FEMA...on the job training?

[wxcrazytwo]

Not to debunk any of the above arguments, but at these levels everyone must be experienced. We cannot afford to allow people in higher places not to have experience. Experience means life or death, and we know in Katrina's wake what that means sadly enough..

[Terry]

RichG wrote:

If you ever work in government you will find that the director, secretary whomever the political appointees are,- almost NEVER have any experience in whatever the mission of the particualr agency. Quite frankly a good manager is a good manager it doesn't matter what the field is.

The problem with that line of thinking is that evidently Michael Brown didn't even have the managerial experience he claimed to have.

From Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 03,00.html

"On the job training" is not something I expect for officials at the highest levels of government who oversee such critical agencies and huge budgets.... especially in light of all of the reorganization done after 9/11.

[cmdebbie]

Nearly all large private corporations and Federal Agencies have people at the helm that don't have expertise in the field or fields that their organizations specialize in. While the article may indeed be factual it's irrelevent except for political mud-slinging purposes IMO. What is important is the question of how these people led their agency and the decisions that they made in response to this disaster.

What we saw last year in Florida was when the local and state governments do their job and then work hand in hand with FEMA and the volunteer organizations, things get done. Was it perfect? Absolutely not. Last year there was a lot of criticizm about slow response, paperwork etc but things got done. The New Orleans situation is just the opposite.

Great Post!!!

[oneness]

That may be, but I'm not buying it though.

Let's see, an organisation with huge budget, massive national responsibility ... the military fits that picture.

Does the military not utilise the most competent people of proven merit in their field, Generals Admirals, Air Marshalls etc., working with a professional and highly trained and experienced staff? Are they subsequently efficient, effective and get things done? Isn't it that way because you can't allow incompetance to creep into a critical service?

Managers are fine for a supermarket, but for a national emergency agency you might want someone with more than a bit of an idea about such things.

(otherwise Generals could be replaced with managers who have no combat training or experience)

[mf_dolphin]

Not to debunk any of the above arguments, but at these levels everyone must be experienced. We cannot afford to allow people in higher places not to have experience. Experience means life or death, and we know in Katrina's wake what that means sadly enough..

I'm sorry but that's bull. How many of our President's haven't had military experience and yet they are Commander in Chief of the world's most powerful armed forces. By your statement then only ex-military members could become President. Agency heads are primarily executive administrators and managers. The larger the organization the further removed the executives are from the line tasks of the agency. This goes for both the government and private sector.

[oneness]

... Agency heads are primarily executive administrators and managers. The larger the organization the further removed the executives are from the line tasks of the agency. This goes for both the government and private sector.

But could this be a significant contributor in the disconnect between the decision makers and citizen's plight after Katrina? A lack of appreciation at the top for what was happening? Many locals and local government seemed to think so.

[stormie_skies]

This seems to be coming down to two different schools of thought on what kind of leadership FEMA should have, what kind of role those leaders should play and where "management" should stop and "experience" should begin.

I understand that many departments in government are headed by "managers" (aka political allies/friends) and always have been, but I think the requirements (and our expectations) should change depending on the level of power and importance of the department, as well as the proximity of the leader to the "action." While I don't particularly care if our ambassador to Poland is the vice president's golf buddy, I personally would like to see people in positions of serious life or death action be a little more familiar with the territory.

And the need for some level of experience and knowledge doesn't end with the head honcho - the people below him should know their stuff, too. No, military experience is not required to be Commander in Chief - if we required the President to have personal experience in every area he oversees, we would never find anyone qualified enough! But the President is surrounded by advisors who are career military men, who have decades of experience planning and strategizing and who are willing and able to help the President understand a situation and make informed decisions. According to the Chicago Tribune, Brown doesn't seem to have that, either:

Before joining FEMA in 2001, Brown, a protege of longtime Bush aide Joseph Allbaugh, was commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association and had virtually no experience in disaster management.
An official biography of Brown's top aide, acting deputy director Patrick Rhode, doesn't list disaster relief experience.
The department's No. 3 official, acting deputy chief of staff Brooks Altshuler, also does not have emergency management experience, according to FEMA spokeswoman Natalie Rule.

