[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RESTORING THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT WORKFORCE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, March 19, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-12
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-109 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Jeff Flake, Arizona
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Grace F. Napolitano, California Carolina
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Louie Gohmert, Texas
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Rob Bishop, Utah
Jim Costa, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
George Miller, California Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts John Fleming, Louisiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mike Coffman, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Islands Tom McClintock, California
Diana DeGette, Colorado Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Joe Baca, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Elton Gallegly, California
Grace F. Napolitano, California John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Jeff Flake, Arizona
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Carolina
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Louie Gohmert, Texas
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Islands Mike Coffman, Colorado
Diana DeGette, Colorado Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Tom McClintock, California
Lois Capps, California Doc Hastings, Washington, ex
Jay Inslee, Washington officio
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, March 19, 2009......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 1
Statement of Witnesses:
Austin, James, Chairman, Fraternal Order of Police, U.S. Park
Police Labor Committee, Washington, D.C.................... 87
Prepared statement of.................................... 90
Downing, Elaine, Vice President, National Federation of
Federal Employees, Local 2152, California Bureau of Land
Management, Needles, California............................ 66
Prepared statement of.................................... 68
Kashdan, Hank, Associate Chief, Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.................................. 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Leonard, George M., National Association of Forest Service
Retirees, Fairfax, Virginia................................ 73
Prepared statement of.................................... 75
Simpson, Kevin, Executive Vice President and General Counsel,
Partnership for Public Service, Washington, D.C............ 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Thatcher, Ron, President, Forest Service Council, National
Federation of Federal Employees, Libby, Montana............ 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Wade, J.W. ``Bill,'' Chair, Executive Council, Coalition of
National Park Service Retirees, Tucson, Arizona............ 59
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
Waterman, John, President, Fraternal Order of Police,
National Park Rangers Lodge, Twain Harte, California....... 93
Prepared statement of.................................... 95
Wenk, Daniel N., Acting Director, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``RESTORING THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT
WORKFORCE.''
----------
Thursday, March 19, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, The Honorable Raul
M. Grijalva [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Bishop, Holt, Heinrich,
Inslee, Sarbanes, Shea-Porter, Tsongas, and Lummis.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Welcome to the hearing by the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. This is an oversight
hearing on Restoring the Federal Land Management Workforce.
Thank you very much for being here.
Today our Subcommittee will be conducting an oversight
hearing to explore the issues impacting the morale and the
effectiveness of our public lands workforce. We will hear
testimony from groups that represent the employees in the
field, those who protect our forests, manage the range, and
serve the millions of park visitors that we have each year.
Their offices may be in the top of Mount McKinley or a raft in
the Grand Canyon, cruising timber in the Pacific Northwest, or
riding the Wyoming range. These are the jobs that most
Americans have only dreamt of--yet, by all accounts, their
morale is among the worst of all Federal employees. According
to survey data, Federal prison guards and IRS agents enjoy
their job more than park rangers. We want to know why.
For years, we have increased our expectations of these
employees while chronically underfunding their programs. ``Do
more with less'' has been the common mantra. Today, we are
asking these beleaguered employees, in addition, to begin to
address the impacts of climate change, fight the increasing and
more severe wildfires, balance energy development with resource
protection, get every child to play outside, keep the trails in
good shape, the range lands healthy, and the restrooms clean.
Our Federal land management workforce faces a looming wave
of retirements and the loss of institutional capacity and
memory. At the same time, these same agencies routinely rate
very poorly on surveys of employee satisfaction, surveys that
young job seekers use to guide their career choices. Today, we
look forward to hearing from the Partnership for Public
Service, producers of the report ``Best Places to Work in the
Federal Government'' who will shed light on these low ratings,
and offer suggestions for improvement.
Nobody knows the issues faced by these employees better
than the employees themselves. So today we will also hear
testimony from three witnesses representing rank and file
employees of the Bureau of Land Management, National Park
Service, and U.S. Forest Service. These witnesses dedicated a
great deal of their personal time and energy to addressing
these issues on behalf of their peers, and we appreciate the
effort it took for them to be here today for this hearing.
Last February, the Department of the Interior Inspector
General completed a review of the problems in the United States
Park Police, including those that directly impact employee
morale. Today, we will hear testimony which will bring us up to
speed on the progress to date in achieving what former NPS
Director Bomar called ``Management Excellence with Park
Police.''
These dedicated stewards of our Federal land management
agencies have protected and conserved our lands and the
resources for over a century. The work they do is a model for
nations around the world. This Committee must support them and
give them the tools they need to face the challenges that lie
ahead. I look forward to hearing the testimony of all our
witnesses today, and now I will turn to our Ranking Member, Mr.
Bishop, for any opening statement he may have. Sir.
Mr. Bishop. I will yield until we actually hear the
testimony.
Mr. Grijalva. At this point let me welcome our first panel,
and let me begin with Mr. Hank Kashdan, Associate Chief, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture.
Sir, your verbal testimony, five minutes; your written
testimony in its entirety, and other extraneous information you
want to add will all be made a part of the record. Sir.
STATEMENT OF HANK KASHDAN, ASSOCIATE CHIEF,
FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Kashdan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Bishop,
Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to be
here today to talk about restoring the Federal public lands
workforce. Also appreciate being here with my Department of the
Interior colleagues, and I also want to acknowledge being here
with Ron Thatcher, the President of the National Federation of
Federal Employees, which is our principal union in the Forest
Service, and one key to as part of a partnership to address
workforce issues that you have cited this morning.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I am close to 36 years with
the Forest Service. I am joined by 32,000 plus other career
employees who have decades of service and are often second and
third generation employees. I feel it is very fair to say that
these employees are passionate about the mission of the agency,
proud to work for the Forest Service and really optimistic
about the future.
Part of that pride and optimism about the future is
addressing the opportunities brought to the Forest Service by
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act where we are going
to be putting additional focus on several of the priorities
that were mentioned in your opening remarks, and we have
already put $100 million of that act out into the field and are
already creating jobs and our employees are working with those
new contractors to deliver on those priorities.
Now, clearly there have been major issues facing the Forest
Service in the past couple of decades. Just profound changes we
have gone through that has had an effect on the workforce. In
the early 1990s, we were routinely criticized for poor
financial controls, the inability to account for performance,
very expensive overhead. We simply had to make major changes.
We have done that.
In a passionate workforce when you make major change and
that change goes well, it is stressful, it creates some degree
of frustration even if it is executed very well. When it is
executed poorly, it is extremely demoralizing to the workforce
and, frankly, we have had the best and the worst of major
changes in the past 15 years.
Let me focus on one aspect of that change, a major
centralization of administrative programs in order to reduce
overhead. We have centralized our financial management. We have
centralized our human resources. We have dramatically changed
how employees receive computer support, and this has involved a
downsizing of roughly 1,500 employees that had historically
been spread through the field, many of them had to move. Many
of the employees had to move. Many of them actually elected to
leave the Forest Service as opposed to moving, and that was a
very, very disruptive period in time to the agency, and we
continue to have some effects from that major centralization
today.
We implemented some major IT systems, notably ``EmpowHR''
and ``GovTrip'' that have been extremely difficult for the
agency to deal with. The EmpowHR system was implemented well
before its time, and it had major significant, almost
catastrophic impacts on many of our employees that are now
adjustment from today.
Centralization of our human resources program has been very
difficult and has contributed to some of our employee morale
issues. We had some unrealistic downsizing goals, and we had
some very poor system implementation associated with that.
In addition, there were other changes that have affected
the employees in the Forest Service, the recent experience with
competitive sourcing--that is no longer occurring now--had the
effect of causing employees who have worked for decades and
were very proud of the work they were doing, as a manner of
speaking, looking over their shoulder to see if their job might
be competed in the future, and that created tremendous negative
will toward Forest Service leadership and a fear for their
jobs.
Also, in the area of fire suppression, in five of the last
seven years we have had to transfer money from other funds in
order to pay for the cost of fire suppression when that cost
exceeded the money that we had appropriated, and this funding
came from recreation, foreign management, you name it,
wildlife, et cetera, and that resulted in projects being
canceled, projects being delayed, projects being redone, it
created angry partners, broken promises. It was, frankly, no
way to run a railroad, and that has had a tremendously negative
effect on this organization.
So there are many other changes that I could cite, but that
is kind of a capsule of some of the major changes that have
affected the organization.
But I also believe as we look to the future we have every
reason to be optimistic. We have received seven successful
clean audit opinions. The President's budget addresses the fire
transfer situation, and if enacted as proposed, the changes of
fire transfers are very minimal in the future. Our financial
management centralization is now clearly a success. It has
moved into what I would call the savings category, and
demonstrates that change takes two or three years to implement.
Human resources redesign is now functioning fairly well and
will address, I am confident, some of our staffing backlogs. We
are about to introduce some new organizational alternatives to
deliver computer support to our employees who have been
frustrated with the local service they have been receiving. We
are making major progress in establishing a new safety culture
in our organization, and most recently we are going through the
Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Act we will be transferring six Bureau
of Reclamation job corps centers to the Forest Service, which
means the Forest Service will be operating all 28 civilian
conservation job corps centers in the country, which is going
to be an essential aspect of future career paths for potential
agency employees and new careers for young adults.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would have to say that
clearly we have gone through a series of profound change. I
think the future is looking very bright for the Forest Service,
and we would look forward to discussing more with you any
questions you might have. So that concludes my verbal remarks.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kashdan follows:]
Statement of Hank Kashdan, Associate Chief, Forest Service,
United States Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today on restoring the federal public
lands workforce.
INTRODUCTION
I am Hank Kashdan, Associate Chief of the Forest Service and during
this transition to the Obama Administration, Acting Deputy Under
Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment at USDA. I have a long
career with the Forest Service serving as Budget Director, and until
December as Deputy Chief for Business Operations before assuming my
current position. It was during my tenure as Budget Director that the
Forest Service decided to centralize the business operations for budget
and finance (B&F), human resource management (HRM) and information
technology (IT). Later, I became the Forest Service Deputy Chief for
Business Operations. I had to implement and make operational the
centralized operations for B&F, HRM and IT.
The Forest Service and its employees are dedicated to the Forest
Service mission ``to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of
the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and
future generations.'' The current workforce of the Forest Service is
approximately 33,000 employees. Each year our staff grows to almost
50,000 employees with the hiring of about 15,000 temporary and seasonal
employees to assist in managing the various conservation and multiple
use management programs for forestry, wildlife, recreation, range, fire
suppression, forestry research and other resource areas is greatly
dependent upon our centralized information, business, finance, and
personnel organizations. To achieve our mission, business operations
and the processes and designs for workflow are critical to agency
success and employee morale.
Forest Service employees have faced important changes in the past
10 years associated with service centralization, implementation of new
technology, major changes in the dynamics of wildfire suppression, and
a heightened focus on climate change.
Forest Service employees are ``fired up and ready to go'' in
implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We are excited
about our contribution in creating and sustaining jobs through a focus
on infrastructure, reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfire, and
developing alternative energy based on woody biomass that will support
the President's goal of energy independence.
Forest Service employees are passionate about the agency's mission
and the opportunity to contribute to the economic recovery in the short
and long term. When changes occur, there can be major adjustments
needed in behavior and operational procedures. Within a passionate
workforce such as ours, changes can be, and usually are, debated
vigorously. We fully encourage this debate since it points out what is
working well and where we can do better. We have learned from these
discussions that sometimes change can have a negative affect, even when
change is implemented well. However, the situation would be far worse
when change is poorly implemented. The Forest Service has experienced
the best and worst of change.
CENTRALIZED BUSINESS PROCESSES
From its inception, more than 100 years ago, the Forest Service had
been a decentralized agency. During the majority of this time, however,
policy and guidance relating to human resources, financial management,
budget, and information were largely concentrated at headquarter levels
of the agency. In the last 25 to 30 years, most field units came to
have had a full complement of business, personnel and more recently
information technology services and programs, largely because of
advances in computing capacity. The Forest Service organization
includes more than 600 ranger districts, 155 national forests, and 20
grasslands. It has nine regions, 92 research work units and five
research stations, the Forest Products Laboratory, the International
Institute for Tropical Forestry, and the Northeastern Area office for
State and Private Forestry. Each level has responsibility for a variety
of functions.
Beginning in 2004, the Forest Service began an effort to centralize
certain business-related operations. Centralized business operations
can achieve an economy of scale and eliminate duplicative efforts
across many field units, and we have seen significant benefits from
these efforts. In recent years, the shift to centralized business
operations has occurred, thus breaking with our long-standing
organizational history. This has a strong effect on morale. This shift
is particularly notable for employees and managers accustomed to
receiving advice and service from an employee with whom, in most cases,
they had a personal relationship. Now, under the centralized model of
business operations that service person is not on the field or
headquarters unit any more. At the same time, some work associated with
business operations remains at field units where individual employees
must assume the responsibility for administrative functions. This work,
coupled with the shift, has contributed to a circumstance in which some
employees feel like they have more workload and can add pressure and
stress on them. In some cases, the consequence is reduced employee
morale.
CENTRALIZED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
From the 1960's through 2003, the labor force providing information
technology (IT) infrastructure services and information management (IM)
policy and standards was highly decentralized throughout the Forest
Service. About 1,250 employees devoted at least part of their time to
these roles. Industry experts advised agency leadership to replace
localized customer support with a model that included ``self help''
approaches and centrally managed operations. In 2003, a Competitive
Sourcing (A-76) study identified a centralized, most efficient
organization (MEO) for the Chief Information Officer's (CIO)
organization. The study identified improved efficiencies through a 45
percent reduction of the agency's IT support staff.
Two years later, in 2005, the responsibility for the agency's
applications, databases, and geospatial information assets was added to
the MEO. The implementation of this change had a significant effect on
Forest Service employees who now had to exercise ``self help''
principles in meeting basic technology needs. This process has had some
success and some failure. Because of the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations
Act,--which states ``sec 415(a)(2) None of the funds made available by
this or any other Act may be used in Fiscal Year 2008 for competitive
sourcing studies and any related activities involving Forest Service
personnel.'' The Forest Service terminated its competitive sourcing
activities and initiated an assessment of alternatives for improving
technology services through reorganization. This reorganization seeks
to improve the coordination and integration of information management
for the Forest Service, and improve the delivery of IT services.
CENTRALIZED BUDGET AND FINANCE OPERATIONS
As you can imagine, with the Forest Service performing its
accounting and budgeting work at ranger districts, forests, regions,
research work units, research stations and the Washington headquarters
(WO) locations, there were consistency and accountability issues in the
manner and methods in which the agency conducted its financial
operations.
In the late 1990s, the Forest Service was poorly performing in
proper execution of financial accounting and controls. The agency
repeatedly received disclaimers in audits of its financial statements.
The issues were so significant that an overall lack of confidence in
Forest Service's ability to manage its finances culminated in placing
the Forest Service on the GAO Watch list. This led to lost credibility
in all aspects of agency performance.
In part to correct the accountability problems, the Budget and
Finance (B&F) program, which tracks expenditures, payments, grants and
agreements, collections and revenues, travel and budget accomplishments
was centralized in Albuquerque, New Mexico in 2005. The Albuquerque
Service Center (ASC) B&F centralized operating model reduced the total
number of personnel involved in these functions from 1,920 to 444
employees specializing in budget and finance operations.
The resulting combination of reducing the size of the field
workforce, establishing new procedures, implementing new systems, and
even dealing with the impact of Hurricane Katrina which occurred just
as the new B&F center was established, had a serious impact on agency
employees throughout the organization.
At the outset, the operation encountered major issues with payments
to contractors and support to agency employee travel. Fortunately, a
planned phase-in of operations, as well as a rigorous monitoring and
evaluation program, allowed for corrections and changes to address
unintended consequences. While we continue our efforts at improvement,
particularly in the area of payments, it is clear this centralization
is a major success and is both improving the agencies financial
management and leading to significant savings. We fully expect that our
continuous improvement efforts will lead to even better service from
the B&F organization.
FIRE PROGRAM TRANSFERS
The Forest Service and its employees understand that we have a
nation-wide responsibility for the suppression and management of
wildland fire. Wildland fire is an integral part of our mission. In
some recent years, the costs associated with wildfire suppression have
exceeded the inflation-adjusted ten-year average of suppression costs
appropriated by the Congress. When the ten-year average is not
sufficient to cover all fire suppression needs, the Forest Service is
authorized to transfer unobligated funds from other non-fire accounts
to pay suppression costs. While this transfer authority is essential to
ensure there will never be a lapse in emergency firefighting activities
due to a lack of funding, these transfers delay implementation of other
critical natural resource protection programs.
The FY 2010 Budget reflects the President's commitment to wildfire
management and community protection by establishing a new $282 million
contingent reserve fund dedicated to addressing catastrophic wildfires
in addition to fully funding the ten-year average of suppression costs
adjusted for inflation at $1.13 billion. By establishing a dedicated
fund for catastrophic wildfires, fully funding the inflation-adjusted a
ten-year average of suppression costs, and providing program reforms,
the Budget minimizes the need for agencies to transfer funds from non-
fire programs to pay for firefighting when their appropriated
suppression funds are exhausted. Establishment of this contingency fund
will be a tremendous boost to employee morale.
CENTRALIZED HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS
Prior to centralizing, the agency's indirect costs to support human
capital management programs were much higher for the Forest Service
than for other comparable organizations in the public and private
sectors. In October 2004, the Forest Service began centralizing human
resources management functions in Albuquerque, New Mexico. To be blunt,
this implementation did not go well.
The Human Resource (HR) organization provides customer service to
approximately 50,000 Forest Service permanent, seasonal and temporary
employees. The success of the service center will be achieved through
consistent agency-wide applications of personnel policies, procedures,
and processes; a significant reduction of the backlog of work that
transferred to ASC-personnel; and a structured support system for 64
Human Resource Liaisons that are located at field offices throughout
the agency. For human resource management, there is an approved
organization of 612 employees. This is a reduction of approximately 400
positions, compared with the decentralized human resource organization
that existed prior to centralization.
The human resource management operation employs Industry and
Government Best Practices designs from the Bureau of Land Management,
National Park Service, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Defense
Logistics Agency, Motorola, Weyerhaeuser, and the United Parcel
Service. In keeping with these models, we want to improve customer
service; increase operational efficiencies; reduce or avoid costs and
improve management.
Implementation challenges included dealing with the departure from
the ``high touch'' nature of having an HR person ``down the hall'' in
most offices, the tremendous learning curves associated with new
processes, and overly ambitious personnel reduction goals. To
compensate, the Forest Service has had to expend monetary and personnel
resources to create and develop ``work-around'' solutions to perform
daily business operations in a centralized environment. Intended as
temporary, because of delays in deploying viable enterprise solutions,
we continue to use these ``work-arounds'' longer than planned,
resulting in inefficiencies and higher than planned costs. We look
forward to working with USDA to implement significantly better
operations.
HUMAN RESOURCES REDESIGN
We recognize that there are continuing concerns with the current
systems for the delivery of human resources management services and
products. To address these concerns and to improve the human resources
organization, Forest Service leadership approved a new path forward in
July 2008. An ``optimization team'' is reviewing current processes,
procedures, and tools to clarify, streamline, communicate and educate
system users and program customers. The focus is on improvement of
product and service delivery. A ``redesign team'' is taking a longer-
term view at revising Human Resource's vision and programs based on
agency needs, program efficiencies, and customer input. Notwithstanding
the Herculean efforts to improve product delivery and service for human
resource operations, services and program delivery are still lagging.
It is clear that employee morale has been affected by the
implementation of centralized HR services. Through a comprehensive
redesign, we expect services to improve; but it will take time.
FIRE MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST QUALIFICATIONS
Following the deadly South Canyon Fire in 1994, an interagency team
was formed to investigate the factors contributing to the fatalities.
The subsequent 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Policy and Program Review,
signed by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, directed
Federal wildland fire agencies to establish fire management
qualifications standards to improve safety and increase professionalism
in fire management programs. After extensive effort, the Interagency
Fire Program Qualifications Standards (IFPM) and Guide were completed.
The occupational series chosen was 401, General Biologist. The
implementation of this standard has had an effect on the morale on a
small portion of our wildland firefighting personnel.
The Forest Service conducted qualifications review of employees in
the GS-401 series affected by the positive education requirements as
defined by the Office of Personnel Management, which prohibit the use
of National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) courses not supported by
official transcripts from accredited institutions of higher learning.
In 2008, human resource management reviews of affected employees'
educational classes were completed. Affected employees were notified of
the findings of the review and their status was clarified. However, in
October of 2008, the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) advised the
Forest Service of a ``Management Alert'' regarding its use of the GS-
401 series for Fire Management Specialists. The Management Alert cited
major concerns for using the 401 series by the Forest Service to meet
its fire management staffing needs. As a result, the Chief directed all
units to ``stand down'' further implementation of the GS-401 series at
grades GS-9 through GS-12 in fire management occupations.
Some employees did complete the NWCG training course work and later
some courses were determined ineligible by OPM because of changing
standards and requirements for positive education requirements. There
are over 10,000 wildland firefighters in the Forest Service and most
employees are unaffected by this issue. However, at this time 300
employees out of 341 1 have been successful in reaching the
positive education standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ January 30, 2009 letter to Jill M. Crumpaker Acting Director,
USDA Office of Human Capital Management
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY PROGRAM
The Chief is committed to ensuring that employees' health and
safety is integrated into all aspects of the Forest Service mission.
The Forest Service is ensuring an enhanced quality of life for
employees and cooperating partners by providing safety and occupational
health services and leadership for the prevention of work related
injuries and illnesses to personnel and damage to public and private
property.
Agency leaders and health and safety professionals are transforming
the Forest Service health and safety culture, using as their models
high reliability organizations (HRO). HRO's are organizations that are
engaged in high-risk activities but have a lower then normal accident
rate. Some characteristics of HRO's that the Forest Service is adopting
include: taking small errors seriously in order to identify and
mitigate system hazards; encouraging employees to report errors to
improve organizational learning and promoting the free flow of
differing viewpoints by encouraging diversity of thought in the
workplace. In other words, employees are encouraged to contribute and
participate without fear of retaliation.
Employees appreciate a rigorous health and safety program because
they know that managers and co-workers value their personal health and
safety.
OPM HUMAN CAPITAL SURVEY AND BIENNIAL BEST PLACES TO WORK REPORT
The 2007 Best Places to Work Survey conducted by the Partnership
for Public Service and American University's Institute for the study of
Public Policy Implementation, which was based on the 2006 OPM Federal
Human Capital Survey, ranked the Forest Service 143rd of 222 agency
work places for a ranking score of 59.9. Overall, this leaves the
Forest Service with a lot of room for improvement. While we ranked 209
of 222 for work life/balance (ranking 54.6) and 181 of 222 (ranking
51.3) for strategic management--low in the rankings--there are some
definite bright spots.
Over the past several years, the Forest Service has consistently
scored high (the response rate over 80% positive) for several key
morale indicators on the Federal Human Capital Survey. The indicators
include: people in your organization (who) cooperate to get the job
done; I like the work I do; and the work I do is important. For these
survey questions, over 80% of the Forest Service employees polled
responded either ``Strongly Agree'' or ``Agree''.
African Americans rank the Forest Service as the ninth best federal
agency for overall employee satisfaction and engagement, out of 222.
The Forest Service also ranked high for the availability of training
and development (ranking 46) and 48th in support for diversity. Males,
females, over 40 and under 40 demographic strata all ranked the Forest
Service between 97 (males) and 138 (under 40) indicating similar
attitudes and work experiences.
EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYEE RETENTION
The Forest Service is actively addressing leadership and management
succession. The Human Resource's plan for succession addresses this
need, which has major functions for training policy, strategy, design
and delivery. The Human Resource Staff identifies and develops the best
solutions for meeting the training needs of all Forest Service
employees including succession planning. There are five separate
leadership programs addressing aspiring leaders to executives. These
seminar programs address career paths for new employees as well as
veteran employees; each program examines and develops the leadership
competencies required of successful leaders.
Employee development and retention for the Forest Service is
achieved sometimes through temporary promotion details, where employees
can serve as acting line officers, managers or technical specialists.
Coveted by employees and widely accepted by managers, detail
assignments are a very successful pattern for Forest Service leadership
development. Details, along with developmental training and an agency
culture of delegated decision-making, ensure long competitive lists for
district ranger, forest supervisor, and research work unit project
leader positions. This enhances esprit de corps within the workforce.
The awards and recognition program can assist in improving the
morale of the workforce. Recognition for hard work, exceptional service
or innovation is part of valuing individuals' contributions to the
agency and the U.S. taxpayer. The appropriate and judicious use of the
awards and recognition programs available in U.S. government personnel
regulations can motivate employees to fulfill their duties and further
agency mission. When employees are valued for their contribution,
morale in the workforce is usually improving or high. However, the 2007
Best Places to Work Survey ranked the Forest Service 167th out of 222
agencies studied for awarding and recognizing employees; obviously,
there is room for improvement.
As in most organizations, it takes thoughtful supervisors to give
awards and recognition for jobs well done. Some of our supervisors are
better at employee recognition than are other supervisors. The agency
supports several formal awards programs that garner pride in the work
employees do, and help them gain recognition for that work. The
Secretary's annual awards are tied to the Chief's annual awards, which
are tied to annual awards at regions and research stations. Competition
for these awards is often keen, and the annual awards ceremonies
provide occasions that often inspire awe at innovative work and truly
heroic deeds.
CONCLUSION
The Forest Service has a large work force of approximately 50,000
permanent, temporary, and seasonal employees. Employees are dedicated,
tenacious, and hard working. They love the mission of the agency. Many
come to the agency as students, seasonal, or part-timers, and are
desirous to sign on for permanent work. Many are second and third
generation employees, with mothers, fathers, grandparents, sisters, and
brothers as role models. Many employees spend an entire career of 30 or
more years in the agency, ``caring for the land and serving people.''
Indeed, Forest Service employees are recognized both internationally
and nationally as Nobel Laureates, wildland fire fighters, disaster and
emergency relief specialists and thoughtful stewards of some of
America's great ecosystems found in the National Forests and
Grasslands. The Chief and I appreciate their dedication and the
excellence to their craft and we are committed to devising business
operations systems that are worthy of the stature of the employees.
We recognize, too, that contentious issues and the associated legal
complexities that can delay or halt implementation of plans and
projects for long periods, sometimes indefinitely may affect employee
morale. Over the years, this has been a source of frustration for some
employees, who may find their projects held up in the Courts and at
times not come to fruition. We recognize and understand how this can
reduce morale among motivated forest management professionals. As
agency leaders, the Chief and I are empathetic about the disappointment
of a hard-worked project being delayed or cancelled. We know, as do our
employees, that the National Forests and Grasslands belong to all
citizens and we are the steward of that trust.
Leadership is well aware, there continue to be problems with
delivery of services provided by HR and CIO operations that have a
negative effect on the morale of employees, managers, partners and
collaborators when they call upon the centers for service. We recognize
the general and specific frustrations experienced by employees and the
public and we are committed to improving, and correcting service
problems. Our center employees are courteous and dedicated to service
and operational improvement. They want to be a credible solution in the
work place. The Chief and I are committed to improving the service and
function of these operations to provide the level of performance needed
to improve morale for our employees and improve credibility for our
partners and collaborators.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee this concludes my
prepared statement. I am happy to answer any questions that you or
Members of the Committee may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Mr. Daniel Wenk, Acting Director, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior. Welcome, and thank you for being
here again, sir.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL N. WENK, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY
MICHAEL NEDD, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Wenk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Acting BLM Deputy Director Michael Nedd is here to answer
questions that are specific to the BLM, and also I have U.S.
Park Police Chief Sal Lauro is here and is available to answer
questions about the park police that you may have later.
The National Park Service and the BLM both have a strong
interest in their employees' career development and
satisfaction in their workplace concerns. Both bureaus have
implemented wide ranging, positive programs to enhance the
quality of the work experience and prepare employees in the
organization for the future. Some of the steps the National
Park Service has taken recently to improve the skills of our
workforce include: initiating a new superintendent's academy;
completing and beginning the implementation of the NPS learning
and development report; establishing partnership with
universities for leadership development; improving the
applicant pool through the online hiring system. NPS is one of
the last large Federal agencies that did not have online
application procedure and we were losing top-quality applicants
to other agencies whose automated staffing processes made it
easier for candidates to apply for jobs and allowed agencies to
respond more quickly. We are developing a culture of safety
awareness and adopting professional excellence as one of our
centennial goals.
The National Park Service has also acted to better
understand and address the concerns of our workforce. In
response to the results of the 2007 Best Places to Work
Analysis conducted by the Partnership for Public Service, which
was based on the 2006 OPM Federal capital survey, the National
Park Service leadership brought together a broad-based team of
employees to analyze the NPS results and recommend actions for
improvement.
The team's recommendations principally addressed training
and development, leadership communication to the workforce and
efforts to make the survey available to a broader range of NPS
employees. We have been taking action in all three areas.
We have also acted to improve the functioning and morale of
the U.S. Park Police. The February 2008 IG report on the park
police was a catalyst for change. Sal Lauro, a former park
police official with 32 years of law enforcement experience,
was brought in to oversee the force on an interim basis, and
was named chief of police in January. Chief Lauro is working
with the NPS to fill vacancies in various command-level
positions. Sergeant and lieutenant positions are being filled
from the first new promotional list in five years. We are
making significant improvements in staffing levels, meeting
firearm qualification standards, the upgrading of ballistic
vests, and replacing vehicles; all issues of major concern to
park police officers in leadership of the National Park Service
and U.S. Park Police.
To help address morale, the park police has developed a
partnership with OPM, Center for Talent Services, to conduct a
survey to identify specific concerns employees had with regard
to their workforce environment and the resources they needed to
carry out the mission, followed by focus groups designed to
elicit specific suggestions for improvement. The information is
being reviewed by research psychologists who will recommend
specific goals for the organization to focus on and will be
further developed through a process that uses employee teams to
formulate specific recommendations. OPM will be providing an
intense leadership development and training program designed to
identify individuals' strengths and weaknesses as well as
strategies for improving the effectiveness of police force
leaders.
NPS is also taking steps to address the concerns of the law
enforcement rangers who work in parks along the border with
Mexico, who, of course, have very serious safety issues. We are
implementing operational protocols, hiring more rangers,
closing high-risk areas to visitors and staff as necessary, and
using an encrypted radio system to provide seamless
communication between the Park Service and the U.S. Border
Patrol personnel. A significant budget increase of $8.5 million
was enacted in Fiscal Year 2009, to accelerate this important
endeavor.
The National Park Service leadership believes more efforts
needs to be made in the areas of increasing the diversity of
the workforce, improving training and recruitment, improving
capacity in contracting and workforce management, and
addressing other employee concerns.
The steps we are taking in each of these areas are
described in my full statement. They are areas we hope to have
more results to show in the future.
We are just now receiving the results from OPM's 2008
Federal Human Capital Survey, the basis for what will be the
2009 Best Places to Work ranking. Early indications are that
many of the issues identified in 2006 survey--training,
supervisory skills, communications, leadership, workforce and
lack of resources--also will show up in the 2008 survey. Most
of the NPS efforts in response to 2007 Best Places to Work
rankings are just now beginning to be implemented, so it is
unlikely that the 2008 survey and rankings will register much
change. However, we believe that we are pursuing appropriate
actions to improve the work environment and practices that will
address those concerns.
Shifting to the BLM, the Bureau's multiple use
responsibilities require wide range of occupations and skills.
BLM has long recognized that its success rests entirely on the
collective knowledge, experience, and dedication of its
employees. The BLM has established a Human Capital Management
Program to enhance the quality of the work experience of its
employees and prepare for the future. This program has four key
goal: recruit skilled and diverse candidates; enhance skills
and prepare employees for greater responsibilities; retain
satisfied and motivated employees; and engage employees in
reaching performance goals and recognize their achievements.
The BLM has established a variety of programs to advance
these goals and is continually working to improve the morale
and effectiveness of employees.
To interest minority candidates in working for the BLM, the
Bureau has partnerships with the Historically Black Colleges
and Universities and Tribal Colleges and Universities. The
Bureau has also established an agreement with the League of
United Latin American Citizens on a program to increase
awareness within the Hispanic community of the BLM and its
career opportunities.
BLM is also preparing employees for career advancement in
future leadership positions, which is critical because nearly
half of the Bureau's managers and supervisors are eligible to
retire within the next five years. The training program called
``Pathways'' introduces new employees to the BLM's history,
scope of work, and diverse career opportunities. Emerging
leaders target mid-level employees with interest in management
positions and the Leadership Academy prepared selected
candidates for positions of greater responsibility.
The BLM has a National Employee Development Program since
1969, which is now housed at the BLM training center in
Phoenix, Arizona. The program and center have become world-
class institutions which meet multi-agency training needs
through the offering of over 300 courses annually in natural
and cultural resources management and leadership development.
The Employee Development Program at NTC serves more than
4,400 employees each year through instructor-led training and
serves as the center for the BLM community to discuss issues,
share experiences and develop better approaches for protecting
wildlife habitat, fighting wildfire, provide energy resources,
and managing the diverse uses of America's public lands. Other
initiatives are making important contributions to the Bureau's
workforce development, including greater emphasis on coaching
and mentoring employees.
The BLM uses the OPM Federal Human Capital Survey to help
provide insight into understanding the Bureau's human capital
management efforts, if they are succeeding in learning how to
improve the development of the best possible organization.
Initial conclusions from the 2008 survey indicate that a key
strength of the BLM is that most of the Bureau's employees feel
the work they do is important. Additional strengths include a
cooperative workforce, employee satisfaction with work/life
balance, and an understanding among employees of how their work
relates to the agency's goals and priorities.
The 2008 survey showed positive overall trends for the BLM,
but also highlights areas of weakness that require greater
attention, including recognition of performance workload and
employee retention.
These survey results are being utilized to involve and
strengthen the BLM's continuing efforts to recruit, enhance,
retain, and reward its workforce.
That concludes my prepared remarks. Acting Deputy Director
Nedd and I will be happy to answer any questions that you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wenk follows:]
Statement of Daniel N. Wenk, Acting Director,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today at this oversight hearing on restoring the Federal public lands
workforce. My remarks will focus on the progress we are making in
addressing workforce issues within the National Park Service (NPS),
including those affecting the U.S. Park Police, as well as areas that
require more attention. They will also include a brief discussion of
workforce issues that are being addressed by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM).
The NPS and BLM have a strong interest in their employees' career
development and satisfaction, and their workplace concerns. Both
bureaus have implemented wide-ranging, positive programs to enhance the
quality of the work experience and prepare employees--and the
organizations--for the future. In national surveys of Federal employees
conducted by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), a large majority
of employees in the NPS and BLM say that they like the work they do,
feel that it is important, and that it provides a sense of personal
accomplishment. While these findings are gratifying, other findings
show room for improvement. And, as in any organization, continued
improvements can and will be made. The NPS and BLM both are working to
create a more productive, satisfying and rewarding workplace.
National Park Service
These are promising times for the NPS workforce. Our bureau enjoys
strong support from our new President and Secretary, and from Congress.
We have embarked on preparing for the NPS Centennial in 2016 with
substantial increases in operating funds in the last two fiscal years,
which will be followed, if Congress approves the President's request,
with another substantial increase in FY 2010. Those increases have
provided for hiring 3,000 seasonal employees and making many
improvements at our parks. We have moved forward on many new
partnership projects and programs as part of our Centennial Initiative.
The NPS was fortunate to receive $750 million from the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which will be put to good use addressing
the maintenance backlog and constructing new facilities, with an
emphasis on energy-efficiency projects, youth work projects, and
rehabilitation of treasured landscapes and structures.
Other trends are also contributing to employee morale. Our 275
million visitors continue to have positive experiences, as demonstrated
by visitor surveys which consistently show a satisfaction rate in the
mid-90 percent range. We now reach 60 million people through our
website, which improves in quality each year. Preview showings of a Ken
Burns film series on the history of the national parks that will air in
September, 2009, have generated enormous excitement within NPS. The
ranks of volunteers at national parks continue to grow, with our 2008
count at 172,000. The National Park Service leadership recognizes that
none of the success we have as an agency, none of the support we enjoy
from political leaders and the public, would be possible without the
hard work, commitment, and enthusiasm of our 20,000 employees. Our
efforts are focused on ensuring that we have a skilled, efficient, and
satisfied workforce as we move into our second century of service to
the American people. Recent budget increases in FY 2008 and FY 2009
have heightened these efforts.
Recent Workforce Management Accomplishments
The NPS has taken several steps recently to improve the skills of
our workforce, including:
Initiating a New Superintendent's Academy. In 2008, NPS
launched a new formal training program for first-time superintendents.
The program addresses key competencies required of superintendents
through an 18-month program tailored to each participant's
developmental needs.
Completing and implementing the NPS Learning and
Development Report. In 2007, the NPS carried out a year-long,
comprehensive review of training and development across the Service.
Its recommendations will significantly change the infrastructure,
operations, and curriculum of the learning and development program.
Establishing partnerships with universities for
leadership development. Growing out of the Learning and Development
Report, NPS has undertaken a new initiative to work with partnering
universities to enhance our leadership development opportunities. At a
summit of university and non-profit partners in the fall of 2008, this
``Leadership Roundtable Group'' laid the groundwork for what is
envisioned as an institutionalized effort to identify and address NPS
leadership training needs.
