|     |     |  About Us   |   Archives   |   Contact Us |


Archive for March, 2008

« Older Entries

An Informed Discussion on Resilience – Courtesy of the Reform Institute

Monday, March 31st, 2008

Last week I attended the Reform Institute’s Symposium in New York City on the private sector’s role in resilience for our national and economic security. To say it was time well spent would have been an understatement. In a City known for its speed, style and flash, it was home to something even more – a Conference that had INFORMED and ACTUAL CONTENT.

For the past couple of years, the term ‘Resilience’ has started to become a buzzword of sorts. There are more than enough perspectives on the term, but simply put, resilience is the ability of an entity to respond, absorb and recover from a disruptive event.

Nowhere does the word resilience have deeper meaning or perspective than the private sector. Without being resilient, any enterprise – regardless of its size, industry, or location – will not be able to operate following a ‘disruptive event’ and faces almost certain extinction. It is ‘Darwinism’ (survival of the fittest) in its purest form.

For nearly two days, the Reform Institute brought together thinkers and private sector leaders from the Fortune 500 and elsewhere across a range of industries (supply chain, financial services, telecommunications, energy, etc) to share their experiences and perspectives on ‘resilience.’ Instead of echoing their individual corporate marketing messages (“all is wonderful if you’re me”), the private sector presenters offered a forthright and unvarnished report card on themselves, their industry and state of resilience today.

Talk about refreshing… Rather than being served the conventional conference presentations that channel the ‘talking points’ of the day and shy away from saying anything of tremendous meaning, frank talk about successes, failures, gaps and opportunities were shared about some of the most critical areas our nation’s economy and security depend. Largely devoid of the ideological and partisan rants that so permeate most Congressional Hearings and media coverage of these issues, the Reform Institute let some of the real ‘players’ do the talking and it was exceptional experience.

Too often at homeland security conferences, you hear from people who talk about doing something to make our county and its infrastructures more secure and resilient. The Reform Institute did something different at their program – they brought forward front line leaders (“doers”) who were able to actually show what they had done and were doing to make resilience a reality for them and their public and private sector peers.

It was inspiring to listen to some of the best known companies in the US and the world share their insights and show they are leading by example. Rather than talking about what they may do to become resilient, they were taking charge of their own destiny and implementing the steps to be ‘ready’ when the ‘time’ comes.

Their incentives for being proactive stems from the responsibilities they have to their shareholders, customers and communities in which they operate and reside. It also came from the hard knocks, stumbles and failures of not being prepared when a disruption occurred and not wanting to repeat the experiences (incurred financial costs, loss of market share, encroaching competition, etc.) that come with not being able to respond or recover faster.

The experience of hearing the various speakers was also eye opening. While you heard about the coordination these various companies had with their suppliers, employees and communities where they reside/operate, there was an organization that seemed to get little acknowledgment or mention in terms of coordinating resilience – the US Department of Homeland Security.

While DHS was mentioned a few times (reference to the new Chemical Sector regulations; praise for the leadership of DHS Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection Bob Stephan; etc.) I and a few other attendees I spoke with found it surprising how little the Department was cited in helping to spur or coordinate resilience in the private sector.

One message that was transmitted loud and clear last week by the various presentations was that private sector companies are not waiting, nor would they wait for DHS leadership or direction on resilience. The participating companies are moving ahead with getting their own house ‘in order’ and if they encountered the Department, that was fine, but they were going forward with or without them.

Such a move is reason for confidence and concern.

It is great to see companies taking the initiative to ‘ready’ themselves for any number of disruptions. Being proactive will provide them with enormous short and long-term dividends, making the enterprise better in its operations and performance on a ‘bad day.’ These efforts will also increase the value of the enterprise which every shareholder, employee and community wants.

What is of concern though is the lack of understanding of DHS’ role in these areas and the sense of a leadership vacuum that the Department has yet to fill in terms of private sector resilience. A number of the companies that spoke last week made clear that ‘their train had left the station’ and it was up DHS and any other governmental organization to play catch up.

While corporate and individual initiative and self-sufficiency are to be applauded, there are also times when a train conductor is necessary to direct where the various trains are going. None of us can expect five years after the creation of DHS that we would have all of the directions and conductors in place for the entire private sector. That may never happen given the constant changes in the private sector, but it’s obvious that the incoming Administration is going to have a lot of catching up to do when they take their place in this train yard.

Whether they like it or not, resiliency is going to be in their ‘In-Box.’ A good place to get a lot smarter on the subject will be the next Reform Institute program on the subject. They started a great dialogue last week, and I hope they keep it going.

Posted in Emergency Preparedness & Response | Comments

The Insecurity Of Nipple Rings

Monday, March 31st, 2008

Your first sympathy lies with the woman who was forced to remove, with a pair of pliers, the rings she had cosmetically attached to her nipples. Pliers? Really?

However, you’ve also got to feel for the poor woman, the TSA screener, who first encountered the unusual security situation of a passenger setting off security bells with nothing more than Madonnaesque accoutrements.

How does one articulate this to a passenger, with curious and impatient onlookers awaiting their turn to board … Excuse me, m’am, but your breasts may be a threat to national security?

It has more the markings of a Vegas comedy act than a security situation. And yet, would you want to be the one to avert your eyes and wave through a, literally, walking metal detector alert? Terrorists have indeed used women and their undergarments as safe harbor for explosives – to bloody effect.