I guess IMO the ability to manage can only go so far. Someone at the top needs to both know and understand what is going on on the ground. And it worries me that I don't see anyone with that experience here....

[mf_dolphin]

It seems you contradict yourself. Here you say (highlighted)

... but I think the requirements (and our expectations) should change depending on the level of power and importance of the department, as well as the proximity of the leader to the "action." While I don't particularly care if our ambassador to Poland is the vice president's golf buddy, I personally would like to see people in positions of serious life or death action be a little more familiar with the territory.

and yet here you say.

... No, military experience is not required to be Commander in Chief - if we required the President to have personal experience in every area he oversees, we would never find anyone qualified enough!

We're not talking about every area but this is one of the prime responsibilities of the POTUS. The head of FEMA's responsibilites are primarily policy, budget and organization. Where does that require or dictate experience in the disaster management arena?

... But the President is surrounded by advisors who are career military men, who have decades of experience planning and strategizing and who are willing and able to help the President understand a situation and make informed decisions.

While the article stated that there has been some experience lost in the agency this isn't abnormal either. The implication is that this contributed to the situation but no where does anyone cite specific examples.

I guess IMO the ability to manage can only go so far. Someone at the top needs to both know and understand what is going on on the ground. And it worries me that I don't see anyone with that experience here....

And I guess you've looked at FEMA's organization and personel through something other than this one article to make that determination? If not then your statement is unfounded my opinion.

[streetsoldier]

Before I accepted the post of Director of Emergency Services for the City of Cool Valley, MO (north St. Louis County), I'd already had experience in USAF, St. Louis MPD and as a SAR team / Squadron Commander on Group II Staff in Civil Air Patrol. Add the FEMA training at the state and national levels, and I was about as well-qualified as they come.

The problem was (and still is) that FEMA people either "die on the vine" from lack of use, cut funding, etc., or are "burned out" within a matter of a few years...dealing with red tape, contradictory demands/authority (as in NOLA right now), and having to WAIT for someone to call us/them in..which sometimes happens in a timely fashion, and more often not.

I hear a host of complaints about FEMA in these posts...yet, have any of the loudest ever BEEN involved in managing an emergency crisis center?
I have...let's hear it from others who have "been there" first.

[wxcrazytwo]

Not to debunk any of the above arguments, but at these levels everyone must be experienced. We cannot afford to allow people in higher places not to have experience. Experience means life or death, and we know in Katrina's wake what that means sadly enough..

I'm sorry but that's bull. How many of our President's haven't had military experience and yet they are Commander in Chief of the world's most powerful armed forces. By your statement then only ex-military members could become President. Agency heads are primarily executive administrators and managers. The larger the organization the further removed the executives are from the line tasks of the agency. This goes for both the government and private sector.

MF, they are commaned in chief, because they are the president of the U.S.A. They are placed in that position by the exact nature of their presidency, that is why they have other military ranking members advise him. I am sorry experienced military members advising him. HS is no different. Experience counts for everything. This is not the time to place people in positions where the matter of national security or protecting the pubkic is at stake. You don't see Chrysler, Microsoft, and other big companies hiring CEO'S from elementary schools or for that matter cattle ranches do ya? No sir re...

[luvwinter]

Although the local and state officials were responsible for the intial planning and response which they failed at miserably IMHO, there should be something within guidelines that allows Fema to come in without having to be asked when it is obvious that local and state officials can't or won't handle the crisis situation. If there is such a guidline then it was not followed. The other thing I have read a lot of is that supplies, help and other things sent to aid in the recovery effort have been turned away at some point in differen't areas. What is up with that? Street soldier mentioned in his post "red tape". That should never get in the way of saving someones life. Also the people who are in the top positions at Fema should have some crisis management experience because managing a disaster is like running an emergency crisis center. Training arabian horses does not equate to or qualify someone to run Fema. As I said in my earlier post it is like having a banker in charge of the Department of Homeland Security. Scary.