Improving the applicant pool through an on-line hiring
system. The NPS has been implementing the USAStaffing system, developed
by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). As one of the last large
agencies that did not have an on-line application procedure, NPS was
losing top-quality applicants to other agencies whose automated
staffing processes made it easier for candidates to apply and allowed
agencies to respond to applicants more quickly. USAStaffing performs an
initial screening and evaluation of job applicants, speeding up the
otherwise labor-intensive process of candidate referral to managers
seeking to fill vacancies.
Developing a culture of safety awareness. Recognizing
that traditional approaches to workplace safety management were
insufficient to address the wide range of hazardous jobs and tasks
throughout the NPS workforce, in May, 2007, the NPS established a
Safety Leadership Council to reexamine and reenergize the safety
efforts ongoing within the NPS. A key result has been the adoption of a
U.S. Coast Guard safety program for our own use. ``Operational
Leadership,'' as we have dubbed it, is a bottom-up approach to safety
awareness that emphasizes the responsibility of all employees for their
own safety and that of their co-workers.
Adopting Professional Excellence as a Centennial goal.
Reflecting our deep belief in the importance of supporting our
workforce, the NPS established ``Professional Excellence'' as one of 5
overarching themes of our Centennial Initiative in our Report to the
President in May, 2008. Goals within this theme include advancing the
NPS to become one of the top 10 places to work in America, promoting a
safety and health culture for all employees and visitors, and
establishing a structured professional development curriculum to
provide park managers with the skills to apply best business practices
and superior leadership.
The NPS has also taken steps to better understand and respond to
the concerns of the workforce. In response to the unsatisfactory
results of the ``2007 Best Places to Work'' analysis conducted by the
Partnership for Public Service, which was based on the 2006 OPM Federal
Human Capital Survey, the NPS leadership commissioned a team of diverse
employees from all regions and from a range of skill areas to analyze
the NPS results and recommend actions for improvement. This team's
recommendations principally addressed training and development,
leadership communications to the workforce, and efforts to make the
survey available to a broader range of NPS employees. Recommendations
involving training and development were incorporated into the
comprehensive review of NPS training and development that was underway
at that time.
In addition, the NPS entered into an agreement with the National
Parks Conservation Association's Center for Park Management to support
NPS' efforts to achieve the Centennial ``Professional Excellence'' goal
of becoming one of the top 10 places to work. A series of focus groups
were also conducted in the fall of 2008 that included not only full-
time permanent employees but also seasonal and term employees, who are
not provided access by OPM to the survey. Through these focus groups,
the Center for Park Management collected more in-depth information
about employee concerns in areas that the OPM survey covered. Focus-
group data will help us to better understand the 2008 survey results.
Progress on Law Enforcement Workforce Issues
In February 2008, the Department's Office of Inspector General
released its ``Assessment of the United States Park Police,''
containing twenty recommendations for improvements. Following receipt
of this report, the Department and the NPS installed a Command
Management Team to oversee the operation of the Park Police and to
address the weaknesses which had been identified in the report.
Salvatore Lauro, a former Park Police official with 32 years of law
enforcement experience, was named Chief of Police in January following
ten months of overseeing Park Police operations on an interim basis.
Chief Lauro is working with the NPS to fill vacancies in various
command level positions. Sergeant and lieutenant positions are being
filled from the first new promotional list in five years.
A major portion of the Inspector General's report focused on the
level of security at national icons, but the report also covered
significant officer safety issues, including:
Staffing. The Park Police have been reassessing staffing
levels and priorities to identify the most efficient and practicable
means of addressing mission needs and alleviating officer safety
concerns. We anticipate reaching a workforce of 630 sworn police
officers by the end of the FY 2009.
Firearms qualifications. We now have a computer
application suitable for tracking firearms-qualification statistics and
have developed a standardized data collection format. The Park Police
force was in compliance with firearms-qualifications standards in its
last two quarterly reports to the Secretary.
Ballistic vests. In the spring of 2008, the Park Police
conducted a comprehensive inventory that documented the status of body
armor issued to every officer. As a result, working with the vest
manufacturer, the Park Police worked to ensure that any officer wearing
a vest that was not National Institutes of Justice-compliant was
properly fitted with an appropriate replacement vest. All officers now
have compliant vests, with the exception of the 35 new recruits who
will receive their body armor prior to graduating from training.
Additionally, each supervisor is required to check the condition of
subordinate personnel vests on an annual basis.
Vehicles. In coordination with the NPS Comptroller, the
Park Police has completed a Fleet Management Strategic Plan and
submitted orders for FY 2009 and FY 2010 consistent with this plan. The
110 vehicles received this year have replaced high-mileage vehicles. A
comprehensive evaluation of the vehicle needs is underway.
In addition, as a result of low workforce morale and other
concerns, the Park Police developed a partnership with the OPM Center
for Talent Services to conduct an Organizational Assessment Survey
designed to assess workplace culture and climate. This survey was
administered by personnel research psychologists with the objective of
further identifying specific concerns employees had with regard to
their workforce environment and the resources they needed to carry out
the mission. As a follow-up to the survey administration,
representatives from the various geographic locations covered by the
Park Police were invited to participate in focus groups for both non-
supervisory and supervisory officers as well as civilian employees.
These focus groups were designed to elicit specific suggestions for
improvement. Information from both the survey and the focus groups is
being reviewed and evaluated by the research psychologists who will
recommend specific goals on which the organization as a whole should
focus in order to address employee concerns. These recommendations will
be further developed through an employee-driven action planning process
that empowers teams to formulate specific actions and recommendations
for improving morale and organizational effectiveness.
In addition to providing a structure for engaging employees in the
decision-making process, OPM will be providing an intensive leadership
development and training program designed to identify individual
strengths and weaknesses as well as strategies for improving the
effectiveness of the Force's managers and leaders.
The NPS law enforcement workforce also includes park law
enforcement rangers. Rangers who work in the 19 national park units
along the border with Mexico, in particular, face serious safety issues
due to the growth in illegal cross-border activities. The NPS has taken
steps to improve employee safety there by implementing operational
protocols for ``working on the border'' which include check in/out
procedures, working in pairs, and receiving specialized training.
Additional rangers have been hired, and high-risk areas are being
closed to visitors and staff as necessary. A digital, encrypted radio
system has also been installed to provide seamless communication
between the NPS and U.S. Border Patrol personnel. A significant budget
increase of $8.5 million was enacted for FY 2009 to accelerate this
important endeavor.
NPS staff in border parks, north and south, have increased
collaborative efforts with sister agencies. At Big Bend National Park,
the NPS hosts U.S. Border Patrol agents who live in and are stationed
within the boundaries of the park. The parks have increased
coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Border Patrol, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the other land management agencies
and tribes. In conducting periodic operations aimed at interdicting the
high level of smuggling by boat, and along the northern border, NPS
rangers in some parks have been cross-designated as U.S. Customs
Inspectors. Additionally, the Caribbean parks are currently working
closely with ICE to obtain dispatch services for law enforcement
operations. These developments are helping improve the safety and well-
being of NPS rangers.
Areas of Concern in NPS Workforce Management
The NPS leadership believes more effort needs to be made in the
areas of increasing the diversity of the workforce, continued
improvement in training and recruitment, improving capacity in
contracting and workforce management, and addressing other employee
concerns.
To have a workforce that better represents the growing diversity of
the U.S. population, we have developed and are working to meet
diversity recruitment goals. We engage several national-level
organizations that represent ethnic minorities. Our Recruitment Futures
Implementation Team (RFIT) has completed its third year of supporting
job fairs, training NPS employees who serve as recruiters at specific
schools or events, and working with a consortium of minority-serving
schools to sponsor targeted recruitment events.
An ethnic minority youth intake initiative was developed by Santa
Monica Mountains National Recreation Area that brings students from
minority-serving high schools to work as park interns, and we are
exploring the possibilities for expanding this initiative to other
parks for recruiting outreach to minorities at early ages. In addition,
the Office of Workforce Management and the Youth Programs Division have
initiated a collaboration involving programs supported by the division
(Youth Conservation Corps, Public Lands Corps, Youth Partnerships
Program, Student Conservation Association) to channel their
participants to programs aimed at higher-level students as they outgrow
their initial program. We are also developing stronger connections
between human resource recruitment planning and the potential
candidates these programs provide. Promoting youth conservation work at
our national parks is a high priority for Secretary Salazar, and we
anticipate more efforts in this area as we move forward.
NPS piloted a centralized summer seasonal hiring effort in 2008 to
facilitate the hiring of the 3,000 seasonal employees made possible by
Centennial Initiative funding. This centralized effort has the added
benefit of enabling us to provide more focused attention on outreach to
diverse candidates.
NPS is continuing to work toward improving employee training and
development programs and recruitment efforts. We plan to fully develop
a proposal for turning Mather Training Center into a NPS distance-
learning center and determine what will be required to make better use
of our TELNET capacity. We also plan to develop a new employee
orientation package for all new employees, partners, concessionaires,
and volunteers. Aligned with a Departmental initiative on learning and
development, we are working with other bureaus to develop comprehensive
training for new supervisors to help us respond to a 2006 Federal Human
Capital Survey result (which was reconfirmed in the 2008 results)
showing that new supervisors lack awareness about their supervisory
responsibilities.
Recognizing the lack of capacity in several of our administrative
functions, notably contracting, human resources, and learning and
development, we are developing servicewide strategies to support these
functions. Budget increases were provided in each of these functional
areas for FY 2009 to invest in the training needs of the employees in
these disciplines, so that we can provide employees with the
competencies needed to proactively manage new initiatives and programs
rather than reactively process individual transactions as they have
done in the past.
We are just now receiving the results from OPM's 2008 Federal Human
Capital Survey, the basis for what will be the 2009 ``Best Places to
Work'' rankings. Early indications are that many of the issues
identified in the 2006 survey (training, supervisory skills,
communication, leadership, workload and lack of resources) continue as
issues. Most of the NPS' efforts undertaken in response to the 2007
``Best Places to Work'' rankings are just now beginning to be
implemented, so it is unlikely that the 2008 survey and the 2009
rankings will register very much change. However, we believe that we
are pursuing appropriate actions to improve the work environment and
the workplace practices that will address these concerns.
Bureau of Land Management
The BLM's multiple-use mission and responsibilities are uniquely
varied and complex, and its mission requires a wide range of
occupations and skill sets, ranging from wildlife biologists, to
cadastral surveyors, to petroleum engineers, to financial managers. The
BLM has long recognized that its success rests entirely on the
collective knowledge, experience, and dedication of this diverse
workforce. This understanding is fundamental in the BLM, and it
motivates and shapes the BLM's wide-ranging efforts to recruit,
develop, and retain highly skilled and satisfied employees.
BLM's Human Capital Management Program
The BLM has established a Human Capital Management Program (HCMP)
to enhance the quality of the work experience of its employees and
prepare for the future. The HCMP has four key goals and components:
Recruit skilled and diverse candidates;
Enhance skills and prepare employees for greater
responsibilities;
Retain satisfied and motivated employees; and
Engage employees in reaching performance goals and
recognize achievements.
The BLM has established a variety of programs to advance these
goals and is continually working to improve the morale and
effectiveness of employees.
BLM's Workforce Planning
The BLM is committed to recruiting a diverse workforce that
reflects the multicultural heritage of the American people. This can be
a special challenge for natural resource management agencies, which
have offices in some locations where populations may be less ethnically
diverse. The BLM has established programs that engage and encourage
minority candidates to consider a career in public service with the
BLM. For example, through partnerships with the Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), the Bureau recruits students at
Alabama A&M University, Alcorn State University, and other HBCUs. A
similar partnership was recently established with Tribal Colleges and
Universities (TCUs), and the BLM now conducts recruiting at primarily
Native American schools such as Salish Kootenai College in Montana and
Oglala Lakota College in South Dakota. The BLM has also established an
agreement with the League of United Latin American Citizens to build a
program to increase awareness within the Hispanic community of the BLM
and its career opportunities.
In addition to building a diverse workforce, the BLM is working to
prepare employees for career advancement and to assume future
leadership positions. These efforts are critical, because over 25
percent of the BLM's employees are eligible to retire in the next 3
years. Nearly half of the BLM's leaders are eligible to retire within
the next 5 years. The BLM has established a series of training and
succession programs to prepare for this transition. The first,
``Pathways'', introduces new employees to the BLM's history, scope of
work, and diverse career opportunities. The second, ``Emerging
Leaders'', targets mid-level employees with an interest in leadership
positions. The final program is the BLM's Leadership Academy, which
prepares selected candidates for positions of mid-level and above
leadership. The BLM leadership invests time and energy into these
programs, including providing opportunities to meet and talk with
senior BLM officials.
BLM's Focus on Enhancing Skills
The BLM has a long-standing commitment to and emphasis on
developing a highly professional and diverse workforce using a wide
variety of educational opportunities. To help achieve this, in 1969 the
BLM established a National Employee Development program which is now
housed at the BLM National Training Center (NTC) in Phoenix, Arizona.
The program and the center have become world-class institutions which
meet multi-agency training needs through the offering of over 200
courses annually in natural and cultural resource management and
leadership development. The BLM's Employee Development program has
become a pioneer in distance learning, providing a web-based Knowledge
Resource Center (KRC) for just-in-time information and web-based
courses and training broadcasts to over 130 BLM satellite network sites
nationally. The Employee Development program and NTC serves more than
4,400 employees each year through instructor-lead training. Nearly
every BLM employee accesses some type of on-line course or utilizes the
KRC numerous times throughout his or her careers.
The NTC is more than a training facility. It has become a town
center and crossroads for the BLM community, where employees discuss
issues, share experiences, and develop better approaches for protecting
wildlife habitat, fighting wildfire, providing energy resources, and
managing the diverse uses of America's public lands. While the training
programs at the NTC remain central to enhancing employees' skills,
other initiatives are making important contributions to the BLM's
workforce development, including a greater emphasis on coaching and
mentoring employees, the use of action learning teams and the
development of well-designed employee performance plans.
The Federal Human Capital Survey
The BLM is both interested and deeply committed to knowing if our
human capital management efforts are succeeding. We are continually
working to improve and develop the best possible organization. The
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has conducted the Federal Human
Capital Survey (FHCS) to help provide this insight. The survey began in
2002 and has been conducted biannually.
The latest FHCS was conducted in 2008 and its results were released
recently. It surveyed more than 210,000 Federal employees on a wide
range of issues, and the methodology provides comparison data across
the last three surveys: 2004, 2006, and 2008. About 54 percent of BLM
employees participated in the survey (compared to 51 percent
government-wide). The BLM is now examining the results to learn its
relative strengths and weaknesses and to identify areas for
improvement. We have some initial conclusions.
A key strength of the BLM is that most of our employees feel the
work they do is important. This sense of commitment and united purpose
is perhaps our greatest asset. Additional strengths include: a
cooperative workforce; employee satisfaction with work-life balance and
an understanding among employees of how their work relates to the
agency's goals and priorities. Further, the 2008 survey showed positive
overall trends for the BLM. In comparison with the 2006 Federal Human
Capital Survey, the BLM improved on 54 of 73 questions by 2 percent
points or more, including questions on leadership, diversity, and
resources.
The survey also highlights areas of weakness that require greater
attention. These areas include: recognition of performance, workload,
and employee retention. In response to previous surveys, the BLM has
initiated several efforts to address these challenges. For example, the
BLM's succession development program encourages retention by providing
a guided pathway for career advancement. To address workload concerns,
the BLM has linked strategic goals with annual budget plans, workload
targets, and performance plans. This process provides clear national
priorities that correspond with field capabilities and individual
accomplishments. The recent survey results are being utilized to
further evolve and strengthen the BLM's continuing efforts to recruit,
enhance, retain, and reward its workforce.
The BLM's mission is complex and challenging, and its workforce is
highly skilled and dedicated to managing the public lands for the
American people. The BLM has a strong history of commitment to employee
development and growth, and we remain committed to creating a more
productive, satisfying, and rewarding workplace.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy
to answer any questions you or the other members of the Subcommittee
have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, and I was remiss in not
welcoming Deputy Director Nedd here again to the hearing room.
Thank you very much for being here.
Let me begin with more--I do not know if there is a real
good answer to this question, but all jobs have value but
having said that, how is it possible that a Federal prison
guard rates their job as more satisfactory than the park
rangers rate their job? I just find that difficult to
understand.
Mr. Wenk. I think the job satisfaction, Mr. Chairman,
relates to we have a passionate and committed workforce. They
deserve and expect to have the resources at their disposal to
do their job in the best possible way. I think some of the
frustration rests on the fact that they may not have all the
resources that they need to do their job, and I cannot speak
for the prison guard, but I know that our employees want to do
their job at the highest level possible, and I think sometimes
they feel frustrated that they do not have the support to do
that that they would like to have.
Mr. Kashdan. Mr. Chairman, when the results of that survey
came out, I would have to confess that the chief and I looked
at this and were, frankly, shocked. It was very, very
concerning to both of us, and did not sink with what we tend to
encounter when we see employees in the field and how proud they
are of the work.
I would have to say that there were some clear factors
associated with that. The passion that Mr. Wenk talked about,
when you are passionate you also tend to not like anything to
rock the boat, and we had really rocked our employees' boat
tremendously with some of the administrative changes we had
worked out, some significantly poor execution of some of our
new personnel systems.
I want to think that a great deal of that has been
addressed, and if we took that survey again today, we would see
marked improvement. Again, cannot speak to the prison guards,
but we are very concerned about that, and we have tried to
address it through quickly improving some of our administrative
problems, and working with the union to address their
partnerships.
Mr. Grijalva. I do not want to diminish the prison guard,
but as we work a lot of it I would hope that our park rangers
are as satisfied as the prison guards in terms of, at the
minimum, in terms of their job.
Anyway, I am going to ask, if I may, Mr. Kashdan, a
specific question. The efforts to reclassify the fire managers
into a whole new job series, I think has affected morale
throughout the fire fighter ranks. Let us say I am a wild land
fire fighter, I have no college education, I have 15 years of
experience at that job, good evaluations. What advice would you
give that employee about moving up in the career ladder in the
agency, and can such an employee that has experience and tenure
as part of their evaluation have the opportunity to move up in
general?
Mr. Kashdan. Yes, sir. You are referring to the
reclassification of positions into what we call the GS-401
series, a professional series versus a technical series. Our
fire operations positions have historically been in the
technical series, and did not require a college degree. I am
saying that simply did not require a positive education
requirement as OPM would define it.
We embarked, and admittedly DOI and Forest Service have to
come together on this issue, but we had embarked on
reclassifying positions into the GS-401 series on the premise
that courses certified by the National Wildfire Coordinating
Group would suffice to meet our requirements, which we felt was
appropriate and would allow our technical employees to move
into that series.
A redefinition has basically said you have to have positive
education requirements now to fill a 401 series, and that
caused a great deal of concern to the chief and I, and in
response to an Office of Inspector General management alert we
in the Forest Service basically issued a stand-down order on
implementing that because we value the fire operations
technical career.
So what I would tell those employees is stay with us, we
are working on that. We are very concerned about the
implications of the direction we took in the 401 series, and we
have a lot of work to do there.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. I am going to probably have other
questions but my time is up. Let me turn to Mr. Bishop if he
has questions.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Mr. Wenk, let me ask you a few questions, and if others
have answers to them, that would be fine as well.
You recently signed an order banning sportsmen from using
lead tackle or ammunition in national parks. Can you explain
why this decision was made without providing any evidence that
the lead gear poses a risk to wildlife at the species level?
Mr. Wenk. Congressman Bishop, the memo that I sent to the
field did not do that, sir. What it did was it said the
National Park Service in its own internal operations would
stop--would switch from lead-based ammunition in our own
internal culling operations, resource management activities,
management activities; that we would look to engaging with the
sportsmen groups and organizations between now and 2010, and
engage in a dialogue to look at banning those lead ammunitions
from those park areas where hunting is allowed. But there is no
ban at this time on the public from using those.
Mr. Bishop. So the ban only applies to government
officials?
Mr. Wenk. The ban is on our own internal operations.
Mr. Bishop. Does that include law enforcement?
Mr. Wenk. Law enforcement? Until there is ammunition that
is developed that has the characteristics of the lead
ammunition, that ban will not be on their active-duty carry
ammunition, sir.
Mr. Bishop. OK. As I understand, part of the memo said you
want to take a leadership role in removing lead from the
environment. Is that an accurate statement of the National Park
Service goal?
Mr. Wenk. Yes, it is, sir.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Your testimony describes a situation on our
public lands along the southern border. How has the inability
to secure the border and the resulting impediments to
scientific research damaged the protective habitat death and
injury to park employees in the park impairment damage morale?
Mr. Wenk. I think it has had a significant effect,
Congressman Bishop. I believe that we have recognized that we
have areas of some of the parks along the border that are not
currently safe for visitors and/or our own employees, and we
are closing those areas until we can secure them. We are taking
active resource management restorative actions within the park
area. We have identified it as an effort, and we have increased
our budget for those border parks by $8.5 million in 2009 in
order to hire additional employees and to deal with some of
these issues.
One other important factor, sir, is that we also have
instituted an operational leadership which is, I will call, a
base-driven assessment of the risk that people have associated
with their jobs that we are very actively listening to, to try
to provide an environment that will not only protect our parks
but also allow for our employees to work in a very safe and
effective manner.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. In your written testimony, you also
mentioned you have an arrangement with the National Park and
Conservation Association, which is, of course, a lobbying
group, for their support of professional excellence in NPS
employees. Does that arrangement involve a grant or a contact
with NPS?
Mr. Wenk. It does not. What that arrangement is, sir, is
that they have an organization within the National Parks and
Conservation Office called the Center for Park Management. We
are working for the Center for Park Management, reaching out to
universities that we can work with from around the country who
have programs and resource management leadership that we can
work collaboratively with to develop leadership programs within
the National Park Service. They are serving as an organizing
force in helping us work with those universities.
Mr. Bishop. Did you have any kind of competitive bidding
process or look at other groups before you entered into that
arrangement?
Mr. Wenk. We did not have a competitive bidding process.
There was no bid. There was no funds, government funds that are
used with the NPCA.
Mr. Bishop. Last year I asked the Interior Department for
copies of communications between the National Alaska
Conservation System and certain lobbying and political advocacy
organization. It triggered an investigation by the Inspector
General who in a couple of weeks, I think, will be presenting
his report. I am making the assumption that there will probably
be some level of improper activities identified.
I have made a similar request from the Park Service. When
do I expect to get a reply?
Mr. Wenk. Mr. Bishop, I do not know the answer to that. I
will find out and get you a response immediately after the
hearing.
Mr. Bishop. Has the Department of the Interior taken any
steps since the scandal came to light dealing with NLCS to
ensure that Department of the Interior employees cease any kind
of improper collusion with political advocacy groups or
lobbying groups?
Mr. Wenk. I believe the Department of the Interior has in a
very forthright manner tried to address the ethical behavior of
all of our employees throughout the service. I cannot cite any
specific examples for the instance that you have stated.
Mr. Bishop. Can I make an assumption that probably once the
report is finalized and actually presented by the Inspector
General, that then would be an appropriate time to take----
Mr. Wenk. Yes, you can.
Mr. Bishop.--reconsideration of those actions.
Mr. Wenk. Yes, you can, sir.
Mr. Bishop. I have other questions but for now let me let
my colleagues go.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr.
Bishop. You reminded me, Mr. Wenk, let me extend the
appreciation of at least myself for those public lands that are
on the border for not only the resource attention by I think
the focus that has been placed on those challenges that the
employees there face. It is very much appreciated by the
employees, and I think by a better sense of security for
visitors and it is appreciated a lot.
Mr. Wenk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Heinrich, any questions, sir?
Mr. Heinrich. I will apologize ahead of time for my voice
today. Mr. Kashdan, the Albuquerque Service Center which you
mentioned in your testimony is in my district, and it has
obviously had its challenges, and there are a wide range of
activities that have been moved there from around the country,
and around the country meaning down the hall for most Forest
Service employees.
I am wondering, one, where is that process going on? Do you
feel like you are ahead of the curve in terms of some of the
challenges that that is faced? And what measures are you taking
to make sure that that system where those activities are
centralized is working to the benefit of Forest Service
employees, and more importantly, the resources as well all
across the country?
Mr. Kashdan. Thank you for the question. In Albuquerque, we
have three major operations that we have located here. Our
financial management operation, which was the first to move
there, is part of the Albuquerque Service Center. Our human
resources program moved there about two years later, and then
our information technology has been slowly moving people to
Albuquerque, and I would expect to be moving about another 150
to 190 information management employees there. So it is in
various stages.
I mentioned earlier in my opening remarks that the
financial management operation, the first to go there, I would
say is now very, very successful, running at about 450
employees. That is down about 500 employees less than we used
to have, and I would call that clearly a success. We are
realizing about 28 to 30 million dollar annual savings as a
result of the financial management operation.
When I say savings, that is different than operating costs,
and in human resources we targeted reducing about 20, actually
saving about 28 million, and I would say that we are not
experiencing savings yet because of some of the problems you
had discussed.
Our human resource operation, we are now going through what
we are calling a strategic redesign to address some severe
staffing backlogs, classification backlogs that I think are
probably the primary sore point, if you will, for the rest of
the organization. Those people used to be down the hall in our
remote locations. So HR, we have a ways to go, and I would say,
although we are not experiencing some of what I would call
catastrophic problems of employees not getting paid, getting
terminated without explanation, from a system problem we have a
long way to go in HR, and I expect another couple of years
before we can actually say we are in a savings mode there.
In our information technology, like I said, we will be
moving another 150 plus employees to Albuquerque. We have some
key improvements we have to make in local service which I think
is reinstating people down the hall in some of our local units,
but I am very pleased with the decision we made about
Albuquerque, and look forward to making it continue on the path
to success.
Mr. Heinrich. With that, Mr. Chair, I would just echo your
comments about the importance of focusing on some of these
public lands on the border. I have certainly had constituents
who have been directly impacted by the challenges that the
national wildlife refuges, the parks along the border have
imposed on people visiting those facilities, and I think the
extra attention there is well deserved and important if we are
going to protect the resources that those were created to
protect.
With that, I would yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Ms. Tsongas, questions, comments?
Ms. Tsongas. Yes, thank you, Mr. Wenk, for your testimony.
I happen to represent the Fifth District of Massachusetts that
has--there are 14 national parks up in Massachusetts, and two
of them are located in my district. The Minuteman National Park
and the Lowell National Historical Park, they make up a part of
our very unique history and culture and bring thousands of
people a year to visit. In fact, in Lowell, Massachusetts, the
initiation of the national park has been key to its
revitalization as an old industrial city.
If it were not for the knowledge and enthusiasm and
experience of the people who work at these parks, I doubt the
parks would experience so much popularity. My district has been
lucky to have its parks run by extremely dedicated staff, two
extraordinary superintendents and staff who have stayed with
the parks for a long time. But many of them will be retiring,
and I am concerned that the future of these parks and parks
across the country, if they are unable to retain and attract
good employees, they may be very much compromised.
We have just heard about the challenges in the morale of
the workforce, and we all know that the morale improves, not
only how people do their jobs, but our ability, the park's
ability to attract good people. So specifically I would like to
know what you are doing to engage employees to improve morale
and how, as you are looking forward to potential retirements,
you are beginning to cast a net to bring in good people to
replace the extraordinary ones who might be leaving.
Mr. Wenk. If I can deal with your last question first. One
of the opportunities that we were presented with the funding we
received in advance of and in preparation for the centennial of
the National Park Service in 2016, we were able to engage 3,000
additional seasonal employees within the National Park Service.
Those seasonal employees last year and again this year and in
future years will help us in terms of outreach to new, to
diverse employees, non-traditional employees to come in and
work with the National Park Service.
We also completed, based on the 2007 Best Places to Work,
we took that very seriously, and we engaged with our learning
and development organization to really look at what do we need
to do within the National Park Service to be more effective, to
provide a better work environment for employees to be able to,
not only once we attract them, to retain them.
Certainly we have initiated a fundamentals program that
really steeps in the employees in the policies and the mission
of the National Park Service, that we will train over 700 new
employees to the Park Service this year in that program.
We have initiated a new superintendent's academy so that
people who get to the level where they are ready to take on
that increased responsibility, we have a superintendent's
academy that will help prepare those for that increased
responsibility. I talked a little while ago we are partnering
with universities to talk about leadership development. We have
hired a new chief of training within the National Park Service
who comes to us with great skills we believe is looking and
doing the right things so that we are taking the steps
necessary to, once we have attracted those employees, retain
them and make them the best employees we can within the
National Park Service.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you. That sounds promising. I can say
from my experience with our national parks that the caliber of
the superintendent is really key to how the overall park is
managed and run, and the kind of presence it has in a
community. So I think all your efforts on behalf of fostering
superintendents can only serve us well.
I have another question. I am concerned, and I have heard
from those in my district with the centralization efforts of
the agency, that many national parks have lost their ability to
contract and execute projects; that they really have to look to
a centralized location to move forward. With this diminished
capacity, how are our national parks going to be able to spend
the money under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
effectively and expeditiously because we all know that the goal
of that act is to move quickly and to get funds out into our
economy and projects going quickly?
Mr. Wenk. We are also very aware of the need to be able to
have effective contracting for these projects within the Park
Service. There is good news. In fact, at our central location,
our Denver Service Center, which has a primary responsibility
for the line item construction or the large construction
programs, of which approximately three-quarters of the money
that has been given to us under the recovery act, they have
already increased their contracting staff.
In addition to that, we did not centralize all contracting
functions within the National Park Service. We have, we hope,
hit a very good compromise between a number of contracting
offices within each region that allows for the most effective
contracting for projects and programs that can be done. We
will, by centralizing or bringing people together and there may
be three or four different contracting offices for every
region, so I believe there is 21 or 22 across the National Park
Service. They will be very efficient in their work. They will
be very effective, being able to concentrate on the work that
they know best and do best, and we believe that it is a--if you
will--a sweet spot that does not bring total centralization but
provides effective working relationships between contracting
offices in park areas where they can develop relationships and
they can be effective in their work. We believe we can obligate
and get that money done in a very effective manner on the
stimulus package.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Ms. Shea-Porter, any questions,
comments?
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you, I do. Thank you for being here
today and having this hearing. I had just a couple of
questions.
The first one was I was concerned about the report about
outsourcing, and we have been dealing with this pretty much
across the Federal government and different committees, and I
wanted to know the impact. What percent are actually being
outsourced, percentage of jobs, and is the concern among the
Federal employees elevated or actually because they hear about
it, or are there actual numbers saying this is having a serious
impact? How many jobs are being lost? Anyone or each one of you
have a different perspective.
Mr. Kashdan. I can speak to that from the context of what
we have experienced in competitive source. For the most part
with some minor exceptions as part of the competitive sourcing
process, most of the--in fact, the vast majority of the
competitions actually stayed in-house. That did not mean that
it was not somewhat disruptive and one of our notable ones that
we did contract out as part of the competitive sourcing dealing
with the fleet repair in California. We ultimately ended up
terminating the contract.
Other outsourcing that we consider on occasion but for the
most part we are not actively engaged in any outsourcing
activities now where jobs that have historically been performed
by Federal employees. So it is so minor that I do not have the
number, buy I could certainly get that for you, but it is a
very small number.
Ms. Shea-Porter. OK, thank you. And the other question I
have was I know that over the past few years there have been
some incidents in national parks that--petty crime or more
serious crimes, and I wanted to know the impact on the morale
of our workers there, and what else needs to be done.
Mr. Wenk. I think any time that we have a crime, whether it
is against an individual or against the environment, I think
that our workforce is quick and very professionally responds to
those occurrences. I believe, unfortunately, those are
occurrences that date a long time in our history, you know, of
those kind of issues. So I guess I do not believe that it has
a--if we are talking petty crime and those kind of things--I do
not think that has a real impact on our workforce. I think
where the impact is, is the serious nature of some of the law
enforcement situations, for example, along the border where we
do not want and we will not put officers and employees at risk,
and I think of steps we have taken through Operational
Leadership, additional resources, we are addressing that very
directly to make sure that we have an appropriate response and
an appropriate level of protection and visitor services.
Ms. Shea-Porter. OK. And you feel like you have the
appropriate funding level to do that, to make sure you are
staffed enough?
Mr. Wenk. Well, we dedicated an additional $8.5 million in
Fiscal Year 2009 to that effort along the southwest border. I
think, whether it is the Federal government or private
organization, many people always believe that they would put
more resources to wise use.
Ms. Shea-Porter. So I guess the question is do your
employees feel there is enough resources there, those who
actually work in the areas?
Mr. Wenk. I think that our putting an additional $8.5
million into the southwest is a reflection of our employees'
concerns, just as putting additional money into the U.S. Park
Police to increase the staffing, the equipment, the training,
is a reflection of the needs of the U.S. Park Police.
Ms. Shea-Porter. OK, thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
putting together this hearing.
If I may ask about the BLM, and I suppose Mr. Nedd would be
the best person to answer it. There have been reports that
field employees have been pulled off of resource conservation
programs in favor of efforts such as expediting permitting for
energy development. Is that true? Has that been happening? Is
this something that is frequent where people are not doing what
they expect to do? And I suppose I could broaden that to the
other management services as well. Do people feel that they
have been yanked around, going from one job to another beyond
their expectations?
Mr. Nedd. Congressman, I do not believe so. That is a
feeling. As part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, Congress
established seven pilot offices for the processing of oil and
gas permits, and as part of that, biologists and other types of
wildlife and resource position was hired as an
interdisciplinary team to work on oil and gas permitting in
those seven offices.
But I do not believe it is widespread or the allegation
that employees have been pulled off to do is really something
that is true, and that we have been experiencing.
Mr. Holt. Whether it was mandated by Congress or not is not
my point. It is for whatever reason have people been pulled off
the job? But you say it is a small number.
Mr. Nedd. Congressman, additional resources was hired, so
it was a small number, including biologists and other type of
resource was hired to process those permitting in the seven
offices. If they were pulled off, it may have been for a short
period to work on an interdisciplinary team.
Mr. Holt. Let me ask the other two witnesses if in the
various services which I know there are some shortages of
employees in some areas, whether people have been moved around
in a way that is contrary to their expectations for which they
were hired, and whether that affects morale.
Mr. Wenk. Certainly if they are, it would affect morale,
but, Congressman Holt, I cannot--I cannot think of
circumstances or instances within the National Park Service
right now where we have had movement of--there may have been
movement within a specific park area as the superintendent sees
a need for adjustments in terms of needs of that park area, but
in terms of movement from place to place, different kinds of
jobs, I think that is a very minimal occurrence within the Park
Service.
Mr. Kashdan. And Mr. Holt, I would say that our field
workforce has the expectation that they will be highly flexible
in responding to priorities, and so I think that the shifting
is probably common, but that is not a demoralizer, particularly
the example I would use is the Recovery Reinvestment Act where
they are not responding to projects associated with jobs and
mission, and it creates a separate set of project
opportunities, and I think our employees are just absolutely
excited about that.
So I have not heard a negative aspect to shifting of their
duties.
Mr. Holt. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No questions
at this moment.
Mr. Grijalva. Any follow-up questions, Mr. Bishop? I have
some too when you are done.
Mr. Bishop. Do you want to go first?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. Let me ask kind of a general question to
each of you, Mr. Kashdan first. Part of the underlying issue
that we are talking with the workforce is morale, and a sense
of job satisfaction, a sense of contribution that an employee
needs in order to be able to do their job well, and also
provide that service at the top-notch level, and let me ask a
general question, and if you can answer it, that is fine.
What impact has political pressure had on employees? In the
case of forest, almost everything--decisions that are being
made right now on siting, on development issues, on other
things are under categorical exclusion, and at least from the
employees I have talked to, going around the NEPA processes has
had an effect on morale because professionally the inability to
really deal with that resource question, the protection of that
resource. Would you consider that political imperative of a
categorical exclusion to have had an effect on morale?
Mr. Kashdan. Mr. Chairman, let me answer that from the
context of process that employees work through to achieve
project execution, and the difficulties in completing all of
the extensive process to have a project through to the point
that you can actually execute it, and the degree to which maybe
we spend 80 percent of our time getting to the last 20 percent
of bullet-proofing, if you will, in terms of making a project
appeal proof.
So I would have to say from a process standpoint there is a
frustration, but there is also an understanding of how critical
it is for all aspects of the public, all parts of the public to
be heard and that transparency is going to an extensive part of
this new administration's emphasis on project execution,
particularly relative to the recovery act where we are talking
about blogs and right to the project level that is going to
invite a lot of public input.
So, I think that where we are going with this in the future
is still to be defined as the administration adapts its
position on working with NEPA and categorical exclusion.
Mr. Wenk. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. No, I was going to quickly--let me reference
the rewriting of the management rules for Park Service,
primarily done by political appointees at their urging, and
that is the sense that I get, the effect on morale, same
question.
Mr. Wenk. Mr. Chairman, I think that the initial belief by
the rank and file of the National Park Service was that the
rewriting of the management policies was a top-down direction.
I believe that in the middle of that process it became very
much an employee-driven, National Park Service-driven rewrite
of the management policies. I think the National Park Service,
I think at the end of the day there was no--none or very little
concern that the management policies changed any major
direction, did anything in a significantly different way than
has been the policies of the National Park Service for a long
time.
I think there is a reality within our workforce that, just
as you have resource management concerns, you have, you know,
all kinds of concerns, there are also concerns with local
communities, stakeholders. We engage the public on a regular
basis to understand what the stakeholders' interests are and we
consider all those things in our decisionmaking process.