The female screener made the easy – and correct – call by passing this decision up the chain – or at least across it. It is unclear whether the male TSA colleague who stepped in was a manager or simply eager. In any case, he should have followed his female colleague’s lead and passed the buck as well – all the way to whichever desk at TSA Headquarters has the “The Buck Stops Here” sign. Instead, he grabbed a pair of pliers and told the woman to remove rings.

It hurts me to think of this. And I’m not talking about the act of the woman removing the rings from her breasts. I’m talking about the public relations debacle that should have been foreseen. You don’t have to be a PR expert to expect that the words “nipple” and “pliers” composed in the same sentence of any afteraction report is likely to end badly.

Of course public relations should not be the deciding factor in a situation like this. Good judgment should be, though. We are told that TSA does not have any regulations dealing with body piercings and that the screeners were following procedure as best they could. After the nipple-pliered woman’s attorney went public, however, somebody somewhere up the chain of command made a better decision: An apology, or something close to it, and assurances that such regulations are feverishly in the works now.

Another regulation they may want to consider: Any time screeners come across unexpected situations involving sensitive private body parts and heavy metal – send it up the chain of command.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Aviation and airport security, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Transportation Security | Comments

Violence Escalates Amid Tibetan Protests

Sunday, March 30th, 2008

Following up on an earlier post commenting on protesters opposed to the Chinese government’s actions in Tibet, it seems that as reporters fan out and come to understand the causes and effects of the riots in Lhasa that then spread to other towns, critics are, to paraphrase the FT.com, ‘Trying to understand what happened in the days leading up to the riots’.

What happened is simple. The Tibetans wished to protest the occupation and their treatment at the hands of the Chinese. The Chinese did not want that to happen, and so moved swiftly to suppress peaceful protest. When peaceful protest is forbidden, violent protest will eventuate. There is one more step in the chain; when violent protest is forbidden and suppressed, an insurgency will start. The introduction of mobile telephony to Tibet will only enable the insurgency to operate more effectively, but by using methods unpredictable and unforeseen by the Chinese authorities.

This insurgency is unlikely to start today or tomorrow. However, if the Chinese authorities continue to maintain their current stance, at a time when the eyes of the world are upon them, it is likely – not certain, but likely – that the next step is an insurgency, unsure at first, perhaps a soldier killed here or there, a patrol or barracks overrun for the weapons, but it could grow quickly, given the strength of feeling now obvious in Tibet. That a riot was allowed to happen is regrettable from the Chinese perspective, because now the Tibetans understand the potential effect of violence, particularly when it is likely to be tacitly supported on the international stage.

What should the Chinese have done? This rhetorical question is asked and answered from a tactical and operational standpoint only, not a political one; the Chinese authorities should have recognized the level of feeling and created a platform for the Tibetans to feel that they had vented their frustration. They did not do this, and so a moderately difficult public order situation is about to become exponentially worse, and there will be significant support from outside organizations seeking to push support and resources to the Tibetans simply to ‘make mischief’ for the Chinese.

Those who wish to protest must be given a platform to do so. The wise politician and police commander does so, and uses the ground and situation to their advantage in order to limit the potential damage, both political and physical, that the protestors can do. The Chinese failed to do so, and unfortunately for them are likely to reap what they have sown.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments

Local Law Enforcement Controversial but Effective in Immigration Enforcement

Friday, March 28th, 2008

Getting local law enforcement involved in enforcing the nation’s immigration laws is a controversial but unquestionably effective step in in terms of controlling our borders.

Section 287g of the Immigration and Nationality Act was created to authorize state and local law enforcement officers to receive training to enforce immigration laws. The cross designation provision is intended to serve as another “tool” to help public safety officers keep our communities safe. However, this “tool” continues to be a topic of controversy in many of the jurisdictions that are considering applying for this authority from the Department of Homeland Security.

Advocates of the provision argue that it will have an immediate impact on crime by removing illegal aliens who commit crimes in the U.S through deportation proceedings. Its detractors argue that it discourages illegal aliens from reporting crimes and cooperating with law enforcement authorities for fear that “contact” will subject them to deportation proceedings.

If you commit a crime in the United States, you subject yourself to investigation, not only of your activities, but also your identity. Part of establishing a person’s “identity” is a review of biographical information that includes date and place of birth, address, employment, height, weight, color of hair/eyes, social security number, passport, driver’s license, birth certificate, library card, etc. Can any law enforcement officer ignore the fact that someone who admits to being born outside the United States is required to establish proof of his/her right to be in the U.S.?

According to a DHS/Immigration and Customs website (updated 3-10-2008), local law enforcement officers (660 trained and certified officers) have identified over 45,000 individuals for immigration violations through use of their 287g authority. These individuals were placed under deportation proceedings and a majority were deported from the United States. Unless they have illegally re-entered the U.S. (which constitutes a felony defense), they are no longer here to participate in additional criminal activity. How many “recidivist” crimes has this eliminated ?

This is a tool that can be abused, but it is too effective to be ignored. DHS and the 287g “certified” departments/agencies must ensure that they are operating within the spirit of the provision to maintain the confidence of the communities the provision is designed to serve.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Border Security, Immigration & Visa Policy, Law Enforcement | Comments

Alexander not a Real-ist

Thursday, March 27th, 2008

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) is hoping that Congress will do away with the Real ID Act of 2005, a law establishing minimum standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards that are intended to be used for federal purposed (such as passenger screening at U.S. airports). Alexander mimics many of the common critiques and concerts associated with Real ID. He recently declared to The Hill, “[Real ID] wasn’t properly considered in the Senate, it created a national ID card, and it’s a massive unfunded mandate.”

