Comments on: Making meaning of the QHSR http://www.hlswatch.com/2009/08/07/making-meaning-of-the-qhsr/ News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security today. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:03:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: William R. Cumming http://www.hlswatch.com/2009/08/07/making-meaning-of-the-qhsr/comment-page-1/#comment-136176 William R. Cumming Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:52:28 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=5108#comment-136176 Great comment Arnold and as always the tension between the generalist and specialist. My thinking is as follows: DHS has not really set up in a fashion to integrate technical, scientific, or legal or medical expertise into its Emergency Public Information ops (THIS IS NOT PUBLIC AFFAIRS) and the issuance of Protective Action Decisions or even Recommendations. Why not? Because DHS has failed to recognize it role in establishment of a civil crisis managment and response system or even a civil crisis managment chain-of-command. So now where highly technical information must be transplanted into the publics mind in many cases rapidly, DHS is just the wrong department to be in the lead. I also keep thinking I heard the President indicate some constant White House level coordination point from now on back during the so-called Swine Flu Summit in early July but I could be wrong. This is not a case of who is in charge but who can do it. The Hill (Congress) absolutely refuses on a continuing basis to make clear that the STAFFORD ACT does or does not apply assuming a Presidential declaration to the PANDEMIC FLU situation. This is more about committee perogratives and rivalrys than making sure the American people get what they need. GAO in its most recent published and verbal testimony to Congress continues to identify defects in federal/state/local arrangements for PANFLU. Even the announced guidance and criteria have not been fully met by those required or suggested to do so. But hey schools are about to open and then we shall see what we shall see. Great comment Arnold and as always the tension between the generalist and specialist. My thinking is as follows: DHS has not really set up in a fashion to integrate technical, scientific, or legal or medical expertise into its Emergency Public Information ops (THIS IS NOT PUBLIC AFFAIRS) and the issuance of Protective Action Decisions or even Recommendations. Why not? Because DHS has failed to recognize it role in establishment of a civil crisis managment and response system or even a civil crisis managment chain-of-command. So now where highly technical information must be transplanted into the publics mind in many cases rapidly, DHS is just the wrong department to be in the lead. I also keep thinking I heard the President indicate some constant White House level coordination point from now on back during the so-called Swine Flu Summit in early July but I could be wrong. This is not a case of who is in charge but who can do it. The Hill (Congress) absolutely refuses on a continuing basis to make clear that the STAFFORD ACT does or does not apply assuming a Presidential declaration to the PANDEMIC FLU situation. This is more about committee perogratives and rivalrys than making sure the American people get what they need. GAO in its most recent published and verbal testimony to Congress continues to identify defects in federal/state/local arrangements for PANFLU. Even the announced guidance and criteria have not been fully met by those required or suggested to do so. But hey schools are about to open and then we shall see what we shall see.

]]> By: Arnold Bogis http://www.hlswatch.com/2009/08/07/making-meaning-of-the-qhsr/comment-page-1/#comment-136169 Arnold Bogis Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:55:11 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=5108#comment-136169 Just throwing this out there for conversation or silent contemplation: if we really want a federal agency that has the lead for all-hazards "homeland security," shouldn't DHS take the lead in pan-flu? CDC represents the SME, as DOE would in a nuclear scenario. But while both have extensive contacts around the country, they are limited in scope in each state to particular agencies and/or industries. While I'm not suggesting we are there yet, I do wonder if the hope is that DHS will be eventually take the primary role of conductor able to pull in relevant federal agencies depending on the situation, with a breadth of reach to and among the states that will be optimal in our Constitutionally mandated form of government. Just throwing this out there for conversation or silent contemplation: if we really want a federal agency that has the lead for all-hazards “homeland security,” shouldn’t DHS take the lead in pan-flu? CDC represents the SME, as DOE would in a nuclear scenario. But while both have extensive contacts around the country, they are limited in scope in each state to particular agencies and/or industries.

