things done at the ground level. I would simply contact DOD and set up a transition program for military personnel to get a college degree in natural resources while still in DOD and then transfer to the Forest Service.

It would help change the current culture in the agency, where people owe their loyalty to their profession rather the Forest Service.

New employees need to spend their first year learning about the Forest Service and being exposed to a wide variety of jobs. The agency use to do this, but dropped these programs during the budget cuts of the 80’s.

Third, the Forest Service needs to cultivate and bring back a relationship with retirees and seasonal employees.

Every former seasonal employee I have met has fond memories of the Forest Service, and without exception many say it was the best jobs they ever had.

The Forest Service needs to reconnect with those folks and give them free bling like Forest Service hats and t-shirts that honor their service to the agency. The also need to inform and ask for their support in current issues that are facing the agency.

The retiree’s are a tougher sell, since so many have such a negative attitude towards the Forest Service. I suspect much of the negative attitude has to do with the lack of communication between the retirees and current management in the Forest Service.

The former seasonal employees and retirees are much more effective in defending and explaining Forest Service priorities to the public than the agency itself. People trust people they know.

Fourth a focus on public contact by ALL Forest Service employees. My first professional job in the Forest Service we discussed how to make the reception area more inviting to the public. These days Forest Service offices are in many cases closed to public entry, or have NO reception area.

In the field, it is even worse. The Forest Service is represented by contractors in the campgrounds, trail maintenance, timber sales, and even on fires.

Transforming the Forest Service is simple.

Just focus on providing good public service and be sure to deliver the message while in person.

Someone asked why the timber industry folks hadn’t spoken out about the employee cuts.. apparently they were working on it, as per this E&E News story. The Forest Service used to have a management training where we learned “affirm in public, counsel in private.” Perhaps they attended the “be silent in public, counsel in private” training instead.

The Forest Service is beginning to rehire some of the probationary employees it shed in the mass firings of Feb. 14, according to people within the agency.
An employee with direct knowledge of the Forest Service’s actions said the agency has compiled “small” numbers of terminated employees to be rehired, including for timber
management, and that managers may have an opportunity to request bringing back additional staff.

The moves mirror those of other agencies that have concluded the mass firings may have gone too far in decimating staff working on critical matters or on policies that
support the Trump administration’s agenda.
At the Forest Service, the loss of probationary workers all but eliminated a timber “strike team” in the Rocky Mountain region as well as the disaster recovery team
working on the Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina, heavily damaged by Hurricane Helene last September.
Employees who described the agency’s latest moves aren’t authorized to speak publicly and requested anonymity to share details.
In addition, a wildlife biologist on Pisgah whose dismissal Feb. 14 was featured in news accounts posted on Facebook that he’s been rehired.
“I was provided no information regarding what prompted this change, or how many of my colleagues have received similar letters,” Mike Knoerr posted. He said he’s the only
wildlife biologist employed at the forest.

Knoerr couldn’t immediately be reached for comment. In his post detailing the firing, he’d said he’d lost his dream job and that he’d “only had stellar performance reviews.”
The Forest Service and the Agriculture Department didn’t immediately confirm numbers of probationary employees shed, or those considered for rehiring.
As in other agencies, the reason for inviting employees back — Knoerr said his letter called his position “Mission Critical” — appears at odds with the earlier form letter notifying them they’d been fired.
That letter said the firing was “based on your performance,” adding, “you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest.”
The North Carolina employee was part of a roughly 20-person team working on disaster recovery, as the federal government directs about $3 billion into the effort on Pisgah.
Organizations that work with the Forest Service said the mass firings — initially confirmed at 3,400 but since reduced to an estimated 2,000 by the administration —
were clearly made without regard to, or possibly understanding of, what the agency’s employees do.
Losses in timber-related staff directly contradict the administration’s goal of harvesting more trees in national forests, these organizations said. They also run counter to a promise Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins made to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) at her confirmation hearing in January to increase timber output at the Rocky Mountain region’s Black Hills National Forest.
The timber strike team was responsible for 65 percent of the timber harvests on the Black Hills forest in 2023, according to an agency employee and outside organizations that work with the Forest Service.
In that region alone, the Forest Service has told organizations, more than 30 staff working in timber — such as preparing for sales — were dismissed, out of more than 130 total employees.
The heaviest toll was on recreational technicians, of which 55 were terminated.

Maybe Dave M. can tell us why there was such a high proportion of probationary folks working in timber.

I’m going to do a historical tour of various FS organizational improvement and efficiency efforts through time, with help from the National Museum of Forest Service History and the Forest History Society.