Let’s examine Senator Alexander’s claim one point at a time. First, Congress has twice passed laws requiring Real ID standards—once in 2005 and again in December of 2007 with more than adequate consideration. Secondly, Real ID does not establish a national ID card by any means. This is a frequent misconception about the program. Rather, states maintain their sovereignty, while the federal government gains no more access to citizens’ person information. No national database is created. Further, the law should actually reassure those nervous about these security issues as it adds privacy protections like more security and background checks for government employees who handle sensitive personal data. And finally, Real ID is far from a “massive unfunded mandate” as Alexander mistakenly asserts. The Department of Homeland Security has reduced the initially estimated cost by more than 70 percent and recently designated an addition $48.5 million to assist states with implementation. Real ID is much more likely to save states money thanks to consequential reductions in identity theft, entitlements, fraud and other crimes.

Sincere opponents of Real ID have all the right concerns. Government shouldn’t intrude irresponsibly into our lives or threaten our freedoms and privacy. Washington shouldn’t hand out unfunded mandates. And states shouldn’t run around implementing security measures that don’t make us safe.

While some of these points are valid, aiming these criticisms at Real ID isn’t – as I pointed out in an earlier report. Senator Alexander and the rest of Congress must accept the realities of the program and support the full implementation of Real ID.

Posted in Border Security | Comments

Protecting the Torch: A Not on My Watch Dilemma

Wednesday, March 26th, 2008

The Chinese occupation of Tibet and the likely development of more aggressive Tibetan protests, quite possibly even culminating in a Tibetan liberation insurgency, have already been commented on in a previous posting here. The death toll is currently estimated at as high as 120, although Chinese authorities maintain the death toll at 22.

The effects of this protest are likely to extend far beyond the Tibetan and Chinese borders.

The 2008 Olympics have created the perfect platform for those opposed to the Tibetan occupation to make their discontent known.  The most obvious symbol of the Olympics is the torch, and securing the torch during the traditional relay journey is a task whose difficulty cannot – and should not – be underestimated.  The torch was lit on March 24, 2008 in Olympia, Greece, the home of the ancient Olympics, and will travel 137,000 kilometers across six continents en route to Beijing, China.  Tibet is one of the countries it will travel through and while sports authorities in the country have already taken measures to ensure the security of the torch. However, Tibet is by no means the only place where the torch’s relay may be used to publicize the opposition to the occupation of Tibet.

Responsibility for protecting the torch passes along the route from authority to authority.  What in the past has been a traffic issue has become a legitimate public order problem: how can you prevent someone who is determined to make a political point through dramatic and photogenic action from doing so?  The torch relay will become the ultimate “Not on my watch” problem, with policemen on six continents hoping to protect a series of relay runners moving through their territory against the most random and unpredictable of threats.

However, the torch is a small distraction compared to the events currently unfolding in Tibet, events that are likely to become the focus of international attention in the coming months, and events that I suspect will provoke a steady stream of commentary across this website.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Law Enforcement | Comments

Beardsworth’s Five Tips for DHS Transition Team

Monday, March 24th, 2008

Over the past week we have run a series of suggestions by Randy Beardsworth, former Assistant Secretary for Strategic Plans at the Department of Homeland Security, advising the next Administration on the DHS transition.

Below is a recap of all five suggestions:

1.) Pick the transition manager (TM) with care.
The new President will have staked out positions on various aspects of homeland security. The ideological push should come from the new Secretary, not the TM. While the TM will of course be aligned with the President-elect’s outlook, during the transition the TM should endeavor to understand the issues from the inside, be a keen observer of what is really happening within the department, seek to establish a rapport with the career executives, and should make sure the department is ready for day one. The TM should understand both the bureaucracy and the politics associated with a new administration. The more successful the TM is in the transition period, the more successful the new Secretary will be in the long run.

2.) Ensure the Department and the new President are ready for Day One
The new President’s ability to implement his homeland security agenda, and perhaps his larger agenda could be lost if the Department and new administration fail an early test. The Transition Manager should quickly establish an operational response cell made up of career and transition leaders to receive intelligence briefings and stay attuned to the operational and intelligence picture. The TM should be an advocate/driver for small table top exercises with key players within the new administration. The TM must not let the urgent overshadow the important.

3.) Listen to the key senior career leaders.
Political appointees bring political capital, energy, and a drive to implement change. Senior career folks understand how to effect change within the bureaucracy and often have excellent ideas about what needs to be changed. The TM and new administration should not fall into the trap of thinking career executives are ideologically tainted – some are, most are not. Career executives and civil servants understand democracy and their role in government and want to be part of the new boss’ team.

4.) Look for the jewels that are hidden.
The TM has a finite amount of time to understand the department, prepare for Day 1, and discern who should be prominent players in the new team. In the course of doing these things, the TM should be cognizant of a number of jewels hidden in throughout Department that deserve to be more prominent than they have been. For example there are several pockets that understand and deal with risk in a remarkable fashion, there are pockets that have done significant work with future thinking, and the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has been in the forefront of thoughtful policy with respect to America’s Muslim community.

