The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views

Mike is always asking about the big picture. So I developed my own vision, before looking at the “official” ones. I’d like to hear what you think about it. Because I suspect we agree on the vision, but not the tactics.

My Vision:

What are we looking for in diversity?

I guess what I am looking for are experiences of a Forest Service that looks like America. If I go to a campground or a public meeting, or a meeting of Research executives, there should be faces that look like the variety of ethnic groups and genders, that live in the country. Within the agency, the culture should be welcoming of all kinds of diversity- in sexual orientation, religion or not-religion, food preferences. You might hear as much about the latest play in town in casual conversation, as say, football or elk-hunting.(OK, well that’s a bit over the top, perhaps). People would not make judgments about people based on their previous chairs (e.g., if you never worked on a ranger district you can never really understand the Forest Service). People would be very careful when determining that someone just “doesn’t fit” in a job, that the person doesn’t actually have a point of view that is different and important to hear. So my views are right-brain and holistic and difficult to understand and achieve numerically.

Here is what the OPM Director thinks:

When we draw on the wisdom of a workforce that reflects the population we serve, we are better able to understand and meet the needs of our customers-the American people. Government-wide, we have made important progress toward hiring a workforce that truly reflects America’s diversity, and we will continue to pursue that goal. But merely hiring a diverse workforce is not enough.
We must make our workplaces more inclusive as well.
America was founded on the ideal that from many, we are one, a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. That is the rationale for inclusion. To gain the maximum benefit from our increasingly diverse workforce, we must make every employee feel welcome and motivated to work their hardest and rise through the ranks. We must affirm that we work better together because of our differences, not despite them.

And diversity and inclusion from this document (with the mind-numbing title of “Guidance for Agency-Specific Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plans”).

Definitions of “Diversity” and “Inclusion”
Throughout this document, we define workforce diversity as a collection of individual attributes that together help agencies pursue organizational objectives efficiently and effectively. These include, but are not limited to, characteristics such as national origin, language, race, color, disability, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, veteran status, and family structures. The concept also encompasses differences among people concerning where they are from and where they have lived and their differences of thought and life experiences.1
We define inclusion as a culture that connects each employee to the organization; encourages collaboration, flexibility, and fairness; and leverages diversity throughout the organization so that all individuals are able to participate and contribute to their full potential.

It actually sounds pretty similar to my vision, doesn’t it (without the showtunes)? Like harmonies between nature and humans ( a la the NEPA statute), though, the devil seems to be either in the details or the tactics to get to the vision.

So let’s imagine that you’re a district ranger and you want to hire someone outside the FS. First of all, you can’t tell if they are in a diverse groups or not (except if they are women). There is a box, that people might check, but that part of the form doesn’t regularly get forwarded from Albuquerque (or that was the last I remember, I hope this part has been fixed). So if someone’s name is Villanueva, they could be Hispanic… or if they’re a woman, they could have had the maiden name of Mary Flanagan and married Jane Villanueva (in some states..) .. leading to a different impression of ethnicity. You could check what town they’re from, what high school they went to and make inferences.. you could see if they put belonging to the Asian American Club in their list of activities..but you really have no clue.

Now why would people not check the box? I have been told that the forms are not the easiest to figure out for anyone, including current employees. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were glitches of various kinds on the computer between them entering the check and it being produced in a report. Then some people don’t want to be thought of as a number on someone’s list of people to get. None of these possibilities help the District Ranger meet her boss’s expectations. Of course, there are numbers you are supposed to meet, but because it is not cool to talk about them, no one knows what they are (well, some people have told me that there are secret documents, but.. is this too weird or what?).

When I first understood this, it reminded me of the experiment where the rats pressed a lever and they randomly got a pellet or an electric shock. It can’t be good management.

It’s like you were assigned to breed cattle for milk production, but you weren’t allowed to see the milk production figures. I think we would all recognize that situation as pretty ridiculous, and you would turn down the job if offered.

One of the young leaders at the Retiree Rendezvous was asked why he stayed with the Forest Service- his answer was more or less that there was nowhere else to go with his degree. Let’s see, pellet, shock, can’t escape cage…(this fellow really had a positive attitude, thank heavens for young people!).

One of my associates pointed out the below ethnic delineations of OPM. Like so many variables that are essentially continuous, drawing lines at any spot can be difficult and somewhat meaningless.

Below are a couple of my “not-favorites” from USA Jobs.

Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish cultures or origins. Does not include people of Portuguese culture or origin.

So if you are from Portugal, you are not-diverse. If you are from Spain you are.
If you are from Brazil, you are not-diverse. If you are from Venezuela, you are.

