Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

October 30, 2006

New book looks at management of DHS

Filed under: Organizational Issues — by Christian Beckner on October 30, 2006

The Post’s Stephen Barr reviews a new book entitled “Meeting the Challenge of 9/11: Blueprints for More Effective Government” today, one which he argues provides important lessons for the leaders of the Department of Homeland Security. His review focuses on a chapter of the book on the role of the Undersecretary of Management at DHS:

Dean and Ink discuss the importance of having a senior official in large agencies focused on management issues — such as accounting and finance, procurement, personnel, technology and property. They point to the undersecretary of management in the Department of Homeland Security as the kind of post that can help a Cabinet secretary succeed in pulling together internal operations.

As part of their review of the undersecretary’s job at Homeland Security, they recommend that the department ensure the job, which will probably be held by a political appointee, has a sidekick from the career ranks who can provide continuity during presidential transitions.

Dean and Ink also contend that too many jobs in the Homeland Security undersecretary’s office have been reserved for political appointees. “With respect to fighting terrorism overseas, there is recognition of the value of depending on professional career military leaders who serve under a small number of political policy leaders in Washington. Why should professional career leadership be any less critical for protecting our homeland against terrorism?” they ask.

They add, “It is essential that the management of homeland security not be politicized.”

That, however, appears to be happening. Members of Congress have questioned whether the position of undersecretary is needed at Homeland Security, in part because the deputy secretary has a strong hand in day-to-day operations. Congress also has cut funding requests for the undersecretary’s office, usually to reorder priorities. (Only one person has ever held the undersecretary position, and she left in May.)

This last paragraph is a correct assessment of the current conventional wisdom about the role of an Undersecretary for Management, confirmed by the fact that DHS hasn’t shown any real urgency to replace Janet Hale over the last seven months, since March when she announced her resignation. I think there is still an unsettled debate about whether this position is necessary, or if instead it’s more appropriate for the other C-level officials at DHS – CFO, CIO, CHCO – to report directly to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary. From an organizational design perspective, I’m inclined to favor the latter perspective, since the CFO, CIO, and CHCO need direct access to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the org chart if key initiatives are going to get the attention and priority that they deserve. If these officials are two levels away from the Secretary’s office on the org chart (and compounding the problem, in offices across town) then it’s more likely that key Department-wide financial, human capital, and IT initiatives will languish.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

1 Comment »

Comment by William R. Cumming

October 31, 2006 @ 6:48 am

The span of control of the DHS Secretary is far too large. Nonetheless, filling a management role with a political appointee is madness. The IRS which is not an independent agency used to have two political appointees, the Commissioner and the Chief Counsel. Typically the Deputy was selected by each Commissioner with concurrence by the Secretary of the Treasury from the ranks of the senior career civil service with the understanding that retirement followed service in the position. Typically this worked rather well because the person was knowledgable but the political management was comfortable with the choice. Each Commissioner could pick his/her deputy. Perhaps a similar system should be tried in DHS. As of today, DHS has over 600 non-career positions including PAS, Non-career SES, and schedule C positions. This should be capped by statute and reassessed to keep DHS from being a political dumping ground. Also the career track of the civil service in DHS should include potential consideration for filling political jobs. Since 1979 when President Jimmy Carter created the SES, there are far more career SES employees picked during Republican Adminstrations than Democratic ones. I make this point only because placement in a Career SES position can be politicized and usually is. A new system where Career SES with appropriate expertise, perhaps even from other agencies, should rank candidates (typcially HR offices do that now) and then the finalists can be picked by the political infrastructure. As of today, most CAREER SES jobs should be considered to be fully politicized and therefore on the whole the people of the US don’t get what they paid for, non-partisan expertise.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>