But one effort we seem to be missing documentation of is the most recent effort.. Transformation (2007, or almost 20 years ago). Perhaps there have been more recent efforts as well, after I retired, that I just didn’t hear about.

Transformation was an enormous project with a full time team and much work and analysis all around, or at least in ROs and the WO (and to be sure, a certain amount of resistance in some quarters). But all I could find online was this from a presentation at NRCS. 

I’d really like to see the final report and any accomplishment reports.  I remember our R-2 Engineers taking it seriously, and I think that’s the reason WO Minerals moved to the Region 2 RO (I assume they wanted the move and it was great for us.) Even snippets of experience and memories from retirees would be helpful.  Perhaps some retirees have a copy in a box somewhere?

Anyway, there was much great work by excellent employees put into Transformation, and it could be valuable information- both to find good ideas,  and to avoid organizational and political pitfalls.  What worked and what didn’t?  Was there a Lessons Learned? Perhaps there’s also some public administration literature on the topic. Below are a sample of the slides, the link above has the complete presentation.

 

 

It seems important to me to note that concern about where the money is going is not just something for a few retirees. Also, to be fair to FS employees, including leadership, maybe Congress shouldn’t expect agencies to do well with short-term pulses of ginormously increased funding. One strategy is getting large amounts out the door for grantees, such that they, in turn,  hire people to do the work without federal salaries and other benefits, and without OPM-required qualifications.  This has obvious impacts on the role and number of federal employees.   The other possibility is  the agencies hiring more people themselves on temporary appointments, which runs into USAJobs and timing problems.  Or the agencies can hire more permanents and have too many on the books when the funding dries up. There are no optimal solutions.. only trade-offs constrained by unbreachable bureaucratic barriers like USAjobs.

IG seems to focus on records and record-keeping, which is helpful.  Perhaps they have not been asked to look at accomplishments, nor accomplishments per dollar expended, nor what we might call the Bubba Criterion- least overhead taken off above the salary of the person doing the work.  Or maybe that’s not something they traditionally do.

Anyway, lots of interesting stuff here. Translation: IIJA is the same as what the FS often calls the BIL or Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

Here’s a link to the R6 report.

In November 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) provided Forest Service approximately $250 million to establish the IIJA Legacy Road and Trail Remediation Program (LRT). While we recognize that Region 6 had limited time to implement LRT, we were unable to validate that Region 6 selected projects based on IIJA requirements and Washington Office guidance. This occurred because Region 6 did not document information reviewed and decisions made when determining project eligibility, nor did it use the Washington Office criteria to assign prioritization points to select LRT projects. As a result, Forest Service has reduced assurance that Region 6 considered all eligible projects and then properly prioritized and selected the most meritorious LRT projects. Therefore, we questioned Region 6’s fiscal years (FYs) 2022 and 2023 LRT costs, totaling more than $13.8 million.

Additionally, we identified that Region 6 approved and allocated LRT funds to 11 ineligible tasks within 2 approved projects. This occurred because Region 6 lacked sufficient internal controls to ensure that LRT funding was allocated only to eligible tasks. As a result, Region 6 held more than $630,000 in LRT funds for ineligible tasks within approved projects, thus making these funds unavailable for other eligible LRT projects or tasks. These questioned costs are fully included in the total $13.8 million discussed above. Forest Service officials generally agreed with our findings and recommendations, and we accepted management decision on all recommendations.

There was also a report for R-3. Perhaps someone knows if there were investigations of other regions, or if R-6 and R-3 were unique for some reason.

Here’s the “What OIG Found” from the IIJA Collaborative Aquatic Landscape Restoration Program

We found that the agency did not always properly track its allocated funds for salaries and expenses (S&E).  While FS had controls for budgeting and selecting projects for CALR funds, the agency did not design specific controls to track its fiscal year (FY) 2022 CALR S&E separately from other IIJA S&E funds. As a result, FS cannot accurately report how it expended the funds  allocated for CALR S&E in FY 2022, resulting in more than $5.7 million in questioned costs. Furthermore, FS did not establish a process to ensure selected proposals were tracked and completed timely. Without a process to track and monitor CALR rehabilitation projects, FS could be noncompliant with the Act’s requirement to discontinue funding for a project that fails to achieve results for more than 2 consecutive years. FS officials generally concurred with the findings and recommendations, and we accepted management decision on all recommendations.