But the policies themselves believe they are----
Mr. Grijalva. Quickly for both, let me follow up, you know,
on the political pressure question. Another kind of pressure is
we expedite resource use on public lands and we have been doing
that for possibly the last decade, expediting that process.
In terms of morale, it appears from other reports that this
Committee has received that the diminishing role of fact and
science as part of the decisionmaking process has had an impact
among the professional ranks as to their role in
decisionmaking, because fact and science, on the resource side
of it, is not given the prominence that it should have in terms
of decisionmaking and planning. That affects morale because
suddenly valuable studies and science are either changed or
manipulated or ignored, and I would assume that has an effect
on morale and the professional staff.
Mr. Holt. If the gentleman would yield----
Mr. Grijalva. I yield.
Mr. Holt.--and if I could just append a specific example to
that question. It is something that I have been involved in
quite a bit--the winter vehicles in Yellowstone Park, which I
believe were based--the initial regulations were based--on
pretty good science, and yet their policies yo-yoed back and
forth, partly because of the courts, no doubt. I would think
that is a specific example of what the Chairman is asking
about.
Mr. Wenk. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Or in general. I mean, the issue is the
effect on morale.
Mr. Wenk. I think that the moral of the National Park
Service is improved and will continue to improve based on the
emphasis that both the President and the Secretary of the
Interior placed on science-based decisionmaking. We certainly
expect that science-based decisionmaking will be how we go
forward with our decisions within the Department of the
Interior and the National Park Service.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. My time is up. Let me turn to Mr.
Bishop if he has any follow-up questions. Sir.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I have maybe three or four for each
of them, if it is possible.
Mr. Wenk, I am grateful that you said, I think the number
was $8 million that you are going to add into the interior
portions of land on the border for that is going to
improvements and enforcement and improvements of that. But I do
have one of the questions on just simply the commitment of
Interior to increasing that, especially increasing law
enforcement budgets, especially in light of the fact that DOI
is going to spend more on the so-called mitigating effects of
the border fence than it will on law enforcement. I just wonder
why.
Mr. Wenk. Well, certainly we recognize that we do have to
mitigate the effects of the fence, and so we are going to deal
with that. I think, Mr. Bishop, we continually look at the
staffing needs and the requirements along the southwest border.
We will look again in the 2010 budget and beyond to make sure
we are adequately staffed to provide the resource and visitor
protection that we need to do there, and it is an ongoing
process. The 8.5 does not mean that we believe that we have
solved the issue. It means we will continue to look but that is
our commitment in 2009.
Mr. Bishop. Let me try and help you get off the hot seat
there because I do appreciate your improvement in that area. I
want more improvement for obvious reasons.
Obviously back in 2007, the Ironwood National Monument
where three people were executed, the response at that time was
simply to pull all the employees off the land for two weeks.
Later they had to go back and pick up two tons of trash, and
basically there was no change, no additional law enforcement,
no practical changes.
I am making the assumption when you say the additional
money and re-looking at those, these types of things will be
changed so a more proactive approach will be developed by the
Department of the Interior for these types of situations on the
border area.
Mr. Wenk. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. That was the easiest answer. Good for you.
Let me ask you one other question for you and then I will
leave you alone. The reason I asked the questions about the
lead in the first place was simply the news release that was
sent out by the Park Service, which is not clear at all that it
was merely intended for internal government employees, and in
fact the words that were used here is very broad, that your
goal is to eliminate it all by 2010, and the eventual total
removal of the Park Service. So I appreciate your clarification
here. Let me just say I think the release was somewhat
misleading, and I do appreciate the clarification. I think that
is a better response and perhaps some semantics changes could
have been used there.
Mr. Wenk. We agree with you, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Kashdan, and I have a couple of questions I
would like to ask, do you hear complaints from Forest Service
personnel that too much of their time is spent preparing for
and working to prevent litigation?
Mr. Kashdan. Similar to my answer before; that is, as part
of process our employees are spending quite a bit of time
working on process aspects, and when I said spend--concern
about spending 80 percent of their time to get 20 percent
bullet-proofing, I think it speaks to the aspect of avoiding
litigation. So it takes quite a bit of time.
Mr. Bishop. So I am assuming that 80 to 20 split can also
be counted with the phrase ``paralysis to analysis'', that
spends a whole lot of time rather than getting to the front of
it, and I appreciate you saying that that is indeed a problem
that you have to face in different times.
Can I ask one other similar to what I asked Mr. Wenk? There
are problems of crime on Forest Service lands in national
forest areas too, Coronado, for example, where there have been
numerous news stories basically about crime has returned there,
as well as basically a loss of control to those areas to some
criminal elements. Some of them are international criminal
elements.
What is being done to change those policies in the Forest
Service and why simply is the Forest Service not asking for
substantial funding increases for law enforcement on Forest
Service lands?
Mr. Kashdan. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Yes, you mention the
Coronado, which is one of our core partnership law enforcement
issues that we have with the Department of the Interior and in
fact with the border patrol. In terms of funding, let me just
clarify that I believe it was Fiscal Year 2007 and 2008 our law
enforcement program in the Forest Service received substantial
increases. I am talking 25 million, roughly, to address the
issues of drugs on the national forest and border issues.
So, I would say that we had a very substantial increase
that are really bringing our staffing up in Fiscal Year 2009 to
address, and the vast priority associated with those increases
are to directly address drugs and particularly organized crime,
drug cartels that involve quite a bit of trafficking across the
border, leading to marijuana gardens principally on national
forest lands. So it is part of us working together quite
extensively.
So, we have had a very significant increase, and that is
why the 2009 and 2010 budgets do not reflect another increase.
Mr. Bishop. Maybe you could make a deal with the National
Parks and Conservation Association to have them work on the
border too.
Mr. Chairman, I have four questions. Would you like me to
defer and come back or do you want me to just get it over with
now? It is up to you.
Mr. Grijalva. I think it would be less painful if you got
it over with now.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. From your point of view, it certainly would be.
Mr. Nedd, I am sorry I do not have a specific question for
you. I apologize for that. You will find how exciting these
hearings are as time goes on in your new position. I guess the
only thing I could say is I appreciate the answer you gave to
Mr. Holt, that you are not yanking people to expedite permit
processes, but to be honest, he has come up with a damn good
idea. Maybe you should consider doing it, and I will leave you
with that.
I would also say I do appreciate the emphasis that both the
Chairman and Mr. Holt said about using science. We would
appreciate if that was--I mean, if EPA is not going to do it,
at least you guys ought to. And I also appreciate a lot of the
testimony that you have presented as to how the workforce in
both the Forest Service as well as the Interior Department are
responding. A lot of the concerns that were originally
mentioned deal with job security, outsourcing, the need for
more money. I hate to say that. You walk into any faculty room
on a high school in this nation and you are going to hear the
same concerns. So I think your ultimate response was actually
very refreshing as to how you are going and how things have
changed, and how you are moving forward in that particular
area.
I guess I just have one last question, Mr. Wenk or Mr.
Kashdan, actually Mr. Nedd, if you want to do this. We will
probably go on the Floor today with some suspensions to try and
do some retroactive taxing on people, so you know, when we
create a problem and a loophole in the law, we are going to
come back and try and fix it by going after them in a punitive
way.
So, are there any groups that you would like us to go
after? I mean, if you can do it for one, you can do it for
others. Just name them and we will do some kind of retroactive
punitive taxing measures on them. Seems to be a very effective
way of getting something done. Do you have any that just come
to the top of your head? Do not say politicians, because when
we talk we emit CO2 and there may be a tax on that
later on?
Mr. Kashdan. I will defer to my colleagues.
Mr. Wenk. Can I consult and answer that for the record?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. If you would like to do a written statement
later, I think that would probably--Mr. Nedd, you wish to go
where the angels fear to tread?
Mr. Nedd. I have no recommendation.
Mr. Bishop. That is good. Thank you very much.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
One request for information for the Committee relative to
the cost, and let me just be specific about the border of
public lands. The question that has come up time and time
again, and at least talking with your land managers in those
parks that were referenced by Mr. Bishop, is the cost recovery
issue; that a cost basically incurred by Interior, Agriculture,
as a consequence of supplanting and subsidizing some of the
enforcement activities of homeland security, and if you would--
at least I heard that from the law enforcement side, the land
managers side. If you could provide the Committee that
information. I think there is a cost recovery issue that I have
brought up consistently, that homeland security in its access
and work on the public lands, as they do that there is
mitigation issues that need to be taken care of, there are
reassignment of personnel to deal with security issues as
opposed to management, resource issues, and I think there is a
cost attendant, and we would appreciate that information.
Mr. Wenk. We can provide that.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Thank you very much, and I would
invite the next panel, please.
Thank you very much. We are going to be called soon, I
assume in the next 10 or 15 minutes, for a vote. We will try to
get through as much of this panel as we can, and then recess,
and come back and begin where we left off. Hopefully, we can
get through the testimony, and when we come back to only have
the question and answer process left. So thank you very much
for being here, taking the time. Some of you came from long
ways away to get here, and it is very much appreciated. It is
an important issue to this Committee and an issue that your
input we are going to follow up on.
So let me begin with Mr. Kevin Simpson, Executive Vice
President, Partnership for Public Service. Thank you very much
for being here, sir, for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN SIMPSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Congressman
Bishop. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today.
I represent the Partnership for Public Service, which is a
nonpartisan, nonprofit organization which is dedicated to
revitalizing the Federal Civil Service by inspiring a new
generation to serve, and transforming the way the Federal
government works.
We at the partnership believe very strongly that employee
engagement is an absolutely indispensable predicate for
organizational excellence, and as such, it should be the shared
responsibility and concern of agency leaders, both career and
political, as well as of Congress, and that is why we are so
pleased to be here today to discuss issues of employee
engagement at the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management
and the National Park Service.
Since 2003, the Partnership has published on a bi-annual
basis our Best Places to Work in the Federal Government
Rankings, which are built upon data from OPM's Federal Human
Capital Survey to provide a comprehensive set of rankings of
employee engagement among Federal agencies and their
subcomponents. We measure not only overall engagement but also
10 different workplace environment characteristics such as
employee skills and mission match, the quality of leadership,
work/life balance, and other characteristics. When used
appropriately and consistently over time, the best place
rankings can aid Congress in fulfilling its oversight
responsibilities by highlighting the Federal government's high
performing agencies and raising a red flag before agencies fail
at important public responsibilities, when agencies suffer from
low employee engagement and the associated risks of poor
performance.
In our 2007 best places rankings, we ranked 30 large
agencies. The Department of Agriculture, which the Forest
Service is a part, ranked 17 out of 30 large agencies. The
Department of the Interior, which includes NPS and BLM, ranked
22 out of 30. We also broke those agencies down further into
220 ranked subcomponents. All three agency subcomponents at
issue here ranked in the bottom half when compared to the total
222 agency subcomponents. Forest Service ranked 143, NPS ranked
160, BLM ranked 157 out of 222 subcomponents.
For 2009, we are preparing our rankings now, but we expect
to see modest improvements for NPS and for the Bureau of Land
Management. However, we predict the Forest Service's overall
ranking will drop. At the Forest Service we see a downward
trend in the 2008 survey responses to key questions that
reflect overall employee satisfaction.
For example, 56 percent of Forest Service employees
surveyed say they would recommend their organization as a good
place to work, and that is a decline from 61 percent two years
ago. Sixty-two percent say they are satisfied with their job.
That is a decline from 70 percent in 2006. Forty-four percent
say they are satisfied with their organization. That is down
from 51 percent two years ago.
Clearly there is much work to be done to improve employee
morale and engagement in all three agencies, and the Forest
Service, in particular, may have greater hurtles to overcome.
There are bright spots. Employees at all three agencies are
attracted by the mission of their organization and believe
their jobs are a good match for their skills. More than 80
percent of employees at the Forest Service, the NPS and the BLM
say that they like the kind of work that they do. There is a
decline at the Forest Service slightly from 88 percent in 2006
to 83.5 percent in 2008 on this measure. That is notable, but
the numbers are still high on an absolute level.
The Park Service's responses have remained relatively
stable over time, and BLM has actually increased slightly from
82.9 percent in 2006 to 84.5 percent.
All three subcomponents compare favorably with the private
sector benchmark of 83 percent. We do know that satisfaction
with regard to training has increased at both NPS and BLM, and
that suggests that an increased investment in this area by the
Department of the Interior is noted and appreciated by its
employees. On the other hand, satisfaction with training has
decreased at the Forest Service.
In terms of areas for improvement, the number one driver of
employee satisfaction in all three agencies, according to the
2007 best places rankings, is leadership, and we see that
governmentwide. In 2008, the survey results for the three
agencies we are talking about today are far below the
governmentwide average for virtually every question about
effective leadership. Responses are particularly low for the
questions on whether leaders generate high levels of motivation
and commitment in the workforce. Only 27 percent of respondents
at the Forest Service say their leaders generate high levels of
motivation. National Park Service and BLM do not fair much
better with just slightly higher scores of 29.6 percent and 30
percent, respectively.
Similarly, the 2008 survey responses show us that a
majority of employees do not have a high level of respect for
senior leaders in their organization. They do not believe their
leaders maintain standards of honesty and integrity, do not
feel empowered with respect to work processes, and do not feel
satisfied with the information received from management about
what is going on in the organization.
Taken together, the results from the 2007 best places
rankings and the trend data from FHCS convey the sense of a
public lands workforce that under stress. The Forest Service,
NPS and BLM are fortunate to have workforces that are highly
committed to their respective missions and who generally
believe that their immediate supervisors are doing a good job.
But these are also workforces who say they lack the resources
to do the job required of them, that their agencies do not
excel in recruiting new talent with the needed skills, and that
their leaders failed to inspire and motivate high performance,
and that the skill level of the agencies is stagnant.
We can say with confidence that an underresource and
undertrained workforce will not be able to perform at its best
on behalf of the American people.
We have a set of recommendations. Well, I am doing OK on
time. The Partnership offers several recommendations for
attracting talent, improving morale and enhancing overall
employee satisfaction and engagement at the Forest Service and
the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
Leadership, obviously, should be a key priority for all
three agencies. They should make improving satisfaction and
engagement a priority. Leaders should also focus on improving
horizontal and vertical communication and fostering
opportunities for employee input.
Supervisors should be selected based on leadership/
management skills, and not just technical expertise. Congress
should support agencies in creating a dual track for technical
experts, allowing them to be compensated, recognized for their
skills and abilities without the necessity of becoming
supervisors.
Congress should ensure that the agencies have the resources
and the personnel necessary to fulfill their mission, and that
includes setting aside funding for training and leadership
development.
We also suggest that Congress require the Office of
Personnel Management to conduct a Federal Human Capital Survey,
the Federal Human Capital Survey on an annual basis, and
release the data as soon as its accuracy can be assured. This
will enable agencies to make real-time course corrections where
needed; provide an annual benchmark capability by providing
consistent data across agency lines; and provide Congress a
more timely and informative oversight tool.
And finally, we have also suggested a Federal Applicant's
Bill of Rights to make the application more user friendly and
the hiring process more timely and transparent.
I will submit the rest of my remarks for your
consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson follows:]
Statement of Kevin Simpson, Executive Vice President and
General Counsel, Partnership for Public Service
Chairman Grijalva, Representative Bishop, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I am Kevin Simpson, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the
Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
dedicated to revitalizing the federal civil service by inspiring a new
generation to serve and transforming the way the federal government
works. We are honored to be here today to discuss morale at the Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and National Park Service
(NPS). In our testimony, we will comment on the efforts of these
agencies to improve recruitment, retention and overall employee
satisfaction, and will suggest areas which we believe would benefit
most from this subcommittee's attention.
The Partnership has two principal areas of focus. First, we work to
inspire new talent to join federal service. Second, we work with
government leaders to help transform government so that the best and
brightest will enter, stay and succeed in meeting the challenges of our
nation. That includes all aspects of how the federal government manages
people, from attracting them to government, leading and engaging them,
supporting their development and managing performance; in short, all
the essential ingredients for creating, developing and maintaining a
world-class workforce.
A New Opportunity
On the eve of the Presidential election in November 2008, the
Partnership conducted a poll with Gallup on public perceptions of the
federal government. 1 The research confirmed that most
Americans continue to think poorly of their government in general. When
asked to assess the performance of various levels of government, less
than one-third of Americans gave a positive rating to the departments
and agencies of the federal government (27 percent) and just over one-
third were positive about the performance of civil servants in the
federal government (37 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the Public We Trust: Renewing the Connection between the
Federal Government and the Public. Partnership for Public Service and
Gallup, November 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the general public lacked confidence in government, there
were a few positive signs--and one of them was the national parks.
Survey respondents were asked to rate the job that the federal
government was doing on different issues. With respect to ``running the
country's national parks,'' 51 percent said they thought the federal
government was doing a ``good/excellent'' job, while 36 percent said
``fair/poor'' job and 13 percent said they didn't know. The Forest
Service, NPS and BLM need to capitalize on this public support for the
work of government in managing our parks and public lands, and Congress
must ensure that these agencies have the human resources they need to
maintain and protect the natural resources that so many Americans
treasure.
With the election and subsequent inauguration of President Obama,
there has been a renewed interest in government service. Agencies need
to capitalize on these changing attitudes and work hard to recruit,
engage and retain top talent in service to the American people.
In his inauguration speech, President Obama said it well: ``The
question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works.'' As the new administration begins to
settle in, we urge the President and Congress to focus not just on
policy objectives but also on ensuring that our government has the
talented and engaged federal workforce that it needs to effectively
implement those policies.
The Partnership issued a report last year entitled ``Roadmap to
Reform: A Management Framework for the Next Administration.''
2 In our report, we suggest that the core components of an
effective workforce include having the right talent; an engaged
workforce; strong leadership; and, public support. This is true for
government as a whole, and it is true for the departments and agencies
of government--including the Forest Service, National Park Service and
Bureau of Land Management. The Partnership is pleased to provide you
with some insight into the human capital challenges facing these
agencies and suggest some areas in which your oversight and legislative
attention would have the most impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Roadmap to Reform: A Management Framework for the Next
Administration. Partnership for Public Service, October 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measures Drive Change
The old adage that ``what gets measured, gets changed'' still holds
true. And when it comes to the federal workforce, not enough is getting
fully measured. Data available on the state of the federal workforce is
not systematically organized, evaluated or disseminated in a way that
is meaningful to all of the key audiences.
The value of indicator systems as an effective tool for driving
reform has been widely documented. The Partnership has taken a step
toward creating national indicators through our Best Places to Work in
the Federal Government rankings, prepared in collaboration with
American University's Institute for the Study of Public Policy
Implementation. The Best Places rankings build upon data from the
Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Federal Human Capital Survey
(FHCS) to provide a comprehensive assessment of employee satisfaction
across the federal government's agencies and their subcomponents.
Employee satisfaction and commitment are two of the necessary
ingredients in developing high-performing organizations and attracting
needed talent to meet our nation's challenges. The Best Places to Work
rankings are a key step in recognizing the importance of employee
satisfaction and ensuring that it is a top priority of government
managers and leaders.
Since the first rankings were released in 2003, they have helped
create much-needed institutional incentives to focus on priority
workforce issues and provide managers and leaders with a roadmap for
boosting employee engagement.
The rankings also provide Members of Congress and the general
public with unprecedented insight into federal agencies and what the
people who work in those agencies say about leadership, mission and
effectiveness. Ideally, the Best Places rankings can aid Congress in
fulfilling its oversight responsibilities by highlighting the federal
government's high-performing agencies and raising a red flag when
agencies suffer from conditions that lead to low employee engagement
and, consequently, poor performance.
A Look at Employee Engagement
The Partnership recently received the 2008 Federal Human Capital
Survey data from OPM for agency subcomponents so we are in the process
of preparing our 2009 Best Places rankings. Although the rankings will
not be calculated and released until later this spring, we can discuss
the 2007 rankings and are able to preview some important findings for
the subcommittee drawn from the 2008 Federal Human Capital Survey.
Additionally, we can provide some trend data for the subcomponents
based on Survey data from 2002-2008.
In 2007, the Partnership ranked 30 large agencies, 31 small
agencies and 222 agency subcomponents. Our index scores are computed
based on data that comes from federal employees themselves through
their responses to OPM's Federal Human Capital Survey. As part of the
rankings, we organize the data into ten key workplace categories which
are all key drivers of employee satisfaction: employee skills/mission
match, leadership, work/life balance, teamwork, pay and benefits,
training and development, support for diversity, strategic management,
performance-based rewards and advancement, and family-friendly culture
and benefits.
In the 2007 Best Places ranking, the Department of Agriculture, of
which the Forest Service is a part, ranked 17 out of 30 large agencies.
The Department of the Interior, which includes NPS and BLM, ranked 22
out of 30. All three agency subcomponents received rankings comparable
to other subcomponents in their respective departments; however, they
all ranked in the bottom half when compared to the total 222 agency
subcomponents. The Forest Service ranked 143 out of 222 subcomponents,
NPS ranked 160 out of 222 subcomponents, and BLM ranked 157 out of 222
subcomponents. After a preliminary review of the 2008 FHCS data, we
expect to see modest improvements in the 2009 Best Places rankings for
NPS and BLM; however we predict that the Forest Service's ranking will
drop. At the Forest Service, we see a downward trend in the 2008 FHCS
responses to key questions that reflect overall employee satisfaction:
Fifty-six percent of employees surveyed say they would
recommend their organization as a good place to work, which is a
decline from 61 percent two years ago;
Sixty-two percent say they are satisfied with their job,
also a decline from 70 percent in 2006;
Only 44 percent say they are satisfied with their
organization, down from 51 percent.
Results such as these suggest that something is not going right at
the Forest Service. Clearly, there is much work to be done to improve
employee morale and engagement in all three agencies and the Forest
Service in particular may have greater hurdles to overcome.
It is encouraging to note that the agencies we are discussing today
have one prominent thing in common--employees are attracted by the
mission of their organization and believe their jobs are a good match
for their skills. More than 80 percent of employees at the Forest
Service, NPS and BLM say that they like the kind of work they do. There
is a decline at the Forest Service from 88 percent in 2006 to 83.5
percent in 2008, which is notable, but the numbers are still high. NPS
responses have remained relatively stable over time and the BLM has
increased slightly, from 82.9 percent in 2006 to 84.5 in 2008. All
three subcomponents compare favorably with the private sector benchmark
of 83 percent. Agency leaders, both at headquarters and in the field,
should continue to focus on the mission and help employees understand
the connection between the work they are doing and broader
organizational goals.
In terms of areas for improvement, the number one driver of
employee satisfaction in all three agencies according to the 2007 Best
Places rankings is leadership, and we expect this will continue to be
the case in the 2009 rankings. The Forest Service, NPS and BLM will
need to make a concerted effort to address leadership. Improving
employee perceptions of their leaders will have the most impact on
employee engagement.
The Federal Human Capital Survey includes several questions
regarding employee perceptions of leadership in the workplace. In 2008,
the survey results for the three agencies we are discussing today are
notably low--far below the government-wide average--for virtually every
question about effective leadership. Responses are particularly low for
the questions on whether leaders generate high levels of motivation and
commitment in the workforce and whether complaints, disputes or
grievances are resolved fairly in their work unit. Only 27 percent of
respondents at the Forest Service say their leaders generate high
levels of motivation. The National Park Service and BLM do not fare
much better with just slightly higher scores of 29.6 percent and 30
percent respectively. With regard to the way complaints, disputes and
grievances are resolved in the workplace, 32.7 percent of employees at
the Forest Service, 34.9 percent at NPS and 34.6 percent at BLM feel
they are handled well. The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior
also receive low marks from employees on both of these questions, which
suggest that leadership needs to be addressed at the Department level,
as well.
Similarly, scores reveal that a majority of employees do not have a
high level of respect for senior leaders in their organization, do not
believe their leaders maintain high standards of honesty and integrity,
do not feel empowered with respect to work processes and do not feel
satisfied with the information received from management about what is
going on in the organization. At the Forest Service, for example, only
37 percent of respondents believe they have sufficient information as
compared to 66 percent in the private sector benchmark, which is a
substantial difference. On a more positive note, 66 percent of
respondents at the Forest Service believe that their immediate
supervisor/team leader is doing a good job, which is the government-
wide average. Despite the good news about supervisors, all three
agencies still fall below the private sector comparison of 74 percent.
These data points combine to tell an unfortunate tale about the state
of leadership in our public lands agencies.
In addition to leadership, there are other key areas where the
Forest Service, NPS and BLM need to focus their attention. According to
the 2008 FHCS data, it appears that the agencies are still struggling
to cultivate a work environment with a positive work/life balance. On
the one hand, survey respondents strongly believe that their
supervisors support their need to balance work and other life issues.
This is one of the areas where the Forest Service gets the highest
marks. Eight-two percent of respondents believe their supervisor
supports a healthy work/life balance. On the other hand, it is clear
that Forest Service respondents do not believe that they have
sufficient resources (e.g., people, materials, budget) to accomplish
their jobs. Only 32.5 percent of respondents say they have sufficient
resources, a drop from 39 percent in 2004. The government-wide average
is 51.2 percent. The Bureau of Land Management (41.6 percent) and
National Park Service (35.3 percent) do not fare much better but their
scores have improved slightly since 2006. Clearly this question of
resources is one area that warrants further attention from the agencies
and from Congress.
According to the Best Places rankings, strategic management is
another key driver of employee engagement. When asked the question ``my
work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills'' on the 2008
FHCS, the scores are low for BLM and NPS and are particularly low for
the Forest Service. Only 35.3 percent of survey respondents from the
Forest Service believe their work unit is able to recruit people with
the right skills. The scores for BLM and NPS are both 41 percent, which
is still lower than the government-wide average of 45 percent.
In general, employees at the Forest Service, NPS and BLM believe
that the workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary
to accomplish organizational goals. The scores are relatively high and
range from 71 percent (BLM) to 66 percent (Forest Service); however,
the same employees do not give high marks for the question on whether
the skill level in their work unit has improved in the past year. We do
know that satisfaction with regard to training has increased at both
NPS and BLM. This suggests that an increased investment in this area by
the Department of the Interior is noted and appreciated by employees.
On the other hand, satisfaction with training has decreased at the
Forest Service. In 2006, 63 percent said they were satisfied with
training, well above the government-wide average of 54 percent. Now,
two years later, only 55 percent say they are satisfied with training.
Taken together, the results from the 2007 Best Places rankings and
the trend data from the FHCS convey the sense of a public lands
workforce that is under stress. The Forest Service, NPS and BLM are
fortunate to have workforces that are highly committed to their
respective missions and who generally believe their immediate
supervisors are doing a good job. But these are also workforces who say
they lack the resources to do the job required of them, that their
agencies do not excel in recruiting new talent with needed skills, that
their leaders fail to inspire and motivate high performance, and that
the skill level of the agencies is stagnant. We can say with confidence
that an under-resourced, under-trained workforce will not be able to
perform at its best on behalf of the American people.
Congress and the Administration need to work together to ensure
that adequate resources are available. This includes making sure that
agencies are using all of the tools at their disposal to recruit,
retain and develop talent; ensuring the resources are available to use
these tools effectively; addressing leadership issues and cultivating
new leaders; and, investing in training and support for supervisors/
managers to ensure that they are able to effectively manage a diverse
workforce which includes many seasonal and part-time employees.
Since a significant percentage of the workforce at BLM, NPS and the
Forest Service are not full-time permanent employees, Congress should
encourage agencies to do regular ``pulse check'' surveys that include
part-time, temporary and volunteer workers. These groups are not
included in the FHCS but are an important population, and their
performance directly affects the ability of these agencies to fulfill
their missions.
In addition, better and more frequent data are essential for
Congress to conduct necessary oversight of the Forest Service, NPS and
BLM and how they are managing their workforces. We recommend that OPM
conduct the Federal Human Capital Survey on an annual basis, and
release the data as soon as its accuracy can be assured. This will
enable the agencies to make real-time course corrections where needed;
provide an annual benchmark capability by providing consistent data
across agency lines; and provide Congress a more timely and informative
oversight tool.
NPS Case Study
Last summer, at the request of the National Parks Conservation
Association, the Partnership conducted an analysis of employee
satisfaction and engagement at the National Park Service. The
Partnership conducted a trend analysis for NPS using FHCS data from
2002-2006. The trend analysis informed a subsequent set of focus groups
of NPS employees conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc.
in fall 2008. The Partnership has recently issued a set of
recommendations for how NPS might improve leadership. Many of these
recommendations can be applied to Forest Service and BLM, as well.
First, the Partnership recommended that NPS work to engage
leadership. Senior leaders need to understand the importance of having
an engaged workforce and clearly make improving employee engagement a
priority. We recommended that NPS leadership meet as a team to
determine priorities around improving engagement. New political
appointees, particularly the next Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks and his or her key staff, should be included as soon
as--and to the maximum extent--possible.
Effective communication begins at the top of the organization.
Employees need to hear from NPS leaders that employee engagement is a
priority.
First, we recommended that leaders send emails, convene
town hall meetings and spread the word through other communication
channels that improving employee engagement is a key goal for NPS
leaders.
Second, we suggested that leaders share the summary
findings of the FHCS and then focus on group results with employees--
the good, the bad and the ugly.
Third, we urged NPS to communicate leadership's top areas
or issues for improvement and periodically follow up with employees
through progress reports.
Finally, we recommended that NPS leaders ask for input on
specific issues and then use that employee feedback (e.g., ask
employees: how can we better use our limited resources to achieve our
mission?).
Leaders also need to foster effective communication from the bottom
up. Employees need to know that they are heard and that their opinions
and perspectives matter. Leaders should provide additional avenues for
upward communication; for example, a virtual employee suggestion box,
short pulse surveys, or town hall meetings. Employees should be
encouraged to provide input on projects and should be consulted on how
to improve processes. It is important that employees are heard and that
senior leaders follow up on suggestions.
Developing strong supervisors and managers must be a priority for
NPS leadership. NPS leaders should consider conducting 360-degree
reviews of supervisors or create a mentoring program to help them
develop. Leaders should also select supervisors based on an
individual's management and leadership skills, rather than simply
technical expertise. It makes sense to create a dual track for those
technical experts, which will allow them to be compensated and
recognized for their skills and abilities without requiring them to
become supervisors.
Finally, it is important that NPS leaders, as well as supervisors/
managers conduct regular, meaningful performance discussions and
provide guidance for how employees can improve and build upon
strengths. Leaders are also encouraged to recognize and reward
employees' good work through a simple ``thank you,'' additional time
off, spot awards or other methods.
Attracting New Talent
The good news is that the federal government is an attractive
employer, whether it is for young people graduating from college or
older Americans considering encore careers. Our January 2009 report,
``Great Expectations: What Students Want in an Employer and How Federal
Agencies Can Deliver It,'' surveyed almost 32,000 American
undergraduates about what they are looking for in an employer.
3 We found that government/public service is the most
popular industry choice out of 46 career options among the
undergraduates surveyed. A healthy work/life balance was the number one
career goal, with 66 percent of students citing this as a priority; 46
percent of students say they want to be dedicated to a cause or feel
they are serving a greater good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Great Expectations: What Students Want in an Employer and How
Federal Agencies Can Deliver It. Partnership for Public Service and
Universum, January 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Older workers also find the federal government to be an attractive
employer. The Partnership published a report in January, 2008, entitled
``A Golden Opportunity: Recruiting Baby Boomers Into Government.''
4 As part of the report, we surveyed older workers and found
that 58 percent believed ``there are good jobs for people like me in
the federal government.'' When asked what job qualities they found most
appealing, respondents cited work that is interesting and challenging
and offers health care benefits, both of which the government offers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A Golden Opportunity: Recruiting Baby Boomers Into Government.
Partnership for Public Service, January 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tapping into this interest in federal service is essential to
ensuring that the Forest Service, NPS and BLM have the human resources
needed to meet their responsibilities; indeed, the federal government
as a whole needs to attract new talent at all levels. The Partnership
projects that more than 500,000 full-time permanent federal employees
will leave government over the next five years, the majority through
retirement. This exodus of talent will create huge voids that will need
to be filled.
The three agencies we are discussing today have significant hiring
needs. In 2008 alone, the agencies made the following new hires:
Forest Service: 1,148 full-time, permanent and 12,548
full-time, temporary;
Park Service: 590 full-time, permanent and 8,905 full-
time, temporary;
Bureau of Land Management: 550 full-time, permanent and
2,509 full-time, temporary.
According to the USAJOBS Web site, on March 12, 2009, there were
over 1,400 job openings being advertised at the National Park Service,
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management combined. The largest
number, 594 vacancies, were at the Bureau of Land Management. The
Forest Service had 436 vacancies and NPS had 385. These positions run
the gamut from Fire Management Officer to Park Ranger to Biological
Science Technician, and are located all across the country. A
significant number of these vacancies are temporary, seasonal
positions.
It's likely this level of hiring will continue and perhaps increase
into at least the near future given that the Recovery Act includes $146
million for the NPS, $125 million for BLM, and $650 million for the
Forest Service. Further, the President's proposed FY 2010 budget calls
for a $100 million increase in park operations (plus inflation) and a
$50 million increase (plus inflation) for national forest operations,
among other initiatives likely to impact on hiring needs in both
agencies. Clearly this is a time to focus on efforts to improve the
federal government's ability to effectively attract and hire some of
the nation's best talent for the jobs to be filled.
A short visit to the USAJOBS Web site shows quite clearly that
federal hiring procedures are inconsistent and not designed with a
positive applicant experience in mind. In one vacancy announcement for
a ``Park Ranger (I)'' at the National Park Service, the information
under the ``how to apply'' tab was nine pages long. Some applications
may be submitted online; others ask applicants to send applications via
U.S. Mail. Some job announcements provide the name of a point of
contact; others cite the general phone number for the human resources
office. One of the most common requirements across government is that
applicants answer several essay questions to address ``KSAs''--
knowledge, skills and abilities--a time consuming task that discourages
many of even the most qualified people from applying. Those motivated
enough to complete the application process find that it is just the
beginning; some wait months before receiving a response. It is no
wonder that many potential candidates for federal positions conclude
that it is simply not worth the effort to apply.
While we cannot comment on the specific hiring practices of the
Forest Service, BLM and NPS, we can say that government as a whole
needs to improve its ability to hire the right talent, with the right
skills, in a timely manner. The Subcommittee would be well-served to
review the hiring processes at the three agencies we are discussing
today to determine whether our public lands agencies are indeed hiring
as effectively as they could be. The Partnership would like to offer
some general recommendations with regard to recruiting and hiring new
talent.
1. First, we suggest that Congress pass legislation creating a
``Federal Applicant's Bill of Rights.'' 5 An applicant bill
of rights should provide that the hiring process must be
understandable, transparent and timely. Job announcements should be
written in plain English. In most cases, applicants should be able to
apply online with a standard resume, and should be able to reach a real
person at the agency to which they are applying if they have questions.
Agencies should be held accountable for making timely hiring decisions,
and notifying applicants when a hire has been made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Applicant's Bill of Rights draft legislative language in
Appendix I.
We also suggest that Congress require better data collection
from federal agencies regarding their hiring effectiveness.
6 This subcommittee needs more and better
information from the agencies you oversee regarding their
ability to hire and retain needed talent. Measures of hiring
effectiveness should include an understanding of where the
agencies are getting their talent, whether that talent is
diverse, whether managers are satisfied with the match between
the skills of newly hired individuals and the needs of their
agencies, and whether qualified applicants accept positions
elsewhere due to the length or complexity of federal hiring. It
is also important to collect data on the temporary, seasonal
and part-time employees who comprise a significant part of our
nation's public lands workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Partnership suggests ``Measures for Federal Hiring
Effectiveness'' in Section 3 of the draft ``Federal Applicant's Bill of
Rights'' in Appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Agencies should prioritize student internships as key talent
sources for entry-level jobs and then recruit accordingly and resource
these programs adequately. They should also make greater use of the
Student Career Experience Program (SCEP) because these internships are
designed to enable agencies to convert the most promising students into
permanent employees. Managers should have greater flexibility to hire
students from all internship programs who have demonstrated their
capabilities. Congress should require agencies to evaluate their intern
programs and ensure agencies are making the best use of their authority
to build their critical workforce pipelines.
Other agencies can learn from the Bureau of Land Management,
which will be highlighted in a future Partnership report on
federal student internship programs. The agency hired a student
coordinator to oversee the National Student Employment
Programs, Presidential Management Fellows Program and Federal
Career Intern program. The coordinator develops standardized
procedures, sets expectations across the agency and maintains a
resume databank that hiring managers can tap. She also conducts
monthly conference calls with student employment program
coordinators in all 16 states in which BLM operates, which
allows for the sharing of best practices for recruiting
students and ultimately converting them to full-time permanent
employees. BLM also developed an entire online training program
with modules applicable for student program coordinators,
hiring managers and supervisors as well as students.
These efforts have been paying off. There are roughly 200
SCEP interns with the BLM each year. About one-third receive
special incentives from the Washington, D.C. office in the form
of tuition support ($2,000/year for in-state and $3,000/year
for out-of-state) plus travel to and from job duty stations.
These incentives are geared towards enhancing the retention of
underrepresented populations such as women and racial
minorities in the BLM's locations in the western states and
lead to conversion rates of about 80 percent among those
receiving the incentives.
3. Congress should encourage agencies to continue to take
advantage of existing recruitment incentives, such as student loan
repayment, and should provide resources necessary for them to do so.
Congress should also require agencies to report on the use and
effectiveness of different recruitment incentives in an effort to
determine the most effective way to recruit and retain talent.