5.) Don’t push reorganization.
The new administration has the privilege and responsibility to work with Congress for appropriate organizational changes. Organizational changes come at a high cost, especially after five years of fairly significant ongoing organizational changes. The most “bang for the buck” in the Department under a new administration will come from stable, professional management, thoughtful policy direction, and institutionalizing tools and processes that harness private sector energy and creativity – not from wholesale reorganizations. Early signals of major reorganization of the Department will exacerbate retention and morale issues and will paralyze meaningful progress on important homeland security issues.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Management & Administration | Comments

Another Step in the Eternal Staircase of Cyber Security

Friday, March 21st, 2008

The Bush Administration is making progress in cyber security through the creation of a new interagency group to gather information and assess cyber security breaches to various federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the National Security Agency and the Department of Defense.  According to a report by the Washington Post, the White House has selected Rod A. Beckstrom to head up the interagency group, which will be based in the Department of Homeland Security.  Beckstrom, who comes highly recommended from both the National Security Agency and the Department of Defense, co-authored ‘The Starfish and the Spider’, which argues that de-centralized organizations are more resilient to attack than top-down systems and provides a new cyber approach in dealing with such threats as al-Qaeda.  In addition to his writing background, Beckstrom is a high-tech entrepreneur who played a significant role in the launch of Twiki.net and also serves on the Board of Trustees at Environmental Defense Fund.

The new interagency group will coordinate efforts between the various federal agencies under the direction of the National Security Presidential Directive 54/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23, signed on January 8 of this year, to assess U.S. cyber security and assist the different agencies in cyber-defense and appropriate responses to cyber attacks.  The new national security directive expands the intelligence community’s role, in particular the National Security Agency, in monitoring the internet traffic and computer networks of all federal agencies.

Although not yet formally stated, the interagency group will likely fall under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security’s National Cyber Security Division and will complement the existing four pillars of the National Cyberspace Response System, which include:
- Cyber Security Preparedness and the National Cyber Alert System
- US-CERT Operations
- National Cyber Response Coordination Group
- Cyber Cop Portal

The concept of a National Cyberspace Response System was first proposed in the Bush Administration’s February 2003 National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace.

In a report from earlier this year, I explain both the state and non-state threats facing cyber-security today, as well as various initiatives and responses that are being taken by U.S. government agencies, the private sector and through international cooperation, dating as far back as 1987, to combat a wide range of cyber threats to both private and government systems.  My colleague Peter Brookes also  gives a more statistical analysis of the cyber threat and addresses the danger presented by nations such as China and Russia to U.S. national security through the exploitation of cyber systems.

Posted in Cyber Security | Comments

H1-B April Madness: Sorry, Only One Lottery Ticket Per Employee

Thursday, March 20th, 2008

Across the country there is significant anxiety building up in anticipation of the latest release of a prized commodity. No, I am not talking about the latest version of the Apple I-Phone or the latest edition of the X-Box. It is bigger than that. And you will not see the throngs of people lining up around the block like you saw for tickets to the March Madness Tournament or the Hannah Montana concert. Rather, on April 1, 2008, you will see a mass rush of U.S. employers to the nearest U.S. Post Office or Federal Express store as they flail away to get their H-1B applications in to DHS.

What? A little explanation will shed light to this madness. As part of a new annual ritual, the H1-B annual visa pool of 65,000 worker visas, reserved for those with higher education degrees (the “skilled” employee), is exhausted within days of them becoming available. That, under rules, requires that DHS hold a random lottery – yep, a random lottery where employers hold their breath in hopes that they win the right to bring a coveted college or master’s degreed professional into the U.S. to fill one of their vacancies. And it is anticipated that the lottery ritual will continue as employers clamor over each other for a coveted H1-B visa so they can hire a skilled foreign worker in FY 09 – yep, that’s also correct, Fiscal Year 2009. This H-1B process has more built up anticipation than a bottle of Heinz ketchup.

So what does the U.S. Government do? Perhaps there is a need for some quick Congressional deliberation and action on why our economy needs these workers. When introverted Microsoft CEO Bill Gates – yep, THE Introverted Bill Gates – stepped out of his technology cocoon to testify (perhaps even beg a little) before Congress about our H-1B April Madness, and the potential economic ruin to the U.S. technology sector this lottery may cause, any ordinary person would conclude that we may have a problem. Just visualizing Gates testifying would be sufficient for one to conclude that indeed, something has gone terribly awry. Well, I would not anticipate Congress jumping on anything related to immigration in an election year, regardless of the fact that these H1-B workers are highly educated, speak fluent English, and are mostly skilled in the science, math and technology arenas that have not been the forte of our Nation’s recent rising stars in college (me being one of them, hence my law degree). If Gates’ star appearance on the Hill does not do it, where else can U.S. employers go to for salvation from H-1B April Madness?

DHS? Remember that the strong consensus on border security is often coupled with the cry that people should go through the “legal process,” which would I believe include the H1-B visa category. In fact, the White House when announcing its immigration enforcement initiatives shortly after the defeat of comprehensive immigration reform legislation also added a few, and I mean a few, sentences on improving legal immigration avenues. I have fully supported immigration enforcement and strongly believe it is a necessary investment to restore integrity and the rule of law in our immigration system. But I also believe in fairness and that the same rule of law should encourage equally strong efforts and the necessary resources to take care of those who do wish to follow the immigration rules.