For IIJA Hazardous Fuel Management Activities, amount 205,600,000

In support of wildfire risk reduction, FS received $205.6 million from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) for fiscal years (FYs) 2022 and 2023 to conduct hazardous fuels management activities. We determined that FS did not separately track FYs 2022 and 2023 IIJA, Division J Hazardous Fuels Management funds. As a result, FS could not accurately report how much it spent for FYs 2022 and 2023 hazardous fuels management, resulting in $205.6 million in questioned costs.
Additionally, we found that FS did not fully document its rationale for prioritizing and selecting projects. As such, FS’ decision-making process is not transparent, resulting in reduced assurance that the most critical projects were selected. FS generally agreed with our findings and recommendations, and we accepted management decisions for the two recommendations

I’d just say that the “most critical projects” are in the eye of the beholder, and it would be odd for OIG to second-guess priorities. But in the interests of transparency, to my mind, it wouldn’t hurt to document the reasons for prioritizing certain projects, even acknowledging that there’s some chance of employees spending time on post-hoc rationalizations.

IIJA- Community Wildfire Defense Grant Program for At-Risk Communities</strong>

We found that FS may have exceeded the $9,160,800 spending limit on salary, expense, and administrative costs in FY 2022. We found that FS transferred or obligated more than $46.2 million in CWDG funding related to salary, expense, and administrative costs. Specifically, it transferred more than $32.6 million to its FS Operations account, obligated more
than $5.9 million for CWDG-specific salaries and expenses, and awarded more than $7.6 million to State agencies to help FS administer the program, which exceeded the $9,160,800 limit by more than $37 million. We also found that FS did not track how CWDG funding that it transferred into its FS Operations account was spent, which puts the agency at risk of spending CWDG funding on expenses that were not allowed under IIJA. These conditions occurred because FS did not consider all salary, expense, and administrative-related costs we identified to be subject to the IIJA limitation. As a result, FS is at an increased risk of violating the Antideficiency Act. FS officials disagreed with our interpretation of this IIJA provision and maintained that the agency used the funding in accordance with IIJA.

Lastly, while we noted that FS appropriately prioritized IIJA projects and did not exceed award limitations, FS did not have grant agreements in place for 5 of our 10 sampled
applications as of September 20, 2023, even though the application period had closed on October 7, 2022. FS officials disagreed with Findings 1 and 2 and Recommendation 1.
FS agreed with Finding 3 and Recommendation 2. We did not accept management decision on Recommendation 1

*******************************

Firefighter Pulse Survey

This one’s interesting. It didn’t seem to me like something OIG would usually do.

The OIG’s Office of Analytics and Innovation (OAI) conducted a survey of Forest Service Firefighters to better understand the perceived impact of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) on firefighters, including authorized pay increases, occupational series changes, and programs relevant to firefighters.

*****************

Potential Anomalies Related to Locality Pay

To conduct our analysis, we used Enterprise Human Resources Application (eHR Apps), which is the Department’s system for all telework and remote work information and source for personnel data. Of the USDA employees in the eHR Apps as of September 21, 2023, we identified 8,889 employees with a duty station code in the DC locality area. 6 Of those 8,889 employees, 86 had a remote work location outside the DC locality area.

We performed analysis on the 86 employees using updated personnel data as of April 11, 2024 and found that the remote work agreements for 37 of the 86 USDA employees still did not match their duty stations and were potentially pay impacting.

Good news.. FS with many employees only had 6 who did not match, whereas FNS (Food and Nutrition Service) with many fewer people (couldn’t find table of USDA agencies and employment figures). So percentage wise, the FS was doing very well.  On the other hand, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer,  had four, which seems a bit ironic. and the Office of the Secretary had one.

Industrial Control Systems

I didn’t know that the FS had any, but sure enough ARS, APHIS, and the FS apparently have them. Does anyone know what the Forest Service’s is?

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) performed an inspection of multiple USDA agencies to assess the security posture of USDA’s Industrial Control Systems (ICS) to determine whether proper controls were implemented to minimize the risk of compromise. We reviewed NIST guidance for ICS and USDA policies and procedures and interviewed agency officials to identify relevant criteria and determine how agencies implemented security controls and configurations, tracked and authorized changes to their ICS devices, and identified and mitigated security vulnerabilities for ICS devices. We also reviewed vulnerability scans at one agency to determine whether vulnerabilities had been addressed in accordance with USDA policy. This report contains sensitive content. It is being withheld from public release due to concerns about risk of circumvention of law.

IIJA-Restoration Projects on Federal/Non-Federal Land: Project Selection

Some interesting things..

 NFWF planned to work with its existing partner networks to raise additional funding to benefit the goals of the grant, providing a minimum 1:1 match of FS funds.

