Comments on: What kind of leadership does FEMA need? http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3591 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: James Annan http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3591&cpage=1#comment-1760 James Annan Mon, 12 Sep 2005 02:14:56 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3591#comment-1760 "Is this a problem of the ‘right’ scientific information not getting to the right people, e.g. President Bush and his staff?" Of course it isn't. They make their own reality, remember. "And if it is, how do we as researchers ensure that we get the right information about important leadership qualities to the right people in the future?" You can take the horse's ass to the fountain of knowledge (or vice-versa) but you can't make him drink. “Is this a problem of the ‘right’ scientific information not getting to the right people, e.g. President Bush and his staff?”

Of course it isn’t. They make their own reality, remember.

“And if it is, how do we as researchers ensure that we get the right information about important leadership qualities to the right people in the future?”

You can take the horse’s ass to the fountain of knowledge (or vice-versa) but you can’t make him drink.

]]> By: Dylan Otto Krider http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3591&cpage=1#comment-1759 Dylan Otto Krider Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:14:06 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3591#comment-1759 I think it's more than an issue of patronage. Patronage is inevitable to some extent. What I see here is more ideological: a view of what the Federal government's job is. I don't think this government thinks FEMA is something the government should be involved in. As we have seen time and again, agencies that conservatives don't believe in but are politically impossible to dismantle get used instead for PR or to reward contributors (as science is). For a sense of how many in the party view FEMA, look at the following from the 2000 Texas Republican platform: Civil Defense - America had a strong, grassroots-based civilian defense system with county level volunteers and local leadership from the World War I era until the establishment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Now local civil defense coordinators have been replaced with federally-controlled emergency management coordinators. The priority has changed from "defending" the citizens in an emergency to "managing" the citizens. The Party supports the restoration of our civil defense system. A non-partisan effort should be made to organize communication and emergency response training for citizens to assist in times of emergency, and the local county government should appoint a civilian defense coordinator. Elected county officials should be in charge of decisions affecting the local community. http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/10/14423/9876 Those in positions of power would rather see disaster relief handled by the states or contracted out and done by private entities. As with science, they think disaster relief should be limited to the private sector. What we see is a government that doesn't believe in governing in many areas. It shouldn't suprise it when they bungle in those areas. I think it’s more than an issue of patronage. Patronage is inevitable to some extent. What I see here is more ideological: a view of what the Federal government’s job is. I don’t think this government thinks FEMA is something the government should be involved in. As we have seen time and again, agencies that conservatives don’t believe in but are politically impossible to dismantle get used instead for PR or to reward contributors (as science is). For a sense of how many in the party view FEMA, look at the following from the 2000 Texas Republican platform:

Civil Defense – America had a strong, grassroots-based civilian defense system with county level volunteers and local leadership from the World War I era until the establishment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Now local civil defense coordinators have been replaced with federally-controlled emergency management coordinators. The priority has changed from “defending” the citizens in an emergency to “managing” the citizens. The Party supports the restoration of our civil defense system. A non-partisan effort should be made to organize communication and emergency response training for citizens to assist in times of emergency, and the local county government should appoint a civilian defense coordinator. Elected county officials should be in charge of decisions affecting the local community.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/10/14423/9876

Those in positions of power would rather see disaster relief handled by the states or contracted out and done by private entities. As with science, they think disaster relief should be limited to the private sector. What we see is a government that doesn’t believe in governing in many areas. It shouldn’t suprise it when they bungle in those areas.

]]> By: Harold Brooks http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3591&cpage=1#comment-1758 Harold Brooks Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:02:08 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3591#comment-1758 I think one of the issues is that Presidents and their staves have some areas that they put high priority on, and others that just have to be filled. In his autobiography, Bill Clinton talked about how the reaction of people he talked to in Florida about FEMA's response to Andrew in 1992 convinced him that FEMA was a very important appointment. I don't remember the exact words but he said something along the lines of how most people don't pay much attention to the government's preparation and response plans for disasters, but if a disaster happens, it becomes the one thing that the affected people remember. I don't think FEMA has been a priority except for Clinton and the choice of James Lee Witt. The person who I had hoped who get picked originally by President Bush for that job (and would be great to get now, if he's willing to consider it) is Craig Fugate, the EM director in Florida. His career looks a lot like Witt, he's well-respected in the community, and he was appointed by the President's brother to be the state EM director. There are people out there, but the selecting officials have to think it's important to get someone good in the position. If Katrina hadn't happened, we might well have skated through without the lack of expertise being exposed. I think one of the issues is that Presidents and their staves have some areas that they put high priority on, and others that just have to be filled. In his autobiography, Bill Clinton talked about how the reaction of people he talked to in Florida about FEMA’s response to Andrew in 1992 convinced him that FEMA was a very important appointment. I don’t remember the exact words but he said something along the lines of how most people don’t pay much attention to the government’s preparation and response plans for disasters, but if a disaster happens, it becomes the one thing that the affected people remember.

I don’t think FEMA has been a priority except for Clinton and the choice of James Lee Witt. The person who I had hoped who get picked originally by President Bush for that job (and would be great to get now, if he’s willing to consider it) is Craig Fugate, the EM director in Florida. His career looks a lot like Witt, he’s well-respected in the community, and he was appointed by the President’s brother to be the state EM director.

There are people out there, but the selecting officials have to think it’s important to get someone good in the position. If Katrina hadn’t happened, we might well have skated through without the lack of expertise being exposed.

]]>