Well, here you have a business crowd led by Mr. Gates seeking to go through the “legal process” to meet his employee needs. What’s the salvo of support from DHS for those wanting to go the legal H-1B route? – a DHS regulation stating that an employer can only file one H1-B application per employee coupled with warnings to the effect that “we will also keep your filing fees that we just jacked up through the roof and deport your computer programmer if you try to be cute with multiple filings.” Is this what is considered encouragement for employers who are seeking to follow the rules? I guess it is “fair” in that when you are on a life boat with only crumbs to fight for, you are better off having rules on how to fairly distribute the crumbs than risk a full melee that may tilt the boat.

What to do? Where a baseball pitcher who may be on steroids draws the attention of a full committee for hours, requires several sessions with autograph seeking staffers, and now is drawing FBI – yep, that is also correct, THE FBI responsible for our national security – resources, there does seem to be an imbalance here. Congress and DHS, let’s get to the matters that count – especially as we all take a gratuitous coaster ride to a recession – and identify what are our true H1-B needs are to spur our economy along. Surely there is a better solution that will give access to these employees under proper safeguards against abuse without risking our economy to a round of H1-B lotto. And if there is not a solution, at least we took our best steroid-free swing.

Posted in Immigration & Visa Policy | Comments

Transitioning Part V: Don’t Push Reorganization

Wednesday, March 19th, 2008

Today’s posting concludes a five-part series outlining recommendations to the next Administration on the Department of Homeland Security’s transitioning. See the introductory post for an overview of the challenges involved in transitioning, as well as recommendations on selecting a Transition Manager, ensuring the next President is ready for Day One, using the expertise of the Department’s career officials, and hunting for hidden jewels.

• Don’t push reorganization. The new administration has the privilege and responsibility to work with Congress for appropriate organizational changes. Organizational changes come at a high cost, especially after five years of fairly significant ongoing organizational changes. The most “bang for the buck” in the Department under a new administration will come from stable, professional management, thoughtful policy direction, and institutionalizing tools and processes that harness private sector energy and creativity – not from wholesale reorganizations. Early signals of major reorganization of the Department will exacerbate retention and morale issues and will paralyze meaningful progress on important homeland security issues.

p

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR | Comments

Time to Make Recovery a Real Priority

Wednesday, March 19th, 2008

National Journal recently posted their interview with DHS Secretary, Michael Chertoff where he reflects on his tenure in office while still keeping a very confident eye towards the work he is doing now and in his remaining months to strengthen the Department’s future. The entire interview is well done but there is one particular point that stands out for me –

NJ: Looking back, how do you rate the effectiveness of the department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency in responding to the needs of citizens and businesses affected by the hurricanes in 2005?

Chertoff: I think that there’s one organizational structure change I have begun to talk about. I don’t know that FEMA ought to be a reconstruction agency. I think that when you get into a deep, long-standing reconstruction effort, you’re beginning to deal with issues like public health, social services, education, and housing policy. Not only are these [multi-agency] issues but they are not necessarily in the skill set of people who are at FEMA, who are really there to give immediate shelter and immediate assistance.

FEMA’s core mission is emergency management. It’s not reconstruction. We maybe need an agency or a capability to reconstruct. But maybe that should not be in FEMA, or in DHS. Maybe that should be in Health and Human Services or in Housing and Urban Development. I know that’s unusual for a secretary to give up something. I just think it’s not in the core mission. And that’s the one area where I think I would encourage someone to take a look.

Like many, I have advised the next Administration to proceed slowly in reorganizing DHS but this is one area where it makes real sense. Chertoff is right when he talks about FEMA’s core mission as ‘emergency management’ yet since the hurricanes of 2005, we have allowed a steady mission creep to occur with FEMA to involve a range of things besides ‘emergency management.’

Today on the Gulf Coast and in other communities in the US (e.g., Kansas, Tennessee, California, etc) FEMA employees will be working with state, local, tribal, NGOs, private sector members and regular citizens to aid the ‘recovery’ efforts in communities that have been struck by disasters. Those efforts involve urban planning and a range of other issues that have some intersection with emergency management but these efforts are not at the core of FEMA’s goal of being the ‘world’s preeminent emergency management agency.’

The ‘emergency management’ mission involves planning, preparing, training and responding for a range of hazards and threats. All of these challenges are difficult, but history has proven recovery to be the toughest of all post-disaster efforts. For well over a decade, FEMA had personnel and offices in Florida to support recovery operations after Hurricane Andrew struck in 1992. There is every indication that some type of FEMA/Federal presence will be on the Gulf Coast well beyond a decade to deal with many of the same issues (housing, public health, infrastructure restoration, etc.) but this time on an even larger geographic scale.

Sec. Chertoff’s comments could not come at a more interesting time. With the recent departure of Donald Powell as the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Recovery and with that Office’s charter set to expire in the next couple of months, it remains to be seen who will be the Federal lead for aiding the states ravaged by Katrina and Rita in the coming years. Certainly FEMA has some role to play with the restoration of communities in Louisiana and Mississippi but the American people are expecting FEMA to keep their eye on the ball when it comes to planning and preparing for the next ‘big one’ regardless of what shape it takes on or what location it strikes.