It would be interesting to see a table of which grants by which authorities had which match requirements.  Also,

With the grant awarded to NFWF, FS reduced its administrative burden by utilizing NFWF’s grants management expertise and processes to establish subaward agreements and to monitor sub-recipient outcomes. After the solicitation process and its initial evaluation, NFWF consults with the FS program manager prior to selection to ensure potential project sub-awards align with FS’ program goals and priorities. Furthermore, NFWF will solicit projects that are in counties with persistent poverty and/or that engage underserved and socially disadvantaged landowners. According to FS, after NFWF’s consultation, the FS program manager must agree with the final determination of the sub-award projects.
As of October 2023, NFWF awarded five project sub-awards totaling more than $1.55 million to support revegetation of mined lands in Central Appalachia and the Cumberland Plateau. Figure 7 below shows  FYs 2022 and 2023 approved project sub-awards by location and obligated amount.

As we’ve discussed one person’s reducing “administrative burden” is another person”s “reducing federal employees work, including (possibly) inspection of results.”

We conducted this work as part of our ongoing inspection with the objective to conduct integrated oversight of the funding provided to FS’ Restoration Projects on Federal and Non-Federal Land from IIJA. Specifically, we announced we would review program information for transparency and disclosure, perform data analytics on relative data sets for integrity and quality, inspect key aspects of the internal control environment, and review the implementation of the program. This report provides information related to reviewing program information for transparency and disclosure as well as program implementation.

 

This may not be the right timing to talk about this, and I apologize for that if anyone is offended.  But I think there are many generalizations made about federal employees, on either side, and as usual, the situation is more complicated than expressed in news stories.

Over the weekend, Joe Reddan and Jim Zornes talked about a change in attitudes they’d perceived before they retired. I’ll quote from their comments.  I’d like to clarify that I think the current situation is unequivocally bad.

1.  I also think that the way all career employees are portrayed does not match anyone’s lived experience of all employees. People, if left to their own devices, will generalize, as Dave Mertz says in this comment:

 the unfounded stereotypes of federal employees, that they are lazy, somehow getting rich in their jobs, on and on. They now look on with glee when federal employees are getting the axe. It does not help that a lot of our politicians reinforce the stereotype.

I’d say some reporting doesn’t help, when employees are quoted as not feeling they should go back to in-person work because they’ll have to commute or get child care, or when they are quoted as saying they are going to fight the new Administration.  Of course, no one can control what other people say, so there’s that.

As we know,  most feds are D’s, and some agencies have engaged in insubordination, intentionally over-reacting to decisions, leaking documents, and so on.  I experienced the document leaking long before Trump 1.0.  People generalize from what they’ve experienced, it’s human nature, and maybe the FS feds can’t help that people generalize from other agencies and experiences to them.  Or maybe they can, by intentionally carving out a separate space? Or maybe they already have?

Here’s a quote from a comprehensive Wyofile story on the cuts in Wyoming:

Most federal employees in Wyoming are not performing their jobs with partisan politics in mind, they said. Yet those workers are being inundated with a public discourse that paints them as either partisan or lazy — simply on the public dole, they said.

That sentiment is reflected in emails sent from the administration’s higher-ups in recent weeks.

“They have this language that was very clearly not written by a federal employee,” they said. “It has no formality, it has no professionalism and it has these snarky comments like, ‘We’re giving you the opportunity to quit being a lazy employee and you can go be more productive in the private sector,’” they said, summarizing the tone of emails. “The language in those letters is condescending and insulting.”

“I feel like this tactic — by the person who’s instigating it — their concept is that it’s an acceptable way to go about things,” they said. “But in the public- and in the civil-service sector, those are different people.

“For one, you take an oath before you’re hired. Everyone takes a live oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to serve the people of the United States, not an administration. And that’s different [than the private sector]. That feeling of dedication is different, I think, when you’re a civil servant. They’re not just doing a job just to make money and go home. There’s another component to it.”

2. Was there a change in culture around overtly political conversations and actions in the last 15 years or so?  What was this due to?  Can the culture intentionally change back?

From Joe Reddan:

Chief Tidwell held an optional all employee meeting in the Yates Building Conference Room on the afternoon of November 9th. At that meeting a colleague stood up and demanded that the Chief oppose Trump, citing the Yates Building proximity to the Holocaust Museum of North America and disparaging Trump as a Nazi. To say the least, the chief was flummoxed. This same guy channeling Woody Guthrie would bring his special chili to employee potlucks with the admonition that this chili kills fascists!

Then came the “pink pussy” hats worn conspicuously in the Yates Building.