According to OPM's 2007 Federal Student Loan Repayment
Program Report to Congress, the Department of the Interior
provided nearly $400,000 in loan repayment to 41 individuals in
positions including Park Ranger, Land Surveyor and Facilities
and Operations Management Specialists, among others. The
Department of the Interior cited the value of using this
student loan repayment program as a way to help individual
bureaus attract key talent in fields such as engineering,
environmental science, telecommunication and financial
analysis. The Department of Agriculture also provided just over
$400,000 in loan repayment to 53 employees spread across all
components of the agency. Again, the agency reported that the
student loan repayment program was a valuable recruitment and
retention tool. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Federal Student Loan Repayment Program Report to Congress,
Office of Personnel Management, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Finally, the Partnership suggests that Congress pass
Representative David Price's Roosevelt Scholars Act, a measure that
could help the agencies--and the rest of the federal government--meet
some of their critical hiring needs. Named after President Theodore
Roosevelt, who championed the creation and expansion of national parks
and monuments, the legislation creates a graduate-level scholarship
program in mission-critical fields in exchange for a federal service
commitment. The program could help agencies recruit new engineers,
biologists, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) specialists, and other
high-need professionals. The military's ROTC program has been a
tremendous source of leadership talent for our nation's armed forces;
we believe the Roosevelt Scholars Act could become an analogous source
of needed expertise for our civilian agencies. The Roosevelt Scholars
Act was introduced in the 110th Congress and is expected to be
introduced again shortly.
In summary, the Obama administration has ushered in an era of
enthusiasm for government service not seen since the Kennedy years; now
our government must seize the opportunity to build new pipelines of
talent into government and improve management of our current federal
workforce. It is critical that agencies streamline their hiring
processes, build robust internship programs that can serve as a
pipeline of talent, and utilize existing hiring authorities and
recruitment incentives to recruit the best and brightest talent.
Congress should require that agencies collect metrics to enable
agencies to understand what hiring authorities and incentives are most
effective in recruiting and retaining needed expertise.
Summary of Recommendations
The Partnership offers the following recommendations for attracting
talent, improving morale and enhancing overall employee satisfaction
and engagement at the Forest Service, National Park Service and Bureau
of Land Management:
Leadership at the Forest Service, NPS, and BLM should make
improving employee satisfaction and engagement a priority. Leaders
should also focus on improving horizontal and vertical communication
and fostering opportunities for employee input.
Supervisors should be selected based on leadership/management
skills, not just technical expertise. Congress should support agencies
in creating a dual track for technical experts, allowing them to be
compensated and recognized for their skills and abilities without the
necessity of becoming supervisors.
Congress should ensure that agencies have the resources and
personnel necessary to fulfill their missions. This includes setting
aside funding for training and leadership development.
Congress should encourage agencies to do regular ``pulse check''
surveys that include part-time, temporary and volunteer workers. These
groups are not included in the FHCS but are an important population,
and their attitudes/perceptions about the workplace will contribute
greatly to overall morale.
Congress should require the Office of Personnel Management to
conduct the Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS) on an annual basis, and
release the data as soon as its accuracy can be assured. This will
enable the agencies to make real-time course corrections where needed;
provide an annual benchmark capability by providing consistent data
across agency lines; and provide Congress a more timely and informative
oversight tool. This will also save each department and agency the time
and cost associated with complying with the annual employee survey
requirement in the year that OPM does not conduct the FHCS.
Congress should require all federal agencies and their
subcomponents to adopt a ``Federal Applicant's Bill of Rights'' to make
the application process more user-friendly and the hiring process more
timely and transparent.
Congress should encourage agencies to take advantage of existing
hiring authorities and recruitment incentives and should provide
resources necessary for them to do so. Congress should also ask
agencies to collect metrics to assess how they are using these
personnel flexibilities and recruitment incentives, and what is most
effective in recruiting, engaging, and ultimately retaining diverse and
highly qualified talent. Agencies should also report on how these
flexibilities and incentives can be improved.
Congress should require additional measures of hiring effectiveness
to determine whether BLM, NPS, the Forest Service and other federal
agencies are able to recruit and hire enough of the right people with
the right skills.
Agencies should prioritize student internships as key talent
sources for entry-level jobs and then recruit accordingly and resource
these programs adequately. Congress should require agencies to evaluate
their intern programs in this context to ensure agencies are making the
best use of their authority to build their critical workforce
pipelines.
Congress should pass the Roosevelt Scholars Act to help agencies
recruit mission-critical talent.
______
Appendix I
(7/8/08 draft)
Section 1. Short Title.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Applicant's Bill of Rights
Act of 2008''.
Section 2. Standards for Federal Hiring.
(a) Clarity of job announcements.--Federal job announcements shall
be written in plain English, with a minimum of acronyms or jargon, and
shall clearly and prominently display the title, salary, location, work
schedule, type and duration of appointment, responsibilities of the
position and instructions for applying.
(b) User-friendly application process.--Federal agencies shall keep
the amount of initial information required from an applicant to the
minimum necessary to determine qualifications and eligibility. On-line
receipt of a standard resume and a brief response to questions
regarding citizenship and veteran status may serve as application for
employment except in special circumstances as determined by the head of
an agency. Submission of additional material in support of an
application, such as college transcripts, proof of veteran status, and
professional certifications, may be required only when necessary to
complete the application process and applicants shall be given a
reasonable amount of time after the closing date of the job
announcement to provide such information.
(c) Timely communication and online tracking.--[Federal agencies/
OPM] shall devise and implement a means by which applicants for federal
jobs (1) receive prompt acknowledgement of their application, (2) be
given or have on-line access to periodic updates on the status of their
application, and (3) may speak to an appropriate individual at an
agency regarding the hiring process or their application for
employment.
(d) Timely decision and candidate notification.--Federal agencies
shall make timely hiring decisions. Within ten business days of the
time that selected candidates have accepted offers of employment or job
announcements have been canceled, non-selected job applicants will be
notified.
Section 3. Measures of Federal Hiring Effectiveness.
(a) Pursuant to subsection (b), federal agencies shall measure and
collect data on a continuous basis and report to the Office of
Personnel Management on the following indicators of hiring
effectiveness:
(1) Recruiting and Hiring ``
(A) ability to reach and recruit well-qualified talent
from diverse talent pools;
(B) use and impact of special hiring authorities and
flexibilities to recruit most qualified applicants;
(C) use and impact of special hiring authorities and
flexibilities to recruit diverse candidates, including
veteran, minority and disabled candidates;
(D) data on the age, educational level, and source of
applicants;
(E) length of time elapsed between the time a position
is advertised and the time a first offer of employment is
made;
(F) length of time elapsed between the time a first
offer of employment is made and the time a new hire starts
in that position;
(G) number of internal and external applicants for
federal positions;
(2) Hiring Manager Assessment--
(A) manager satisfaction with the quality of new hires;
(B) manager satisfaction with the match between the
skills of newly hired individuals and the needs of the
agency;
(C) manager satisfaction with the hiring process and
hiring outcomes;
(3) Applicant Assessment ``
(A) applicant satisfaction with the hiring process
(including clarity of job announcement, user-friendliness
of the application process, communication regarding status
of application and timeliness of hiring decision);
(B) mission-critical gaps closed by new hires and the
connection between mission-critical gaps and annual agency
performance;
(C) number of people who withdraw from consideration or
accept other positions due mainly to the length or
complexity of the federal hiring process;
(4) Onboarding--
(A) new hire satisfaction with the onboarding
experience (including welcoming and orientation processes,
becoming familiar with new work unit and job
responsibilities, being provided with timely and useful new
employee information and assistance, and assignment of
meaningful work);
(B) new hire attrition;
(C) investment in training and development for new
employees during their first year of employment;
(5) Other indicators and measures as required by the Office of
Personnel Management.
(b) The measures of hiring effectiveness established under
subsection (a) may be augmented or adjusted over time as the Office of
Personnel Management deems necessary for improving the data available
on hiring effectiveness.
(c) The Office of Personnel Management shall issue regulations
within 180 days of the enactment of this Act directing the methodology,
timing and reporting of the data described in subsection (a).
(d) The Office of Personnel Management shall make the data reported
under subsection (a) available to the public online on a quarterly
basis and in a consistent format to allow for a comparison of hiring
effectiveness and experience across demographic groups and federal
agencies.
(e) Before publicly releasing data as described in subsection (d),
the Office of Personnel Management shall provide the data in a
consistent format to OPM-certified non-profit organizations upon
request for purposes of research on hiring practices and hiring
effectiveness.
Section 4. Annual Federal Human Capital Survey.
(a) In General.--The Office of Personnel Management shall conduct
the Federal Human Capital Survey of federal employees on an annual
basis. 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ OPM conducts the Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS) on a
biennial basis, though OPM is not required to do so by law. This
provision would make the FHCS a statutory requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Each federal agency shall reimburse the Office of Personnel
Management for the cost of conducting the Federal Human Capital Survey
in that agency.
(c) The Office of Personnel Management shall make the data reported
under subsection (a) available to the public online in a timely manner
[by a date certain] and in a consistent format to allow for a
comparison of hiring effectiveness across demographic groups and
federal agencies.
(d) Before publicly releasing data as described in subsection (c),
the Office of Personnel Management shall provide the data in a
consistent format to OPM-certified non-profit organizations upon
request for purposes of research on hiring practices and hiring
effectiveness.
Section 5. Authorization of Appropriations.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated, in Fiscal
Year 2009 and each subsequent fiscal year, such sums as may be
necessary for the Office of Personnel Management to meet the
requirements of this Act.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Let me ask Mr. Ron Thatcher, President,
Forest Service Council, National Federation of Federal
Employees. Welcome, sir, and look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF RON THATCHER, PRESIDENT, FOREST SERVICE COUNCIL,
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LIBBY, MONTANA
Mr. Thatcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bishop, other
Members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify before you today.
I am Ron Thatcher, a 35-year career Forest Service
employee. I am currently the president of the National
Federation of Federal Employees' Forest Service Council. It is
in this capacity that I am honored to represent approximately
20,000 dedicated public servants committed to the professional
and ethical management of the 192 million-acre national forest
system.
Mr. Chairman, Forest Service employees are among the most
dedicated public servants in the Federal workforce. This is why
obstacles to getting our work done decreases our morale as well
as our effectiveness. One such obstacle is the erosion of the
land management workforce as more funds out of a flat budget go
to wildfire suppression each and every year. We support the
approach taken by the FLAME Act in which funding for
catastrophic wildfires does not come at the expense of land
management work that is badly needed on our national forests.
Another problem is a seemingly endless stream of ill-
planned and harmful reorganizations and new technologies,
methods and policies. For example, administrative support
personnel were removed from field offices and command to
centralized service centers that report directly to Washington;
a self-service model in which highly graded employees now
perform more critical and administrative tasks that have been
put in place; mandated use of phone support for field-going
employees; the rush to put new software in place before its
tested. Employees simply cannot get to the jobs they were
trained to do because they are bogged down with administrative
tasks that they were not trained to do.
The centralization of our human capital management has
probably been the biggest problem that we have encountered. The
list of problems go on and on. For example, we bring 15,000
employees into the rolls each field season. Now some are sent
to work before they are actually hired with a promise from
management that we will get their pay to them later. When they
go off the rolls at the end of the season, their lump-sum
payments are often delayed by months and months. Employees at
all levels report the occurrence of a shift of power and
authority away from the field to this centralized human capital
management organization, an unintended consequence of removing
the supervision of these functions from field managers.
One employee noted, ``Human capital management is supposed
to be a support function, but it has become the tail that wags
the dog.'' Another said, ``It is like they created a kingdom
that answers to no one.''
Finally, I want to mention the reclassification of our fire
managers into the GS-401 series. This imposes new academic
requirements which in many cases are totally unrelated to the
duties of these fire fighting positions. This may force as many
as a third of our field generals in the war on fire out of the
jobs they have successfully performed for years, plus it
imposes a glass ceiling for some of our most capable leaders
coming up through the ranks. The knowledge, skills, and
abilities to lead a fire crew from harm's way are not obtained
in a classroom. They are obtained by specialized agency-
developed training and on-the-ground experience.
So how did we get to this point? In every case we hear the
same thing: leadership did not ask the field. In many cases the
ultimate decision can be traced all the way up to former
President Bush. Competitive sourcing quotas were the driving
force behind the centralization and downsizing of human capital
management. Other decisions, such as timetables that prevented
adequate testing of the new software applications, were
mandated by the Department or even higher levels of government.
In these cases, even our agency leaders were excluded from the
decisionmaking process.
However, not all sources of top-down secretive and
unaccountable decisionmaking are outside of the agency. It is
agency officials who elected to exclude field employees from
the decision to reclassify fire managers. Even the agency's top
field managers with decades of experience were not consulted.
We believe it is time for a new way, Mr. Chairman, it is
self-evident that front-line employees are the ones who know
the best and they have the best ways to get the jobs done. We
need to tap into this collective wisdom to make the best
decisions. The agency needs to engage employees as advisors
even as collaborators. This is particularly true of the Forest
Service, an institution in which one size does not fit all
because of the diversity of lands from Alaska to Alabama for
which the agency is responsible.
This new way of doing business require officials to embrace
the principles of transparency and accountability articulated
so well by President Obama. The payoff will be shared
accountability and shared ownership, a decision informed by
better information, and a workforce that will be motivated to
make that decision work. To encourage this, Mr. Chairman, we
recommend passage of a Federal labor/management partnership
act, and the Whistle-blower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009.
These two bills would help put an accountability infrastructure
in place that would allow employees to collaborate with agency
officials on the difficult problems our agencies and others
face in government.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, that concludes my
oral statement. I thank you and the 20,000 plus employees of
the Forest Service thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thatcher follows:]
Statement of Ron Thatcher, President, National Federation of Federal
Employees' Forest Service Council
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit the following testimony.
My name is Ron Thatcher. I serve as the President of the National
Federation of Federal Employees' Forest Service Council (NFFE-FSC). In
this capacity, I am honored to represent approximately 20,000 dedicated
public servants committed to the professional and ethical management of
the 192 million acre National Forest System.
Today's topic is broad: issues related to the morale and
effectiveness of Forest Service employees. Our treatment of this topic
here today will be far from comprehensive. If this is to be the final
word on the topic, then we will accomplish little. However, we hope
this testimony will begin a dialog on how to restore both the capacity
of the agency and the pride and confidence of its employees.
It is widely understood that low morale adversely affects
effectiveness. The converse, that an employee's effectiveness affects
his/her morale, is also true. Forest Service employees are among the
most dedicated in the federal workforce--we care deeply about the
agency's land management mission. Historically, the agency has been a
wonderful employer and national forests have been a great place to
work. Employees didn't get rich on a Forest Service salary, but took
great satisfaction in doing a job they loved and that served the needs
of the American people. It is in this same dedication that today's
morale problems have their roots. Over and over, I hear from front line
employees that one of the biggest reasons for their low morale is
frustration at the imposition of barrier after barrier to their ability
to accomplish their work.
Sadly, too many employees have lost the hope and belief that things
can get better. They have lost faith in the distant and unseen leaders
of our agency, our department, our government. Such employees can
become cynical and disengaged, further eroding productivity. Some even
hang it up by retiring earlier than they had planned, ending their
careers because they are no longer able to tolerate the frustration of
trying to do their jobs with their hands tied behind their backs. But
many more believe as I do that the time is right for a renewal of our
once-proud agency. It is with this optimism that I come to tell you
about the challenges we continue to face and to offer suggestions about
how they can be overcome.
Erosion of the Land Management Workforce by Diversion of Funds to Fire
Suppression
One big issue is the steady erosion of the land management
workforce. This affects not only today's capacity, but also bodes ill
for the future. Due to the shrinking budgets on the land management
side of the agency, many positions vacated as a result of retirements
have gone unfilled. Employees are being stretched beyond their limits
as they are asked to perform the work of several positions. In
addition, succession planning has largely fallen by the wayside.
Succession planning is critical in a land management organization
because the knowledge needed to manage the land and resources is a
site-specific understanding must be gained from on-the-ground
experience, but unfortunately mentors with this irreplaceable knowledge
are leaving before they can transfer it. We need to reverse this trend
immediately.
This workforce erosion is not the result of an intentional policy
change, but is rather a failure to adjust policy to deal with on-the-
ground realities. Fire suppression costs exceeded one billion dollars
in six of the last nine years and are trending steeply upward.
Increasing costs of wildfire suppression erodes funding for other land
management work in two ways.
First, funds are committed to manage wildfires based on the 10-year
average of suppression costs. This leaves an ever smaller piece of the
appropriated pie for land management. As a percentage of the agency
budget, Forest Service fire management activities have risen from 13
percent in 1991 to a projected 48 percent for 2009. This diversion of
resources from land management activities, including fuels reduction
projects and others that could help prevent fires in the future, may be
unintentional, but it is very real and very substantial.
Second, in six of the last nine years, the actual cost of wildfire
suppression exceeded the budgeted amount. When this happens, the agency
transfers funds remaining in other accounts to cover the ongoing
emergency costs of suppression. These accounts are sometimes, but not
always, repaid for this ``fire borrowing.'' Even when they are repaid,
time-sensitive work is disrupted and agreements with collaborators
broken, which can result in significant cost increases or even in
destroyed relationships.
To give a typical example of the cascading effects, ``fire
borrowing'' in one case required that stand examination, in-stream fish
habitat improvement, and wildlife meadow habitat improvement projects
be put on hold. This delayed the planning and implementation of a
large-scale NEPA document, which in turn delayed several timber sales
and projects to enhance the habitat of threatened and endangered
species. An entire year of work and progress was lost and the agency's
standing with collaborators was adversely impacted.
Last year, this Committee reported out the FLAME Act, under which
emergency national responses to catastrophic wildfires would have been
funded like other national emergencies, such as hurricanes. This
structural change would stabilize the funding for land management and
allow this workforce to be rebuilt. This cannot happen soon enough, as
our workforce is old and we need to get new employees on board before
current employees take their knowledge of the land and resources into
retirement. I see that the FLAME Act was recently introduced in this
Congress, for which I am very thankful. Our Council will do all we can
to support this approach.
Initiative Shock: Cumulative Effects of Unsuccessful Changes
Employees are frustrated by a seemingly endless stream of
reorganizations and new technologies, methods, and policies that seem
ill-planned and end up significantly impeding their ability to get
their jobs done. Field-going employees and managers find themselves
faced with an ever-increasing number of administrative tasks that were
previously performed by support personnel. Any single challenge may be
trivial in the grand scheme of things, but the cumulative effect can be
overwhelming. It is this cumulative effect that has caused many
employees to suffer from ``initiative shock.''
One source of increased administrative tasks comes from the
``burden shift'' associated with recent reorganizations of agency
support functions. Historically, these support organizations were
maintained by field units. Resources were shared using a ``zone''
concept when local or regional managers decided this was beneficial.
Support personnel reported to local line officers. In response to a
presidential mandate, supposedly to increase efficiency, the Forest
Service Washington Office assumed administrative and budgetary control
of most of these administrative functions by standing up new stovepipe
organizations. In these organizations, employees now report through a
chain of command isolated from the field, directly connected to
Washington. In total, nearly 4,000 employees, or roughly 10 percent of
the workforce, were directly affected by these reorganizations. Field
employees no longer have local staff to consult, but call an 800 number
for support. The following reorganizations were implemented between
2005 and 2007:
Information Technology (IT) support was downsized as a
result of competitive sourcing. Personnel were not physically
centralized, but were stationed at various field locations. However,
they reported through the chain of command of their virtual IT
organization.
Human Capital Management (HCM) was downsized and
centralized by Business Process Reengineering (BPR). Although the
competitive sourcing process per se was not used, the project was
undertaken for the stated purpose of meeting the quota associated with
this presidential initiative. HCM employees were directly reassigned to
the Albuquerque Service Center (ASC is sometimes called ``Washington
Office West'').
Agency Budget and Fiscal (B&F) operations were also
downsized and centralized by BPR. It is our understanding that this
centralization was mandated by the Department; credit toward the
agency's competitive sourcing quota was also sought. Employees were
directly reassigned to ASC.
As these organizations were stood up, employees with managerial,
land management, and other duties found themselves saddled with work
previously provided by support personnel. When IT support was
downsized, some tasks were intentionally assigned to users, while
others were inadvertently left out of the new organization's
responsibilities and had to be picked up by other staff. When Human
Capital Management (HCM) was downsized and centralized, part of the
plan involved a ``self service'' model in which ``line staff will be
required to redeem some managerial functions that they are not
currently performing in order to...reduce the costs of the [HCM]
function.''
In addition, a number of computer-based business applications have
been released in rapid succession without adequate testing. In many
cases, these systems have been mandated from above, for example by the
Department. In other cases, they are agency-sponsored packages designed
to provide stop-gap coverage of critical processes that cannot be
performed by non-functional Departmental-sponsored software. There are
literally dozens of applications, most of which are problematic and
some of which are all but dysfunctional. Difficulties with the poor
user interfaces and questionable functionalities of these applications
are exacerbated by the lack of field administrative support personnel
who have historically handled these processing tasks.
Self-service and phone helpdesk support are particularly
frustrating and ineffective for field-going employees. I strongly
encourage the reading of the most thoughtful and comprehensive
accounts, including a letter to the Forest Service National Leadership
Team signed by 37 District Rangers, which are provided in their
entirety in exhibits 1-4 attached to this testimony. The following are
some additional employee comments, obtained within the last month:
``Burden shift due not only to the HR centralization but other
functions such as B&F and the Computer Technologies has greatly reduced
my efficiency to do my job... I now spend much more time learning these
other functions and performing these tasks before I can do my own
tasks. Tasks such as loading computer software and troubleshooting
errors, programming funds, managing credit cards, as well as numerous
other time consuming tasks eat away from my productivity with the job I
was hired to perform. Not to mention that there really isn't any type
of training for many of these tasks--some B&F background would help to
figure out how to perform B&F type functions but often there isn't
anybody left on the forest to ask for help. I just feel that we have
been spread too thin and expected to know too many fields to be
effective at our own jobs.''
``In July 2007, I opened a case with HCM to see how many days
of military leave I had. I have to track that manually since
Paycheck program does not track it automatically...I was unable
to get any answers from HCM. In December of 2007, I opened up a
Merit Board Protection case. I gathered from my conversation
with the merit board person that I was not the first one to
call them up. They (Merit Board) called HCM on January 21, 2008
and one week later, I had my leave audit. It is too bad I had
to complain to get such a simple item done.''
``I tried to start the hiring process for a dispatcher in
February 2008...The job finally came out and closed in early
December. I selected my candidate 5 weeks ago; she has been
contacted by ASC; however ASC cannot tell me if she will be
able to report to work on March 16th...We have seen letters
recognizing that centralization of HR did not work, but to give
it more time. How about this, IT IS NOT WORKING>>>>>FIX IT.
When are they going to call uncle and go back to the way it
was, when people were there to assist you, instead of saying
call the 1-800 number and see if they can help you. There is no
personal contact with the field, they have no clue the time and
energy it takes for supervisors the hire their crews now. It is
ridiculous how much time it takes to get things done.''
``I had 8 STEPs [student temporary education program employees]
that I did resignation 52s for at the end of the season. At
least 5 of these 52s which were done in August 2008 were not
completed till February 2009. Some of these students had lump
sum payments due to them...No one seems to be able to correct
our leave errors...Needless to say my interaction with ASC has
not been very productive. My work load has doubled since the
reorganization and my expectations of success have plummeted.
This move to consolidation is an illusion of progress producing
only confusion, inefficiency and demoralization.''
``Prior to ASC each Forest had a Payroll Clerk who had the
ability to correct leave errors. That ability was taken away
and [now] we constantly have leave errors with no way of
correcting them. Each leave error costs our Forest (a fee is
charged by the National Finance Center (NFC)) and those fees
are adding up because we can't get the errors fixed in a timely
manner. We maintain leave audits on our units but by the time
an audit is sent to ASC for a correction, another pay period
has elapsed and, even if ASC fixes the problem, it is already
incorrect because the employee has accrued more leave; this in
turn causes another error.''
``Employees all over the country are doing Windows XP retrofits
[to upgrade computer operating systems]. At my GS-11/Step 10
salary I have spent 6-plus hours on the install, and I just hit
an error so I will have to restart it tomorrow.''
``(1) I have an employee that for 6 weeks has been trying to
get his Lotus Notes [employee email and time and attendance
program] fixed. He is a field going employee. He is currently
sitting by a phone (instead of out in the field doing his job)
waiting for someone from the help desk to finally call him
back. He has been playing phone tag for several days with the
help desk...(2) I have an employee that has been trying to get
his computer login fixed with a new password for over 6 weeks.
Phone calls are not returned and neither are emails. When the
mandatory Aglearn training is then not completed [due to a lack
of system access], the forest supervisor threatens employees
with letters in their files...(3) I had another employee who
had some weird error message that resulted in training that was
completed showing as incomplete, he also had the same issue
with the help desk and was also threatened with a letter...(4)
My battalion chief spent a day and half upgrading his computer
to Windows XP and then when the migration did not work
correctly had to call the help desk. I have better things for
him to do than be a computer expert. He could have spent that
time working on agreements with the local volunteer fire
departments.''
``I spent 16 hours in February on the phone with the PC
helpdesk folks--both times because my profile as a FS employee
was mysteriously dumped. I would venture a guess that 10 hours
a month is about average for me to have to devote to fixing
computer problems...Meanwhile, out on the logging job, I'm not
there. My position requires that I be readily available in the
area of current operations. If a contractor were forced to stay
away from the field, he has to have an alternate representative
on the site or be in breech of contract. The same is required
of us. I have no alternate. Therefore, when I am absent from my
duties in the field, I am placing the government in position
for breech [of contract].''
``I used GovTrip for the first time yesterday, submitting a
[travel] voucher. My experience took over 2 hours and not only
took up my time (as a GS-7), but also intermittently the time
of a GS-9 and a GS-11. The program was very user unfriendly.
What is really irritating is that we get charged extra for
using their helpdesk. The contractor is essentially double-
dipping. They are paid once to design and manage a travel
system, and then paid again when we need help because it was so
poorly designed.''
``GovTrip is crazy. We have a bunch of highly-paid scientists
wasting time struggling with this ridiculous software. Talk
about a waste of time. I've done some application development,
and this may very well be the WORST-written application I've
ever experienced. Confusing, cumbersome, doesn't use typical
Windows conventions (i.e., use of the return key to accept
entries in dialog boxes, etc.). Easy to make a mistake that
requires re-filling in entire screens. Hard to get pricing on
airlines, you can try selecting the same exact flight 5 times
and get 4 or 5 different fares.''
``After 3 hours creating the initial authorization thru
GovTrip, I spent over 4 hours of my time attempting to finalize
a travel voucher today. I am a field going employee, but not
today. My pay level is GS-9 plus steps. I am not
technologically challenged, the travel system just is not
working well--it kicks you out before your voucher is
completed.''
I want to emphasize that these comments should not be taken to
reflect poorly on employees laboring in the stovepipe administrative
support organizations, who are doing the best they can in untenable and
extremely stressful situations. The problem lies elsewhere--in the
organization, tools, training, etc. available to them. For example, the
vast majority of the agency's human resource employees retired,
resigned, or transferred to other jobs when faced with directed
reassignment to the ASC--taking their years of training and experience
with them. This dramatic loss of human capital meant that crucial
mentoring could not take place. It takes people to transmit a corporate
culture--and the needed people did not come along for the ride.
I have another perspective to share on this point. It involves an
IT employee. IT employees are required to focus on meeting Service
Level Agreements (SLAs) and are ordered to turn away projects that may
be important to the local units where they are stationed, work they
previously would have routinely performed, if it is outside the scope
of work of the IT organization. This fragmentation adversely affects
the morale of both non-IT employees whose needs are not met and IT
employees prevented by the organization from meeting those needs. One
IT employee reports an old friend he ran into was surprised he was
still working at the local unit because local management had said that
he ``no longer works for us.'' This employee, like too many others, has
been reorganized from a ``can-do'' member of the Forest Service team to
an isolated, alienated employee who ``can't.'' He told me he had been
devastated by his new situation and planned to retire as soon as he
could.
As troubling as these inefficiencies are, the centralization and
stovepiping, particularly of HCM, have raised more profound issues.
Employees at all levels report the occurrence of a shift of power and
authority, perhaps unintended but nevertheless real, away from the
field to HCM. Field supervisors retain responsibility for program
delivery, but the authority they need has been taken from them. As one
employee noted, HCM is supposed to be a support function, but has
become ``the tail that wags the dog.'' The following quotes address
this issue:
Employee and union official, ``ASC is making their own policy--Our
Forest Supervisor was just as unsuccessful as the rest of us when she
tries to solve problems. It's like they created a kingdom that answers
to nobody.''
Employee and union official, ``Nowadays I get called into the
Forest Supervisor's office more to help him try to figure out angles to
get around ASC-HCM than I do for any sort of disciplinary action or
anything else.''
Employee and union official, ``There is no experience in those
centers. All the experience was left in the field doing other jobs or
gone when employees retired or resigned. We lost a lot of good and
experienced employees from this. The service centers are hiring people
right off the streets in Albuquerque to replace long-time experienced
employees. They are hiring people who have never worked for the
Government or been on a Forest, but who are making decisions that
affect us at the Forest and District level not understanding how it
will affect us.''
37 District Rangers, ``While we have retained the responsibility
for land management and public service, we have lost significant
authority to meet these responsibilities. We are concerned that recent
changes have resulted in line officers at all levels ceding power to
those in support functions.'' (See Exhibit 1 for entire letter.)
17 Forest Supervisors, ``Line officers from multiple regions relate
incidences time after time where HCM employees appear to be stepping
into what traditionally was a line officer's role and going beyond
their technical delegation--As our organization centralizes various
functions at the national, regional, and sub-regional level, it is
becoming increasingly difficult for line officers to redeem their many
various responsibilities. The agency is increasingly separating
accountability to accomplish the mission of the National Forest System
from the authority to accomplish that mission. This trend is having a
significant impact on line officers' ability to achieve mission-
critical outcomes.''
Reclassification of Fire Managers
Finally, I need to mention some of the unique issues faced by our
firefighters. This portion of our workforce is substantial and plays a
key role: the Forest Service is the lead agency in wildfire
suppression. Firefighter issues are many and complex, as is the
workforce that fights wildfire. This workforce encompasses employees
largely or solely dedicated to fire duties, such as the many
firefighters in Region 5, and militia members who normally perform non-
fire work and fulfill various firefighting and support functions on
incidents as collateral duties. One-size-fits-all solutions are
unlikely to be effective for this range of situations.
There are a number of issues affecting the effectiveness and morale
of our firefighters--many more than I can begin to summarize here. Just
to name a few, there's issues of proper classification, roles and
responsibilities of fire managers and non-fire agency administrators,
pay and personnel policy reforms to improve retention in Region 5,
temporary hiring practices, succession planning, waning cultural
support and incentives for participation in the militia, and over-
reliance on contract resources. However, I do need to mention one issue
that represents a clear and present danger to the safety and
effectiveness of our firefighting workforce, and that is the
reclassification of fire managers into the GS-0401 series. The
knowledge, skills, and abilities to lead a fire crew into harm's way
are not obtained in a classroom--they are obtained by specialized
agency-developed training and on-the-ground experience. The
reclassification imposes new academic requirements which in many cases
are unrelated to the duties of these positions. Based on the most
recent numbers we have seen, this may remove as many as 31 percent of
the agency's 473 field generals in our war against wildfire from their
jobs next year. Further, the reclassification imposes a glass ceiling
for some of our most capable leaders coming up through the ranks (see
Exhibit 5), but effects on succession planning have been ignored.
The situation is essentially unchanged since I testified about this
issue before the Senate Committee on Natural Resources on June 18, 2008
(the testimony is available at http://energy.senate.gov/public/--files/
ThatcherTestimony.doc). Last year, as a result of Congressional
inquiries, the agency made a number of commitments to mitigate the
adverse impacts of this reclassification. Most, if not all, of these
commitments have been broken. An Office of Inspector General (OIG)
management alert has been issued on this and the agency claims to have
``stood down'' its transition to the GS-0401 series. However, in
reality the transition is proceeding unabated. Critical fire management
positions continue to be filled from applicant pools skewed away from
vital field experience toward largely irrelevant academic degrees.
Limited funds continue to be diverted from needed training to pay for
coursework that is unrelated to fire management. Fire management
capacity continues to erode every day the agency continues this
misguided policy.
How We Got Here: Top-Down Management without Field Input
So, how did we get to this point? In each and every failed
initiative, we hear the same complaint: leadership didn't ask the
field. The initiatives were developed and imposed on employees from on
high without field employee input.
The decision to stovepipe and downsize IT support came from the
President of the United States. The Bush administration's competitive
sourcing initiative was the ultimate top-down, non-collaborative
management style. It sought to put all commercial work performed by
Federal agencies up for bid. The theory was that agencies would either
downsize staff to avoid outsourcing this work or all of it would go to
the lowest private sector bidder. The process was regulated by the
White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-76.
OMB assigned agencies quotas of full-time equivalents (FTEs, or jobs)
to submit to the A-76 process. The competitive sourcing initiative,
especially as implemented by the Forest Service (see http://
www.gao.gov/new.items/d08195.pdf) has since been largely discredited;
however, it left behind a legacy of eroded infrastructure and low
employee morale.
There are many flaws to the competitive sourcing initiative, but
perhaps the most important was its fragmented approach. By design, it
failed to look at the entire agency holistically. Instead, staffing and
outsourcing decisions were made based solely on cost comparisons of
work functions considered in isolation. Strategic considerations are
beyond the scope of the A-76 Circular--and the fatal flaw of
competitive sourcing was that its quotas took this discretion away from
agency leaders as well. In addition, because of the secrecy required by
this procurement-sensitive process, employees could not be meaningfully
and productively engaged but by design were excluded and kept in the
dark. The outcomes caused by this initiative--as well as employees'
sense of powerlessness and betrayal--have had lasting impacts.
Although not a result of competitive sourcing per se, the BPR of
HCM was undertaken as an alternative in lieu of an A-76 public-private
competition. The responsibility for top-down decision-making that
excluded employees in this case also rests with the previous
administration. As in competitive sourcing, the efficiency and cost
effectiveness of Forest Service operations as a whole were not
considered. Centralization and downsizing were preordained outcomes.
The most troubling deployments of business application software
have been mandated by the Department or by even higher levels of the
government. Examples include GovTrip and EmpowHR, the backbone
application for HCM self-service. The implementation timetables
mandated from on high for these and other applications prevented
adequate testing. Testing and feedback on the functionality of new
systems by pilot groups is among the most basic of ways to engage
employees--and there can be no doubt it results in better data and
better decisions. In this case, as in those mandated by competitive
sourcing, we include our agency leadership among the employees excluded
from the decision-making process--Department mandates and timetables
apparently left them no authority to perform the testing that would
have been prudent.
The decision to reclassify fire managers is the only issue I've
discussed that is an agency decision. However, decision-makers have
elected to exclude employees, even the agency's top field managers with
decades of experience, from the decision-making process. There are many
bright, dedicated, and concerned individuals in the Fire and Aviation
Management organization; however, an unfortunate culture of secrecy and
top-down decision-making seems to have developed in the organization,
at least as displayed in this instance.
A Better Approach: Engage the Workforce
I have no magic bullet, no simple solution to fix these problems. A
few union leaders are no more infallible than are a few agency leaders.
But I would like to suggest a strategy that would immediately begin to
improve morale and put us on a pathway to increase our effectiveness.
We submit that front-line employees are the ones who know the best
way to get their jobs done. It is they who have the best understanding
of the barriers that block their way on a daily basis. It is they who
have the best understanding of how to improve the processes with which
they work every day. It is they who know what needs to be done to
increase their effectiveness. We believe it is crucial to tap into the
collective wisdom of the workforce. This is particularly true of the
Forest Service, an institution in which one size cannot be assumed to
fit all because of the diversity of lands, from Alaska to Alabama, for
which the agency is responsible.
We need a process to meaningfully engage employees so their
collective knowledge and wisdom may be brought to bear on agency
challenges. Such a process is available. Content analysis was developed
by Forest Service employees to compile, organize, and analyze public
comments pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
requirements. Chairman Rahall's new agenda for the Natural Resources
Committee includes a renewed commitment to require the federal
government to ``think before it acts...by requiring solicitation of
public opinion and consideration of alternatives,'' using methods such
as content analysis. We propose that the Forest Service engage its
workforce regarding internal reorganizations, implementation of new
technologies, etc. in a similar fashion and for the same reasons: to
ensure the agency thinks before it acts. We believe the process can be
streamlined and used to great advantage to compile the collective
knowledge of employees and managers in the field.
A top priority must be taking action to win back the trust and
respect of the workforce. For far too long, employees have been kept in
the dark and misled by their leaders. This has had an effect on morale
that is even more devastating than the challenges themselves--the
thought that our leaders would substitute propaganda for truth is
really devastating to a dedicated employee committed to the work of the
agency. Even though the ultimate responsibility for this has often been
at levels of the government above the agency and therefore beyond the
control of agency leadership, it still falls to that leadership to
address the effects on morale this unfortunate era has left in its
wake. Recently, President Obama said on national television, ``I
screwed up.'' Our agency leadership needs to follow his example and
bring the same level of accountability back to that part of the
American government for which they are responsible, the Forest Service.