As we’ve learned since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, they don’t necessarily exist with the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding either. One of the biggest complaints and criticisms of the Gulf Coast Recovery Office is it had no real authority or jurisdiction to make things happen. It could be an advocate and convener of public and private sector parties to address critical issues but at the end of the day it did not have muscle to execute a number of critical functions. That is not meant as a negative criticism of Don Powell, his team or the intent behind his Office. All have done tremendous work to make things happen but as to having the strength to execute a number of things, the Office did not have the authority to do it.

When it comes to recovery issues, having a mechanism with muscle and authority to make things happen is essential for success. Ad hoc and improvised efforts can do some things to aid initial recovery efforts but more formal structures, policies and programs are necessary if long-term recovery efforts are to be expedited and successful. All of us, most certainly the residents of the Gulf Coast would like to see the devastated areas of Louisiana and Mississippi recover faster. Infrastructure and community restoration and repair do not occur over night but a focused program/agency led by an assigned Chief Recovery Officer dedicated to the area could become the driver to get things to happen faster. State, local, tribal and community leaders need every hand they can get post-disaster and having some force and muscle aiding them would be a big help.

Since the Hurricanes of 2005, DHS and FEMA have done a lot in the planning, preparing, training and responding functions with emergency management but recovery is one area where significant work remains to be done. The lessons learned from the Bush Administration and those prior to it need to be reviewed and considered by the incoming Administration as it inherits its homeland security responsibilities. Recovery is HUGE part of that. We have not necessarily appreciated that aspect of post-disaster life as much as we should but having the means to make recovery ‘happen’ is essential to any community’s health and restoration.

We’ve made due with our existing mechanisms long enough.

We’re smarter now and we need to plan for our ‘recovery,’ as much we do the planning, preparing, training and responding for the next ‘big one.’

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Featured Feed | Comments

DHS Transitioning Part IV: Searching for Hidden Jewels

Tuesday, March 18th, 2008

Today’s posting is the fourth recommendation of a five-part series outlining recommendations to the next Administration on the Department of Homeland Security’s transitioning. See the introductory post for an overview of the challenges involved in transitioning, as well as recommendations on selecting a Transition Manager, ensuring the next President is ready for Day One, and using the expertise of the Department’s career officials.

Look for the jewels that are hidden.  The TM has a finite amount of time to understand the department, prepare for Day 1, and discern who should be prominent players in the new team.  In the course of doing these things, the TM should be cognizant of a number of jewels hidden in throughout Department that deserve to be more prominent than they have been.  For example there are several pockets that understand and deal with risk in a remarkable fashion, there are pockets that have done significant work with future thinking, and the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has been in the forefront of thoughtful policy with respect to America’s Muslim community.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Uncategorized | Comments

Port Security Grant Funding Moves Forward in Congress

Tuesday, March 18th, 2008

Despite the President’s budget to limit port security grant funding to $210 million for FY’09, the Senate passed its version of the Fiscal Year 2009 Congressional Budget Resolution last week (March 14) by a vote of 51-44. The Resolution rejects cuts proposed by the President’s 48 percent reduction for Port Security Grants and retains them at $400 million. The House passed its version of the Budget Resolution a day earlier, by a vote of 217-212. The legislation will now go to a House-Senate conference.

Originally, port security grant funding was not in the President’s budget but cam about out of a bipartisan effort to ensure security funding was a priority in the Congressional budget. This began in FY’03 with $125 million in appropriations, and Congress has slightly increased funding each year leading up to FY’08’s appropriation that included $400 million, as authorized in the 2006 SAFE Port Act.

To move the funding where it is today has not been an easy task. We now must focus to ensure the grant program can sustain our security levels by allowing certain maintenance and operation expenditures to be authorized as costs continue to increase.

The Port Security Council has been working with the Administration and DHS officials to ensure grant funds are targeted to risk mitigation projects, preparedness and recovery planning and training and exercise programs to protect our maritime domains. Ports are the gateway to American trade and it is the responsibility of the Nation to protect the ports, not just the local communities where the ports reside.

We have gone from a handful of Congressional Members understanding and supporting port security issues to a broad base of cooperation. We must continue to allow this issue to stay above partisan politics and provide the necessary tools required to achieve the new expectations of security at our Nation’s seaports.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Maritime & Seaport Security, Supply Chain Security | Comments

DHS Transition – Advice for the Next Administration (Part III)

Monday, March 17th, 2008

This is the third in a series of five posts on DHS’s Transition that offers advice to the next Administration. For more background on the challenges facing the Department, see the introductory post that stresses the importance of the Transition Manager as well as my second recommendation for the next President to be ready to go on Day One.

3) Listen to the key senior career leaders. Political appointees bring political capital, energy, and a drive to implement change. Senior career folks understand how to effect change within the bureaucracy and often have excellent ideas about what needs to be changed. The TM and new administration should not fall into the trap of thinking career executives are ideologically tainted – some are, most are not. Career executives and civil servants understand democracy and their role in government and want to be part of the new boss’ team.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Uncategorized | Comments

Quelling Discontent Can Lead to More Violence

Monday, March 17th, 2008

The riots in Lhasa, Tibet, over the weekend, and the methods used to quell them, highlight the most important issue in Public Order operations and the management of of public disorder: the underlying problem must, over time, be addressed. If it is not, the disaffected grow even more detached and disenfranchised, leaving them with no option but to protest in order for their voices to be heard – and far too often, what begins as a protest turns into a violent riot.