To me this was surprising, a Forest Service professional since the Carter Administration, I had seen administrations come and go. But we were a professional workforce and could serve any administration, even if that wasn’t our guy.

Nearly 8-years before that the GW Bush Administration ended and President Obama was inaugurated. There was much rejoicing in the Yates Building and many of us attended the Obama celebration at the Lincoln Memorial “We are One” on Sunday as well as the Inauguration on Tuesday. Obama was not my guy, but he was the elected President and deserved my respect.

I moved to SW Colorado after retirement in April of 2017. At the local national forest supervisor’s office (SO), the parking lot was full of vehicles with resist bumper stickers. Again, partisan and not professional.

At one point in 2018, my truck was parked in the SO parking lot. My truck was adorned with the following stickers: a Gadsden flag; NRA sticker, a Steal Your Face Sticker (Grateful Dead) and an American Flag sticker. A friend told me that an employee reported my truck to the forest LEO, who attempted to run my vehicle tags, but was stopped by probable cause issues. Yet, the vehicles with resist stickers were not investigated.

From Jim Z

Joe Reddan, that’s exactly my point of contention with how far the FS slipped into partisanship! I never, ever allowed political influences, nor promotion of one party over another. As a Forest Sup, it was harder to manage the zero tolerance because of the shear number of employees on these larger Units, but by dang there was no question in the employees on what was tolerated.

Before I retired in early 2017, I had relocated to the Regional Office, with a very talented and dedicated group of employees. I might add – professional, these types of disrespect were never seen! However, I saw the rapid decline in discipline and professionalism, magnified by the advent of social media and the ever present Internet. I still never uttered a political word until I exited that door for the last time.

I found this on Government Executive in 2022, of course they were Gov Exec subscribers and could be from any agency.  I think that’s part of the problem, you can’t generalize and yet people regularly do.

While feds overwhelmingly say their workplaces are collegial, 72% said they do not feel comfortable expressing their political views at the office. That was particularly true of Republicans, 30% of whom said they have been threatened at work due to their political views. Several agencies across government have reported spikes in threats against federal workers, pointing to backlash to the FBI’s search of President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property in Florida and recent funding provided to the Internal Revenue Service. Only a slight majority of Republicans say lawmakers’ rhetoric has contributed to those threats, while 81% of Democrats said the same.

It seems to some extent that partisan-ness has expressed itself differently and more overtly (in some places) than the old days.  Why?

When I worked on the Fremont, we talked about “the ranchers” getting invitations to the Inauguration for President Reagan (yup, 1981) and a generalized feeling of the ranchers having too much political power.  I also remember thinking, and maybe saying, that since Reagan spoke against federal employees, maybe we shouldn’t go on fires to protect his property.  But that was against agency culture to think that way and certainly behave that way.  I guess the vibe was “that’s the way it is, and this is the work we get paid to do and the system we’re under.”

Here’s what Gov Exec said about Reagan’s policies  in a review of them in  2004 (he initiated a government-wide hiring freeze immediately after he was sworn in.. as in.. before he even left the Capitol Building.

OPM Director Kay Coles James said Tuesday that Reagan’s opposition to big government did not mean he was opposed to federal workers.

“I think a lot of people who covered Reagan did not make that distinction well,” James said in an interview. Critics say that “because he didn’t like expansive government, he didn’t like federal workers. You can’t make that leap, and you shouldn’t.”

Regardless of how Reagan felt about federal employees, Pfiffner said the president’s efforts to depict the government as bloated and ineffective have tarred civil servants ever since.

“He did damage to the federal civil service, with his really negative attitude at them,” Pfiffner said. “Reagan encouraged [Americans] to think that government administrators were bad or lazy.”

3. Is there a relationship between visibility of employees (again, highly uneven across the FS),  accessibility and public support?  When the public sees USG rigs and NGO employees in their branded clothing, helping  them out with information, or a concessionaire at a campground,  does that give them the impression that FS employees are less necessary?

4.  If it’s important to have employees that reflect local culture, would that be equally true of local political alignments?  No, I’m not suggesting a new diversity hiring process, but I don’t think we’ve ever talked about it.  If diversity is good, then maybe having employees more reflective of different political alignments would help with public understanding, acceptance and support of employees, budgets and priorities?

 

 

 

I excerpted from the letter which is available here.    I strongly support their advice to write things down as soon as you can, and to save the stuff you may need from your computer, or copy the whole hard drive and sort through it later.  What do you have to lose? Anyway, here is an excerpt from the statement of support…

To current Forest Service employees, we appreciate your service in producing valued benefits for the American people. We encourage you to stay proud and strong in your commitment to the agency mission. Forest Service retirees are here to support you.