Straight talk about what has not worked--about our failures--is needed
to restore the trust and credibility that are so important to effective
leadership. We agree wholeheartedly with the Dialogos report
recommendation that ``top leaders must then honestly communicate the
realities--to all relevant audiences in the organization, and engage in
an open strategic conversation with the organization's distributed
leadership and employees.'' For example, leadership needs to start
talking straight to our employees by telling them:
The savings of the IT reorganization were overstated for
political reasons, because accounting guidance mandated by the White
House Office of Management and Budget was misleading (see http://
www.gao.gov/new.items/d08195.pdf). IT employees have shouldered a heavy
load and performed admirably, but the business models and standards
developed by the secretive and fragmented competitive sourcing process
have ill-served the needs of many field-going employees.
The Forest Service has had to experience the unintended
operational impacts and the cultural/emotional pain of a failing
implementation of centralized HCM services for over 2 years. We need to
revisit the fundamental assumptions associated with self-service. We
need to determine what level of HCM resources in the field best serves
the agency's needs.
I'm happy to report some recent developments that are quite
encouraging. A reorganization team is looking at the IT organization.
This team got off to a shaky start. For example, management insisted on
secrecy during the development of the initial plan, even requiring our
union representative to sign a nondisclosure agreement. This was not
the best way to begin with employees who already have ``reorganization
fatigue'' and a lack of trust because of their painful experience with
competitive sourcing. Further, employees had serious concerns about the
draft plan that was released for employee review and comments. The was
great concern that the draft plan did away with virtual positions in
favor of a centralized service center. In addition, this plan did not
appear responsive to recommendations of the CIO Technology Program
Review, which assessed the IT support organization model and called for
more ``boots on the ground.''
However, the reorganization team solicited employee comments on the
draft plan and, more significantly, compiled them using a content
analysis process. More significantly still, they appear to be seriously
considering the comments and are reporting back to employees in a
timely fashion with the results of their analysis and some preliminary
decisions. This is significant because there is a history of comments
being solicited and then disappearing, never to be seen again. The team
deserves a lot of credit for taking this step. It is our hope it is one
small step on the path to a new way of doing business. I need to
mention as well that in spite of this being a particularly battered and
bruised staff, as they have only recently emerged from competitive
sourcing, roughly 35-40% of them took the time to comment. Under the
circumstances, this is an excellent response rate, and it indicates
that employees, for their part, are ready to engage in a productive
way, if only leadership will open the door and honestly consider their
input.
The situation with HCM is less promising. In spite of dire internal
assessments, leadership has yet to be completely straight with the
workforce. Two teams were recently chartered to work on HCM problems,
one to deal with urgent operational priorities (crisis management) and
the other to deal with strategic issues, such as the business model
itself. These are positive steps in the right direction; however, these
are not the first teams to be chartered and dispatched since we
transitioned to the new HCM organization. We need a bigger effort. We
need a transparent process to engage the workforce. This would not only
to put more heads together to work on the problem, it would also go a
long way toward restoring trust and morale by sending a message that
leadership understands the magnitude of the problem--and that they
understand our workforce is a valuable resource to help solve it. It
would be just as important for leadership as for rank and file
employees, for they, too, are battered by ``initiative shock'' and need
the help.
The situation with the reclassification of fire managers is as bad
as can be. Officials responsible for the policy are not communicating
with the field, not even to provide adequate guidance for implementing
the decisions they have made behind closed doors, and have refused to
discuss the matter with the union. Although this story is complex and
fraught with twists and turns, the bottom line is the decision to
transition these positions to the GS-0401 series was announced on June
15, 2004, yet many employees have still not been informed of how to
meet the new standard in order to keep the jobs they have successfully
performed for years (see Exhibit 5). The disregard for employees in
these positions, not to mention the safety and effectiveness of the
wildfire operations they lead, has had large negative effect on morale.
Field employees, including managers, feel disconnected and ignored by
national leadership.
Conclusion
I have shown here today how sweeping agency changes based on
decisions made in secret without employee input by isolated officials
who are not held accountable for their decisions have been disastrous.
This way of doing business has not served the needs of the agency at
all well. A new way is needed. The knowledge employees have about their
jobs is knowledge that agency officials need in order to make the best
decisions about the organizations, means, and methods of getting those
jobs done. Employees need to be engaged, as advisors, even as
collaborators, if the best decisions are to be made.
This new way of doing business will require officials who have
grown accustomed to the top-down, secretive mode of operations of the
old administration to abandon these habits. It will require them to
embrace the principles of transparency and accountability articulated
by President Obama. The payoff is in shared accountability and shared
ownership--a decision informed by better information and a workforce
motivated to make the decision work.
We recommend the following legislation to encourage this way of
doing business:
Reintroduce and pass the Federal Labor-Management
Partnership Act as introduced in the 110th Congress (HR 3892). As found
by Congress, the right of employees to participate in the agency
decision-making process through unions ``contributes to the effective
conduct of public business.'' This legislation would establish labor-
management partnership committees whose express purpose would be ``to
better serve the public and carry out the mission of the agency.'' The
Forest Service has such a committee, and while its influence is limited
it is still an institution that provides an important avenue for
employee participation. In addition, this legislation would also enable
unions to negotiate on organizational matters and on methods and means
of performing work--the very matters in which, as I hope I have shown
here today, employee participation is critical.
Pass the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009
(HR 1507). This legislation would strengthen protections against acts
of reprisal which employees all too often face as a result of their
disclosures of problems that their superiors would prefer remain hidden
from Congress and the American people. This legislation would encourage
the kind of transparency and accountability that is required for
meaningful employee participation in agency decision-making.
These bills would put an ``accountability infrastructure'' in place
that would allow us to collaborate with agency officials to develop and
use methods that are appropriate for the diverse specific problems we
will face. For example, though we have spoken highly of content
analysis, we have not asked for legislation to mandate the use of this
method for all reorganizations. This tool, while powerful, may not be
appropriate in all cases. Instead, we seek a statutory framework within
which we may, in collaboration with agency officials, develop our own
best practices.
In addition to these legislative items, your continued engagement
and oversight on these issues is important. As I've discussed, they are
of critical importance and are currently at high risk for catastrophic
failure. Even with perfect legislation in place, I'm sure we'll need to
continue to bring specific concerns to your attention on a case-by-case
basis. In any organization as large and complex as a federal agency,
there will always be pockets of resistance to change. Old habits die
hard. For now, we urge you to remain engaged on the issues we have
discussed here today and to pressure the agency to take meaningful
action to address them. We would be happy and honored to help you in
any way that we can.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, this concludes my
prepared statement. Thank you for the opportunity. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have at this time. In addition, please
contact us at any time with any addition questions or requests for
information. I may be reached at [email protected] and our
Legislative Director, Mark Davis, may be reached at
[email protected].
______
Exhibit 1, Accompanying Testimony of Ron Thatcher, NFFE-FSC
Restoring the Federal Public Lands Workforce--March 19, 2009
The following is a letter from 37 District Rangers, the agency's
front-line supervisors, to the National Leadership Team. We are aware
of no response from the Leadership Team.
May 29, 2008
TO: Members of the Forest Service National Leadership Team
A FIELD PERSPECTIVE
We recently completed a Rocky Mountain regional district ranger
meeting to discuss common issues facing us at the field level. This
letter summarizes some of the concerns we discussed. It is intended to
be constructive, and aims to provide solutions to these concerns. We
respectfully ask for your consideration and offer our support in
solving these issues.
The district rangers overwhelmingly support some recent changes
made at the national level. This includes the decision to have the
Human Resource Liaisons assigned to local line officers and the
decision to not ``stovepipe'' the AQM organization. We appreciate your
efforts and your support of the Dialogos report's recognition of the
benefit of ``straight talk''. We also understand that the National
Leadership team (NLT) has been reconfigured. The NLT is now smaller and
focused on strategic decisions. Given this recent change, and the NLT's
enhanced role in decision making, we decided to send this letter to the
entire NLT.
As district rangers we feel that, while we have retained the
responsibility for land management and public service, we have lost
significant authority to meet these responsibilities. We are concerned
that recent changes have resulted in line officers at all levels ceding
power to those in support functions. The Dialogos report identified
this phenomenon. An aspect of this issue was highlighted in the March
27, 2008, letter from the R6 Forest Supervisors to the Acting Regional
Forester, regarding the current role of line officers in employment
authority.
As an agency, we have become more process oriented and less mission
oriented.
Business functions currently hinder operations, with people
becoming distracted by the additional workload and the frustration of
being unable to make progress. Individually these additional tasks and
new processes are manageable; cumulatively they have become a huge
burden on an already stressed workforce. Our workforce feels overloaded
with new processes and frustrated by a burden shift of administrative
duties with less time to focus their efforts on mission-critical work.
The connection between land managers and administrative support used to
be clear and immediate with success measured by the ability to provide
service to mission-critical work. The connection between the two groups
has become strained and in some cases is completely severed.
The district ranger job has always involved ``kicking rocks out of
the way'' so that our staff could get work done. Lately, it has been
difficult to acquire and to share current and useful information with
our employees, let alone help them when they hit a roadblock. Often we
do not even know who to talk to in order to resolve issues, nor does it
seem we have the authority needed to set priorities or resolve issues.
The past year has been especially difficult for districts as it regards
human resource support. We have not been able to hire the people we
need, sometimes have not gotten employees paid on time, and the summer
seasonal hiring process has been stressful at best. This is not
intended as criticism for the hard working employees at HCM trying to
make the system work. And we do recognize that new efforts are being
made to correct the situation.
We suggest that administrative services and processes be better
focused on the needs of the field. Sometimes our expressed concerns
regarding process/organization changes either have been ignored or
treated as if we were simply resisting change. We want to be clear
here. We embrace change as necessary to keep the Forest Service
relevant, efficient and effective. We do not ask for a return to
historic processes, but instead ask that we better focus, plan, and
execute needed changes.
We have observed a trend toward a more ``top-down'' agency with
less involvement from the field, and lacking adequate feedback
mechanisms. The effect is that ranger districts sometimes feel
alienated, creating a ``we/they'' dynamic. We recognize the importance
of strong central leadership and direction, but we cannot have mission
alignment without field involvement. Lack of field representation
during the formulation and development of programs that have so
profoundly restructured key branches of the agency has resulted in
design and execution problems that have negatively impacted mission
delivery.
Initiatives are important to an organization in setting priorities
and making needed changes. Having too many initiatives, however, can
divert attention away from mission-critical work and dilute the
agency's focus. The Dialogos report also highlights this issue as
``initiative fatigue''. We suggest that our most important initiative
is fixing a broken service delivery system as it hinders our ability to
address emphasis items and assigned targets.
We have reviewed summaries of the Dialogos report and believe that
our concerns are echoed to some degree in that report. We will continue
to have difficulty maintaining mission focus and attention to safety if
we can't resolve issues in those processes that were traditionally
taken for granted. The sooner we can stabilize these issues the sooner
we may focus on our primary mission and the safety of our workforce.
Recommendations
To quote Colin Powell on leadership, ``The day soldiers stop
bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them.
They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded
that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership''. We
believe that you can solve these problems and that you care.
As you address the many issues facing the agency, we respectfully
request consideration of the following:
Clarify the roles, responsibilities and authorities
throughout the agency in light of changes and centralization of various
functions.
Re-establish line authority over support functions.
Recognize that you cannot hold line accountable if they do not have the
authority.
Focus your efforts (be visible) on improving
administrative service support throughout the agency. We believe this
is the most important thing you can do to support the ranger districts.
Adequately test new software and systems and ensure they
are working properly before being extended on an agency-wide basis.
Ensure ranger districts are well represented in the
development of processes, organizations and services essential to
meeting the mission. Include significant ranger district involvement
(SSS's, Staff, District Rangers) in addressing the current problems in
Human Resources.
Be careful in starting new initiatives prior to ensuring
that the old ones are working as intended. Focus on making our systems
work to support the organization.
We stand ready to assist you in addressing these challenges and
issues!
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8109.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8109.002
Exhibit 2, Accompanying Testimony of Ron Thatcher, NFFE-FSC
Restoring the Federal Public Lands Workforce--March 19, 2009
The following is an email from a Fire Crew Supervisor, received on
Feb. 27, 2009 in response to the Council's solicitation of employee
comments on workforce morale and effectiveness.
I am no longer a member of the union, but I supervise 18 union
employees. The centralization of HR functions has greatly impacted the
morale of the Forest Service employees by degrading the quality of HR
service provided to employees, and by taking valuable time and energy
away from supervisors as the functions have been transferred down to
inexperienced supervisors.
I routinely have issues in every facet of HR process. The hiring
process (AVUE) is confusing for applicants and was shut down during a
critical hiring period this year. Once applicants navigate the AVUE
process, then they get a confusing form letter from ASC with very
little direction for the Eforms they must complete online. Then they
arrive on the unit and face problems with access to Agency computers
because their earning statements are available only after they can
Eauthenticate which takes several weeks after they have been in pay
status. Many employees have issues with delayed initial pay, incorrect
transfer of sick leave, and a host of other issues. As a supervisor,
the worst aspect of centralization is that as bad as any individual
process may be, the processes are changed so often that there is no
chance to learn and work the bugs out. I spend an average of several
hours each day dealing with HR services that previously were handled by
dedicated HR experts on the unit that felt a stake in the success of my
program. The HR folks knew the employees and took pride in taking care
of them. To ASC, I am just a problem. ASC has no stake in the success
of the program, and no understanding of the challenges I face. Since I
am not an HR expert, I require assistance in many of the HR functions,
but obtaining help is not a simple phone call away. I am still waiting
on a request from last year on a hiring process question. Processes are
implemented before being tested, and with limited training for
supervisors. The corresponding waste of time and money is staggering.
The problems are not limited to hiring. After the seasonal were
terminated for the year, they had to wait four months this year
(October to February) to receive lump sum payments for their unused
annual leave. That is terrible service. Other examples abound, but
universally, the complexity and number of HR processes and the constant
change of policies make it nearly impossible to provide employees
quality service. How can we expect high employee morale when basic
functions like hiring and pay cannot be effectively handled on a
regular basis? The quality of service to employees is an embarrassment.
______
Exhibit 3, Accompanying Testimony of Ron Thatcher, NFFE-FSC
Restoring the Federal Public Lands Workforce--March 19, 2009
The following is an email from a Fire Crew Supervisor, received on
Mar. 6, 2009 in response to the Council's solicitation of employee
comments on workforce morale and effectiveness.
I think employee morale at the field level is at the lowest I've
ever seen it in my 29 years with the Forest Service. We've made it
through many tight budget years, low staffing years, and constantly
changing processes, but never has it taken the emotional toll it's
taking now. We are too inundated with new processes/help desks/
acronyms/systems. I see managers who would normally come to work, deal
with office issues in the first half hour, and then take off to the
woods where their real job is. They'd come back late at the end of the
day tired but satisfied that they'd done what they were here to do.
Now, they have a completely overloaded computer inbox to deal with,
full of multiple messages from the CIO, the HRM, the HRM liaison, the
Govtrip, the Aglearn.....many of them have to schedule whole days in
the office to deal with all this. If the new systems and processes
would happen one at a time, and work correctly and smoothly and
actually be an improvement on how things were done previously, and
people were allowed to absorb the new processes before moving on to the
next one, things might be easier to deal with. But we have been
bombarded with new processes in every area we deal with, and 99% of
them have so many bugs when they're given to us to use, it's become
severe process overload. People feel like there's a huge weight on
their shoulders and they feel hopeless to do anything about it because
it just keeps coming.
The new purchase card system is a prime example of one of these
problems. We were told to start using the cards November 29, 2008. It's
now March 2009 and we still haven't been able to ``reconcile'' or
``reallocate'' because they don't have the job codes and the
supervisors in the system. Why weren't they in the system before we
were even allowed to start using it? We had to take the training
immediately, and when we finally can use the system, we won't remember
it. I went in and tried to look around and had a really hard time, so I
downloaded the user guide, and the user guide is full of statements
like ``if your organization uses such and such'' or ``such and such
depends on your user setups and access rights'', so it's not even
written for the Forest Service--it's written for the world in general
that uses this system. It was no help at all. So meanwhile, we can't
reconcile, and all our charges are going to a default job code, which
is skewing the financial statements because those charges need to be
moved to where they actually belong. Another problem is the idea that
the supervisor has to approve each purchase (before, they had to review
a list of purchases every quarter). I'm the main office purchaser, and
my supervisor is the Ranger, who is about 700 messages behind on her
emails. The last thing she needs is to go in and approve each one of my
purchases. I know she's not the only one with this problem. The people
at the upper levels will say we just need to do a better job at
managing our emails, but that's not going to change the way it is.
Govtrip is another fine example. An employee who sits next to me
spent a whole day on the phone with Govtrip tying to schedule flights
for a certain date from here to where his training was. The response
was ``there are no flights from here to there on that day''. That is
incomprehensible because both areas have busy airports with outgoing &
incoming flights constantly. Finally they got to the point of saying
there was a flight out, but not back. And then finally they were able
to find one coming back. AND, all of this was going to cost an
OUTRAGEOUS amount compared to what he could get going through Expedia
or Travelocity. The person on the other end of the line obviously
didn't care about saving the government money. This employee talked to
someone in another office who was going to the same training, and found
out he got a flight in and out for $300 less, from the same airports.
So our employee called Govtrip back and told them this, and then they
were able to find him one for $200 less. In summary, not only did the
employee waste a WHOLE DAY trying to get this done, when he could have
spent maybe 15 minutes with Expedia or Travelocity, but he also is
going to pay hundreds more for the ticket. What is the logic here???? I
suppose the government wants to somehow track the travel and maybe they
think Govtrip is the way to do it, but wouldn't the simple old travel
voucher system do that? And the old travel voucher system was just
that--a computer program that was easy to use and free. The new Govtrip
charges each employee $13.50 every time they file a travel voucher.
Summer field crews will have to file a voucher every 2 weeks according
to the Govtrip rules, and they'll get charged $13.50 each time. $13.50
is not a lot of money by itself, but it will really affect the budget
of a trail crew in the summer, at a time where there is no extra money.
This all has the appearance of someone at the top scrambling to
meet some target about e-government that was put out there by people
who have no clue what goes on at this level. They obviously didn't
check to see what the effects would be--it appears all they were
concerned about was getting the new programs ``out there''. It has
resulted in a very decreased level of accomplishment, and a very
decreased level of job satisfaction and employee morale.
______
Exhibit 4, Accompanying Testimony of Ron Thatcher, NFFE-FSC
Restoring the Federal Public Lands Workforce--March 19, 2009
The following is an email from a Fire Administrative Office
Assistant at a Smokejumper Base, received on March 6, 2009 in response
to the Council's solicitation of employee comments on workforce morale
and effectiveness.
We cannot get leave corrected. ASC does not send out
Leave Error Reports so in order to get them, someone in the field has
had to pull them (behind ASC's back). Once we get them and try to get
them corrected, ASC does not respond. They told us last summer not to
expect any leave corrected and that it was not their priority. Leave is
critical to correct. The process to get it corrected is terribly time-
consuming, and then they won't deal with it.
eAuthentication does not work for everyone. Now in order
for employees to get their pay trailers, they have to go through eAuth.
All computer programs have to go through eAuth so the employees that do
not have it, are sunk. Our seasonal employees come on in the spring,
but within a couple weeks are out on fires. They apply for an
eAuthentication password, but by the time it gets here, they're gone.
When they come back from the fire, the password has expired. This goes
on all summer and never gets resolved.
Terminated employees and those put into Non-Pay Status at
the end of the season still show up on the rolls months after they're
gone. ASC has standards to follow just like us, but they're not meeting
the required deadlines.
We are not allowed to process retroactive SF-52's. What
ASC does not understand is ``stuff happens''. During the wintertime, we
are constantly sending employees to training and last-minute burn
details. The Burn details are coordinated between 2 forests which is
difficult in itself, but last-minute calls are the norm, not the
exception. In order to keep the burn program going, we have to work on
a tight schedule.
The LincPass does not work for remote locations. To
require our employees to travel 240 miles round-trip is ridiculous.
Then we have to go back again to pick up the pass. If our security is
that bad, someone's doing something wrong.
When ASC emails things to employees, they usually use
their Lotus Notes email address. A lot of our employees can't get onto
Lotus Notes because of our lack of IT help. And just like eAuth, when
they finally get a password for Lotus Notes, they're gone on a fire.
Last summer we had several employees not get paid. We
called ASC to help us. They will not talk to Admin folks, only to
Supervisors or the employee. Problem is, they're all in the field
working. When we finally got someone to help, they asked U.S. for the
correct banking information. According to them, they were not supposed
to have that due to security issues. It took us pestering them to the
point of insanity before they would help.
There are hundreds of examples of how ASC does not work. This is
just the tip of the iceberg.
Finally, computer programs are great for the 8-5 crowd who sit in
front of a computer most of the day. But for the seasonal employees who
are field-going, it does not work. They certainly did not bother to ask
the field how things should work.
______
Exhibit 5, Accompanying Testimony of Ron Thatcher, NFFE-FSC
Restoring the Federal Public Lands Workforce--March 19, 2009
The following email was received from a Deputy Forest Fire
Management Officer on March 3, 2009. This individual had contacted me
for information about how to meet the education requirements for GS-
0401 Fire Management Specialist positions, because he was receiving
none from agency sources. I asked him to describe his situation for me,
which he kindly did.
Information regarding the GS-401 series has been very slow in
coming to the field to say the best. The last information the field has
received was a letter from Deputy Chief Kashdan dated November 5, 2008.
This letter has continued to create confusion and has not helped
provide the field with information has to what courses/classes will or
will not count toward the 401 series and how employees may move toward
meeting the requirements of the series. Currently I have not been able
to provide adequate council to our younger firefighters that will be
our future leaders. Without clear direction the training and educating
of our future leaders has been basically put on hold. All I can tell
them at this time is go to college and then I cannot tell them with
certainty what courses will count and what courses help them in the
careers in fire management. The November 5, 2008 letter states the
following: ``However, since the positions are established as GS-401,
selections must be made in the GS-401 series if there well qualified
candidates. If there are no well qualified candidates, mangers may
select from the GS-462 referral list. And must be prepared to provide
training and education opportunities to meet the GS-401 qualification
requirements''. How are managers supposed to identify what is a well
qualified candidate? Current our referral list just show qualified
candidates. Currently the thought in this Region is that if there is
someone who meets the requirements, you must hire that individual
regardless of overall qualifications.
On unit that I am currently on, there are seventeen encumbered
positions. Of that number 65% (11 positions) do not currently meet the
GS-401 series. These individuals are at varying stages of the
educational requirements ranging from needing 6 credits to the full 24
credits (at what level do these credits need to be?). All individuals
lost between 14-18 credits when the ability to count National Wildfire
Coordinating Group (NWCG) courses was dropped. All of these individuals
currently meet or exceed the IFPM skill requirements for a complex
Forest. Skills include Operation Section Chief Type 2, Prescribed Fire
Burn Boss Type 1, Prescribed Fire Manager Type 1, Safety Officer Type
1, Fire Use Manager Type 1 and Division Supervisor to just name a few.
With our current budget level we cannot afford to send every one to
college; so how do you chose?
I am the individual who needs all 24 credits. My current position
is that of a Deputy Forest Fire Management Officer with approximately
28 years of experience. Prior to the dropping of the NWCG courses I was
short 6 credits to qualify for the GS-401 series and was in the process
of scheduling courses to get those required credits. But when the NWCG
courses were dropped it was hard for me to make the case to complete
those courses since I will be eligible for retirement in approximately
7 years. Fire Managements skills are built with experience as shown by
the required task book system. Maybe the 401 series is not the way to
go, if ``our objective is to secure the best long term fire management
organization with world-class expertise, and which is safe, proud and
efficient.''
______
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Bill Wade, Chairman, Coalition of
National Park Service Retirees, Executive Council. Sir.
STATEMENT OF BILL WADE, CHAIR, EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, COALITION OF
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RETIREES, TUCSON, ARIZONA
Mr. Wade. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bishop, and other
distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting
me to testify here this morning.
I spent over 30 years as a career in the National Park
Service, the last nine years of which were the superintendent
of Shenandoah National Park. I also spent about eight of those
years in formal positions in the Division of Training in the
National Park Service.
Much of what I have written in my formal testimony has been
touched on already, and I will not go into a lot of detail
because some of it has already been mentioned. I will say that
in preparing my testimony I contacted a number of existing
field managers, career leaders in the National Park Service,
mid-level managers, and we constantly get information and
conversation with employees throughout the National Park
Service.
Our 700 members with over 21,000 years of accumulated
experience managing national parks and programs still get quite
a bit of information from the field people.
Let me touch briefly on a few issues. All of these things I
have included in my testimony, I think, are considered
demoralizers, if you will, or aggravating factors to the
employees of the National Park Service. I will touch on a few
them very briefly and then come back and hit a couple of them
in a little more detail.
One thing that was mentioned by many, many managers is
something I have called technology systems and processes. There
seems to be an increase in process-driven issues, process-
driven activities in the National Park Service, and you have
heard others comment about it already as well. One
superintendent said, ``Overwhelmingly, process has become the
goal.'' Another commented that ``More and more people are
sitting behind computers inputting information into these
administrative systems and complex technology systems than are
out in the field doing work, such as in maintenance and in
resources management.''
Another aggravating issues seems to be recruitment, hiring,
retention, and diversity. This has also been touched on. The
NPS has not done an adequate job at diversifying its workforce.
Hiring and retention is aggravated by things that have been
mentioned before which have to do with the consolidation of
human resources. The current process for hiring seasonal and
temporary employees sometimes takes nine months now from the
lead time, the recruitment action to actually seeing the
employee on duty.
Overwhelmingly, the single biggest thing that people
commented on was employee development and training, and this
has been something that I think has contributed to the things
that Mr. Simpson mentioned: the lack of effective leadership. I
think that comes in two forms. One is certainly a deficiency in
training first level, maybe second level supervisors. The other
has to do with the higher-level leadership, sometimes political
leadership in terms of how they influence things that go on in
the National Park Service, and I suspect other Federal
agencies.
Second, the next biggest aggravating, frustrating factor I
think has already been mentioned several times. That is the
consolidation of contracting and human resource capacity in the
National Park Service. Acting Director Wenk said that they have
not consolidated as much as within the Forest Service, but
there has been consolidation in a number of parks. Each time
you do that, and you remove the capacity from a park you lose
the knowledge of what goes on in that park, and you have levels
of separation. You have competing priorities and so forth that
hinder certain parks in being able to carry out those programs.
There is a serious concern right now as to whether or not
the stimulus package will be able to be implemented effectively
because of the lack of contracting and human resources
capacity.
Last, I will comment on a question that you asked the first
panel, Mr. Chairman, and that was the extent to which political
influence is affecting the morale. I would say as of the end of
the last of the eight years or so most of our members and
others that I have talked to would say that morale is the
lowest that anybody has seen in the National Park Service in
probably 50 years or more. That probably also contributes to
some of the findings in the best places to work thing, and I
think that along with just the deficiencies in first level
supervision, it really was the process of political-driving
decisionmaking and policymaking that was imposed on the
carrying out the mission of the National Park Service. It goes
well beyond just the management policies. There were a number
of examples, but certainly that was a big frustrating factor
and along with the others that I mentioned in my written
testimony contribute to the overall morale.
I think it is on the way up. I agree with Mr. Wenk in that
factor; that the attempt to increase science-based
decisionmaking and transparency, people have a lot of hope
about that, and we think that that might move upward if the
emphasis continues.
I would be happy to answer any questions for the Committee
after the rest of the panel.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wade follows:]
Statement of J. W. ``Bill'' Wade, Chair, Executive Council,
Coalition of National Park Service Retirees
Mr. Chairman and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for holding this hearing and thank you for inviting me to
express my views, and the views of our Coalition of National Park
Service Retirees (CNPSR) on the important topic of workforce issues in
the National Park Service. I retired in 1997 from the National Park
Service after a 32-year career, including serving the last nine years
of that career as the Superintendent of Shenandoah National Park. I am
now the Chair of the Executive Council of the Coalition of National
Park Service Retirees.
The Coalition now consists of more than 700 individuals, all former
employees of the National Park Service, with more joining us almost
daily. Together we bring to this hearing over 21,000 years of
accumulated experience. Many of us were senior leaders and many
received awards for stewardship of our country's natural and cultural
resources. As rangers, executives, park managers, biologists,
historians, interpreters, planners and specialists in other
disciplines, we devoted our professional lives to maintaining and
protecting the national parks for the benefit of all Americans--those
now living and those yet to be born. In our personal lives we come from
a broad spectrum of political affiliations and we count among our
members four former Directors or Deputy Directors of the National Park
Service, twenty-three former Regional Directors or Deputy Regional
Directors, twenty-eight former Associate or Assistant Directors and
over one hundred and seventy former Park Superintendents or Assistant
Superintendents; as well as a large number of other former employees,
including seasonal employees.
BACKGROUND:
In preparing for this testimony, I contacted, by email, about 30
park managers and division chiefs in the National Park Service (NPS)
and asked them to identify what they believed the 2-3 most serious
issues currently affecting the NPS workforce are and what the
consequences of those issues are. In addition, I drew on conversations
and communications that I and other members of the CNPSR Executive
Council have had over the past several years with dozens of current
employees of the NPS about various issues, including those affecting
the NPS workforce.
Many, but not all, of the issues of concern can be directly
attributed to, or closely related to budget deficiencies. However, it
is too easy for NPS leaders to make that the scapegoat and to fail to
take appropriate action based on priorities and consequences. Clearly,
some of the issues of concern, especially as perceived by those in the
lower-ranks of the NPS, are the result of a lack of principled
leadership and decision-making; and inappropriate priorities.
Employee Development
This issue is at the top of nearly everyone's list. As with many
organizations, when there is a tightening of the budget, one of the
first program casualties is training and employee development. This has
certainly been true of the NPS.
This deficiency is pointed out in the Partnership for Public
Service 2007 Rankings of ``The Best Places to Work in the Federal
Government.'' In this survey, NPS ranked 203 out of 222. Several of the
other items with low rankings also may result from an inadequate
employee development program.
One of the most significant deficiencies is ``effective
leadership'' (ranked 191 of 222 in the aforementioned survey). The
general belief in the NPS is that there are two parts to this perceived
deficiency:
Inadequate training and development of lower-level
(first- and second-line) supervisors; and
Ineffective and unprincipled leadership practices and
decisions by high-level agency leaders, particularly political
appointees.
There is little question that there needs to be improved training
and development of lower-level supervisors, since such development is
critical to how these leaders perform as they move upward in the
organization.
One program recently implemented by the NPS that shows significant
promise is the ``Superintendent's Academy'' This program is designed to
provide individualized, comprehensive leadership development for those
individuals either selected for, or likely to be selected for their
first NPS superintendent position.
However, career development for other fields is not as organized.
One NPS manager said, ``We have no logical, organized, progressive
developmental programs for any of our career fields, and it shows! The
NPS has committed to revitalizing their ED program in the last year,
but we have yet to see substantive results. The Employee Development
program must be focused on the KSA's [knowledge, skills and abilities]
needed in each of the career fields, and clearly identify the available
developmental opportunities to obtain them.''
Another said, ``Continuing failure to adequately plan, fund and
execute the Employee Development program will result in a continuing
deterioration in our employees' abilities to perform the mission-
critical work; will manifest itself in employee dissatisfaction with
the NPS as an employer, increasing rates of attrition with concomitant
loss of valuable potential, and ultimately in a decreasing ability to
effectively protect our natural and cultural heritage.''
Succession Planning
Effective succession planning in the NPS is still a significant
deficiency. In the last 2-3 decades there have been several succession
studies and plans conducted, but each seemed to have ended up as a
report on the shelf. One manager said, ``We not only need to do
effective succession planning at the unit, region and Servicewide
levels, we need to take appropriate action to implement the succession
plans today, not sometime in the future! We need additional base
funding to allow the Service to fund training and apprenticeship
programs and shadow positions, so that when our older employees retire,
they have had the opportunity to effectively pass on the knowledge and
skills developed over the past 25-30 years. Failure to do so will cause
a dramatic loss of institutional knowledge and memory, causing us to
repeat the mistakes of the past, and slowing our evolution to more
effectively meeting our growing mission challenges.''
Contracting and Human Resources Capacity
Nearly every park manager with whom we consulted mentioned the
serious situation involving ``bottlenecks'' in human resources and
contracting. The NPS simply does not have the capacity in these program
areas to keep up with the needs.
One manager said, ``[There is a] deficit of trained and certified
contracting officers. Compounding the difficulties with changes in
procurement policies, the lack of contracting officers with warrants,
and the quality of [applicants] we get when we advertise for these
positions has put our contracting program in a tail spin. As a result
we have diminished capacity to complete projects and to handle economic
recovery projects. The inability of the NPS to get contracts out the
door has drawn fire from Congress, who look at the backlog of projects
we have on the books and the amount of unobligated funds, which has
brought criticism to our request for additional funding.''
Another said, ``The current ``corrective action plan'' for
contracting has had a debilitating impact on the ability of parks to
execute contracts and enter into cooperative agreements. The
implementation of the plan has demoralized the procurement and
contracting staff and pushing many into retirement or to other
agencies. With recovery act funding pending we need to formulate a
strategy to provide for a more nimble and effective contracting
services.''
Another superintendent gave a specific example:
``Contracting in the NPS is still problematic; both for in-park
part time purchasers, and for larger contracting at the
regional level. The dollar limits for in-park purchasing, I
believe, are from the 1960's or 1970's. Any card holder can
purchase up to $2,500 in services 3,000 in supplies and $2,000
in construction (which is widely defined to include painting
and putting up a fence). However, in order to have the ability
to purchase up to $10,000 in supplies, $2,500 in services and
$2,000 in construction, our employee had to attend 227 hours of
training. These dollar limits are obsolete and need to be
brought up to date so we can effectively get the work
accomplished. This is very broken; but the basic idea that one
must attend over 200 hours of training and still only be able
to purchase up to $10,000 is ridiculous. For the dollars spent
to attend the training, and this employee's time, we can now
purchase $7,000 more in supplies but we still have to go to
region to contract to get the building painted.''
Another superintendent cited the Cooperative Agreement guidance
that has recently been implemented in at least one NPS Region, as
another case in point:
``Up to now our Cooperative Agreements have been executed using
basically a 3-party process involving agreement formulation by
the park procurement official, technical review by a
contracting officer and by the regional solicitor. It now seems
that we are adding up to 7 additional layers of process:
1. A new Regional point of contact (POC)
2. A new Agreements ``IN BOX''
3. Automatic posting to GRANTS.GOV of all Cooperative Agreements
over $25K
4. A contract specialist (in addition to the contracting officer)
5. New involvement of Washington Office Contracting/Procurement
6. A decision to forward every agreement and task agreement to DOI
[Department of the Interior]
7. A `review of the proposed action will be assigned based on
availability of specialist or contractor personnel.'''
In addition to the examples cited above, the NPS continues to
``centralize'' all personnel and contracting functions into a very few
parks (example: into four parks in the Northeast Region) in each
Region. This ``Servicing Human Resources Office (SHRO)'' and ``Major
Acquisition Buying Office (MABO)'' consolidation is scheduled for full
implementation by October 1, 2010, though partial implementation has
already occurred.
The consolidation of the acquisition functions seems to be a
consequence of GAO review in which the NPS drew fire on its acquisition
management. The centralization of human resources functions is largely
a result of recent ``competitive sourcing'' (or ``outsourcing'')
efforts by the Bush Administration.
The consequences of these actions include:
Great frustration in parks and NPS offices relative to
their abilities to get things done.
Demoralized employees in the fields of human resources
and contracting.
Demoralized and sometimes angry customers and vendors.
Delays in executing contracts.
Demoralizing partners participating in Cooperative
Agreements.
Not being able to complete projects in the time frames
required due to inadequate staffing.
Loss of effectiveness and bolstering adverse public
opinion about government efficiency.
Loss of credibility with the public, because work is
taking too long to get done.
There is a great likelihood that the NPS will have a very difficult
time meeting the requirements of the recent ``stimulus package''
because of these deficiencies. NPS has already initiated efforts to
``call qualified individuals out of retirement'' to assist with the
expected increase in workload in these administrative functions.
Technology Systems and Processes
A number of NPS managers cited the increasing requirements of
``systems'' and ``process-driven activities'' as a serious problem and
growing frustration. One manager spoke of the ``dominance [of these
systems and activities] over independent situational judgment and
agility.'' Mentioning examples, this manager said:
``FMSS [Facility Management Software System], the PST [Project
Scoping Tool], the lengthy process for using FLREA [``fee
demonstration''] funds, the 5-year comprehensive plans--
cumulatively these squelch creativity and effective action.
Long range consistent planning is a good thing, but it should
not be the only thing. It seems to be the only thing right now.
Now, we have to try to get employees to understand the
requirements of feeding all their projects through highly
constrained and hugely complicated processes, with 3 to 5 years
before they can hope to do the project.''
A park superintendent lamented:
``Overwhelmingly, process has become the goal. GPRA [Government
Performance and Results Act], FMSS, are two big examples, but
it is in everything. We spent 100 hours on an Environmental
Management System so that we are more ``green.'' I would rather
our Resource Management Specialist spent those 100 hours
directly protecting our resources. I do not know the enormous
number of hours spent on FMSS. It has a life of its own.
Instead of working on our historic structures, our employees
are on the computer entering data about the need to work on
historic structures. I have never asked for, or used a report
created from FMSS to inform my decision making. Some may say
that makes me a poor manager; I believe it shows that FMSS is
not an effective management tool at the park level.''