While I’m not suggesting we are there yet, I do wonder if the hope is that DHS will be eventually take the primary role of conductor able to pull in relevant federal agencies depending on the situation, with a breadth of reach to and among the states that will be optimal in our Constitutionally mandated form of government.

]]> By: William R. Cumming http://www.hlswatch.com/2009/08/07/making-meaning-of-the-qhsr/comment-page-1/#comment-136150 William R. Cumming Sat, 08 Aug 2009 10:17:41 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=5108#comment-136150 I now also note that CDC has issued school guidance but don't remember if cited by DHS or not. In any case, recommend you break the glass and pull the CDC alarm box not the one marked DHS with respect to PANDEMIC FLU! I now also note that CDC has issued school guidance but don’t remember if cited by DHS or not. In any case, recommend you break the glass and pull the CDC alarm box not the one marked DHS with respect to PANDEMIC FLU!

]]> By: William R. Cumming http://www.hlswatch.com/2009/08/07/making-meaning-of-the-qhsr/comment-page-1/#comment-136142 William R. Cumming Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:51:18 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=5108#comment-136142 Am I crazy or do I remember a White House announcement of some kind of Pandemic Flu Czar or control mechanism? If so hope they concurred in the school guidance also. Am I crazy or do I remember a White House announcement of some kind of Pandemic Flu Czar or control mechanism? If so hope they concurred in the school guidance also.

]]> By: William R. Cumming http://www.hlswatch.com/2009/08/07/making-meaning-of-the-qhsr/comment-page-1/#comment-136141 William R. Cumming Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:48:33 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=5108#comment-136141 I note that DHS has issued guidance for schools and pandemic Flu! Personally I wish it had come from HHS/CDC or even Dept of Education. After all as far as I know DHS and FEMA don't do school preparedness at least until the recent Fugate initiative on children is finished. What I find most interesting and defective about the DHS guidance is that it gives no indication that it was reviewed and approved by other components in DHS (the issuing office was a bit unusual for a real world event and guidance that I would consider in the vein of highly technical Emergency Public Information not public affairs routine)! And of course hoping Dept of ED and HHS/CDC also approved and concurred in the guidance and DHS issuing it. This is real world folks and so far I am not confident the Administration is really on top of things but could be wrong as always and hoping for a really topnotch performance. If I was the Secretary DHS, HHS, or ED I would start the morning briefings off with a status report on schools. Expect the southern tier states to have schools and colleges impacted the first after the middle of August. I note that DHS has issued guidance for schools and pandemic Flu! Personally I wish it had come from HHS/CDC or even Dept of Education. After all as far as I know DHS and FEMA don’t do school preparedness at least until the recent Fugate initiative on children is finished. What I find most interesting and defective about the DHS guidance is that it gives no indication that it was reviewed and approved by other components in DHS (the issuing office was a bit unusual for a real world event and guidance that I would consider in the vein of highly technical Emergency Public Information not public affairs routine)! And of course hoping Dept of ED and HHS/CDC also approved and concurred in the guidance and DHS issuing it. This is real world folks and so far I am not confident the Administration is really on top of things but could be wrong as always and hoping for a really topnotch performance. If I was the Secretary DHS, HHS, or ED I would start the morning briefings off with a status report on schools. Expect the southern tier states to have schools and colleges impacted the first after the middle of August.