[mf_dolphin]

I'll respond to what of that makes sense to me.

MF, they are commaned in chief, because they are the president of the U.S.A. They are placed in that position by the exact nature of their presidency, that is why they have other military ranking members advise him. I am sorry experienced military members advising him. HS is no different. Experience counts for everything. This is not the time to place people in positions where the matter of national security or protecting the pubkic is at stake.

The Director of FEMA has professional disaster experts advising him as well so what's your point?

You don't see Chrysler, Microsoft, and other big companies hiring CEO'S from elementary schools or for that matter cattle ranches do ya? No sir re...

CEO's of a lot of major corporations have NO experience in their companies fields either. A large portion of major bank presidents are lawyers by trade as an example. Obviously you need to check on the background of major corporate CEO's before making such an inaccurate statement.

[wxcrazytwo]

I'll respond to what of that makes sense to me.

MF, they are commaned in chief, because they are the president of the U.S.A. They are placed in that position by the exact nature of their presidency, that is why they have other military ranking members advise him. I am sorry experienced military members advising him. HS is no different. Experience counts for everything. This is not the time to place people in positions where the matter of national security or protecting the pubkic is at stake.

The Director of FEMA has professional disaster experts advising him as well so what's your point?

You don't see Chrysler, Microsoft, and other big companies hiring CEO'S from elementary schools or for that matter cattle ranches do ya? No sir re...

CEO's of a lot of major corporations have NO experience in their companies fields either. A large portion of major bank presidents are lawyers by trade as an example. Obviously you need to check on the background of major corporate CEO's before making such an inaccurate statement.

I am not going to check each and every CEO, because the majority of them have extensive business backgrounds sufficient to run a company. The experts advising the FEMA director don't have the experience either. Might as well pick my sons 5th grade elementary class to run FEMA. All I am saying is experience counts in the most important of places. Also, lawyers have business experience, especially in banking. At least I would hope they do..

[cjrciadt]

FEMA Director Mike Brown removed right now, Breaking News on the cable networks.

[Praxus]

Dolphin your point is clear. But lets go to the example of the president.
Although usually without senior military experience; they have highly
qualified advisors. Yet apparently its not just the head of FEMA with no
related experience - but the 2 next guys below him as well !
Thats like the national security advisor and the head of the joint chiefs
both not having military experience either ! (or the head of the joint chiefs
and the head of the army...whatever, you get the picture !)

[luvwinter]

The point is that his is not a major corporation but a federal agency that deals in response to natural disasters which affect many lives. It is a life and death situation not a dollars and cents situation. If he is beig advised by people who are experts in the field then Fema should have done a better job in their response to this crisis. Experience in this field would be invaluable to the agency and if the people are more qualified who advise him then they should be heading Fema.

[stormie_skies]

It seems you contradict yourself. Here you say (highlighted)

Alright, you got me there. I should have said the "organization's leadership," and not just one leader. If Brown had a resume filled with glowing recommendations of his management skills, and if he surrounded himself with people that know the business he is in and have shown themselves to be proficient, I would be much more accepting, even if he was still largely a political appointee.

The head of FEMA's responsibilites are primarily policy, budget and organization. Where does that require or dictate experience in the disaster management arena?

From the FEMA Mission Statement:

On March 1, 2003, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). FEMA's continuing mission within the new department is to lead the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation activities, trains first responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administration.

http://www.fema.gov/about/

Proactive mitigation activities? Preparing the nation for all hazards? Training first responders??? That sounds like more than policy, budget and organization to me .... that is direct involvement with the situation on the ground, isn't it?

While the article stated that there has been some experience lost in the agency this isn't abnormal either. The implication is that this contributed to the situation but no where does anyone cite specific examples.

I don't understand what kind of specific examples you would want. A lot of people think FEMA (at least in part) bungled this one. Assuming they did, I think it is reasonable to wonder if FEMA's leader's lack of relevant experience was a factor. If, in the end, other factors are far more to blame, then so be it. But I don't see any harm in bringing all doubts and issues to the table here.....