Consequences of these problems include:
Spending lots of money (salaries) on care and feeding of
systems instead of on work more clearly aligned with the NPS mission.
Demoralized employees who feel devalued by the dominance
of systems.
The widespread feeling among employees that computer
programs now trump human intelligence.
Loss of credibility with the public, because ``we are
sooooooo slooooow to act or react, and we respond by saying, `I can't
do anything about it--it's the system'''.
Ineffectiveness.
Core Operations Process
Another process initiated with questionable motives and implemented
several years ago is the ``core operations'' process.
The experiences of one park, as related by a concerned employee
best serve to describe the concerns of many:
``When the superintendent presented ``Core Ops'' at an all-
employee meeting, I was very encouraged. He said we would go
back to our fundamental, guiding legislation to establish our
core responsibilities, then determine how best to fulfill them.
Being rather familiar with NPS history and the guiding
documents, I knew that if this were an honest endeavor, there
could be but one outcome--a significant shift in staffing,
funding and emphasis on protecting park resources for future
generations. I was wrong. While the #1 park priority that
emerged from the process was to inventory and monitor resources
and assess their conditions, none of the action items reflected
that priority. One position (GS-12 assistant division chief) in
the Science and Resource program was abolished and the division
chief was promoted to a GS-14, creating an even greater
disparity between the chief and the GS-11 resource scientists.
I don't deny someone receiving their just rewards, but how did
this serve the resource? No apparent staffing, funding or
emphasis was shifted to protecting park resources. Our (the
rest of the resource staff) contribution to the process was the
privilege of working harder and more efficiently, to do more
and more with less and less.
``So, the process was not about our core responsibilities, but
about ``efficiencies.'' By naming a cost-savings, efficiency
exercise a ``core operations analysis,'' we further degrade any
remaining credibility with staff or those in the public who
take the time to scrutinize what we're doing. It's like calling
cell towers ``visual enhancements.'' If it's about cutting
costs, then call it a cost-savings process that supports our
current operations. If you call it a core operations analysis,
then go back to the core documents, identify the basic
responsibilities and address them.''
It is clear from the above comments and from others we have heard
from that the core operations analyses are being utilized--regardless
of perhaps some good intentions by some NPS leaders--as a means to
justify cost-cutting in a manner that obscures the adverse impacts to
what should be the core programs of NPS: to provide for resource
protection and to provide for a quality visitor experience.
The core operations process, originating in one region, spread
throughout the NPS because of emphasis from the political leadership in
the Department of the Interior. However, leaders in several regions
successfully altered the approach and refused to carry out the
prescribed process because, in their words, ``it legitimizes an illegal
process of non-compliance with the Organic Act.'' In other words, most
park units have already reduced operations to the core--any further
reductions would, in fact, threaten the resource and would be against
the law. Implementing this process has cost substantial amounts of
money and frustrated many leaders and employees because its emphasis is
on ``efficiency;'' and ``effectiveness'' (in terms of law, policy and
mission of the NPS) is relegated to a much lower level of importance.
Recruitment, Hiring, Retention and Diversity
One superintendent states:
``We need to become more effective at attracting and retaining
younger employees, and employees from underrepresented groups.
Our diversity recruitment programs are relatively inefficient
and ineffective, especially as compared to those of other
agencies, including the USDA. Failure to recruit effectively
further disconnects the National Parks and the Service from
growing numbers of minorities and immigrant groups in America,
contributing to the growing ``irrelevancy'' of the National
Parks to today's citizenry. Our workforce must much more
closely mirror the ``face of America,'' if we hope to remain
vibrant, relevant and important to our citizens of today and
those to come.''
The NPS has not done an adequate job of diversifying its workforce.
The responsibility continues to be put on parks, which competes with
all other existing priorities. A park superintendent suggests:
``To be more effective the NPS needs to develop a few
geographically based intake programs. The programs should be
comprehensive in nature, including a recruitment strategy, a
training strategy, a mentor and the funding to support the
program. Without a diverse workforce we continue to have
challenges connecting to diverse park visitors who look at our
workforce and believe the NPS does not offer opportunities for
them.''
The current process for hiring seasonal and temporary employees
requires unreasonable lead time. Often it takes over nine months from
the initiation of the recruitment action to actually seeing the
employee at work. This is problematic as the park manager often is
unaware of what project and initiative dollars will be available at the
beginning of the fiscal year.
Law Enforcement/Emergency Response Retirement Decisions
Amendments in 1976 to the General Authorities Act (PL-94-458) gave
trained National Park Service Rangers law enforcement authority within
national park areas. These authorities include the ability to make
arrests, carry weapons, and serve warrants issued by other
jurisdictions. In 1994, the National Park Service issued a new position
description for those positions that would provide federally
established enhanced retirement benefits to those rangers who occupied
those positions (5 USC 8336--commonly referred to as ``6c'' or ``20
year retirement.'') These position descriptions describe the multiple
tasks that rangers are asked to undertake in addition to their law
enforcement duties, including search and rescue, emergency services,
and resources education.
Rangers who occupied these positions prior to 1994 have been
required to submit affidavits to prove that they exercised the same law
enforcement responsibilities that exist under the revised position
descriptions. A team of DOI employees called the Federal Law
Enforcement Review Team (FLIRT) is charged with reviewing the submitted
information and determining whether the applicants qualify for the
enhanced retirement benefits. This team has applied a very narrow
interpretation of the eligibility requirements for enhanced retirement
benefits. This has resulted in the rejection of several hundred claims
from rangers who are retired or still on active duty.
This is an injustice needs to be corrected. Currently, the NPS has
a Protection Ranger workforce of ``haves and have-nots.'' This has
caused widespread and substantial discontent among the Service's 1300
commissioned law enforcement rangers and could negatively impact the
Service's ability to recruit and retain high-quality employees for the
ranger profession. If not corrected, this could result in diminished
protection for park resources and visitors.
SUMMARY
The aforementioned concerns have contributed to a decline in the
morale in the National Park Service in addition to some inefficiencies
and ineffectiveness. However, two other problems that have been ``on
the rise'' over the past several years have led to the morale in the
NPS being as low as anyone can remember--in at least the last fifty
years; although there is evidence that this situation is changing with
the new administration and there is renewed hope and encouragement on
the part of the NPS workforce.
The first of these contributing factors is the quality of decision
making, but--more importantly--the continual erosion of decision making
by qualified NPS professionals whose actions and decisions are
overridden or ``second-guessed'' by political appointees who pursue a
political agenda rather than a resource agenda. One superintendent
offered an example:
``During the rulemaking process resulting in allowing
``concealed-carry firearms'' in national parks, park
professionals and subject-matter experts in the NPS were never
consulted about what impacts to resources, visitors or
employees in the parks might result. It was clear that this
rulemaking was intended to satisfy a political agenda and that
resource, visitor and employee protection had no bearing on the
outcome.''
Key to ``restoring the workforce'' is the need to restore the
validity of the decisions for which the NPS is responsible; based upon
science, law and resource principles. In other words, restore the power
and authority of the Director of the NPS and his/her professional
leaders and technical experts to make agency decisions instead of
making those agency decisions higher and higher in the Department--to
the point where it neuters the agency's professional leadership.
Organizational leadership and reputation at the national and
international levels have been compromised. The NPS is no longer
considered the national ``expert'' or leader relative to managing
parks; interpreting and educating; carrying out science and research;
and valuing appropriate recreation and visitor enjoyment activities.
The NPS is no longer considered an international leader because it has
been prevented from fully embracing the international role that parks
and protected areas fulfill and the helpful role that the U.S. can play
in that international arena. If we are to ``restore the workforce'' we
must restore the capacity and the competence for organizational
leadership both nationally and internationally.
The second contributing factor is the disturbing trend to
``corporatize'' and ``privatize'' national stewardship responsibilities
of our most sacred places, conspiring against the inherent
responsibility of our nation to care for these places through its
established government on behalf of all the American people. Escalating
collaboration, partnering, and contracting-out of these inherently
governmental functions is increasingly becoming a subterfuge for our
national failure to meet the financial and leadership responsibilities
our government must exercise on behalf of our citizens and their
national patrimony. National environmentalism, in response to a barrage
of threatening ideological conservation values, responds accordingly
with an increasingly shrill and extreme message, partitioning and
polarizing communities, government officials and citizens who yearn to
see the debate focus on quality of life approaches rather than
environmental extremism.
Viewing national parks as essentially ``cash cows'' for local and
regional economies increasingly skews interpretation of law toward the
notion that recreation and visitor use are as important, or even more
important, than the protection of the resource. The mounting
overwhelming attention that is placed on parks' revenue-generating
capabilities creates a dilemma that often threatens long-term
ecological health and diffuses core resource protection duties at the
macro scale in favor of smaller incremental reactions to a continual
barrage of park development plans and mechanisms to increase visitor
use scenarios that now seem to prevail more often than not. As a result
of these trends, the role of environmental stewardship and carrying out
core resource protection missions are being systematically diminished
across the National Park System with increasing frequency--deferring
instead to economic impacts to communities and special interest groups.
These trends, along with recent attempts (and substantial
expenditures of money) to contract-out, or outsource, certain work
functions in the NPS have had a demoralizing effect on the workforce.
It is time to return the NPS to a professional organization; driven
by law, science and principled leadership. With this renewal will come
the pride and enthusiasm of the NPS workforce that Americans have come
to expect of those who protect and interpret the nation's National Park
System.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Ms. Elaine Downing, Vice
President, Union 2152 [California BLM employees], National
Federation of Federal Employees. Thank you for being here and
look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ELAINE DOWNING, VICE PRESIDENT, UNION 2152,
CALIFORNIA BLM EMPLOYEES, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, NEEDLES, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Downing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee. Thank for this opportunity to testify.
I am Elaine Downing, and I serve as the vice president of
Union 2152 who represents approximately 600 Bureau of Land
Management employees throughout the State of California. I am a
20-year veteran of BLM, and I work in the Needles Field Office,
and we are a part of the California Desert District.
First, I would like to tell you how much I love my job. To
me working for BLM is a dream come true. Every day I am
surrounded by the most beautiful country in the United States
the American people entrust in me, along with my co-workers, to
care for and protect our natural resources, and I take pride in
doing that.
I also take price in representing the BLM employees of
California. Our agency is staffed by extremely dedicated and
talented civil servants, most of whom love their job as much as
I do, and it is a honor to serve them and speak on their behalf
today.
I would like to speak frankly about the state of the
employees for BLM, California. Overall, our morale is poor, and
here are a few reasons why:
First, there are too many managers and not enough rank and
fileq workers to actually do the work. BLM is returning to a
three-tier management structure from the previous two-tier
structures in most offices. There are still a few offices that
have three tier in place, and I happen to work in one of those
districts.
On the ground, we have seen--we have seen no real benefit
of this three-tier organization, and we have seen some several
negative consequences of it. The restructuring will pull much
needed funding from the field offices where the mission of the
agency is being carried out, and route those resources to the
district and sate offices where the positions, though
important, are not as critical to the agency mission. This
shifts the collective burden to fewer workers who are feeling
micro managed and overworked.
We would like to see the BLM organization structure flatten
so that the field offices are getting the resources they need
to get the job done. This is extremely important to BLM workers
who, more than anything, want to see their agency succeed.
Second, performance appraisals at BLM are being
administered unfairly. BLM recently switched from a pass/fail
to a five-level appraisal system. There have been major
problems with the implementation and transition. In numerous
cases management has not followed OPM guidelines in properly
developing the appraisals that accurately describe the critical
elements and performance standards of the employees' duties. As
a result, employees are often not being rated on critical
elements of their job; they are being rated on everything in
their job description. These errors strike at the credibility
of the appraisal system. Until appraisals are done properly,
BLM employees will not trust that the performance awards are
tied to performance and that they will continue to experience
great frustration in the appraisal process.
Third, BLM's decision to transfer IT and HR functions to a
central location in Denver is weighing on the employees. Most
of those directly impacted by this reorganization are upset
because it is a major disruption to their lives. Many are at or
near retirement age feel as though they are being forced out.
Others are taking voluntary downgrades, sometimes three and
four grades below their current grades, just to end the
uncertainty. Promises of career development have not come to
fruition.
This initiative is similar to the changes the Forest
Service has made recently to the centralization of their
administration functions to Albuquerque. By many accounts, the
Forest Service reorganization has been a disaster. Making
matters worse, BLM has not engaged the union at all in this
major change. It is no wonder employees are concerned
considering they have had no opportunity to provide input
through their designated representatives. We are against this
ill-conceived reorganization and would like to see it stopped.
Fourth, and finally, labor/management relations has been
poor at California BLM in recent years. The 2001 abolishment of
the Labor/Management Partnership Council set the tone for the
eight years of strained relations. In that time, BLM employees
have effectively lost their voice in the workplace as
management has chosen to engage the union to the smallest
degree possible. In fact, the agency has not even met with
minimum levels of engagement spelled out in our contract. The
union has effectively become stonewalled.
We would like to see the Labor/Management Partnership
restored at BLM so that the workers can once again have a voice
in their workplace.
Although I have painted a gloomy picture. I want to leave
you with a genuine sense of optimism I feel going forward. I
and many other BLM employees have strong belief that our
working environment will soon improve. We strongly support the
efforts of President Obama and Secretary Salazar to bring
fairness, integrity, and accountability back to the Department
of the Interior.
I would like to thank you again for this opportunity to
provide this testimony. BLM employees have had a lot of say
about morale but we have lacked the venue to say it. It is a
great relief to finally voice some of our concerns before such
a distinguished panel. We commend the Subcommittee for asking
BLM employees for their concerns and evaluations of our morale,
and I will be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Downing follows:]
Statement of Elaine Downing, Vice President, National Federation of
Federal Employees, Local 2152, California Bureau of Land Management
Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and distinguished Committee members,
for the opportunity to submit the following testimony.
My name is Elaine Downing. I serve as the Vice President of the
National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), Local 2152,
representing approximately 600 Bureau of Land Management employees
throughout the state of California. Additionally, I keep in close
contact with numerous employees from other BLM offices, both
represented by NFFE and other unions.
Overall, employee morale within BLM is relatively low, as evidenced
in the recent government-wide employee satisfaction survey. I believe
the results of the employee satisfaction survey actually misrepresent
the true level of employee morale. In my estimation, morale is lower
than the survey indicates, because many employees are fearful of
retaliation if they answer the survey honestly. Many rank and file
employees do not believe that the survey is actually anonymous,
regardless of the agency's assurances, and many chose not to even
respond to the survey.
It is difficult to point to one or two solitary reasons for low
morale, as there are a multitude of reasons for low morale within the
Bureau. What I hope to do is to explain some of the more often heard
complaints that the union hears and witnesses in representing
employees, or has experienced firsthand. Our issues revolve around
ethics, labor relations, workforce planning, resource protection,
performance appraisals and awards, and the balance between home- and
work-life. In my testimony, I have also included recommendations for
improvements regarding some of these concerns.
Workforce Planning
There is much concern among rank and file employees at BLM that
upper level management officials do not adequately manage how the work
within the department is done. With critical vacancies in the field for
long periods of time, new software implementations that are impacting
all programs, unprecedented wildfire seasons in California, national
emergencies like Hurricane Katrina, and alternative energy development
mandates, employees at BLM are constantly trying to handle too many top
priorities at once.
In my opinion, far too high of a percentage of agency resources are
allocated toward supporting higher level managers residing mostly in
district and state offices, while the field offices, where the majority
of the agency's mission is actually accomplished, get too small of a
percentage. Many field offices are severely understaffed and
overworked. There is also concern that management officials build
hierarchies to protect their position and grade at the state and
district levels, while leaving protracted vacancies in critical
positions at the field level. Having too many managers and not enough
rank and file employees to do the work has several undesirable
consequences; it is a waste of much-needed resources, it causes
understaffing of critical positions, it causes rank and file employees
to be overworked, it has a tendency to make rank and file employees
feel micromanaged and pulled in different directions, and it ultimately
hurts the ability of the agency to carry out its mission.
Some people, particularly high level management officials, will
point to budget shortfalls as a primary cause of low employee morale.
It is true that most employees are disheartened by inadequate funding
within their programs. However, we hear more complaints about the lack
of integrity in how and which vacancies are filled than complaints of a
shortfall of appropriated funds.
Here is an example of the kind of action that has frustrated BLM
workers: Management will allow for the advertising of a realty
specialist position in an office where there is already one or two,
while in the same period, the agency will leave a critical realty
specialist job in a field office vacant for months, even though that
field office does not have a single realty specialist on staff. Failing
to fill this critical vacancy tied the hands of the agency so that it
could not carry out a key function. That field office was unable to
process alternative energy development applications for a period of
several months. In this critical time of alternative energy
development, this should not have been allowed to occur. We see lots of
cases where BLM inappropriately fills non-critical vacancies ahead of
critical ones in this way. It hurts the mission and it frustrates
workers.
Additionally, upper level management seems to lack an ability to
manage workload. Rank and file employees at all levels, but
particularly in field offices, are bombarded by data requests and work
assignments from many sources including: Washington office, state
office, district office, other field offices, etc. In my experience,
management places very little if any emphasis on BLM employees
following a chain of command when requesting work to get done. There is
also little to no guidance for employees to make decisions on how to
prioritize their work. In addition, there is a considerable volume of
work that comes through the door that BLM employees are forced to
perform, but the time it takes employees to handle these duties is
often overlooked by management. BLM employees often feel they are
getting pulled in too many directions at once, and they are unsure of
how to prioritize their assignments. This common problem has hurt
morale at BLM.
Law Enforcement Officers
For law enforcement Rangers at the California BLM, morale is
particularly low. These Rangers are responsible for protecting
resources and public safety across 15.2 million acres in California and
1.6 million acres in northwestern Nevada. The Law Enforcement Ranger
program started in the California Desert District with the passage of
the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, which
specifically mandated the focus toward protection of natural resources
within the California Desert Conservation Area. There is strong pride
in California for that reason.
Prior to 9/11, the ranger corps of BLM was dedicated to resource
protection as prescribed under FLPMA. After 9/11, and with the
formation of Homeland Security, several high level BLM law enforcement
officials were hired into the Bureau from outside the agency.
Generally speaking, these new managers were less oriented toward
natural resources and more focused on homeland security. These new law
enforcement managers also brought a stricter, more militaristic style
of management to the Ranger force. This shift in focus has caused a lot
of distress for many BLM law enforcement rangers and field office
managers. Confusion as to who these law enforcement officers answer to
and who can delegate the work to them, is beginning to cause friction
within the offices, and it is affecting morale for all. Recent funding
earmarked for the California Desert Ranger program has not found its
way to California, and there is a growing concern that it was sent
elsewhere.
A common concern we have heard from BLM law enforcement Rangers is
that upper level management does not value law enforcement officers
with natural resource backgrounds. Many law enforcement Rangers have
speculated that they were passed up for promotion because management
was promoting from outside the agency for higher level positions. In
addition, our union has had to defend several Rangers against what I
would consider to be questionable disciplinary actions. These suspect
disciplinary measures have had a strong tendency to be taken against
Rangers with natural resource orientations, hired before the creation
of DHS. Regardless of whether there is any validity to the concern some
law enforcement Rangers have that they are being treated unfairly,
there can be little doubt that morale has fallen due to the perception
that they are not being given equal treatment.
Consolidation of Functions
There are two specific groups of employees at BLM that have
recently been targeted for consolidation, the Information Technology
(IT) and Human Resources (HR) personnel. Even though we as a union do
not represent the HR staff (BLM considers them ``confidential
employees,'' and therefore outside the bargaining unit), they are our
coworkers and are a critical part of our mission. I will use this venue
to share some of their major concerns.
In 2005, BLM's Executive Leadership Team (ELT) started discussing a
new initiative called ``Managing for Excellence.'' This initiative was
supposedly developed with the aim of improving effectiveness and cost
efficiency within BLM. Our union believes there were areas that needed
to be improved, but the agency has not demonstrated that the changes
they have implemented, nor the changes they are planning for in the
future, have saved or will save any funds or improve efficiency.
In fact, one of the primary decisions the team made--to put the
three tier system (as opposed to the two tier system) back in place--
will most likely hurt efficiency within BLM. The three tier system adds
another layer of bureaucratic supervision to the field offices, which
are actually accomplishing the work right now, and could accomplish
much more if they had adequate staffing.
According to the ELT's frequently asked questions document about
the restructuring, the rationale for moving to a three tier system read
as follows ``We've learned that being closer to the ground with a
three-tiered organization allows us to provide better service to the
public and better quality control. It also gives us the opportunity to
reduce duplication and overhead services.''
I respectfully disagree with this conclusion, and have seen no
evidence to substantiate it. Adding a third tier does not accomplish
what they have claimed it does. Having worked in an office that
continued to have a district office (three tiers), while others went to
two tiers, I have found that the district does not bring consistency to
the field offices. Rather, it adds a layer of management that is costly
and unnecessary. It also seems to justify additional grades to those
employees who often have the same knowledge, skills, abilities, and
responsibilities as our field office staffers. I do not believe that
adding this layer of management eliminated any meaningful duplication
of effort or overhead. The three tier system has actually created more
overhead and duplication of effort.
Another one of the Managing for Excellence decisions was to
transfer the functions of IT and HR to a central location in Denver,
Colorado. This decision alone is responsible for a drastic decrease in
employee morale. Not only has it impacted the IT and HR employees, but
it has affected all of the employees throughout the BLM.
Our most experienced IT and HR employees have begun looking for
jobs elsewhere in their same communities. Those who are mobile have
started looking for jobs outside of BLM. Promises of assistance
regarding career counseling have yet to be fulfilled. Shortages in HR
have been very difficult to overcome, creating a backlog of work,
especially during fire season. In my estimation, it is taking several
months longer on average to fill vacancies. Most employees at or near
retirement age feel as though they are being forced into retirement,
while others are taking voluntary downgrades, sometimes 3 or 4 grades
below their current level, in order to end the uncertainty of their
future.
The initiative came with promises of union involvement, but we have
only been engaged in an ad hoc fashion. A Washington Office management
official said it is the responsibility of the state offices to
negotiate with their local unions. However, local labor relations
employees in the state office cannot engage in meaningful discussions
on topics when they do not know what is going on themselves and they
have not been included in the initiative planning. In fact, there has
not been as much as a conference call to collaborate and discuss the
impacts of these changes on BLM employees. A labor-management
partnership council would be extremely helpful in addressing employees
concerns with regard to this reorganization.
Although, I have stated our union would like to bargain the impact
and implementation of this reorganization, I would like to make clear
that we are adamantly opposed to this reorganization. We are confident
that this change will hurt BLM's ability to perform HR and IT
functions. This initiative is very similar to the changes the U.S.
Forest Service made a few years ago to centralize IT and HR functions
to Albuquerque, New Mexico. By many accounts, Forest Service's
reorganization has been a disaster, yet BLM is intent on going down
that same road. A reorganization of the IT and HR functions at BLM will
be damaging to the agency and promises to be a tremendous waste of tax-
payers' dollars. BLM is going to lose immeasurable institutional
knowledge and talent as a result of this reorganization.
In addition to the problems I have already discussed, the process
that has been developed using USAjobs.gov has become a tremendous
source of frustration for supervisors and HR specialists, as well as
applicants who want to work for the Bureau. Most non-federal
applicants, as well as current BLM employees, have found this system to
be overly burdensome and give up after being aggravated by the software
system. In a recent job application for a realty specialist, there were
over 80 questions that had to be answered in addition to submitting a
comprehensive resume within the structure of this system. This is
hurting the agency's ability to recruit the talent it needs to carry
out its mission.
Employee Performance Appraisal Plans and Awards
In 2005, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) required BLM to
switch back to a five level performance appraisal system from a pass/
fail system. The handbook is clear and concise, describing a
comprehensive system to develop critical elements, how to measure or
quantify the level of performance, and the proper procedures for rating
employees. However, implementation of this system has been very
problematic.
Our union has reviewed a myriad of performance appraisals
throughout the state of California. When reviewing these appraisals we
have discovered that typically everything that is listed in the
position description is listed in either one or two critical elements,
while the quantifiable measurements are ambiguous and subjective.
Favored employees of course, get glowing reviews and non-favored
employees are saddled with having to defend themselves against vague,
subjective, and indefensible measurements. BLM needs to do a better job
of creating appraisals that accurately describe the critical elements
and performance standards of employees' duties. Until these performance
appraisals are done properly, BLM employees will continue to experience
great frustration in the performance appraisal process and eventually
become disengaged.
The system would work well if the agency would implement a
structure for annual oversight and make a commitment to adequately
train all BLM employees. I believe this change would lead to tremendous
improvements in morale, performance and accountability. All too often,
we find government agencies are blaming the inadequacies of a system on
the structure of the system, when the real problem is the lack of
training, oversight, and accountability.
There is no oversight on appraisals within each state or within the
agency. There is no consistency from employee to employee, office to
office, or state to state, in both how they are written and how
employees are rated. I recently had the opportunity to discuss this
issue with a realty specialist from New Mexico BLM. This realty
specialist had only one critical element on which to be rated, and that
was ``safety.'' It stands to reason that a GS-11 realty specialist
would have at least one critical element having to do with something
other than safety. This example shows that BLM is not following OPM
guidance in determining critical elements.
Likewise, the awards system at BLM is highly flawed. There is
little attempt by BLM to conduct oversight to ensure consistency.
Management officials in the state offices do not review performance
appraisals and ratings for quality or consistency and awards may or may
not be tied to them. Some offices give token awards to everyone. The
only person that we know of that reviews the appraisals and awards in
the state of California office is a human resource specialist whose
only objective is to make sure the documents were received. There needs
to be more fairness and accountability in the distribution of awards
and it should have a nexus to performance.
Alternative Pay Systems
We have been closely monitoring so-called pay-for-performance
systems that have been developed and implemented at other agencies. We
think it would be a very bad idea for the Department of Interior to
attempt a move to a subjective pay system like ones that have been
developed at the Department of Defense and elsewhere. These alternative
pay systems have had a poor record of success in the federal sector,
and in my opinion, the BLM lacks many of the prerequisites for a fair,
transparent, and effective merit pay system. The only way a pay-for-
performance system would work in the federal sector is if there was a
fair, objective, and consistent appraisal system; real accountability
demanded from managers; a true 360-degree performance review of each
and every employee, including top management officials; and a
significant increase in funding to support the pay system. All of these
requirements are a tall order to achieve in BLM. Increased funding is
particularly difficult with constant pressure to contain the expense of
government services.
New Technology
The effects of the newly implemented software for government travel
(GovTrip) and the new Financial Business Management System (FBMS)
system, has been problematic. BLM is unable to pull reports, pay
vendors, reconcile accounts, transfer funds, or process travel
authorizations and vouchers in a timely manner. Travel vouchers that
once took approximately one hour, now take several hours or even days,
depending on the availability of the software system. The software is
not user friendly and we have heard many complaints from users at all
levels, including management officials. This is affecting all BLM
employees across the agency.
Practically everyone at BLM has been negatively affected by the
transition to these software programs. The acronyms used in the new
FBMS are not user friendly and very little guidance and training has
been provided. Employees have been forced to learn the software by
soliciting help from someone else who has had training. It is
inconvenient for an office to rely on just one person for this kind of
expertise, which is often the case. Any one person could be out of the
office for an extended period of time. BLM employees are in need of
more training on the new software. This is not just a matter of
employees not liking change. It has been extremely aggravating to all
employees because they are unable to perform their duties.
Labor Relations
Under the previous administration, California BLM management became
almost completely unresponsive to union concerns. Under President Bush,
a lot of the Clinton era Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA)
guidance used to facilitate labor-management relations was disregarded,
and it caused a lot of confusion about how to resolve labor-management
disputes and how to handle unfair labor practices (ULPs). Not only was
this action antagonistic toward labor unions, I believe the confusion
caused by this move cost taxpayers millions of dollars in lost time and
efficiency, as labor and management struggled to establish new terms
for their relationship. This is particularly true within BLM where
labor-management relations became extremely difficult and burdensome.
Management officials do not come to the table to negotiate
collective bargaining agreements in California BLM. They delegate the
task to labor relations specialists. They do this because the State
Director and the Associate State Director do not seem to care about
employees' concerns relating to working conditions and morale. Our
current contract calls for quarterly meetings between the union and our
State Director or his Associate to discuss problems. During the last
eight years we have yet to meet with the State Director or his
Associate.
Our union is hopeful that Congress and the new Administration will
re-establish basic labor-management relations at BLM. We believe that a
labor-management partnership council, like the one in place at the
Forest Service, would be an effective way of bringing employee concerns
to the attention of management and addressing them.
Some agencies have elected to retain their labor-management
partnerships when both labor and management found it to be an effective
avenue to address issues impacting labor relations. In contrast, BLM
was very quick to terminate their state and national partnership
councils when the opportunity arose. Employees within BLM have seen the
lack of follow up on numerous issues that have been brought to the
attention of management. There is serious disconnect between management
and the employees of BLM that we would like to see resolved by
reestablishing partnership councils.
Disparate Treatment between Managers and Rank and File Employees
Our union has witnessed disparate treatment between managers and
rank and file in many different areas. This disparity exists in the
awards program, performance appraisals, training, accountability,
discipline, and in the addressing of unethical behavior.
For example, a management official who was caught with
inappropriate material on a BLM-issued computer was disciplined with a
suspension, while rank and file employees would be, and have been,
fired for virtually identical offenses. This unfairness has caused a
lot of frustration among BLM employees.
Management officials and management-favored employees have often
been allowed to violate agency policy regarding such things as:
internet use and security; use of government vehicles; use of
government equipment for personal use; improper reimbursement during
official travel for personal business; agency policy on pets; and
fiscal accountability. Morale would be better at BLM if the same rules
were applied to and enforced on everyone.
Management team meetings during lean times of budget are often held
at resort locations, which are not well received by employees who have
been told there is not enough money for their project, training,
awards, office, field supplies, or to implement safety committees as
per our collective bargaining agreement and the law. Disparate
treatment between management and rank and file workers, at many
different levels, is hurting morale at BLM.
Whistleblower Protection
Our union believes that current whistle blower protections, as they
have been enforced by the Office of Special Counsel, are inadequate to
protect federal workers. Whether it is through stricter enforcement of
existing whistleblower protections, or through legislation, we strongly
support strengthening these key protections, which are such a critical
element of government accountability. BLM employees are in desperate
need of a Special Counsel that will protect employees who open
themselves up to reprisal when coming forward with information on
waste, frauds, and abuse. Until a better system is put in place to
ensure accountability and protection from retaliation and adverse
actions against whistleblowers, BLM workers will be reluctant to come
forward. Inadequate whistleblower protection at BLM has hurt morale
within the department.
Going Forward With Optimism
Going forward, I and many other employees at BLM have a strong
sense of optimism that our work environment will begin to see marked
improvement. We strongly support the efforts of President Obama and
Secretary Salazar to bring integrity and accountability back into the
Department of Interior workforce. The agency will be well served by
reevaluating the ethics regulations and removing politics and ideology
from Bureau decision making. There are hundreds of talented and
dedicated employees working throughout BLM who love their job and love
their country. To most of us, working for the American people at an
agency that allows us manage our country's natural resources, is very
rewarding. I consider it a dream come true. We are surrounded by
beautiful scenery and are charged with its protection. It is an honor
of mine to come to work each day.
Conclusion
In closing, I would like to thank you again for this opportunity to
provide testimony. Employees at BLM have had a lot to say about morale
but have lacked the venue to say it. It is a great relief to finally
voice some of these concerns before such a distinguished panel. We
commend this Subcommittee for asking BLM employees for their concerns
and evaluation of employee morale at the department. I will be happy to
respond to any questions you may have. I can be reached at Elaine--
[email protected].
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Mr. George Leonard,
National Association of Forest Service Retirees. Welcome, sir,
and thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE LEONARD, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FOREST
SERVICE RETIREES
Mr. Leanard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bishop, and
Members of the Committee.
As I sat here this morning, I could not help contrasting
what was going on with the other congressional hearings that we
have been hearing on television this last week, stories of
corporate greed, corruption, wrongdoing and incompetence,
employees that could not come to work unless they had a big
bonus to encourage them, give them the initiative, and never a
word about the public good.
At this hearing we are hearing from public servants
motivated by the love of the land and dedicated to caring for
the lands that they are responsible for and for serving the
public good. Caring for the land and serving the people. These
and the thousands of people that they represent deserve our
thanks and our support.
There are morale issues in the Forest Service and other
Federal land agencies. Since I spent my career in the Forest
Service, I will talk about it. For more than 15 years, the
Forest Service has been downsizing. Budgets under both
democratic and republican administrations have been severely
constrained. The rising cost of fire suppression within these
constrained budgets has required reductions in every other
program in the agency. From 25 percent of the budget in Fiscal
Year 2000 to 50 percent of the budget in 2008, this has
required terrific shifts in all the other activities of the
agency.
The result has been a 35 percent reduction in the number of
people working on the national forest; doing essential work in
the stewardship of these lands. There have been reductions in
other Forest Service programs as well. These reductions have
severely compromised the capacity of the agency to carry out
its work in caring for the land and serving the people.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your co-sponsorship
of the FLAME Act. Separating the cost of emergency fire
suppression from the regular budget of the agency is absolutely
essential to maintaining programs that are reasonable and meet
the stewardship requirements. It will set the course for
stabilizing the agencies and beginning the possibility of
rebuilding their capacity to serve the American people. The
National Association of Forest Service Employees strongly
supports enactment of the FLAME Act.
We have heard today about the attempts to respond to the
budget reductions. The agency has consolidated ranger district
and forests, moving people further away from the lands and the
communities that they need to serve. Driven by the need to
reduce support costs and, frankly, by pressure from so-called
efficiency experts at both the Office of Management and Budget
and the General Accountability Office, the agencies have
centralized services such as finance and personnel, and we have
heard today the consequence of those actions.
I hope that Hank Kashdan is right that they are beginning
to get over the troubles associated with those shifts, but we
really need to get the support services back to functioning as
support services that enable the people that have jobs to do on
the land to get out there and do them.
People like to be productive, and pushing paperwork around
is not job satisfaction. The amount of time spent in the office
on paperwork detracts from the time that is available to get
something done on the job. Many of the requirements that we
have imposed over the years are well meaning and do serve a
useful purpose. Frankly, the environmental analysis process
that has developed over the last 20 or more years result in
better decisions and better work on the ground, but
cumulatively these impacts often result in the impossibility of
actually getting time, essentially work done on the ground when
it is needed.
This Committee took important steps in simplifying the
process of getting forest restoration projects done on the
ground. I would hope the Committee would continue to look at
processes with the idea of streamlining them to the point where
work can get done in a timely manner.
There was something else about this hearing today that I
think is worth noting. The timing was such that the political
appointees in the various agencies were not here to testify.
You heard from the career personnel who understand their
agencies, are familiar with the work and know what needs to be
done to be productive on the ground.
The Forest Service has a long tradition of career
professional management. It does not assure that it is always
the best, but the batting record is very good. I believe that
we should continue the tradition of career professional
leadership at the Forest Service. I believe we should establish
that tradition at each of the other land management agencies.
The Congress needs to be able to get advice from these agencies
that is not colored by the political direction of whatever
administration may be in place.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leonard follows:]
Statement of George M. Leonard,
National Association of Forest Service Retirees
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
It is an honor to appear before you today to talk about the U.S.
Forest Service. I spent 37 years working for the Forest Service,
starting as a fire crewman on a Ranger District and finishing as
Associate Chief in the Washington Office. I was proud to be a member of
the Forest Service. I remain proud of the agency today.
I want to start by noting that I have been retired for 15 years.
Much has changed in the agency since I retired and my comments should
be evaluated in recognition of this. Retirees, particularly those of us
who are members of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees
1, remain interested in the agency and are dedicated to its
statutory multiple-use mission. We have many contacts with our former
colleagues, so perhaps we can offer some useful perspectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Association of Forest Service Retirees is composed
of people who spent their careers involved in protection and management
of the National Forests and Grasslands, doing Research, managing the
State and Private Forestry Program and in International Forestry
activities. They are dedicated to the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield
mission of the agency. As retirees they continue their dedication to
the agency's statutory mission and work to support it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Forest Service has been in a continual downsizing mode for more
than 15 years. For most of the Post WWII period the agency was a major
supplier of timber to a dependant timber industry. There was strong
political support for this role and the timber program, as well as
supporting programs, was well funded. For various reasons, political
support for the program was lost in the early 1990s. The sale program
was reduced by more than 80 percent. The timber organization within the
agency was largely dismantled over the next few years.
In more recent years, rising costs for fire suppression, within a
constrained agency budget, have resulted in significant reductions in
money available for basic stewardship of National Forest resources. The
portion of the Forest Service budget devoted to fire has risen from 25
percent of the agency budget in 2000 to nearly 50 percent in 2008. This
has necessitated major reductions in agency personnel working on
programs other than fire. The number of foresters, wildlife biologists,
hydrologists, other resource management specialists and technicians has
dropped 35 percent in this period. The ability to carry out important
stewardship activities on the Forests had declined commensurately. I do
not know of any organization that can maintain morale in the face of
such continual reductions.
I want to thank the Chairman, Chairman Rahall, Chairman Dicks, and
other members of the Congress for their recognition of the funding
problem and their efforts to remedy it. The National Association of
Forest Service Retirees supports enactment of the FLAME Act that you
have sponsored. This Act will separate the cost of emergency wildfire
suppression from the rest of the Forest Service budget. Hopefully this
will set the stage for restoring the capability of the organization to
properly carry out its mission.