Public disorder is the expression of public dissatisfaction with something. Protests at G8 summits and May Day riots are about dissatisfaction with the capitalist system; in France, it is about the immigrants protesting their treatment and disenfranchisement; in Lhasa, it is about Chinese occupation and the desire for independence; in Belgrade recently it was about international interference in Serbian affairs facilitating the declaration of independence by Kosovo; and in MacArthur Park in Los Angeles last year it was about immigrant rights.

The ability to protest – I use “ability” because it is important to remember that in some countries freedom of assembly is not a right – must be facilitated. The ability to vent, to demonstrate, to display the need for change, is essential for both sides. Suppressing this expression of discontent will only force the disenfranchised to use more violent forms of protest (more commonly known as terrorism), whilst allowing it and facilitating it enables the authorities to control the venting of discontent and allows it to happen in a controlled and safe manner. The recent deaths of the Chinese in Lhasa could have been prevented by allowing sanctioned protests to take place under the right conditions; the inability for those protests to be conducted led to greater escalation by the disaffected, and deaths.

The ability to protest, to vent one’s frustrations, is fundamental, and if understood, can be used in the authorities’ favor. For instance, in MacArthur Park, had the LAPD been equipped with shields, officers could have simply stood and taken the barrage of bricks and stones and allowed the crowd to express its discontent. Unfortunately, the authors of the LAPD doctrine apparently did not acknowledge the block, the ability to stand and take incoming abuse or missiles, as an acceptable action, and so they became the real authors of what became a regrettable incident for everyone involved.

There are clearly lessons to be learned here for any law enforcement or military agency that may face a public order threat. Public Order is an operation integral to understanding and working with a local community and integral to enabling that community to register its dissatisfaction. By creating the conditions for that dissent to be expressed effectively but safely, order can be maintained, preventing rioting that is damaging to the local populace, law enforcement, local property and reputations.

These lessons are clearly of relevance to Denver and Minneapolis, the sites of the upcoming National Conventions, where proficient public protestors and experienced members of the rioting community who see the events as the best opportunity of drawing attention to their issue, will be attending. A brief review of the Internet reveals a handful of websites of organizations not only preparing to riot in Denver and Minneapolis, but who actively advise potential rioters and who train before the event. The Denver and Minneapolis law enforcement communities will be faced with the dual challenge of counter-terrorism and public order, all in the face of the international press, in a context significantly more threatening and serious than the Seattle police did. The last thing either community wants is for their city to be remembered for the riot rather than the Convention, while there are organizations out there deliberately planning for just the opposite.

Posted in Law Enforcement | Comments

Can School Administrators Wait?

Monday, March 17th, 2008

As Congress continues to debate legislation to provide colleges and universities with federal dollars to pay for improved campus security, violence continues on our campuses. The year 2007 will go down as the most deadliest year for university campuses with more than 40 murders. Is there anyone that thinks this will not continue?

This violence has made enhanced school security a priority for college administrators, who are specifically focused on how to improve the school’s planned response to a serious violent act on or near campus. As college administrators struggle with fitting these improvements into already tight budgets, it i doubtful that they can afford to wait for Congress to act and provide federal matching funds.

Among the top questions asked by parents touring school facilities are related to campus safety. It would be difficult to find a parent who was not willing to pay a little extra for security enhancements to protect their children. To the contrary, for many college-bound students and their parents choosing a school this Spring, their decision may be influenced by the security enhancements instituted in response to the VT, NIU, and Delaware State shootings.

With that in mind, schools simply cannot afford to take the chance that “it cannot happen here”. Faced with today’s violent reality, schools have to contemplate how their “security response plan to violent acts” would be evaluated in an after-action review. At a minimum, all schools need to complete a full internal self-assessment (and more importantly an outside assessment by an independent contractor) and take corrective action.

Even if Congress passes legislation (which is currently in House-Senate conference) to fund enhanced campus/school security, colleges and universities will not see any federal dollars until next year.

Can school administrators really afford to wait?

Tags: , ,
Posted in Emergency Preparedness & Response | Comments

DHS Transition — Advice for the Next Administration (Part II)

Friday, March 14th, 2008

As I noted in my opening post in this series of posts on the transition with the next Administration, the Department of Homeland Security is different from other Departments in that it is still in its infancy and does not have an experienced and long-coordinated career bureaucracy in place to help guide the incoming leadership through the transition. While there are many excellent career professionals in place at DHS, they nonetheless are still dealing with a new environment and adjusting to the changes that came with the massive merger that created DHS.

As the former career Assistant Secretary for Strategic Planning at DHS, along with many years in the Coast Guard before that, I have a personal interest in seeing the Department work through the transition with a new Administration successfully, and I am contributing a series of five posts that offer some thoughts for the next president’s DHS transition team.

Yesterday’s post concerned the need to pick a DHS Transition Manager with care.