And

White, not of Hispanic origin. A person having origins in any of the original people of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East. Does not include people of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish cultures or origins (see Hispanic). Also includes people not included in other categories.

If we had other “whites” and no people who originated in the Middle East, Iraq or Iran, Morocco or Egypt, would we be “diverse? or not” It’s all very puzzling. Also, “people not included in other categories” are “white” so if you read the definition of American Indian or Alaska Native here literally:

A person having origins in any of the original people of North America, and who maintains cultural identification through community recognition or tribal affiliation. (This code must not be used for employees in Puerto Rico.)

You would think, then, that a South American with origins in the original people of South America must be “white” as they are “not included in other categories.” It’s all kind of bizarre.

And a further problem is that when you use these distinctions to give people preferential treatment, there might be a tendency to make claims that aren’t accurate, because (I hope I’m not shocking anyone here) not everyone is honest on this planet.

And even if the family history, of say, a black, Hispanic or Native American ancestor somewhere up the tree is “true”; if you did DNA tests, you might find out that somewhere along the lines the assumed grandfather is not the biological grandfather. And really if the goal is for people to “look” diverse, then even thinking about whether someone is 1/16 something or not, when they have no appearance or cultural ties, does not really meet that goal. So perhaps our incentives and our goals are not lined up.

We do have people who appear to be white, claim they are not, but we can’t actually check. Meanwhile people who appear to be in diverse groups, and have the cultural background that we might want in terms of diversity, if they don’t check the box, don’t “count.” And counting is important, in addition to the opportunities of an individual, because some poor schmuck and his boss and his boss’s boss (and so on for I guess about five levels or so) or are going to be rated or be “berated” on how they are doing.

Now, the story that I heard was that the Secretary made a serious mistake (we read about it in the paper) and is being punished for his sins until he “moves the dial”( actually I heard a related expression, but can’t remember it right now). The way this story goes, since the Department has mostly FS employees, then the FS must make drastic changes to show the Sec’s contrition.

Like I said, I don’t know if that story is correct, but colleagues at the Interior agencies have goals also, but not the intensity of the FS. Which is data which a) might support the hypothesis and b) makes me wonder whether there are actually any advantages for the FS in being the “main target” of USDA instead of “one of the crowd” in Interior.

I have gone on too long for a blog post, but I do have some ideas for how to align the vision and the incentive structure, which I will share in another post. The first idea, that we’ve already started, is to open this discussion to get others’ perspectives.

I’m posting this because I am a big fan of Jerri’s and I think it’s a good interview. While we are organizing our campaign about involving people in recreation management strategies, it’s nice to take some time to focus on good public service and servants.

Here’s the link and below is an excerpt.

: Was there anything about the fires that surprised you?

A: The fire itself didn’t surprise me. We were in severe drought conditions. We have only gotten 19 percent of our precipitation in the last two years — 19 percent a year. The surprise for me, the pleasant surprise, was the way the communities just all came together and all of the agencies, all of the leaders, there were just no egos. We were focused on one thing — making a difference in our community.

Q: What historical figure do you most identify with?

A: I always identify with the underdog. Because that was my life, people who didn’t believe in me. If there is an underdog out there, you will find me rooting for him.

Q: What living person do you most admire?

A: I have the most respect for my parents. The sacrifices they made so I can have the life I have today. That resonates with me, and I want to live my life like that.

Q: Who is your favorite fictional character?

A: Mabel Simmons, who is called Madea. It’s a character played by Tyler Perry. Madea is the matriarch of the family. She is no-nonsense. Let’s just tell the truth; don’t be afraid of who you are. She makes me smile, to be fearless in my life.

Q: Who are your real-life heroes?

A: The men and women who dedicate their lives to public service, in the military, firefighters, policemen, foresters. People who spend their lives on behalf of serving others, those are my heroes. The sacrifices they make, that is huge. People who say, I’m not in it for the money, I’m not in it for the fame. I’m in it for the service. It’s a privilege to be a public servant; it’s not a last resort. When you are thinking about the first job, think about public service. There is such honor that comes from that.

Q: What is your most treasured possession?

A: My Nikon D800. I love photography. If I’m on vacation I have my camera, if I am working I have my camera. There is so much beauty in my world, with what I do. I minored in photojournalism in college and I have loved photography since I was a kid. Now I have a job so I can afford better cameras.

Q: When were you happiest?

A: I think if I wake up breathing this morning , I’m happy. Happiness is a choice. People will let you down, things will disappoint you. It’s about being happy today, in this situation. I choose every day to find the good in others, the good in myself. How can you not be happy if you think about all of the things you have in your life?