People that work for an organization want to be productive. People
in government service want to feel they are accomplishing something
that contributes to the public welfare. People in the Forest Service
have a long tradition of working to make the National Forests an asset
both to the Nation and to the small rural communities that are
dependent upon them. Unfortunately, it is becoming harder and harder to
get things done. Part of the problem is the lack of consensus on just
how and for what purpose our National Forests should be managed. We
have created a vast body of procedural requirements that must be
completed before a project, no matter how simple, can go forward. Many
of these processes have merit and, in fact, make for a better result.
But, way too often, the cumulative impact of all the requirements
becomes overwhelming or so time consuming that nothing gets done.
Former Chief Dale Bosworth characterized this as the paralysis of
analysis.
Let me tell you what I mean. In the 1950's I was a young forester
on the Stanislaus National Forest in California. On a hot July day a
fire escaped initial attack and burned about 300 acres of National
Forest land before it was controlled. About 6 million board feet of
mature ponderosa pine was killed. As soon as the fire was controlled we
began the steps needed to offer the timber for sale. Within a month a
timber sale had been prepared and sold. Logging began in late August
and was completed that Fall. Because of the prompt action the timber
had little loss in value. Deposits to the KV fund were adequate to
cover the cost of replanting the burned area. The following Spring we
hired a planting crew and completed planting. In less than 12 months,
the area was returning to productivity.
Today, it would be difficult to complete the environmental
assessment process within a year. If there were appeals, and there
routinely are on salvage sales, the project might be delayed for
another logging season. By that time, the fire-killed ponderosa pine
timber would have deteriorated to the point that it might not be
saleable. The Forest would be left with a sea of snags, a long term
fire hazard, and no money to restore a functioning forest. In that
scenario, there is little reason for the local employees to feel pride
in their accomplishments.
Because retirees recognize the difficulties that current employees
encounter in caring for our forests, we have set up a program to
recognize people or units who are successful in finding their way
through the morass of paperwork, gaining public support, and getting
good work accomplished on the ground. Let me tell you about a couple of
projects we have recognized.
Hurricane Katrina did severe damage to the forests along the Gulf
Coast. Thousands of acres of trees were blown down, blocking roads,
damaging facilities, and threatening endangered species habitat. The
jackstrawed, down and broken trees posed a severe risk of insect
epidemic and the potential for catastrophic fires as the down trees
dried out. National Forest lands immediately adjacent to Biloxi,
Mississippi were among the most severely damaged. When the winds died
down, Forest Service employees immediately began to open roads. They
worked effectively with local groups to develop plans for clearing
trails, rehabilitating campgrounds and other facilities. After surveys
for endangered species, they made provision for protecting their
habitat and quickly sold the damaged trees. The damaged trees were
promptly harvested. The threat of insects and fire was removed. Within
an incredibly short time, the land was restored to a productive
functioning condition. I had the opportunity to meet many of the
employees when I presented the John R. McGuire Award in Jackson,
Mississippi. Cooperating agencies, local interest groups, and
representatives of the entire Mississippi congressional delegation
participated. I can tell you that the sense of pride and accomplishment
was palpable. Morale was high.
Last year I presented an award to the Enoree Ranger District in
South Carolina. The District has put together a large partnership
organization in order to carry out a wildlife habitat improvement
project that extends across ownership boundaries to include both public
and private lands. A multitude of partners is involved. The pride of
accomplishment among the public and private partners was apparent.
Morale on this unit was not an issue.
Of course, there are many more success stories out there, but there
are also many stories of frustration where well meaning people have
been unable to overcome obstacles in a timely fashion. All too often
projects are frustrated or settled for less than their full potential.
What can be done?
Restore a level of funding to the agency that is
commensurate with the work that needs to be done.
Look carefully at the procedural requirements for
implementing projects so that worth while projects can be accomplished
in a timely manner
Consider providing a threshold that must be met before
providing an appeal right to people who have not taken advantage of
opportunities to actively participate in project development.
The Forest Service has a long tradition of professional, career
leadership. This has served the agency well. It helps to ensure that
the Congress and the Administration have the benefit of professional
advice on resource management issues that is not colored by political
considerations. We urge that the tradition of professional, career
leadership of the agency be continued.
If the dedicated employees of the Forest Service have a reasonable
measure of job security and the resources they need to provide proper
stewardship of our National Forests, to do Research, to implement the
State and Private Forestry Program, and the International Forestry
program, morale will not be an issue in the agency.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir.
I am going to recess. We have a vote, and should be about
20 minutes, and then we will reconvene so that we have the
opportunity to ask you some questions or you can further
comment on some of the points that you made. So let me recess
and we will see you back here in a little while.
[Recess.]
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Let me again call this
hearing to order, and let me yield my initial questioning time
to my colleague, Mr. Sarbanes, for any questions or comments he
might have. Sir.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate your holding this hearing. I really, really enjoyed
the testimony of this panel, and I want to thank the
Partnership for the work it is doing, and I have been following
that very closely and trying to assist where they can, and I
want to thank all of you for the work you have done, and the
only way to say it is ``for our country'' and thank the members
and those that you represent as well.
I think it is disgraceful, it is the only word you can use,
what has been done, and it has been done to the Federal
workforce over the last few years, and we have a monumental
repair and restoration job in front of us, to reestablish the
morale of the workforce, its effectiveness, its efficiency, all
of which has been severely compromised, I think, by a dogmatic
view of what the role of government should be.
Now, I join with the comments of a number of you in
applauding the President for signaling a new direction and a
willingness to commit the resources and the attention to our
Federal workforce.
One of the most uplifting things for me as a Member of
Congress, I have only been here three years, in touring my
district has been to discover that the public, despite the
press's penchant for displaying these poll numbers that say the
public, you know, hates Federal bureaucracy and all the rest of
it, the public I see really wants the Federal workforce to do
its job, and appreciates it when the Federal workforce
functions well and at a high level, and I believe in their core
they want you to have the resources and the attention and the
support and the leadership that you deserve to do that job.
I also believe that if good people, really decent, hard
working, committed, dedicated, people have a sense of mission
are not happy in what they are doing there must be something
wrong with the organizations that needs to be fixed, the
structure of them and the leadership of them and so forth, and
I think that day is here and coming based on the changes that
Americans wanted to see. So you are going to be part of leading
that effort and I thank you for it.
I am shortly going to be introducing legislation to address
this whole issue of competitive sourcing and try to restore the
right balance which has been up-ended by the approach of the
last few years in terms of making sure that inherently
governmental functions are handled by our Federal workforce,
looking at whether advisedly governmental functions, i.e., the
ones that maybe do not fall in that category but really could
be beset done by the Federal workforce, return to that
workforce, and this issue of competitive sourcing, so that when
there is something that is under consideration for contracting
out, that the Federal employees be able to bid on that and
demonstrate their competencies to do the job well. So your
testimony, particularly on those issues, has been very helpful
to me.
I really just have one question along those lines, and that
is, the outsourcing that has happened in this kind of wilful
manner, we have talked about how it has impacted morale, and
many of us have seen instances where the contracts were not
performed well, so the whole premise of the outsourcing was
undermined by that. Any of you can answer this question, but
speak a little bit about just what happens when you take
expertise that comes from years of experience and understanding
and commitment to the mission on an ongoing basis and you
remove that from the equation for a period of years, which I
think has happened when you do some of this outsourcing, what
is the impact that has on the ability of the various agencies
to function well and at a high level? And you can speak to a
specific example or you can just speak in general to that
question. Anybody.
Mr. Wade. Mr. Sarbanes, I would be happy to offer a couple
of ideas. One of the things that I think this whole issue
caused in the way of demoralization for the National Park
Service anyway, and I suspect it is true for a couple of the
other agencies, is in fact that that potential for the loss of
institutional memory, and it is especially egregious, I think,
when you are talking about a resource agency where the
knowledge that builds up about the resource has to be
accumulated over a significant period of time. And if the
people who have that institutional knowledge or have developed
it suddenly finds that their jobs might be up for competitive
sourcing or something like that, that creates not only a
tremendous worry for their own situation, but for the care and
concern that they have for the mission of the agency.
So I think it is particularly aggravating when that sort of
thing happens to a resource-based agency.
Mr. Sarbanes. Anybody else before my time has expired? Yes?
Mr. Leanard. Let me go back, I have been retired for 15
years, so I cannot talk to the morale today, but let me talk
about some of the issues that the Forest Service has contracted
out. When I was a young forester, we had crews on the ranger
district that did the timber stand improvement work--thinning,
planting trees and whatnot. Those crews provided backup. When
we got a fire, they were there to provide a supplementary fire
crew. When we had a rescue situation, we had a crew there.
We decided with some help from outside the agency that it
would be more efficient to go to contract for those kinds of
jobs, so we contracted for a crew to do the thinning, and in
the evening those crews were gone and if you had a fire there
was nobody there to help you out with the fire. All of a sudden
the cost of fire suppression went up, and we lost a source of
people who were working in the forest who could move up into
other organizations there.
So there is some real cost. The kind of cost/benefit
analysis that people do doesn't seem to stretch out far enough
to get the full value that employees in various kinds of jobs,
whether they are low level or high level, contribute to the
whole organization.
Mr. Sarbanes. That is a great example. Thank you all again
for your testimony today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Leonard, in your testimony you talk about
the need for people that work in an organization to feel
productive in some way, and you go on to tell problems within
the Forest Service. Do you believe there is a problem there
with what we sometimes call ``paralysis by analysis'' or what
the Acting Director said is 80 percent of the time spent trying
to justify the other 20 percent of the actual work? Do you
believe that there is such a problem?
Mr. Leanard. Mr. Bishop, yes, I do, and it is not because
the requirements individually do not make sense. It is because
we have made so many layers of requirements together that it is
just difficult to get there, and, frankly, in some cases the
cost of doing the analysis becomes more than the cost of
getting the job done on the ground.
And I certainly do not advocate a rolling back of the kinds
of analysis and environmental analysis that we need to do, but
you know, a lot of these requirements, there is at least a half
a dozen committees of the Congress that are writing
legislation, whether it is with Endangered Species Act or
things having to do with commerce and whatnot, there is just
all kinds of committees in Congress that are writing rules, and
there, frankly, is no mechanism for saying that you have a 30-
day comment period to meet this requirement, and over here you
have a 90-day comment period for public input, and maybe those
can be run consecutively, and maybe they cannot. There needs to
be continual look both by the agencies and by the Congress
those requirements, the hurtles you have to go through to make
sure that there are not some opportunities to streamline them
so that we can get the job done on a timely manner.
Mr. Bishop. So if Secretary Salazar changes a 60-day
comment period to a six-month comment period, maybe we could
streamline those types of things in a way.
Let me ask you another question that is probably a little
bit more significant. When you worked at the Forest Service,
you were under both Republican and Democrat administrations.
Mr. Leanard. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Did you see efforts to politicize the
decisionmaking process during any of that time?
Mr. Leanard. When I first came to the Washington office,
the Forest Service, frankly, benefitted from a period of benign
neglect in the Department of Agriculture. The Department of
Agriculture was busy doing the things the Department of
Agriculture is good at, and we only attracted the attention of
the Department when we created a problem for them, a political
problem that they had to get involved in.
Over time what used to be the Assistant Secretary, now the
Under Secretary position was more concerned, spent more of his
time with the Soil Conservation Service, now the Natural
Resource Conservation Service, and less with the Forest
Service. Starting with the Carter Administration, the Assistant
Secretary positions spent more time with the Forest Service
than with the agriculture interest, and they have become
progressively more involved in the day-to-day operations and
decisions of the agency.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. Appreciate your
time in service, and I appreciate all the witnesses that are
here. I think, Mr. Thatcher, you made one comment that it is
probably not wise to have a top-down secretive decisionmaking
process, rather it would be better to tap into the collective
wisdom. I think what you are seeing what is happening in
Congress today, maybe Congress should take that advice, not
just simply the Department of the Interior.
With that, I do not have anymore questions of this panel. I
appreciate all of you for being here.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Simpson, I think through your
testimony and through the written testimony you talk about
leadership as being key, and employee satisfaction. Give us an
example of an agency that excels in this area of leadership,
leadership development and how they do it.
Mr. Simpson. Well, one of the consistent high performers in
the best places rankings would be NASA, and they actually have
an extremely developed and sustained attention to development
of leadership qualities. They try to understand and try to--
first of all, what I think is important as a general matter is
to understand what are the qualities that are going to make a
leader successful within your organization; how is that leader
going to be able to incentivize and engage employees so that
they can give their discretionary energy, to give them a sense
of purpose, and to give them a sense that their work is
directly linked the mission of the organization. Those are the
basics of leadership development. And I think NASA, I would
commend their leadership development programs to you. You could
invite them in, have them describe to you in greater detail
exactly how they do it, but they are certainly a model within
the Federal government.
The high performers include the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the General Accounting Office, I think they all
have a very deliberate conscious approach to understanding that
you want to be able to cultivate your leaders before the
opportunities come up for promotion. You want to be able to
understand that I have a set of people, all of whom need to
be--their leadership capabilities need to be cultivated before
I place them into leadership positions. You need to have some
sense that there are succession challenges coming up, and not
do what a lot of agencies do, which is, let us have a selection
board, let us promote this person into a leadership position,
and now just when they are being asked to perform we are going
to throw them some training at them so they are actually
learning while they are actually doing it at the same time.
That is not the ideal situation. So you really want to be
forward-looking in your leadership development activities.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Thatcher, share for us if you
could a simple example of how changes in the Forest Service
organization, the example we are talking about today over and
over again, centralization, directly impacts an employee, that
employee in the field that you were talking about, and how that
affects their ability to manage the resource.
You know, centralization, I use the example it is like
calling India to get tech help on your computer.
Mr. Thatcher. Sure.
Mr. Grijalva. It is detached, but how does that affect that
person, that employee working in the field, and trying to do
their job.
Mr. Thatcher. Well, you know, where would I stop? I mean, I
could go on and on----
Mr. Grijalva. One example.
Mr. Thatcher.--on those kind, but I will give you a simple
example of the average typical Forest Service employee who used
to have a clear understanding of what his mission was with the
agency for the work that he did out in the field typically now
is going to spend countless hours, if not days, trying to get
the menial tasks that need to be done for him to do his job.
The IT reorganization now a persons cannot even open a box
if he is going to get a computer replacement. He has got to
wait for a person to come down from outside of town that may
take days just to open the box and set his computer up. He is
tied to his desk waiting for that kind of response. If an
employee has a pay issue, now they are required to call a 1-800
number, receive a ticket, and then wait for that phone call to
be returned to them. Those kind of things are what is impeding
our employees from their ability to go out and do what they
love to do, and that is work in the national forests and
grasslands and care for that land.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me, perhaps an unfair question, Mr.
Thatcher--or anybody on the panel can answer--the question
referenced by the Ranking Member, Mr. Bishop, is centralization
in the organization, new computer systems, different kinds of
management requirements that have been put in place that you
have just spoken to one example of, are they impacting work as
say--the work and productivity say as much as litigation?
Mr. Thatcher. Well, I think that would be fair to say. You
know, I work at a national forest office, and a preponderance
of the time that our resource specialists spend is responding
in litigation.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Mr. Wade, I appreciate the perspective
that you have brought. Let me ask this question and then turn
over to Ms. Lummis for her questions.
You cited the lack of contracting officers is a very, very
serious concern. Elaborate on that issue and how it affects the
agency's mission.
Mr. Wade. Well, right now I think the biggest concern in
the National Park Service about the capacity for contracting
and procurement and that sort of thing has to do with the
increase in the money through the stimulus package. Certainly
there has been concern about the centralization of these
functions, and this degree of separation that I talked about
where you lose the immediate knowledge of the park and the
program and so forth because that function is now moved to some
other location, whether it is a greatly centralized function,
like in the Forest Service, as Mr. Wenk talked about in several
parks in the region. But the fact is right now there is just a
real shortage of contracting capability within the National
Park Service, and I think the workforce is very worried.
Certainly the management of the National Park Service,
superintendents and so forth is very worried about how that is
going to be carried out with this extra stimulus package money
and anything else that might come out of a couple of years'
budgets that are coming down the road.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Ms. Lummis, any questions or
comments?
Ms. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
panel's indulgence with our busy schedules today, and
appreciate your being here.
My first question is for Mr. Simpson. I want you to know
that I appreciate the portions of your testimony about clearing
red tape associated with filling a growing number of open
positions in public land management agencies. But I also had
some concern about the recommendations in the Federal
Applicant's Bill of Rights Act, and my concern is that they
could actually have the opposite effect. So my question is
this.
Have you considered the risks of such additional hiring
mandates from a litigation perspective, such as notification of
non-hires within 10 days, or prohibitions against requesting
certain background documentation as being a couple of examples?
And I can tell you those are examples within the portion of
my working life that I spent managing public agencies, seem to
be sort of ripe for creating litigation rights that actually
drag out the effort to fill positions.
Mr. Simpson. Sure. I mean, I think we offered those
legislative suggestions on the assumption that they would be
well executed, and I think it is perfectly appropriate to try
to take into account real world considerations about how
effectively some of these notices can be given and so forth. I
think our underlying point is simply that the status quo is
unacceptable, and that the current Federal hiring process is
completely inadequate to the challenges of recruiting and
retaining the next generation of Federal employees.
And so I would be happy to engage with you or your staff on
any of these details. I think they are perfectly legitimate
considerations, but I think our underlying point is that we
have to move off the dime from where we are right now because
the processes are not adequate to the task.
Ms. Lummis. Thank you. Quick follow up on that. You also
stated that Congress and the administration need to work
together to ensure that adequate resources are available such
as making sure that agencies are using all of the tools at
their disposal, and ensuring that those tools are being used
effectively. So, of course, I wanted to ask about what types of
resources and tools that you are referring to. Is it funding,
or communications, or regulations?
Mr. Simpson. I think in that sense that part of the
testimony was referencing hiring authorities. Many
organizations already have certain kinds of hiring
flexibilities and hiring authorities, but often they are not
known or not used fully by the agency involved, whether it is a
matter of simply following old practices, or not sufficient
communication, or not sufficient commitment from top down to
really produce results and to move away from the existing
status quo, and so that was, I believe, the gravamen of that
recommendation.
Ms. Lummis. OK. So communications is an issue, in other
words. They may not be known by the employer, but they are not
communicated to the employees. So are you seeing both sides of
that transaction being----
Mr. Simpson. I think even more narrowly what I was trying
to get across was that sometimes the person responsible for
running the hiring process is not aware that they have
statutory authorities, certain flexibilities that have been
given to them by Congress to respond to very acute talent
recruitment needs, but their willingness to embrace those
authorities is, you know, I think hindered by a number of
institutional factors, and you have to really work it to make
sure that those people and that the entire organization uses
its statutory flexibilities to the maximum extent by law.
Ms. Lummis. Thank you. Now, my last question, Mr. Chairman,
is for the entire panel, so feel free to jump in. For those of
you representing public employee unions or retiree groups, I
would reiterate that I have been an employee of government, I
have been an employer or a manager within government, and I
know that these lines of work comes with tremendous challenges.
But I have also spent a considerable amount of time in the
private sector, and when I look at the economic challenges that
are occurring now in our country they seem to be borne much
more heavily by the private sector than the public sector, and
I am wondering, especially with regard to private industry
groups that depend on public lands for their livelihood, have
you seen some morale issues in those industries, like timber
and energy contractors, and the ag community that would be
parallel or different? Yes, sir.
Mr. Leanard. May I address that? Specifically one of the
major issues today for the national forests and some of the BLM
lands and all is a tremendous build-up of fuels in our forests.
Ms. Lummis. Yes.
Mr. Leanard. I did a little back-of-the-envelope
calculation a couple of years ago that on just the roaded
portion of the national forest we are adding roughly 4 billion
cubic feet of wood a year, and that is the energy equivalent of
750 million gallons of gasoline. If you wonder why we have a
fire problem on the national forest, we are adding tremendous
amount of fuel.
The other side of that though is that that growth, because
of its energy potential, has economic or at least potential
economic value. Unfortunately, we do not have a timber industry
in place to take advantage of that. We do not have the
facilities in place, and the small towns and communities that
used to be dependent upon the sawmill no longer have that.
There are some real opportunities to use economic values of
the excess and growing amount of wood on the public lands to
both use those economic values to address the fire problem and
also to make a contribution to our renewable energy needs.
Ms. Lummis. Well, that is a marvelous point. Thank you so
much for making it. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I was unable to hear your testimony.
I will read it. I want to thank you for being here. And my
principal reason for being here is just to say thank you for
you and your brothers' and sisters' work, and I just want to
tell you why I personally appreciate it.
I am a big user of the national parks, and I have seen
dedication by people who work in our national parks that is
just extraordinarily. I climbed Mount Rainier a few years ago,
and going up there all the way up past the snow level you see
these little, tiny like rock careens, and maybe little pink
tape showing where people were not to walk on the alpine
meadows, all the way up to Camp Muir. Some park employee had
gone out there and busted their back to take care of the alpine
meadow like that. And just with this exquisite care that people
were showing for this amazing resource, I do not know who that
person was, but thank all of your fellows for that kind of
work.
And I was hiking up at Mount Daniels, which we did not
succeed in submitting on, and I met this guy who was out there,
he said it was almost like it was his day off doing trail work
because he just loves this area, and I am embarrassed, I cannot
remember his name right now, but he spent time telling us about
the status of the trail and all the bud worm kill that we were
experiencing, and went through and explained to me and
everything.
I just want to say how much I appreciate people working so
hard for Uncle Sam, and my family appreciates it, my
constituents appreciate it. I look forward to some way we can
help them, you know, reach your professional goals. It has been
a really though eight years for you, and I appreciate the Chair
holding this hearing to help restore some of these issues, and
I know a lot of them is budgetary. We are going to try to
continue to increase the parks' budget, and now we have to get
to the Forest Service. So anyway I just came here to say thank
you. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. I just want to continue with a couple of
questions. Ms. Downing, in your estimation or if you had a
recommendation to give to Congress, what would be the most
important thing we could do to help rank and file members do
their job and also to improve their morale? If you had one
thing you could say, Congress, I would like you to do this?
Mr. Downing. When I tell folks I was coming, there was a
variety of reason everybody wanted to, you know, their licks
in, but the one common thread was accountability all the way up
the line and down. That is it. That is it. It is that simple.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Leonard, you mention in your
testimony your recent support of the FLAME Act and thank you
for that comment, but based on your experience what
recommendations would you offer the agency as it reclassifies
the one example I used, the forestry technicians, and other
long-term wild land fire fighters into a new job series that
will have a requirement of a college education? What
recommendation would you say to deal with what I think is--as
Mr. Kashdan said--something that we are trying to figure out as
we are right now?
Mr. Leanard. I think it is essential that our career fire
fighters have a logical avenue for progression up within the
fire community. Some of them have the capability of moving out
into other jobs, broader management responsibilities, but
certainly we should not put classification requirements in that
preclude a successful professional fire fighter from advancing
to the top of the fire profession.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Thatcher, any comment on that?
Mr. Thatcher. Well, I would certainly, you know, just
expand upon that, that what you have to realize is that the
fire fighters that the Forest Service have are some of the most
well trained, most educated folks that we have. They not only
understand fire, they also are the people that sit on
interdisciplinary teams to provide the input that is necessary
on fire ecology, how to burn, where to burn, when to burn.
These folks go through an extensive training, and we need to
recognize that and value that, and not say that that be simply
replaced by having a college degree in biological science. We
need to keep our fire fighters home grown and have the ability
to work their way up through the system. They are the best.
They are the brightest.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Simpson, we spoke earlier, I
think, also in part of the testimony about the need for land
management agencies to do a good job at attracting and
retaining well-qualified folk to work in the agency, to work
toward a diverse workforce.
From your insight, what are the obstacles that typically
prevent agencies from dealing with these two goals or these two
issues that are important, and why do they not go after them
more aggressively?
Mr. Simpson. There is a multitude of answers to that and
some of it implicates the factors we talked about earlier in my
exchange with Congresswoman Lummis. But many times you see the
institutional reluctance to embrace the statutory
flexibilities, and hiring authorities that have already been
given to agencies. I, myself, if I was looking at an agency
that was experiencing those issues, I would start with
leadership and try to understand has leadership embraced those
goals, and have they communicated their commitment to those
goals down through the organization, and that would apply to
both political and top-ranking career leadership.
I think that we need to talk about the stewardship of large
organizations. It is difficult to think of serious challenges
facing that agency that are not ultimately accountable, you
know, that are not traceable to leadership. It is either a lack
of attention. There is no doubt that numerous smaller issues
that are getting in the way. If you have sustained attention
from leadership, you can resolve them.
Mr. Grijalva. And I think one general question probably
more directed at Mr. Thatcher, Ms. Downing, but also any of
you, Mr. Wade. As we go forward the role of the employee needs
to have prominence in this whole discussion, the rank and file
as you stated. We have talked about partnerships. We talk about
once again activating the labor prerogatives that were there
and make sure they are utilized. We talked about new and
pending legislation.
Could both of you talk about the necessity for involvement
of rank and file, one; and two, the one instrument, the one
mechanism that you would recommend to us that would be
essential?
Mr. Thatcher. Well, I will start out as far as on the
Forest Service side. I think it is essential, Mr. Chairman,
that we involve and engage the folks that are actually out
there doing the work on the ground. These are the people that
know it. These are the people that can see where the
impediments are. These are the people that can make it work
better. It is imperative that we always have that voice, and
the mechanism that we have for that voice, now the Forest
Service was unique.
In the Clinton administration, or the partnership mandate
that the Clinton administration had, we worked together with
management to solve those types of problems.
When the Bush administration took office, the first
executive order that was issued was to get rid of partnership.
The Forest Service was wise. They saw the value, they saw how
we could make our agency better by having our employees buy in,
get behind, and do what needed to be done, so we kept that
partnership. It is working, it has worked, and it will continue
to work provided that we continue to have that opportunity to
come to the table, discuss those things with management, and
work together and collaboratively, not only for the benefit of
the employees, but the benefit of the agency which will then
benefit the public sector.
Mr. Grijalva. Ms. Downing.
Mr. Downing. When we lost our partnership council, that
started a slow trend of really shutting us out. Our contracts
are not enough for us to be able to get our voices heard.
People stopped engaging in activities. The Merit System
Protection Board just did two studies last fall that hit the
nail directly on the head. If you do not engage your workforce,
you are not going to have happy employees. Happy employees make
happy productive agencies.
Our supervisors are critical to that. We ask them to be
supervisors before we train them to be supervisors. I was a
supervisor for six years. I have learned more about managing
and making good human resource decisions doing my work as a
union officer than I did in the six years I was a BLM manager.
We have to invest in our management. We have to invest in our
employees, and value what they have to say even if they do not
agree. To understand and be involved in the decision, and be
able to have that open transparent communication is so
valuable. We have to have the mechanism in place.
Mr. Grijalva. Ms. Lummis, I will extend the courtesy to
you. I went over time on my second round of questioning.
But Mr. Wade, the issue from the perspective of your
organization in terms of the consultation issue with employees
being able to be part of the process that we just heard from
your two colleagues at the table.
Mr. Wade. Well, I think it goes back to what Mr. Simpson
said earlier, and I had not made this kind of a comparison, but
my guess is that agencies or organizations that have highly
effective leadership within the organization probably need
these external kinds of avenues to engage the workforce and to
involve employees and so forth less.
So, I think that what we are seeing now with the Best
Places to Work Ratings, particularly in the National Park
Service and I suspect others, when you see effective leadership
having a very, very low level by comparison, that suggests that
the workforce is not being engaged by the leadership and that
is what causes these other mechanisms to sprout up in order to
make sure that that happens. Not that they are not effective
and in some cases needed, but I would put the focus on
effective leadership to make sure that the engagement of the
workforce takes place, and we have heard examples this morning
where that is not happening.
Mr. Grijalva. Would that engagement be a requirement?
Mr. Wade. Well, I think it is--I mean, I think it is
inherent in a leadership position. I mean, I do not know how
else to put it. It is required because it is inherent in a good
leadership or management position.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Thank you. Ms. Lummis.
Ms. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You are so right that good leadership skills, good people
skills and good issue skills do not necessarily all go
together, and training is especially important when it comes to
designating a supervisor. So thanks for those comments.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a statement for the
record by Steve Eubanks who is a 38-year career employee with
U.S. Forest Service, and he was unable to join us today. So
submitting it for the record.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection, thank you very much.
Ms. Lummis. Thank you.
[NOTE: The letter submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Grijalva. And thank you, and let me thank all of you
for the passion and the testimony that you brought to us today;
very heartfelt and very informative and very much appreciated.
Thank you. Let me invite the next panel up, please.
Thank you very much. Thank you for being here, and let me
welcome our final panel, and thank you for your time and being
here, all of you. Let me begin with Mr. Jim Austin, Chairman,
U.S. Park Police Labor Committee. Welcome, sir, and thank you
for your patience today.
STATEMENT OF JIM AUSTIN, CHAIRMAN, U.S. PARK POLICE LABOR
COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Austin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say thank
you for allowing me the opportunity to come here and speak
before you today.
My name is Jim Austin, a 20-year veteran of the United
States Park Police, and I have the proud honor and distinction
of being able to represent over 400 officers within the United
States Park Police as their labor chairman.
We have been in existence since 1791. The United States
Park Police was founded by George Washington, and we have been
providing law enforcement services in the nation's capitol
since then. In 1974, we started branching out. We have a field
office, a New York field office, as well as the San Francisco
field office.
Over the years we have had a proud history that has gone on
and a strong tradition in the United States Park Police that
seemed to begin to unravel probably three years ago, and one of
the things I should interject is that we also have a lot of the
same issues and problems as our compatriots in the Forest
Service as well as the National Park Service, but I want to
focus a little bit on just specifically the park police morale
issues and the issues that we have been struggling with over
the past few years.
Since 9/11, the leadership on the park police, we have gone
through three chiefs of police. We are currently on our third,
I should say. Each of the prior two chiefs has brought
significant challenges to the force, being that they came from
outside of the Federal government. One of the biggest things
that got our attention that we started seeing a downslide or a
downslope in our agency was back in 2006.
Several concerned members of our horse-mounted patrol unit
approached to see what I can do to help out because the funds
that were set aside to purchase grain and feed for the horses
were in shambles. There was no contract that was up to date,
and after we investigated it, we found out that the situation
was very significant where the horses were actually almost out
of feed, and that prompted us to go ahead and actually purchase
horse feed for the unit so that the horses did not have to get
cut down on half rations and put out to graze in fields for
their nutritional needs.
When that first occurred, there was a lot of contention
within the bargaining unit members about why the union is
expending funds to purchase something that the department
should be automatically purchasing on a reoccurring basis
without delay, and as we started looking into our other
contracts that we had with outside vendors, we learned were not
just with the horse-mounted unit where the hay vendor was not
paid for awhile, the farrier services to shoe the horses and
take care of their hooves was pretty much canceled, and
fortunately the vendor was doing this all on his own, trying to
come in and assist the park police only because of our
reputation with our horse-mounted patrol unit.
As that sort of come to light, we started to notice and
hearing stories about how motorcycle officers who were
responsible for a lot of high-profile dignitary escorts as well
as the President of the United States were having issues with
maintenance on their motorcycles, where they were actually
paying out-of-pocket expenses to change, you know, make minor
repairs on their motors. Then we learned in the New York field
office, the same rang true with the marine patrol unit.
It sort of escalated from there. Unfortunately, there were
times when the staffing levels were so low, and I think the
IG's report came out and indicated that pretty well, and in my
written testimony it goes in there a little bit about how the
staffing, the mandated staffing levels were all smoke and
mirrors; where there was people listed on a detail but they
were actually on leave.
We asked them, and when we could see some relief from this
from our leadership, and they were getting a class put together
back in July of the same year, and they told these individuals
that they were hired, they gave notices to their prior
employers, they were getting ready to come down, and I believe
it was two days before they were supposed to report each one of
them was contacted and said that in fact the Park Police did
not have the money.
And how it comes down to that was a fundamental
mismanagement of money. I could go into a long time about our
vehicle fleet situation, it was in very poor condition. We had
vehicles that had 160,000 miles on them that we were driving
around which increased the maintenance costs on them. It was
even so bad that different divisions within headquarters were
putting out e-mails, hey, we have extra paper clips, we have
extra toner, we have extra reams of paper, because effectively
our whole budget system was shutdown. The Park Police really
could not efficiently operate.
The biggest concern that we have is our staffing levels.
Since 9/11, our mandated posts and our mandated coverages have
gone up and yet our staffing members have remained the same.
Based on our inability and our safety concerns of having such
short staff at work sites, especially in these mandated areas,
prompted us to come up with that survey which then sparked that
whole Office of Inspector General's report.
Since then there has been some positive changes in there
which I am glad to report. We have more classes coming up where
we can start staffing these more properly, but the concern I
think that comes in from the membership goes back to the
reasoning that this is a short-term fix based on an IG's
report, and we would like to see some long-term goals and
accountability come from those who are responsible for ensuring
that the officers are able to do their job safely and
effectively.
The prior chief took a burden of the responsibility for all
this. When he was removed, we noticed that had a great effect
on morale. We have been able to work with Chief Lauro as a
union to meet on common goals and common cooperation to try to
move this department forward, and I think we are slowly but
surely getting there.
We still do have some significant concerns and things that
we need to see, and I think it is critical that with the Park
Police there is no determined size that we should have on our
force. Back in 1999, Booz Allen Hamilton released a report that
says that we should have 820 officers, and this was before the
9/11 attacks, and the additional responsibilities that we were
given, and currently we are at 600. But we need some sort of
mechanism to say what is the actual strength of the Park
Police.
Somewhere in Interior and Park Service it has come up that
639 is a good number. Well, that is better than what we have
now, but it is not going to be enough because when you fill
those mandated spots that we have, we still have other
districts that we have that have some pretty significant
critical infrastructure that is very important to this nation,
and those resources are being pulled away from those areas to
cover the icons.
So we need to decide and we need to come up with an actual
number of the amount of officers where we can effectively
provide assurance to the visitors to the icon areas as well as
those critical infrastructures as other Park Service areas that
we also patrol.
Another thing that I think really needs to be done----
Mr. Grijalva. Pardon me. Let me ask you to wrap it up, and
it is a five-minute limit.
Mr. Austin. OK. I am sorry.
Mr. Grijalva. That is OK.
Mr. Austin. But basically we need to have more support from
the Park Service and Interior. There is a lot of budget and
things that we are absorbing when we have to worry about 90
percent of our budget going into personnel costs such as, you
know, payroll and benefits. So there is a lot of support that
we need from the National Park Service and Members of Congress
as well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Austin follows:]
Statement of James Austin, Chairman, Fraternal Order of Police,
United States Park Police Labor Committee
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak before the
Committee regarding the United States Park Police. My name is James
Austin and I am the Chairman of the Fraternal Order of Police, United
States Park Police Labor Committee. I have both the honor and privilege
of representing over 400 dedicated men and women who provide law
enforcement services to many of the most recognizable symbols of
democracy in the United States.
Since 1791, the United States Park Police has been tasked with the
responsibility of providing law enforcement services in the nation's
capital. In 1974, the Force began to provide the same services in the
National Park Service areas within New York and San Francisco.
Currently, the Force has approximately 600 sworn members spread
throughout the Washington Metropolitan Area, New York and San Francisco
Field Offices.
Despite the long, proud history, several issues have emerged the
past three years that have thrust the Force into an unfavorable public
spotlight. The extent of the poor status of the Force began to surface
in July of 2006, when it was brought to my attention that the most
highly visible units on the Force, the Horse Mounted Patrol Unit, was
about to exhaust its horse feed supplies. After verifying the concern,
the Labor Committee contacted the vendor and ordered a supply of feed
for the horses. This resulted in the discovery that several vendors
that had contracts with the Horse Mounted Patrol Unit had substantial
outstanding debts owed to them. Additionally, it became clear that some
officers were making minor repairs to their assigned motorcycles to
keep them running. In the New York Field Office, some members of the
Marine Patrol Unit also purchased minor boat parts to ensure that they
could fulfill the mission.
At the same time, several desperately needed recruits were hired
and were about to report for their first day on the Force. At the last
minute, these recruits were contacted and advised that the class was
cancelled. Many of these recruits had already left their jobs and one
was actually having a going away party when he received the call. This
event further demoralized the morale of the Force.
Mandated and voluntary training had effectively ceased throughout
the entire Force. Other than mandatory on-line computer training, all
other training was essentially cut. This included the required semi-
annual firearms qualifications. As the February 2008 Inspector
General's report stated that officers assigned to the San Francisco
Field Office had not been through a mandatory firearms qualification
for over a year due to the lack of ammunition.
The vehicle fleet was in poor condition and no new vehicles were
projected to arrive to help improve the situation. First responder
equipment such as fire extinguishers and first aid kits were in short
supply.
Different stations and administrative offices were scrounging for
simple office supplies, such as paper clips, staples, pens, copier
toner and tape.
Contracted services were in complete disarray. Building maintenance
services, bottled water replacement, leased vehicles and ballistic vest
replacement contracts were at some point stalled or cancelled.
A former senior-level manager informed me that on one occasion the
Force had received an eviction notice to remove one of our
communications ``repeater'' systems from a rented radio tower in the
Washington Metropolitan Area due to an outstanding payment due. This
would have had a devastating effect on the officers that would've lost
all communication with the dispatcher and other street units.