]]> By: William R. Cumming http://www.hlswatch.com/2009/08/07/making-meaning-of-the-qhsr/comment-page-1/#comment-136138 William R. Cumming Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:05:16 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=5108#comment-136138 I would hope this review process would identify the current HS principles under which DHS operates! For example, why no mention of preserving the Constitution and civil liberties and privacy in any of this discourse. But hey there is still time brother (as read from the Neville Schute novel “On the Beach” as the film closed out the end of human existence in Australia.) If we know what the current principles of HS are then perhaps we can articulate their validity or defects and if the latter change them. E.G. how do the principles of border control, immigration enforcement relate to each other? Is this intuitive or counter intuitive as I believe the latter. Other answers might equally be valid. As for counterterrorism and domestic security management are these related, if so how, and if not why not? Also what is their definition? Where is resilience in any of this discourse assuming what is is what is sought to be preserved and not reformed or changed somehow. Here is an Executive Branch organization that does not know its own authorities, its own staffing (Ihave always doubted the figure of 220,000 FTE's), its budget, nor has it identified for management all the unauthorized programs, functions, or activities it undertakes, some of which I agree with for example CERT! Why has DHS never sent up CERT authorizing language? Why does DHS itself not comply with NIMS? Is it because its a FEMA concept? Where is DHS analysis of its unfunded mandates? How are statistics gathered in DHS? Who decides what will be gathered? Are their professional statisticians analyzing the statistics gathered. How many executives in DHS know all of DHS programs, functions and activities? How many have security clearances and why do they have them? Because they want them? Do they really need them? Is DHS stovepiped and Why or Why not? How come training centers are buried and why not a Training Directorate that runs them all and prevents duplication and overlap or even more important makes sense of the curricula. Hoping that the review will establish where there are none the basic principles under which DHS operates? Why no adovating spin off of non-DHS related programs or is this just another agency that wants more more and more staff and programs. Does what DHS does now make any sense. How many self-initiated evaluations of its programs have been done in DHS or does it just rely on its OIG and GAO for comprehensive evaluation? I could argue and probably do at this point that as currently constructed because DHS is so lacking in real transparency that almost nothing substantive will come out of this review process except perhaps some window dressing. Personally for example I would double the size of the funding and staffing of the Coast Guard based on current missions or else cut back those missions. Today the Coasties are overmissioned IMO! FEMA is a joke with chronic underfunding for preparedness and mitigation and understaffing for response and recovery. TSA is inherently defective as long as it does not control the passenger terminals of various kinds of transportation systems. It does not do transportation security but it does well public presence by disruption of travel! The S&T Directorate? What does it state are its biggest accomplishments? Why not micro grants and contracts instead of paralleling DOD R&D? If this mandate for review was not statutory would DHS do it? Probably not but this could be a key management tool. How about a system of soliciting employee suggestions where there is a cutout system so employees cannot be punished for their suggestions? Or and it would help if each of the persons submitting suggestions indicate if they or their firms are grant recipients or contractors for DHS! I don't want to prevent their commenting just want disclosure. Fianlly where is the formal DHS position on each of the above problems and processes? IBM just got out a nice piece on risk assessment and DHS but as far as as I know so far only a Risk Lexicon has been published by DHS but not sure if adopted department wide. As to the second process, HS planning and capabilities make the following comment. PREPAREDNESS includes plans and capabilities include systems, processes, personnel, equipment, training and other factors based on some baseline criteria. So what is the event or events that DHS seems to think it has the plans and capability to do? Is it a NUDET in a major US metropolitan area? Is it a virulent PANDEMIC flu? Is it completely in harness with HHS and CDC on H1N1? I would like to see a listing of all funded and non-funded MOU's between DHS components and then of course including IAA's with all the rest of the Executive Branch? What exactly is management in DHS curious about? Or are they punished for having curiousity? Exactly who in the department knows exactly what it can do and when it can do it and of course that great problem when should they do it? I would have been happier for example if DHS has stated on the record that Secretary DHS should not be the PFO for Pandemic Flu under HSPD-5 and that should be the Secretary DHS. And then I would totally find out what staff and funding could be given to HHS/CDC should it be needed. This is not the who is in charge issue but the who can do it and is most capable issue? I would hope this review process would identify the current HS principles under which DHS operates! For example, why no mention of preserving the Constitution and civil liberties and privacy in any of this discourse. But hey there is still time brother (as read from the Neville Schute novel “On the Beach” as the film closed out the end of human existence in Australia.)

