Question regarding the longevity of the current DHS leadership
 

Hi folks,
Let me start by saying that I have limited knowledge when it comes to things political and I can't remember much of what I learned in my high school government classes. That being said:

My understanding is that with each new president, comes a new appointee for the position currently held by Comrade Napolitano. If we were to elect a new president in '12, would that mean that we would most likely get rid of Frau Napolitano?

If so, I know this is no guarantee that things will change. After all, look at what happened when we went from Herr Hawley to Pistole. But is there a chance that a new administration could lead DHS in a lawful and reasonable manner?

The DHS secretary and the TSA administrator are appointed by the president, subject to confirmation by the Senate. A new president, certainly a Republican, would normally request the resignations of all such appointees (who number in the thousands!). Whether they would be replaced by anyone better is an open question. Remember that their predecessors were appointed by Republican George W. Bush. Then again, Obama has not delivered on his promises to "change" things. I certainly will vote to make him a one-term president.

Bruce

Hi Bruce,
Thanks for your answer. Without getting into too much political territory, the bolded part above is what I find disturbing. As much as I absolutely despise George W. Bush, I would think that as a Republican he would have stood for less government. Then again, as president on 9/11 I suppose one could argue that he had to do SOMETHING.

But if that is the case, wouldn't one think that the Obama administration, albeit democratic, would want to undo the handiwork of W. and distance themsleves from his policies? If a democratic government in the US won't put an end to the spawn that Bush created, who will? A new conservative government?

George W. Bush appointed not just the first DHS secretary and TSA administrator but several successors as well. Each one was probably worse than the one before (though that's debatable). Obama continued the string of idiots. I can't imagine who would turn this ship around. It won't be easy, that's for sure.

Bruce

The problem is that it is very hard to get a reformer into a confirmed job in the federal government. You are almost always going to get an industry insider or a know-nothing political appointee. The former is dangerous because any of his reforms are going to be in the vein of getting more federal business to the industry he represented. The latter is dangerous because she is going to have to lean on middle managers (who don't want to lose their jobs) for expertise. A true reformer would start questioning what's going on, but because of powerful lobbying arms and political favors a president will rarely appoint one and a senate will rarely confirm one.

Combine typical Washington politics with the overpowering fear of getting egg on one's face vis-a-vis "national security" until the voters revolt at the polls or the courts step on expect to see a string of "safe at all costs" apologists with each being worse than the previous.

My guess is that the whole organization was cooked up by Bush advisors (not naming names) who already had a financial interest in the security industry. Does anyone really think Bush came up with the idea himself?

Just as opposition to the TSA transcends political boundaries, so does the profit-making motive that spawned and maintains it.

That Obama hasn't quashed this aberration bewilders me but then so does most of his presidency. But I don't want to take this into OmniPR territory.

The only thing I would add is that a political appointee is not in the job long enough, in most cases, to make a difference even if they wanted to change things. They are appointed to carry out the President's agenda -- 90% of which is budget-related. The appointee's job is to preserve what they already have and to work to get more. The 10% of the job might involve instituting the President's policies. But, this is almost always done within existing bureaucracies. As an example, despite all of the changes in the tax laws which occur every year, the IRS is still the same old IRS.

The real power and authority lies just beneath the surface with the top level of career SES management. Generally, they have been in their jobs for many years and define the organization's culture. An appointee who chooses to try to upset the apple cart is stonewalled and, if the careerist can get away with it, ignored. They understand that they will win the war of attrition because the appointee will be gone in a couple of years.

The DHS and TSA are what they are because of the Francines and the Gales and all of the other senior managers. The culture was, in fact, established by GW Bush when he told his cabinet right after 9/11 to make sure this didn't happen again on his watch. As a result, the agencies and senior officials that came together to form the TSA decided that the only way to ensure that another 9/11 didn't happen again on Bush's watch was to essentially establish martial law in the entire transportation sector.

In a nutshell, it sounds like that is what we have - martial law. Seriously, has anyone looked into the laws regarding martial law?

Even senior careerists can be sidelined or "taken to the woodshed," right? Is that not what just happened with US Navy Captain Owen Honors, XO of the USS Enterprise?

Obviously it takes a serious transgression to draw such attention and get relegated to a meaningless desk job, but wholesale irradiation of the general traveling public, or prison-style frisking involving palpation of breasts and genitalia, are entering the territory of "serious transgression." Otherwise, there would not be such massive PR campaigns by DHS/TSA, and sidelining of Nude-O-Scopes for the holiday travel period.

What is the air travel equivalent of such an event as sidelining a senior appointee or SES, and what can we do to make it happen?

I always opt out and let the TSO screener know why, I send a TSA comment card, I am already writing Congress critters, spreading the word to internet friends, plan to attend tomorrow's live stream from EPIC and follow up with outcomes from that meeting. What else can be done? I will do it if humanly possible.

It's apples and oranges comparing discipline in military and civilian environments. Military officers can be relieved of duty for essentially no reason at all, except that the next higher commander has "lost confidence" in his or her leadership. Civilian government employees have much more protection.

Back when I was in the government, the best way to get an SES official to retire (or resign if too young to retire) was for the agency head to transfer him or her involuntarily to some place like Anchorage, Alaska. That can still be done, especially at an agency like TSA with employees all over the country. Whether anyone is willing to do that is another question, of course.

Bruce

So the strategy could be for someone to see the need for Francine and Gale to be transferred to Anchorage? I can see, what with the Palins being there and all, there would indeed be an increased need for "security expertise" in that location.

Is the prompt a "re-education" of Pistole or Napolitano so they effect the transfer? Is it the appointment of one of those "reformers," once Obama is re-educated enough to recognize the liability of those individuals in those positions, and then the reformer orders the transfer?

I can certainly accept the "apples and oranges" business, as I grew up in a military family, and have an idea of how that works ("Rank has its privileges" and "Rules are made for when brains run out.")

But are you saying there just is no way to change because we can't get rid of the Francines and Gales in the organization?

Is elimination of the entire TSA the only option? I would think the odds of that are slim to none. I cannot recall a single incident of a government agency "going away," unless it was replaced by something much worse.

There is also the 120-day rule which states that a newly-appointed agency head must wait until 120 days after being sworn in to make these changes. Bruce is correct -- the best way to get rid of an SES is to offer an involuntary transfer to a God-forsaken assignment.

Having said this, Pissy has been in office for a lot more than 120 days and there has not been a single change in the SES ranks at the TSA as far as I am aware. FSDs have come & gone, but, I think this was normal career stuff.

Not at all. They could be transferred to Anchorage or some other place they would refuse to accept. A new agency head (Pistole's replacement) could make sweeping changes in the SES ranks and send powerful messages to those lower down (who are much better protected). The real problem is finding someone to head the TSA who really wants it to be very different.

Bruce

As I can tell, there's basically 3 layers... operators (up to STSO), management (DAFSD to FSD, and the office of the FSD), and executive (Deputy Area Director, up to Deputy Administrator). Above that would be the appointed leadership. In general, it appears that they move frequently inside those layers, yet only infrequently do they move from layer to layer.

Hard to believe that under the TSA, Security Operations is one of only fouteen Offices.

Unfortunately, the change would have to come from appointed positions, for the change we want... no imaging outside of the visible spectrum and no physical searches without cause or suspicion. For all we know, the SES might detest these things as much as we do, yet they have to row the company oars. We can spend the next 10 years fixing the "how" of searches (such as why they won't take a passport card for id), yet until we deal with the "what" (imaging and physical searches), nothing strategic will change.