Most importantly, however, was the critical Force-wide staffing
levels. It quickly became clear during the entire 2007 year that the
Force would have great difficulty in fulfilling the minimum staffing
levels each shift. Often times, as confirmed by the Department of the
Interior Office of Inspector General's report, posts that were required
to be staffed were left empty. Often times officers would be reassigned
from a patrol beat to a sedentary security post, leaving the patrol
beat uncovered. In the New York Field Office, the lack of staff
prompted one of the Statue of Liberty supervisors to admit that not all
the mandated posts were covered; rather it was ``...all smoke and
mirrors.''
In February 2008, the Department of the Interior Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) released a report that was initiated based on
an unscientific survey that was conducted by the Union, which
encouraged the membership to evaluate the command staff and provide
feedback on the working conditions. After two preliminary interviews
with Union Executive Board members, the investigators for the OIG
interviewed several Force members and gave every Force member, civilian
or sworn the opportunity to respond via email. As the Force spoke, a
rather telling report was issued that publicly highlighted the
ineptness and the struggles that the Force has had to endure. This was
a pivotal event that began the process of bringing the necessary change
and hope to the United States Park Police.
Since the report was published, the Force has seen several changes.
First and foremost, the direct and immediate involvement of the
Secretary of the Interior, and the Director of the National Park
Service was essential. While there were many other priorities within
the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service, their
prompt attention gave confidence to the members of a grateful Force
that positive change would be imminent.
Eventually the Chief was reassigned and all of the senior level
commanders retired. The Chief Financial Officer had transferred to
another agency prior to the release of the report. A retired United
States Park Police Major who was employed by the Office of Law
Enforcement, Security and Emergency Management (OLESEM) was installed
as the ``Acting Assistant Chief of Police'' until recently appointed as
the permanent Chief of Police.
Currently, the vehicle fleet has seen an influx of new police
vehicles deployed to the street and there is a reserve of approximately
one dozen vehicles. A vehicle committee has been established to develop
a plan of action to produce and maintain a vehicle replacement program
and determines other vehicle policies.
While voluntary training is still largely considered if it is at no
cost to the Force, the mandatory In-Service training in the Washington
Metropolitan Area has been broken up in an attempt to be more efficient
for the officer and lessens any detrimental impact on the operational
needs of the Force. For example, the blocks of instruction are given
individually and usually last for about 2 hours per block. Instead of
officers being assigned to the Training Branch for an entire week, an
officer may be assigned to training for a two-hour period at a time for
each block until the mandatory requirements are fulfilled. Although the
training may take a few weeks to complete, the impact of street
operations are minimal. Mandatory bi-annual firearms qualifications are
being conducted at all locations.
The Force has completed the replacement of all the ballistic body
armor that contained Zylon material. The uniform/equipment replacement
program is in the process of being Force-wide. This will assure
accountability of all uniforms and equipment that is issued or
replaced.
At the Station Commander level and above, all personnel, including
the Chief of Police, have re-instituted regular meetings with the
National Park Service. This communication has gone a long way to
increase cooperation and progress for each bureau to fulfill each of
the missions.
Improvements in financial management and accountability have been
made. With the assistance and training from the National Park Service
and the Department of the Interior, the Force has hired financial
professionals with federal budget knowledge and knowledge of federal
purchasing regulations. Additionally, the NPS and DOI budget offices
have also assisted the Force to become more accountable and
knowledgeable about the budget process, financial management as well as
purchasing and contracting practices. It is clear that the Force is
benefiting greatly from the assistance from the NPS and DOI.
To illustrate the commitment to preserving and protecting the
Icons, the Force has consolidated its resources by realigning the
Force, which resulted in the development of the ``Icon Security
Division.'' Affecting mainly the Washington Metropolitan Area, the
Central District and the Special Forces Branch have been consolidated
to form the new Division, which includes the New York Field Office,
which emphasizes the protection of the Statue of Liberty and Ellis
Island. In the Washington Metropolitan Area, the core Icons areas such
as the Lincoln, Korean War, Vietnam War, World War II and Jefferson
Memorials, Washington Monument, White House/Ellipse and the National
Mall are now patrolled by the ``Icon District'' officers in addition to
the S.W.A.T., Canine, Motorcycle and Horse Mounted units. Although
these units were already in the core Icon area, this change streamlines
the protection responsibility into one chain of command rather than
several commanders with overlapping responsibilities and reporting to
different senior level commanders.
Since September 11, 2001, the Force has not had consistent
leadership. At the time of the terrorist attacks, three Deputy Chiefs
were alternating in the vacant Chief position. Then a Chief was brought
in from outside of not only the United States Park Police, Department
of the Interior but from outside of the federal government system. This
inexperience proved problematic. Further complications arose when an
equally inexperienced Chief replaced the terminated Chief. When this
Chief was reassigned as a result of the OIG report, it emphasized the
fact that the Force is not yet ready to stand on its own. Whether
members of the Force agree or disagree, we cannot deny the fact that we
need the assistance of the National Park Service resources. Our slow
progress has proven this.
While I have highlighted some of the negative issues and some of
the changes that have taken place over the past 12 months, there is
more vital action that needs to be taken to keep the United States Park
Police progressing forward.
Currently in the Washington Metropolitan Area, San Francisco and
New York Field Offices, personnel numbers are extremely low. Although
approximately 40 recruits have been hired so far this fiscal year, our
attrition rate is 35-40 officers per year. Recruit hiring must be
increased to stay ahead of the attrition rate.
The following steps must be taken:
Determine what the authorized strength of the United
States Park Police should be.
Within the Department of the Interior and the National Park
Service, an arbitrary number of 639 officers seem to have been
determined as the number of officers to keep the Force
functioning. Conversely, an October 1999 ``Strategic Counter-
Terrorism Plan'' conducted for the National Park Service by
Booze-Allen & Hamilton indicated that the Force should be
staffed with 820 officers. It is important to note that this
study was completed 2 years before the 9-11 attacks and the
increased responsibilities mandated by the National Park
Service and the Department of the Interior. There needs to be a
definitive number of sworn personnel to achieve and maintain.
Determine who has the ultimate responsibility for the
individual Icons.
The Department of the Interior and the National Park Service
has the overall decision-making responsibility for the Icons;
however, the supplemental protection costs (e.g. civilian
guards and video monitoring systems) are the financial
responsibility of the Force. The funding that is dedicated to
this would be better served in hiring personnel, training,
equipment or vehicle replacement.
Ensure that other patrol district beats are required to
be properly staffed.
The United States Park Police has many critical infrastructures
in all of our areas or immediately adjacent to our primary
jurisdiction. Our unique peace officer status in many of the
adjacent States provides the United States Park Police Officer
to be on the front lines in the war on terror. In addition, the
calls for service, proactive and selective enforcement and
emergency response must not be compromised due to the Force's
commitment to the core Icon areas.
Increase the funding for the United States Park Police to
account for the rising personnel costs.
A large portion of the annual budget for the Force is dedicated
to salary and benefits. The Force has officers in two separate
retirement systems. Those hired prior to January 1, 1984 are in
a system known as the ``Title 4'' retirement system
administered by the District of Columbia. Officers hired after
January 1, 1984 are in a retirement system known as ``Title 5''
and are incorporated in the FERS law enforcement retirement
system. The Force incurs an estimated cost of 7-12 percent of
the Title 4 officer's salary to fund the benefits/retirement
package on a yearly basis, compared to the Title 5 officer's
benefits/retirement package of an average of 35-49 percent on a
yearly basis. Both retirement plan costs are reoccurring. This
contributes to the fact that although our budget sees
incremental increases, our staffing levels fall.
Ensure that key civilian positions are filled.
The Force has several vacant civilian positions that are vital
to our operation. Dispatchers, a safety officer, personnel
specialists and a contracting specialist are desperately needed
to provide relief to others who are working in several
positions to fill the void.
In conclusion, I would like to stress upon the Committee that the
men and women of the United States Park Police are dedicated to the
mission of the Force. I have witnessed these true professionals handle
some very stressful times and conditions with complete grace and
professionalism. It is this commitment that truly makes me proud to be
a United States Park Police Officer.
Thank you again for this opportunity to speak to the Committee and
I will be happy to address any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me ask Mr. John Waterman,
President, Fraternal Order of Police, National Park Rangers
Lodge. Sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN WATERMAN, PRESIDENT, FRATERNAL ORDER OF
POLICE, NATIONAL PARK RANGERS LODGE, TWAIN HARTE, CALIFORNIA;
ACCOMPANIED BY GEORGE DURKEE, VICE PRESIDENT, FRATERNAL ORDER
OF POLICE, NATIONAL PARK RANGERS LODGE
Mr. Waterman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to testify in front of you today regarding
workforce morale within the Department of the Interior's law
enforcement program, and the DOI's progress in the recent OIG's
report from a field perspective.
My name is John Waterman, and I am President of the United
States Park Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, and
have been a law enforcement ranger for 13 years. With me to my
left is our Lodge Secretary and Executive Director, George
Durkee, who has been a seasonal ranger for almost 40 years.
We are composed almost entirely of front-line law
enforcement rangers who are deeply committed to the mission of
preserving and protecting national parks, to leave the
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
The Ranger Lodge seeks to ensure our national parks have
adequate staffing with the level of professional law
enforcement ranger that visitors expect from the National Park
Service and that those rangers receive training and proper
equipment to safely carry out the increasingly dangerous duty
of protecting park resources, visitors, and ourselves.
Perhaps the largest issue lodge members face is our attempt
to legislatively mandate and codify the United States Park
Ranger 6[c] and enhanced law enforcement retirement benefits.
Hundreds of rangers have spent large sums of money from
personal savings and retirement funds to fight for back time
that they have earned for protecting our national parks.
Current rangers like me have heard time and again from the
Department of the Interior's Federal law enforcement retirement
team that our enhanced retirement is in jeopardy and not
guaranteed, depending on how they wish to define our current
position descriptions at any particular time.
No other Federal law enforcement officer in the DOI faces
this arbitrary and capricious scrutiny. Enhanced retirement for
law enforcement is a tremendous recruiting and retention tool
without which the NPS will not be able to compete successfully
for the best candidates. The solution is to codify the enhanced
retirement in legislation, just as it is for our fellow United
States Park Police officers.
The second largest morale issue that we face is the
inconsistent application, enforcement and adjudication of our
medical standards. The National Park Service medical standards
are some of the most rigorous in Federal law enforcement, and
one medical director has characterized the standards as tougher
than a flight physical for NASA.
The agency's failure to provide consistent guidance and
fair adjudication is costing the government millions in lost
cases, millions of dollars in settlements, and rangers spend
years fighting, and eventually winning their cases against the
agency.
In the 12 years of the existence of the medical program,
six people have been in charge of it with no formal medical
background. In essence, one person in charge of the program
would issue a waiver for a medical condition and a year later a
new person would not issue a waiver in the same circumstance.
The lodge believes in a medical program based on the Office of
Personnel Management's guidelines that is consistently applied,
adjudicated, and administered.
If a ranger proves that he or she is performing
satisfactorily with a medical condition, then the ranger should
continue working in the job they love, and continue working a
stewards and protectors of the resources set aside by Congress.
The third progress report from the Office of Inspector
General demonstrates that although the Department of the
Interior has made recommended changes, at the departmental
level it is management of the National Park Service Law
Enforcement Program continues to undermine positive bureau
successes and thereby fails to contribute progressive and
measurable results at the field level.
The greatest threat to the public in our ranger safety is
inadequate staffing where a backup for a ranger working alone
may be 30 minutes to several hours away. The lower staffing
levels create a reactive enforcement program rather than a
proactive one.
As both the Office of Inspector General's report and
subsequent studies make clear, for the last five years United
States Park Rangers have had the highest rates of assault of
any other Federal law enforcement officer. Let me repeat that
again. For the last five years United States Park Rangers have
had the highest rate of assaults against them compared to any
other Federal law enforcement officer in this country.
To counter this disturbing five-year trend, the Office of
Inspector Generals recommended ``Bureaus will reduce the
dependence on collateral duty and seasonal law enforcement
officers, and develop contemporary comprehensive and verifiable
staffing models within the fiscal year.''
This statement was made by The Honorable Earl Devaney back
in 2002. To date the National Park Service has failed to meet
any of these recommendations, and in some cases has done the
opposite. The National Park Service has made some past progress
in reducing collateral duty and seasonal law enforcement
officers by the creating of the subject to furlough positions.
There is an unquestionable need for an expanded workforce
in the National Park Service during a park's busy season. These
needs are not a one-time need but rather reoccurring. The SDF
position allows the National Park Service to ensure that there
is an available cadre of trained, experienced law enforcement
officers to staff a park based on that park's needs. Unlike the
current 1039 hourly seasonal appointment, an SDF position
allows the park flexibility and time for mandatory training,
team building, and development of leadership without
sacrificing time on the ground, providing law enforcement and
emergency service for visitors.
The subject of furlough position also provides officers
with law enforcement retirement and Federal benefits which
currently the seasonal positions do not. The staffing models
and officer assault rates and numerous other studies conducted
on a National Park Service Law Enforcement Programs demonstrate
a clear need for increased staffing and a well-trained
workforce.
Park rangers are the stewards of our nation's heritage. We
are extremely grateful to The Honorable Earl Devaney and his
staff, Congress and this Subcommittee for all of your attention
that you are giving to workforce morale, and the progress of
the Department of the Interior implementing the 25 secretarial
directives.
The most recent progress review by Earl Devaney and his
staff demonstrated that there is substantial work ahead for the
Department of the Interior and the National Park Service in
order to meet the challenges of those directives and the
critical task of protecting the places set aside by Congress
for special guardianship.
Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waterman follows:]
Statement of John Waterman, President, U.S. Park Rangers Lodge,
Fraternal Order of Police
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank
you for the opportunity to testify in front of you today. My name is
John Waterman. I am President of the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal
Order of Police and have been a law enforcement ranger for 13 years.
With me is Lodge Executive Director George Durkee, a seasonal law
enforcement ranger for the National Park Service (NPS) for almost 40
years and Calvin Farmer, board member, a Ranger for 23 years. Our Lodge
is the largest organization of U.S. Park Rangers in the country. We are
composed almost entirely of front-line law enforcement rangers who are
deeply committed to the mission of preserving and protecting National
Parks to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
The Ranger Lodge seeks to ensure our National Parks are adequately
staffed with the level of professional law enforcement ranger that
visitors expect from National Park Service and that those rangers are
trained and properly equipped for safely carrying out the increasingly
dangerous duty of protecting park resources, visitors, and ourselves.
Perhaps the largest issue the Lodge faces with its members is our
attempt to legislatively mandate and codify the U.S. Park Rangers 6c
enhanced law enforcement retirement benefits. Hundreds of rangers have
been denied coverage for service prior to 1994 and have spent large
sums of money from their personal savings, retirement funds, personal
loans, and second mortgages to fight for back time that they earned
protecting our National Parks. Current rangers like me have heard time
and again by the Department of the Interior's (DOI), Federal Law
Enforcement Retirement Team (FLERT), that our enhanced retirement is in
jeopardy and not guaranteed depending on how they wish to define our
current position descriptions at any particular time. No other federal
law enforcement officer in the DOI faces this arbitrary and capricious
scrutiny, as do U.S. Park Rangers. The solution is to codify the
enhanced retirement in legislation just as it is for our fellow United
States Park Police Officers (USPP). The USPP is a separate LE
organization from the U.S. Park Rangers, also under the purview of the
National Park Service. USPP and LE Rangers work alongside each other on
a regular and recurring basis in the Washington DC area, San Francisco,
and New York, along with joint assignments at many National Park units.
The second largest morale issue we face is the inconsistent
application, enforcement, and adjudication of the medical standards.
The NPS medical standards are some of the most rigorous in federal law
enforcement (LE), and one medical doctor characterized the standards as
tougher than a flight physical. The agency's failure to provide
consistent guidance and fair adjudication is costing the government
millions in lost cases and settlements as Rangers spend years fighting
and eventually winning their case against the agency. This is a
tremendous waste of money and personnel. The NPS now employs lawyers'
at all medical hearings in an attempt to threaten and intimidate
Ranger's while they present their case. In the twelve years of the
existence of the medical program, six people were in charge of the
medical program, with no medical certification. In addition to the lack
of professional oversight, there have been numerous cases of
inconsistency in the adjudication of these cases. For example, one
person in charge of the program would issue a waiver of a medical
condition for one case, while another person in charge would not issue
a waiver for the same medical condition of another case..
The Lodge believes in a medical program that follows Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) guidelines, is fair, and consistently
applied, adjudicated and administered similar to programs already
accepted by agencies such as FBI, DEA, Secret Service, U.S. Marshals
Service, and NCIS. If a Ranger proves he/she is performing
satisfactorily with a medical condition, then the Ranger should be
allowed to continue working in that job. Instead of losing valuable
employees, the Service in turn retains a good employee with whom is has
invested considerable time and money through training and development.
In contrast, the amount of time, money, effort, and energy poured into
these cases by the rangers demonstrates how committed rangers are to
remaining in their positions as stewards and protectors of the
resources set aside by Congress for special guardianship.
The two issues (enhanced retirement and application of the medical
standards program) discussed above speak clearly of the significant
impacts and effects upon morale in a very personal way to rangers. We
would like to take this opportunity to shift the focus from the
individual rangers to the NPS law enforcement program as a whole.
We are grateful that The Honorable Earl Devaney of the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) has been steadfast in holding DOI accountable
for the changes they agreed to make in response to the ``Disquieting
State of Disorder'' OIG report. This third progress report on the OIG
recommended reforms shows that even though the DOI has made some
recommended changes at the Department level its management of the NPS
Law Enforcement programs continues to undermine any positive bureau
successes and thereby fails to contribute progressive measurable
results at the field level. (Note: The NPS is responsible for managing
both the United States Park Police (USPP) and the law enforcement
ranger program.) DOI has spent in excess of four million dollars in
recent years commissioning studies on the USPP and Law Enforcement
Ranger (LER) programs. The International Association of Chiefs of
Police (IACP), OIG, The National Parks and Conservation Association
(NPCA) and The Partnership for Public Service (PPS) have all conducted
studies. Each report has detailed similar issues with both programs,
and groups that have conducted multiple studies on the programs express
dismay that the same conditions still exist when they conduct a second
study.
The Lodge reviewed the Third Progress Report on the Implementation
of the OIG's directives and would like to address several of the
specific OIG Directives from the ``Disquieting State of Disorder''
report that are still outstanding.
Recommendation 4: DAS-LESEM should review and revise the policies
and procedures, which guide the bureaus' interactions with OLESEM. This
should be done in consultation with the Board of Advisors. It is
imperative that the Office of Law Enforcement, Security, and Emergency
Services (OLESEM) issue out standard policies to all the bureaus.
Without this standard, each bureau continues to find ways to abuse its
authority, leading to a lack of consistency, contradictory policies,
and confusion for employees and managers. The revision and updating of
Reference Manual 9 (RM-9) last updated in 2000, which covers the NPS LE
Rangers has been held up for the past four years, waiting for the
updated Department Manual 446 (DM446) to be issued as the NPS did not
want to put its officers in the position of operating under
contravening policies. Emphasis must be on completing, signing and
issuing a final copy of DM 446 and requiring bureaus to follow it. The
Lodge is in favor of one homogeneous set of law enforcement guidelines
with strong law enforcement principles.
Recommendation 9: Develop line item budgeting for law enforcement
activities. The Department is currently implementing Activity Based
Costing.
With the current budgeting system, there is no accountability for
the expenditure of funds specifically appropriated by Congress and
through the Washington Office of the NPS (WASO) for law enforcement and
homeland security initiatives. Recently Congress requested information
on ONPS spending and accountability for specifically appropriated
monies. When the Lodge reviewed the report, the Lodge found that often
the additional monies were accepted by the parks, and then the park
level LE division budget was reduced by the amount of money received
from WASO. While there is nothing illegal about this re-direction of
money, it clearly contravenes the intent of Congress and WASO to
provide supplemental funds for law enforcement needs beyond the parks
operating funds.
The Lodge understands and appreciates that the Superintendent of
each park is ultimately responsible and accountable for the law
enforcement program in each park and desires to allocate the park
budget based on what they believe is the best use of funds without
interference from someone in WASO who is not necessarily cognizant of
the challenges on the ground. The crux of the issue is that the lack of
transparency in the park level budget process combined with the
decentralized structure of the NPS LE program does not allow NPS WASO
to implement the changes called for by the OIG review (along with the
many other studies on the LE programs in DOI/NPS). Without the ability
to distribute or withhold funds based on needs and or compliance, it is
likely that the issues before us today will continue into the future.
Recommendation 11: Bureaus should complete an analysis of staffing
models and methodologies. The VRAP (Visitor Management-Resource
Protection Assessment Program) program in conjunction with the Law
Enforcement Needs Assessment (LENA) was to be the end all of assessment
programs. Parks worked very hard at putting the information together
and when they completed the assessment found that they were terribly
understaffed. Together these assessments (LENA and VRAP) demonstrated
the need for additional rangers to protect NPS resources based on
parameters established by the NPS planners. Once the assessment was
completed, the numbers of additional rangers needed was staggering to
many people. The IACP agreed with the VRAP assessment of the need for
additional staffing for accomplishing the mission of the NPS. In
speaking with NPS folks who expressed their dismay at the number of
rangers required to protect the resources as the planners envision, the
IACP Team recommended that the NPS engage in a validation study of its
own program assessment tool. The OIG's office recommended this in 2002.
To date that validation study has not occurred, and the VRAP model
would need modification to account for the new homeland security,
incident management, and other requirements that were not in place when
the program was developed for use in 2000.
WASO has reported that the number of rangers decreased less then
200 since 2003. Few parks have experienced a net gain in staff and most
have experienced substantial loss of staff. For example, Valley Forge
has lost 50% of its staff, Organ Pipe (down 9 rangers after the murder
of Ranger Kris Eggle), Yellowstone National Park has lost approximately
40% of its staff, and Delaware Water Gap 35% of its staff, Glen Canyon
lost approximately 35% of its staff. Straight numbers on gains or loses
of rangers also fails to consider the number of sites added to the NPS
system over the same period. As new sites are added, sites already in
the system do not benefit from the new hires, as those new hires go to
new park units, or the current parks have their folks transfer to the
new park, resulting in a loss of personnel. Current ranger staffing
levels are significantly below the recommendations of the IACP report
and the NPS's own assessment.
The greatest threat to the public and our ranger's safety is
inadequate staffing, where backup for a ranger working alone may be 30
minutes to several hours away. As both the Inspector Generals' report
and subsequent studies make clear, U.S. Park Rangers have among the
highest rates of assaults on officers of any federal agencies. Several
studies have found this rate is as high as that of many urban police
departments, yet there is a sense that parks are safe places. Reasons
for staffing challenges range from budget considerations, to sending
officers to mandatory training, wild land fire response, days off, and
leave to the shear vastness of the patrol area where a park may have
one LEO for two million acres.
Responses to park incidents are becoming reactive instead of
proactive due to staffing shortages. Preemptive law enforcement action
was once the hallmark of Rangers, where they would often identify
undesirable, dangerous activities or acts and respond with the
appropriate measures to deter or halt the act before an incident
occurred or was allowed to escalate. In many ways, rangers have
continuously enhanced the law enforcement function of protecting the
country's natural and cultural resources by the development of
intelligence provided through good community relations and the exchange
of information provided by visitors, neighbors, and stakeholders in
addition to engaging in and conducting covert and drug interdiction
operations. Preemptive law enforcement action allows the rangers to
protect the resources rather than having to settle for the recording of
their loss. For example destruction of gravesites through looting,
theft of timber from scenic easements and the subsequent destruction of
those vistas, or the greed of poacher leaving a carcass to rot,
desiring only the trophy part of the animal. Marijuana is cultivated in
environmentally sensitive areas leading to ecological damage through
the rerouting of natural water sources, the dumping and soil
contamination of fertilizer, garbage, plastic and other items left
behind by illegal drug producers growing marijuana on public lands.
Numerous parks have cut the number and types of interdiction
operations that once were conducted because it is just too dangerous to
work alone. Park researchers and visitors have been threatened on more
than one occasion by poachers and drug cultivators armed with
semiautomatic rifles and other weapons. Some parks that now routinely
assign a LEO to go with groups of resource management personnel for
protection. While an inquiry into the comparative number of rangers
shows that the NPS has lost several hundred since 2003, those straight
numbers do not tell the full story. Rangers are responsible for vastly
different array of duties that were not conceived of when the staffing
models were developed. In addition, there is an increase in the number
of visitors demanding and needing services. Many visitors to National
Parks have little to no experience in the wilderness. Their experience
with nature is framed largely by relatively sanitized paved trails
through the trees, deer in their backyard that seem more like pets than
wildlife, and the ever present ability to call for help on their cell
phone. The expectations of visitors have changed dramatically in the
past two decades, and the staffing models do not account for the shift
in attitudes and expectations of the visiting public.
In the 2002, OIG report ``Disquieting State of Disorder'' the OIG
recommended an increase of 615 Rangers to meet the new homeland
security requirements, visitor expectations, demands, and the desire of
the NPS to continue to provide the level of visitor service that the
agency prides itself on. Failing to update the staffing models in light
of new expectations and demands hampers the ability of the Service to
recruit, retain, and train new rangers. It also disregards the
recommendations of the OIG and the Secretary's own study showing that a
huge influx of Ranger's are needed to preserve and protect parks to
leave them unimpaired for the next generation.
Recommendation 12: Each Bureau will assess the extent to which
(correct) staffing shortages impact officer safety.
While the third progress report on the original OIG report shows
that Directive 12 was implemented, the Lodge cautions that Rangers
continue (as we have for five years) to top the Department of Justice
list for the most assaulted federal law enforcement officers.
When working alone, particularly in remote areas, reliable, up to
date radio systems and communications are imperative for officer
safety. Many rangers lack modern upgraded equipment, reliable radio
communications with a professional dispatch center that has access to
the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), allowing an officer to
check if a person is wanted on an outstanding warrant, dangerous to
police, a registered sex offender, or in possession of a valid
concealed carry permit.
Whiskeytown National Recreation Area (WHIS) is a prime example of
where the Lodge has concerns of complacency regarding the
``implemented'' status with Directive 12. Faced with a budget shortfall
WHIS initiated a voice over internet protocol (VOIP) radio system
without ensuring that the computer hardware and phone lines could
handle the high-speed data transfers necessary for the technology to
work. In addition to not checking the hardware requirements, WHIS also
took down the old radio system, leaving the rangers with no radio
communications. WHIS rangers have resorted to utilizing their personal
cell phones, which only provide intermittent coverage as a substitute.
WHIS is a park experiencing increased gang activity and violence, and
rangers do not have the most basic modern police tool, a working radio
connected to a professional dispatch center, not someone who is sitting
at the visitor center desk trying to answer visitor questions, or
complete the payroll at headquarters.
Recommendation 13: ``Bureaus will reduce dependence on collateral
duty and seasonal law enforcement officers.''
In addition to a permanent law enforcement staff of about 1,400
Commissioned rangers, the Park Service has perhaps 500 seasonal law
enforcement rangers during peak visitation at various parks. There is
an unquestionable need for an expanded workforce in the NPS during
certain times, as many parks have a higher concentration of visitation
during the summer months. These needs are not a one-time need; the
necessity for more staff during a park's busy season is a recurring
need. The STF position allows the NPS to ensure that there is an
available cadre of trained, experienced, law enforcement officers to
staff a park based on their needs. Unlike a 1039 hour seasonal
appointment, an STF position allows the park flexibility to bring their
summer workforce in before the busy summer season and ensure that they
have all of their required in-service hours, medical exams, updated
legal information etc., and to develop a sense of camaraderie, common
purpose and teamwork amongst folks who will rely on each other for back
up--and life saving action.
The Lodge is also very concerned with the level and type of
training seasonal employees receive. There is little to no oversight of
the seasonal law enforcement academies, the quality of the training and
the curricula beyond basic mandates by FLETC staff. Having a person who
completed 360 hours of training, and the only traffic stop training
they received was stopping tables (simulating vehicles) before turning
an employee loose with their badge, gun, and a police car with no other
training or supervision creates conditions that are ripe for poor
decision-making and improper use of force. More structured oversight by
FLETC of the seasonal academies would allow parks to receive a level of
consistency in skills and abilities from the various seasonal academy
candidates. This would free parks from teaching basic fundamental law
enforcement and allow each park to tailor their field-training program
for seasonals to the specific needs of each park.
Some years ago--and after a long-time seasonal NPS maintenance
employee died on duty without even death benefits for his widow--
Congress recognized the abuse of the temporary hiring system by Federal
agencies and passed the Hudson Amendment. As a result, NPS did position
evaluations in most parks and replaced some seasonal positions with
Subject to Furlough (STF) positions, thus creating ranger jobs with
full benefits. In an effort to cut costs and meet the mandate to
utilize Centennial Challenge money, parks are now eliminating many STF
positions and filling them, once again, with seasonal employees. Glen
Canyon National Recreation Area, for example, recently eliminated 10
STF positions and filled those positions with seasonal rangers.
As the third progress report points out, as part of the Centennial
Initiative, the NPS was tasked by the Secretary of Interior to hire an
additional 1,000 seasonal LEO's, directly conflicting with the 2002
directive. As demonstrated above, many full time permanent positions
are lapsed to meet an artificial hiring quota that was and is not fully
funded. The preliminary numbers from 2008 reflect a decrease in full
time rangers and an increase in seasonal rangers. With the decline of
the permanent staff, there is a greater likelihood that a ranger with
less training and experience will not have an experienced officer to
provide guidance before, during, and after the contact or incident.
These conditions lead to a continued increase in the assault rate of
rangers, and inappropriate uses of force (too little or too much) as
shown in the Northern Arizona University study which looked at assaults
against U.S. Park Rangers.
Recommendation 23: OLESEM should develop a consistent Department-
wide centralized records system.
The lack of a records management system is unconscionable in the
modern age. Modern policing and investigations require hard data to
measure performance, track trends, analyze crime patterns, suspicious
activities and provide data for chief rangers and managers to justify
the need for more staffing, or different staffing models based on data.
Currently the ``Case Incident Reporting System (CIRS)'' is a DOS based
system (not compatible with Windows) with very limited capabilities for
data analysis--resulting in hand counting of incidents and or a reading
of each individual narrative in order for the chief ranger to complete
the annual law enforcement report.
The NPS spent $2.8 million on a lotus notes version of CIRS that
failed due to out of date software, and lack of hardware capable of
running the new version (some computers were still running Windows 98
as recently as 2004). The next incarnation of the records management
system is the Incident Management and Record System (IMARS), which to
date has cost in excess of $5 million, prompting a separate IG
investigation on IMARS. DOI-NPS is no closer to a legitimate records
management program now than it was five years ago. In the digital age,
with increasing demands for transparency the lack of a records
management system for data analysis, trend analysis, and investigation
is stunning.
The National Park Service is the steward of our nation's heritage.
National Park Rangers are the instruments by which the American
heritage is preserved and the vast open spaces are protected, and the
resources therein to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations. We are dedicated to that mission from the 1906 Organic
Act, understand, and believe in the importance of the resources we
protect.
We are grateful to The Honorable Earl Devaney and his staff,
Congress and this subcommittee for the attention all of you are giving
to park service inadequacies in the critical task of protecting our
nation's heritage, as embodied by our parks. The Lodge and its members
will continue to work with the NPS, Congress, and the American people
to protect that which Congress set aside for the enjoyment of all
people. Thank you.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, and Mr. Durkee, welcome.
One of the questions I was going to ask you, Mr. Waterman,
let me begin with you, was having to deal with the issue of
enhanced retirement, and your point about codification of that
is important and we will be pursuing that with your
organization about the kind of legislative relief that is
needed to make that concept a permanent concept.
Mr. Waterman. We look forward to working with you on that.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And the other one was the medical
standards and you have covered that very well. Appreciate that.
The other point I think, you know, the lack of--your
testimony--the lack of officers permanent or seasonal--pardon
me, the resources and putting people at risk, whether they be
employees or visitors. How many additional, if you can,
permanent rangers do we need today to begin to address that
shortfall?
Mr. Waterman. Well, I will give you from Earl Devaney's
report in 2002, and it was subsequently by the Secretary of the
Interior at the time, they agreed that--Earl Devaney
recommended a minimum of 615 officers on top of what the
numbers were in 2002. We have decreased since 2003 200 more
officers. So if you take Earl Devaney's numbers, we would
suggest more than 800 just to get us at the minimum staffing
levels.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, and we spoke earlier, you were here, we
talked about the challenges that the officers, that law
enforcement has on our public lands, they have changed, and in
some areas the challenges are particularly difficult, and we
mentioned the border situation where my experience with your
colleagues there is that 100 percent of their time is spent
supporting the efforts of border patrol and homeland security,
and I really believe it is not just the need for additional
support there, but I think there is an overall understaffing in
this very critical position that we hope to be able to try to
address either budgetarily or through discussions with the
Secretary on that issue. Thank you for that today.
Mr. Austin, I thank you for your testimony and thank you
for the candid comments that you brought to us today. Do you
feel that adequate progress has been made to this date on
resolving some of the issues that you spoke about that the
officers have in the field? As of today is there progress going
forward?
Mr. Austin. As of today, there is progress going forward.
Probably not as quick as the membership would want, but there
is progress being made to address the issues and the concerns.
We are getting back. We have regular dialogues with the chief
and the management with the Park Police to----
Mr. Grijalva. What would you suggest is the most
important--one of the most important issues that is still left
that perhaps is not being dealt with as adequately as you or
your membership would like?
Mr. Austin. I think the one biggest would be the funding.
With the Park Police, we have--like I mentioned before--80
percent of your personnel cost go toward salary and benefits--I
am sorry, 80 percent of the budget goes toward salary and
benefits. It is 90 percent if you factor in the overtime with
the big large demonstrations and the uncontrolled overtime that
comes in. I believe with the National Park Service, they have
other funding sources that can absorb that cost should they
have overruns, but with the Park Police it is very difficult--
--
Mr. Grijalva. Fixed.
Mr. Austin. Yes, it is very difficult to do that, and I
think what the misconception is, is, you know, we are funded
properly to absorb a lot of unexpected expenditures when we are
actually not because the majority of our budget is going to
directly toward those personnel costs.
Mr. Grijalva. You noted a concern about key civilian
positions or vacancies in the department that are not being
filled. What do you perceive to be the obstacles in not filling
those positions? Budgetary?
Mr. Austin. That is going to be a budgetary issue and lack
of the actual people to process those applications that are
coming in because those are some of the people that we are
missing, and our personnel specialists, and without those it is
going to make it more difficult to hire the dispatchers that we
desperately need. We still do not have a safety officer after
several years, and we need some sort of contracting specialist,
and I know it is a problem that is systemic through the
Department of the Interior, but those are key positions that we
do need filled.
Mr. Grijalva. Well, I think both of you represent key
positions within our land agencies that we have to pay
particular attention to, and front-line in a lot of areas, and
so your testimony today about where we are at this point is
important.
Let me ask both of you, if I may, if you were to gauge,
describe the moral of the average officer you represent today
let us say versus a year ago.
Mr. Waterman. For me, it is based on the number of calls I
get. It is even worse. We thought it was bad last year. It is
even worse this year.
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Mr. Austin. For us, and we had the--I guess you can say--
fortune of having a rather scathing OIG report come in where it
sort of forced the hand of individuals to make changes.
Mr. Grijalva. It did.
Mr. Austin. So for the Park Police, we are cautiously
optimistic of the change, and again we want to make sure that
that is a long-term change and not the quick fix that some
people suspect that it may be.
Mr. Grijalva. One of the things in that report, I believe,
was the need to address the issue of an adequate centralized
record system.
Mr. Austin. Right.
Mr. Grijalva. And that obviously affects the officers in
the field and how they protect the resources. Where are we at
in response to that part of the scathing report?
Mr. Austin. They are working on it. I am aware that they
are working on it. As to how far they are actually getting, I
do not have that answer for you right now, but I know it is in
progress, and a lot of those recommendations that are in there,
in all fairness to the Chief, he is actually, you know,
committed to addressing those. So at some point a lot of those
are in progress, and we are doing our part to help them.
Mr. Grijalva. And without pointing a finger, I think it
would be for this Committee to ask for a progress report or
where we are on those recommendations. I think that is
something that we need to do as well.
I do not have any further questions. I want to thank you
for your time and when we scheduled this hearing it was in
response to individual request that members have had from their
constituents that happened to be also employees of our land
agencies, and also from the general sense that there was not
attention--enough attention being paid to rank and file
membership and what they are doing out in the field, and
certainly on the law enforcement side of not only the report,
but also issues that have come up with Park Service law
enforcement. So we appreciated this, and the follow up for us
is what are some legislative initiatives we need to take,
resource initiatives we need to take, and also the mechanism,
whether it is through the partnership that we talked about,
revitalizing that one again so that employees have some say in
the process of decisionmaking and in the process of setting the
mission.
We have very, very dedicated employees, and I want to share
the comments that others have made here. Very proud of them and
very proud of their service, and I think our public lands are
to some extent the face of our nation for visitors both here
and abroad, and I think we need to do as much as we can for the
people that keep that face going, to give them the resources,
the respect, and the time to help us manage these lands the way
they should be managed and protect our resources the way they
need to be protected.
So we will pursue these. Thank you for it, for the
testimony today, and the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]