And I guess you've looked at FEMA's organization and personel through something other than this one article to make that determination? If not then your statement is unfounded my opinion.

Actually, this isn't the first or only article I've seen discussing this issue. The Washington Post has one:

Five of eight top Federal Emergency Management Agency officials came to their posts with virtually no experience in handling disasters and now lead an agency whose ranks of seasoned crisis managers have thinned dramatically since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

FEMA's top three leaders -- Director Michael D. Brown, Chief of Staff Patrick J. Rhode and Deputy Chief of Staff Brooks D. Altshuler -- arrived with ties to President Bush's 2000 campaign or to the White House advance operation, according to the agency. Two other senior operational jobs are filled by a former Republican lieutenant governor of Nebraska and a U.S. Chamber of Commerce official who was once a political operative.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9261552/

Time Magazine also has a spread on the issue.




Hmmm....it seems Brown is being sent back to Washington....I wonder if the new leader on the ground will have a little more experience. Here's betting (and hoping) they do...

[streetsoldier]

In another post, the new EOC command is going to a Coast Guard Vice-Admiral.

[mf_dolphin]

I am not going to check each and every CEO, because the majority of them have extensive business backgrounds sufficient to run a company. The experts advising the FEMA director don't have the experience either.

I ask that you defend that last statement. The top two under him don't but do you know what their roles are? The blanket state you made doesn't hold water.

Also, lawyers have business experience, especially in banking. At least I would hope they do..

Lawyers get banking experience from running banks not the other way around. The reason they become bank presidents has more to do with the fact that they know how to weed through the legal mumbo jumbo in banking regulations. Most know little or nothing about banking as a business.

[mf_dolphin]

Alright, you got me there. I should have said the "organization's leadership," and not just one leader. If Brown had a resume filled with glowing recommendations of his management skills, and if he surrounded himself with people that know the business he is in and have shown themselves to be proficient, I would be much more accepting, even if he was still largely a political appointee.

You still haven't shown where he doesn't have people surrounding him that are experts.

The head of FEMA's responsibilites are primarily policy, budget and organization. Where does that require or dictate experience in the disaster management arena?

From the FEMA Mission Statement:

On March 1, 2003, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). FEMA's continuing mission within the new department is to lead the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation activities, trains first responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administration.

http://www.fema.gov/about/

Proactive mitigation activities? Preparing the nation for all hazards? Training first responders??? That sounds like more than policy, budget and organization to me .... that is direct involvement with the situation on the ground, isn't it?

Since when is an agency's Mission Statement the job description for the agency head? My statement was about the head of FEMA's responsibilities. Don't get me wrong, if he's not qualified to manage FEMA he should be removed. My point is that the head of any agency level department doesn't have to have direct experience in that agency's domin per se. He must be a great administrator and manager.

I don't understand what kind of specific examples you would want. A lot of people think FEMA (at least in part) bungled this one. Assuming they did, I think it is reasonable to wonder if FEMA's leader's lack of relevant experience was a factor. If, in the end, other factors are far more to blame, then so be it. But I don't see any harm in bringing all doubts and issues to the table here.....

My issue is that the cart is being place in front of the horse. You find out first what went wrong and then why and then correct it. Until we know what happened, when it happened and who made the decisions then saying that he had no experience in the field is just speculation.

]And I guess you've looked at FEMA's organization and personel through something other than this one article to make that determination? If not then your statement is unfounded my opinion.

Actually, this isn't the first or only article I've seen discussing this issue. The Washington Post has one:
...

Multiple writters reporting on the same piece of information isn't having a second source or even exercising critical thinking. Again I ask, have you researched the FEMA organization and looked at the qualifications of the critical staff?

Hmmm....it seems Brown is being sent back to Washington....I wonder if the new leader on the ground will have a little more experience. Here's betting (and hoping) they do...

The leader "on the ground" should never have been the administrative head of the agency to begin with. If the stories about his resume are accurate he should be fired for lying. If the investigation about the Federal response finds that he screwed up in his role he should be fired. Other than that I'll wait to understand what really happened before I reach a conclusion....