To employees adversely affected by current workforce actions, we value your public service. We are heartbroken by the sudden, severe impacts on you and your families.

To NAFSR members and other Forest Service retirees, we urge you to support agency employees by offering assistance with navigating existing workforce challenges. We ask you to join us in advocating on behalf of the workforce by engaging at all levels in support of public land management. We also encourage you to support other organizations working to assist Federal civil servants.

Here’s the complete Resource Guide:

************************

Here are some recommendations from the National Association of Forest Service Retirees (NAFSR) and resources for Forest Service employees who may be faced with sudden notice of termination, administrative leave, reduction in force, or other job changes:

• Continue to do your job. Until you are notified of a change, continue doing your job to the best of your ability.
• Document what happens to you. During highly stress situations, it is difficult to remember details of how things happened, what you were told, and who was there. Take time to write a “memo for the record” as soon as possible after you are given verbal directions that significantly change your job status, conditions of work, and the work you are normally assigned. Document what you were told, when, by whom, and who else was there to hear the conversation. Retain these notes for future reference.
• Anticipate the loss of computer access. If you are terminated or placed in a leave status, expect to immediately lose access to your email, computer systems, and internal intranet and Sharepoint information.
• Gather Your Personal Records and Contacts. Take these actions NOW, before you lose agency computer access.
  • Download to a personal drive and keep copies of your personal employment records (you may also request copies from the HRM Contact Center):
    • Your recent performance plans and ratings
    • Your electronic Official Personnel File (eOPF), especially SF 50 Notifications of Personnel Action documenting your appointment type and job assignment, including pay plan, occupational series, grade, step, salary, and service computation date (SCD). The SCD is a key factor in a reduction in force (RIF) action.
    • Your position description and organization chart where you are assigned
    • Your most recent earnings and leave statement (ELS) showing balances for your leave and any credit hours.
    • Your most recent benefits statements from CONNECTHR showing health insurance (FEHB), life insurance (FEGLI), Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), and retirement details.
  • Ensure you have phone, email, and public web site information for supervisors, colleagues, and organizations you may need to contact after you leave.
  • Be ready to gather personal items at the office in case of a short-notice dismissal.

 

• Is your position in a union bargaining unit? Check with your supervisor or check the bargaining unit code on your SF-50. If your code is NOT 7777 (exempt), then your position is likely covered by a union contract and you can contact a union representative for help, even if you are not a dues-paying member. Over 20,000 jobs are covered under the master agreement between Forest Service and the National Federation of Federal Employees – Forest Service Council (https://www.nffe-fsc.org/). A small number of jobs are in units covered by the American Federation of Government Employees (https://www.afge.org/about-us/agencies/USDA/AFGE).
• If you are notified of termination or other personnel action, ask questions about anything you need clarity on, including the reasons for the change, what happens to your leave, timesheet, and benefits, and if you have appeal rights.
• If you are placed on administrative leave, ask:
  • Who is your point of contact if you have questions during the leave period?
  • Who will be updating and approving your timesheet and what will happen to your accrued annual leave and credit hours?
  • Will your health and life insurance, retirement and TSP contributions continue?
  • What options do you have to continue FEHB health insurance when your job ends?
  • Can you access your TSP funds when your job ends?
  • Are you eligible for early, optional, discontinued service, or deferred retirement?

 

• Ask about the Forest Service Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The following info is currently available on the public Forest Service web page.

The Employee Assistance Program (EAP) offers free professional guidance to you and your family members when personal or work-related problems become difficult to manage.   Working with the EAP to find solutions to problems or develop better coping techniques will help you navigate life’s difficulties. Take advantage of free assessments, short-term counseling, and referral information. o    Life adjustments o    Childcare referral o    Substance abuse o    Relationship issues o    Eldercare resources o    Marital and family problems o    Financial matters o    Emotional issues o    Crisis o    Legal issues o    Work problems o    Stress This service is available to all employees and their families. Further, employees and their families may continue to use the EAP for up to six months after separation from employment. EAP company name: Acentra o    Call:   1-833-621-2989   Acentra offers a toll-free line answered by certified clinicians 24 hours a day, seven days per week. Clinicians with experience supporting first responders (fire and law enforcement) will also be available to help you. o    Text the EAP:  1-833-621-2989 o    Web: https://forestserviceeap.com/ (Member login/Company ID: USFS) o    App: Acentra Connect (Install on work or personal cell phone using Google Play or the App Store.