If we know what the current principles of HS are then perhaps we can articulate their validity or defects and if the latter change them. E.G. how do the principles of border control, immigration enforcement relate to each other? Is this intuitive or counter intuitive as I believe the latter.

Other answers might equally be valid. As for counterterrorism and domestic security management are these related, if so how, and if not why not? Also what is their definition? Where is resilience in any of this discourse assuming what is is what is sought to be preserved and not reformed or changed somehow. Here is an Executive Branch organization that does not know its own authorities, its own staffing (Ihave always doubted the figure of 220,000 FTE’s), its budget, nor has it identified for management all the unauthorized programs, functions, or activities it undertakes, some of which I agree with for example CERT! Why has DHS never sent up CERT authorizing language?

Why does DHS itself not comply with NIMS? Is it because its a FEMA concept? Where is DHS analysis of its unfunded mandates? How are statistics gathered in DHS? Who decides what will be gathered? Are their professional statisticians analyzing the statistics gathered. How many executives in DHS know all of DHS programs, functions and activities? How many have security clearances and why do they have them? Because they want them? Do they really need them? Is DHS stovepiped and Why or Why not? How come training centers are buried and why not a Training Directorate that runs them all and prevents duplication and overlap or even more important makes sense of the curricula.

Hoping that the review will establish where there are none the basic principles under which DHS operates? Why no adovating spin off of non-DHS related programs or is this just another agency that wants more more and more staff and programs. Does what DHS does now make any sense. How many self-initiated evaluations of its programs have been done in DHS or does it just rely on its OIG and GAO for comprehensive evaluation?

I could argue and probably do at this point that as currently constructed because DHS is so lacking in real transparency that almost nothing substantive will come out of this review process except perhaps some window dressing. Personally for example I would double the size of the funding and staffing of the Coast Guard based on current missions or else cut back those missions. Today the Coasties are overmissioned IMO! FEMA is a joke with chronic underfunding for preparedness and mitigation and understaffing for response and recovery. TSA is inherently defective as long as it does not control the passenger terminals of various kinds of transportation systems. It does not do transportation security but it does well public presence by disruption of travel!

The S&T Directorate? What does it state are its biggest accomplishments? Why not micro grants and contracts instead of paralleling DOD R&D? If this mandate for review was not statutory would DHS do it? Probably not but this could be a key management tool. How about a system of soliciting employee suggestions where there is a cutout system so employees cannot be punished for their suggestions? Or and it would help if each of the persons submitting suggestions indicate if they or their firms are grant recipients or contractors for DHS! I don’t want to prevent their commenting just want disclosure.

Fianlly where is the formal DHS position on each of the above problems and processes? IBM just got out a nice piece on risk assessment and DHS but as far as as I know so far only a Risk Lexicon has been published by DHS but not sure if adopted department wide.

As to the second process, HS planning and capabilities make the following comment. PREPAREDNESS includes plans and capabilities include systems, processes, personnel, equipment, training and other factors based on some baseline criteria. So what is the event or events that DHS seems to think it has the plans and capability to do? Is it a NUDET in a major US metropolitan area? Is it a virulent PANDEMIC flu? Is it completely in harness with HHS and CDC on H1N1?

I would like to see a listing of all funded and non-funded MOU’s between DHS components and then of course including IAA’s with all the rest of the Executive Branch? What exactly is management in DHS curious about? Or are they punished for having curiousity? Exactly who in the department knows exactly what it can do and when it can do it and of course that great problem when should they do it? I would have been happier for example if DHS has stated on the record that Secretary DHS should not be the PFO for Pandemic Flu under HSPD-5 and that should be the Secretary DHS. And then I would totally find out what staff and funding could be given to HHS/CDC should it be needed. This is not the who is in charge issue but the who can do it and is most capable issue?

]]>