Q: If you could come back to life as an object, what would it be?

A: I’d come back as a camera. They get to capture life. You experience the good, the bad and the ugly. Cameras have seen so much. That makes cameras pretty special. They capture the moment.

Our blog has profited from discussions of many hot topics regarding the Forest Service and public land management. Some folks, some internal and some external, have said “we need to talk about diversity in the FS.” I wondered about how the followers of this blog would feel, as it may be a bit FS-centric for our readers, but we’ll see.

I think that there are some reasons that it might be worth talking about:

1) who works at the FS is important to the future of the FS and our public lands
2) as with so many things, if not handled well, it can be demoralizing to employees
3) there aren’t many other avenues for people to discuss it
4) the whole enterprise of figuring out what “we” want, and bringing diversity, is, I’m afraid, rife with fuzzy thinking.

We have a proven track record here of mostly respectful dialogue on topics that people feel passionately about, so I am optimistic we can say things on this topic that express our experiences and remain civilized.

Right now I see a series, with this as the first installment. There are things happening right now in the Forest Service (or at least right before I retired) that are worth talking about and will be, but let’s start with the history, at least as perceived by one person. Check out this book and the reviews.. there are still a great many hard feelings and passion, as you will see. It seems like a fire-o-centric view, but then there are many fire-o-centric folks in the Forest Service (and among retirees, if the Rendezvous was a random sample).

The title of the book is: The Tinder Box: How Politically Correct Ideology Destroyed the U.S. Forest Service.

Of course, as one might expect, I see things differently, including that fact that I don’t think the FS, nor Region 5, are “destroyed”. But I think it’s interesting that in the comments, many of the current woes of the FS in California (and elsewhere!) seem to be attributed to the Consent Decree.

I ran across this piece about how “feminism” had destroyed the Forest Service; yet I have found it generally found the Forest Service to be a remarkably “un-feminist” kind of place:

Most of the women did not stay long in the most grueling jobs, but they were invariably replaced by others overwhelmed by the tasks. Shaw was eventually denied a position as fire management officer. He said a much less qualified woman was chosen instead. He told Burchfield:

No one had any respect for her; no one had any respect for fire management; no one had any respect for the Forest, and no respect for the agency. It all drained away.

Ironically, affirmative action made for a level of hostility toward female employees that did not exist before. Sensitivity training became standard.

Before the Bernardi decree, men who retired from heavy labor in the field often went into office work for the Service, where their knowledge of the lands contributed to their work. Afterward, these jobs went to those who had little experience on the ground, leaving a void where institutional knowledge was once preserved.

While quite a few men have won individual discrimination complaints against the Service – and have been denied promotion ever since – two major class action suits by male plaintiffs were never fully aired in court. The Supreme Court refused to review them.

The Forest Service, which once turned a profit, now loses millions. Undergrowth flourishes, causing many more fires. According to Burchfield, “eight of the eleven worst fire seasons since the 1950’s have occurred over the past twelve years:”

True enough, urban interfacing, changing climate patterns, and the ever-rising numbers of youths brought up without supervision (today’s arsonists, meth dealers, etc.) are contributors to these disasters. But, the primary cause of these losses is the agency’s madcap obsession with gender equity, which by 1987 had resulted in a tremendous drop in prescribed burns, clearing of fire lines and slash cutting. In many instances, the Forests are so badly overgrown, that they possess 10 to 100 times as many saplings per acre as those managed by the Indians of 180 years ago.

Mexican marijuana cartels commandeer acreage in the West for farming. Crime has increased and service patrols are inadequate to respond to it, with women forest officers particularly disinclined to restrain those violating rules. Recreational trails and mapping have deteriorated so much that the only hope in many places is that these duties will be someday turned over to local conservancies. The tremendous increase in the use of off-highway vehicles has exacerbated this neglect.

Last I looked, there were no female Station Directors, and in Region 2, last I looked 2/11 forest supervisors were women, and one deputy forest supervisor out of seven. So out of 18 line officers of the forest supervisor persuasion, there were 3 women. If women are 50 percent of the population, and after 40 years of trying, we are still less than 20%, then perhaps draconian efforts like the Consent Decree are needed (just a “straw person,” really!). But I think it’s hard to blame a more generic agency-wide torpor on too many women. Not impossible, just hard, especially if you look at the numbers.

This is definitely a situation in which we all need to “listen with the ears of the heart.” I think that if we listen carefully, with an open mind and heart, to everyone’s stories, perhaps we can find a better and more inclusive path forward.