• Talk to your family about what could happen and what options you might have if you lose your job. What options do you have for health care and paying monthly bills if you lose your job?
• Are you eligible for retirement now, early, or deferred? There are numerous scenarios in which you may be eligible to retire. This article from govexec.com explains how to navigate retirement amid the current chaos.
• Get help with federal benefits and retirement questions. The National Association of Active and Retired Federal Employees narfe.org has loads of information on federal employee benefits including webinars, FAQs, and pending and proposed legislation applicable to current, former, and retired employees.

**************

We retirees care and want to help! If you think this is helpful information, please forward to any employees you know.

I’m pretty sure that no one cares what I think, but it’s likely that someone cares what some of you think. So maybe some of you can reach out to someone who can influence things.

I’d like to start with this story from last October.

In September, the agency announced that it would be suspending all seasonal hiring for the 2025 season, a decision that will cut about 2,400 jobs. Nearly all of those positions are field-based jobs, ranging from biologists and timber workers to trail technicians and recreation staff. In addition, the agency is freezing all external hiring for permanent positions. The only exception to the hiring freeze are the roughly 11,300 firefighters hired by the agency every year.

That was 2400 temporaries who do much of the on-the-ground work.

Someone sent me this

Forest Service employees, too, work mainly in the field. A lobbyist for a forest policy group who works closely with the agency — and was granted anonymity to speak openly — said the agency is in danger of becoming even more top-heavy in staffing, a frequent complaint in some circles.

It’s a double Administration whammy for the Forest Service. First the D Admin takes the temps, then the R Admin takes the probationary permanents (both with exceptions for fire).
That would be my rationale for the Admin to take a second look at the Forest Service (assuming that the reporting in my last post -that OPM didn’t tell them to do this in the first place- is not correct).

If this Fed Exec reporting is true:

On Tuesday evening, however, OPM convened a call with federal agencies’ general counsels and instructed them not to pursue widespread firings of probationary period workers. Instead, OPM said, they should terminate only such workers that they have deemed poor performers. The call was first reported by CBS News.

Then there’s this piece in the Federal News Network:

The Office of Personnel Management is advising all federal agencies to fire their probationary employees after it stopped accepting new offers for its “deferred resignation” program last night.

Agencies, however, have final authority over the removal of their probationary employees.

A source familiar with OPM’s decision-making told Federal News Network that OPM met with agencies and provided them with guidance to fire probationary employees, with “case-by-case exceptions,” including as public safety.

The source described OPM’s communication to agencies as “soft guidance,” and that “agencies independently can decide how to move forward.”

Even if both sources of reporting are incorrect, and OPM did tell them to go after all probationary employees, how about some tweaks for the twice-beleaguered Forest Service, now that the Secretary of Agriculture has been confirmed.

How about.. making exceptions for employees on Ranger Districts? (this would not be particularly fair, but would leave Districts intact)

How about.. making exceptions for Veterans? I didn’t realize it, but Veterans have a probationary period when they enter civilian agencies. This might be an attractive option for Veterans who are serving in this Administration and Congress.

Meanwhile, MSN had this for the Park Service.

The National Park Service plans to fire roughly 1,000 probationary employees who have worked at the agency less than one year, according to three people familiar with the matter, while reinstating around 5,000 seasonal job offers that were rescinded last month due to President Donald Trump’s federal hiring freeze.

The two moves underscore the confusing — and at times contradictory — nature of the new administration’s efforts to shrink the federal workforce. The individuals briefed on these plans spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.

I was unable to find anything specifically about BLM employees.

I am not covering this because I have any unique insights. I am just trying to piece together what I’ve heard from various news outlets including The Hotshot Wakeup. Here’s what seems to be happening. Again, I’m only covering this because of its importance to employees, not because I have any good independent sources of information.

Employees in their probationary period are being let go, with exceptions.

1. The New Admin is terminating employees in their probationary period in the Forest Service.
2. This is happening in all agencies.
3. Public safety hires are exempt (at the FS), which definitely means Fire and law enforcement, and also some engineers who are involved with public safety.

It appears to be simply because probationary employees are easier to fire, based on the regulations, for people in the Admin who want to reduce employee numbers. They are the equivalent of “low-hanging fruit”. RIFs are more complicated. I don’t think that this reduction, (removing employees during their probationary period) has happened before, but I could be wrong. Certainly RIFs have.

I was just hearing about the Forest Service, but it appears in this Government Executive article to be government-wide and focused on employees during their probationary period.

