DHS to face "transition problem" after next election
 

Seems that DHS has more political appointees than the VA and DOD put together. The highest number in government...

Now some are wondering just what will happen after the next election.

http://govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/060107nj1.htm

Best thing that can happen, IMHO, is a top-to-bottom overhaul.

Best thing that can happen is for DHS to become MIA.

Seriously, who'd miss this disgrace of an agency? :confused:

Those 360 people, probably...although who knows, some of them might not like their jobs already.

180,000 employees.

Disgusting.

They hate our freedoms (but love their paychecks), imho.

Which would change absolutely nothing.

Hopefully the only "transition" DHS will be making is from "existent" to "nonexistent".:D

That would be a probelmatic transition for some. Can't say I'd mind though. :D

We all had to give up our individual agency logos for the DHS seal.

I guess Big Brother wants to remind you of who is in charge. :(

Frankly, this "transition" can't happen soon enough for me!

We all had to give up our individual agency logos for the DHS seal.

I guess Big Brother wants to remind you of who is in charge. :(

So why do you work for him?

Yes thats what I say. Please tell them to leave and take their political appointees with them.

The first job of any bureaucracy is to sustain itself. Now that we've created it you can bet we'll never get rid of the bloated DHS. With no accountability all that'll happen is those 360 spots will be used for another 360 campaign contributors as rewards for their donations.

The article describes pretty accurately how things work in the federal government in DC. An Administration has the option of designating a senior civil service position (usually a Senior Executive Service [SES] or sometimes even a GS-15 position) as either an appointed position or a competitive position. (I'm not going to use the official names for this illustration.) I sould have said up front that there are positions that are always appointed and confirmed -- secretaries, assistant secretaries, etc. These are generally required by law to be subject to Senate confirmation. For the garden-variety SES positions, the government may change its mind every time one of these positions becomes vacant. As the article states, most agency positions directly involved with carrying out a particular administration's goals and objectives are appointed. It would be an interesting exercise to take the enormous number of DHS appointees and see how many were appointed in their old agencies. The difference between the overall number and the ones who brought their appointed positions with them would accurately tell the story.

Appointees generally view themselves as being loyal to the president rather than to the agency itself. Most agency officials view appointees as "double agents" for the administration. Ignoring the issue of whether DHS should exist or not, I believe that the DHS rank & file won't miss most of these 360 appointees for a nanosecond. The responsibilities and authorities will at least temporarily rest with the career civil servant deputies who actually have expertise necessary to get the job done.

I think that paints too dim a view of government appointees. In most administrations, appointees are generally people who are well-skilled in either management or a substantive subject area, and are foregoing the more affluent lifestyles found in the private sector to join in something greater than themselves.

I thought it was the Democrats who wanted DHS, or at least the Democrats who are reluctant to kill any government programs/agencies. Certainly ain't the Republicans!

There's an awful lot of wishful thinking in this thread, much of it misplaced. Here's a dose of political reality: DHS is here to stay in one form or another. It will literally take an act of Congress to kill it, and I just don't see Congress mustering enough votes to do that.

As for the top heavy number of political appointees, have to remind yourselves that DHS is a collection of 22 agencies rolled up under one umbrella. Comparing it to any other agency isn't a very valid comparison.

I do agree that DHS will probably undergo some changes after the new administration is elected; however, I don't agree that these will be significant changes. I expect some streamlining to enhance operational efficiencies, much of it will be completely transparent to the public, and I suppose it will be debatable whether or not these changes truly enhance anything.

As for me, I never understood the wisdom of rolling up one bureaucracy into another. Feel the same way about rolling up the intelligence agencies under some national level "intelligence czar." The key to these operational problems is clear-cut, well-defined, established lines of communication. Too often these agencies out-classify themselves to the point that they don't pass critical information to sister agencies. Or if they do, they water it down to where it's more productive just to get the info from CNN or FOX news. However, no one in Congress is thinking in these terms; the details are too confusing or require too much thought. That's why I believe that any changes will be primarily cosmetic or driven by office politics. Perhaps I'm too cynical.

Bart,

You're not cynical at all. You speak much truth.

However, as I see it, the intel management under DNI is a much different matter than DHS.

DHS rolled a number of agencies with vastly different missions into one, messy, bureaucracy. Disaster relief is a much different process/mission/etc than checking IDs at airports. No way to ever make that the same mission.

The Intel side, at least on the surface, is essentially the same mission throughout - gathering, analyzing, and disseminating information to "those who need to know". There is benefit to the FBI knowing what the Army is learning in Kabul. And vice-versa, should the FBI uncover stuff that relates to the mideast. The whole role of DNI, at least as it's been conceived, is to facilitate communication and resolve conflicts, not take away the intel capabilities of any one agency/bureau/branch. Mission creep may change that, but at least the whole strategy revolves around one, single, focus area (unlike DHS).

I think, in the future, there will be a LOT more outsourced intel than there already is. That is the greater threat to the internal agency efforts (and may well supercede the DNI as a means of coordinating the distribution).

The real problems are 1) the government does not, and cannot, attract and keep managers that understand efficient delivery of services (as opposed to 'turf'), 2) that the government employment rules don't allow efficient restructuring of service delivery, and 3) there is political meddling. Going further down any of those three will likely send this off into Omni.

Ultimately, good intel is one of the keys to providing good security. Whether DNI is effective or not remains to be answered. I hope it - or something like it - is effective, as that will do more to raise the level of security than anything else.

Too many years in to leave now.

Aside from that, I like my job, just not how it is organized. The factor they seemed to have overlooked is unit pride. They could have looked to the military to realize the importance of that. We all can't be lumped together just because our ultimate goal is the same.

How did the FBI manage to avoid this debacle?

I disagree for a number of reasons, most of which I can't or rather shouldn't discuss in here. I respect your view and accept the reasoning for why you think the DNI is necessary. However, as a former collector on the national stage who had to balance tactical versus strategic and know when to share information without jeopardizing sources and methodologies, I see the introduction of the DNI as a political animal that does exactly that: threaten the compromise of sources and methodologies. The process was already challenging enough under the auspices of the DCI as well as working within the Delimitations Agreement with the FBI. I see it as even more complex on a higher scale rather than its intended purpose of streamlining the process. My biggest fear is the role politics will play, particularly when it comes to resourcing.

What the fat-assed bureaucrats in DC forget, particularly when it comes to HUMINT operations, is that it boils down to some courageous soul risking his or her life by providing a piece of information that may or may not make a difference but will certainly result in that person's death if ever discovered by the target nation's security services. An overly centralized intelligence structure most certainly inhibits effective HUMINT collection: too many fingers in the pie.

'nuff said. Good evening to you.

Of course. Most people would like being Big Brother. Gets you paid and empowers you over others.

Human nature, imho.

Don't disagree a bit. Especially the second paragraph.

Let's leave it at that, we both know stuff we shouldn't discuss here.

I don't work for the TSA.

That's why I like my job.

BTW, people who like having authority as a means of empowerment are idiots.