The Office of Personnel Management has instructed agencies across government to terminate employees in their probationary periods—typically those who were hired into government for within the last one or two years, depending on their hiring mechanism—while allowing for limited exceptions, according to a source familiar with the directive. OPM previously asked agencies to compile lists of their probationary period employees and in some cases federal offices sent warnings that firings may be imminent.

I thought this was interesting.

The Veterans Affairs Department announced Thursday evening it had dismissed 1,000 probationers, though it said it exempted those directly providing care and benefits to veterans and the number was just a fraction of its 43,000 employees in their trial periods.

and

The probationary period employee actions are not layoffs, or RIFs, which initiate unique procedures, but regular, for-cause employment terminations. As of May 2024, federal data maintained by OPM showed agencies employed more than 200,000 employees hired within the last year. Probationers can still appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board if they allege the firings took place for partisan political reasons.

Then there’s this story also in Gov Exec :

On Tuesday evening, however, OPM convened a call with federal agencies’ general counsels and instructed them not to pursue widespread firings of probationary period workers. Instead, OPM said, they should terminate only such workers that they have deemed poor performers. The call was first reported by CBS News.

“The Trump Administration is encouraging agencies to use the probationary period as it was intended: as a continuation of the job application process, not an entitlement for permanent employment,” an OPM spokesperson said.

If OPM said that Tuesday night..???? All very confusing.

Propublica has an article with the incendiary (so to speak) title, “How Trump’s federal funding and hiring freezes are leaving America vulnerable to catastrophic wildfire.”

The reality is supervisors are guessing how to interpret the White House’s commands, and a “huge leadership vacuum” has resulted in conflicting orders, according to Ben McLane, captain of a federal handcrew, which constructs fireline around an active blaze.

A national firefighting leadership training program that McLane was set to attend was canceled on short notice, he said. McLane acknowledged that federal firefighting agencies need a major overhaul, noting that his crew was downsized 30% by pre-Trump administration cuts. But the current confusion could further impact public safety because of the lack of clear leadership and the disrupted preparations for wildfire season.

Again, it seems like someone above the handcrew supervisor level should be “guessing how to interpret the White House’s commands.” Now, I am not blaming anyone anywhere, in HR, or “leadership”; it’s just confusing. If USDA couldn’t get the message in the Tuesday phone call from OPM, how likely is it that a consistent message can make it, what six or seven direct layers down to a field crew. At least HR is centralized, so there should be less confusion. Yes, it’s OK to feel empathy for Albuquerque folks, as well as anyone involved in what appears to be a cluster.

*****************
I’m going to dig into the “who is doing what work” angle. In the Propublica article.

Then came the Forest Service’s attempts last year to close a budget shortfall worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The agency stopped hiring seasonal workers outside the fire program.

“The reality’s setting in — they still don’t have the budget under control,” one Forest Service firefighter said. Even though firefighting positions were exempted, personnel who do other jobs often assist with fires. And a lack of support staff could force firefighters to do additional work such as maintaining recreational trails, taking them away from fire-related duties.

Much of the force is hired seasonally or switches between crews and agencies at different times of the year. But the increased uncertainty has prompted once-reliable seasonal hires to take other jobs that offer more stability.

“We’re the only ones left,” the Forest Service firefighter said of the hiring freezes.

Would firefighters really be asked to do trails because they are the only ones left?

But in the E&E News article (not by our usual reporters):

The cuts would reduce the agency’s workforce — a total of 35,000 employees — by about 10 percent, potentially making it harder for the federal government to address increasingly intense wildfires and manage millions of acres of federal forests and grasslands. Forest Service employees in probationary periods are more likely to be the ones doing field work, such as moving timber sales and helping to mitigate wildfires, than their more senior counterparts.

I don’t know, it seems to me that much of the fieldwork is done by temporaries, and sometimes new folks are still learning how to do complicated procedures like timber sales, NEPA or contracting.

Another “I’m not so sure” statement, this time in the Propublica story.

Additionally, the workforce has been stressed by Trump’s executive orders calling for programs relating to the topics of diversity, equity and inclusion to be shuttered, including employee support groups and seminars on topics such as women in the wildfire community. Government websites have already been scrubbed of information lauding progress in diversifying the male-dominated federal firefighting force, ProPublica found.

So, having reviewed the FOIAs we received from various regions, we found that funding was obligated to Keystones for folks to do much fieldwork and contracting, including prescribed burning. But what we don’t know if if that funding is still sitting at the Keystone NGOs, so that work will be going forward (and they could conceivably hire the former FS temps) or it has been clawed back. I guess I’ll give the Press Office a try.