Today’s post concerns the need for Day 1 capabilities:

2. Ensure the Department and the new President are ready for Day One

The new President’s ability to implement his homeland security agenda, and perhaps his larger agenda could be lost if the Department and new administration fail an early test. The Transition Manager should quickly establish an operational response cell made up of career and transition leaders to receive intelligence briefings and stay attuned to the operational and intelligence picture. The TM should be an advocate/driver for small table top exercises with key players within the new administration. The TM must not let the urgent overshadow the important.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Management & Administration | Comments

U.S. House Tees Up FISA as Political Football

Friday, March 14th, 2008

The U.S. House of Representatives continues its gamesmanship with national security. For a body that has been trying to prove its bona fides to protect the American people, it’s an odd strategy. With echoes of Groundhog Day, House Leadership chose to pass legislation that has no chance whatsoever winning the support of the Senate (and therefore no chance whatsoever of becoming law) and retired for another vacation.

Meanwhile, the ability of the Intelligence Community to do its job remains hampered. And the message to the private sector? Next time your government asks for your support, run away as fast as you can.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Intelligence | Comments

DHS Transition — Advice for the Next Administration (Part I)

Thursday, March 13th, 2008

Transition is on my mind a lot lately. I have just experienced my own transition from the non-profit sector to the private sector. As with most transitions, you never fully know what the outcome will be beforehand. In my case, I love the high speed, free-wheeling environment of making good ideas become reality. But I can’t make things happen in my new world without understanding the ins and outs of my partnership, and building a strong bond with my partners who have been in the trenches for a while. This understanding and these bonds only become real once you are on the inside and have responsibility for the outcomes. No matter how much you prepare, you don’t fully understand until you see all the cards.

Some of you have seen my comments and heard me talk on the Department of Homeland Security’s transition. Several months ago I was less than enthused with the progress the Department had made, and while I’m still not jumping up and down, I think the Department has made good progress. I don’t worry too much about the established agencies — the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and the Secret Service all have a long history of managing their agencies through presidential transitions.

Secretary Chertoff recognizes the critical need to have a transition plan in place for the entire department and has taken steps to do that. He has sought outside counsel from the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC), the Council on Excellence in Government, the Homeland Security Institute, the National Academy of Public Administration, and others. He has appointed a career Senior Executive to manage the transition and is ensuring that each political principal has a career deputy. Paul Schneider, the acting Deputy Secretary, has extensive experience with transitions and is taking the Department’s transition planning seriously. A number of Senior Executives are actively preparing for the transition, identifying and prioritizing key issues.

Secretary Chertoff and the Department are doing their part; the three remaining presidential candidates now need to do their part. One of the key decisions the new president must make is to select an enlightened transition manager for DHS. By enlightened transition manager I am not referring to the new Secretary, but the person who, in November, has responsibility for scoping out the department from the inside, teeing up issues, evaluating strengths and weaknesses of people and programs, and preparing the new team to be up and running on day one.

DHS, more so than any other department, cannot afford an aloof, take-no-prisoners approach to the transition. Most departments have a strong bureaucracy and established processes that can temper the whims of an ill chosen transition team. DHS has neither the strong bureaucracy nor the established processes.

Based on my own experience during the transition effort to initially set up DHS, as well as decades in public service, I will offer five pieces of advice for the next president’s DHS transition team, laying out one each day over the next several days:

  1. 1. Pick the transition manager (TM) with care.
    The new President will have staked out positions on various aspects of homeland security. The ideological push should come from the new Secretary, not the TM. While the TM will of course be aligned with the President-elect’s outlook, during the transition the TM should endeavor to understand the issues from the inside, be a keen observer of what is really happening within the department, seek to establish a rapport with the career executives, and should make sure the department is ready for day one. The TM should understand both the bureaucracy and the politics associated with a new administration. The more successful the TM is in the transition period, the more successful the new Secretary will be in the long run.

Tomorrow: Be ready for Day 1.

Tags: ,
Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Management & Administration | Comments

SAFETY Act Plays Critical Role in HS Marketplace

Wednesday, March 12th, 2008

A recent article by Sylvia Pfeifer in the Financial Times contained several interesting insights on three UK businessmen’s advice on breaking into the US homeland security market. They stressed networking, market identification, relationships, and patience.

While each of these is important, a significant piece of strategy for entering the US homeland security was missing, however—the protections from the American civil justice system provided in the SAFETY Act.

One of the greatest concerns an enterprise can encounter in a marketplace is liability exposure. This is particularly true when making technologies, products and services available to counter terrorist threats and attacks. Acquiring protection under the US Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies (SAFETY) Act of 2002 is a vital first step for those entering or expanding in the US homeland security marketplace. It provides critical liability protections in the event there is an “Act of Terrorism.” The SAFETY Act protects an enterprise when it is most vulnerable–when the potential liability is extraordinarily large and the company’s current insurance policy likely excludes (or is significantly limited in) coverage.

As for the background of the SAFETY Act, the Act was created by the US Congress as part of the legislation that established the US Department of Homeland Security. They created it in order to encourage the development and deployment of anti-terrorism technologies, products, and services by mitigating the liability concern that businesses face when contributing anti-terrorism technologies to the homeland security marketplace.

The US has a well-deserved reputation as a very litigious society. This can be a rude wake-up call for those firms not familiar with the American tort system (especially, international firms that are not experienced in US deployments of their technologies, products and services). There is no restriction in the SAFETY Act concerning the nationality of the company seeking protection.

The benefits afforded by the SAFETY Act protect not only the enterprise, the “Seller” but also the Seller’s suppliers, contractors, and “downstream users” (i.e., customers). This creates a valuable market advantage over competitors that do not have SAFETY Act protections. As of early 2008, there were more than 200 products and services that had received SAFETY Act protections.*

There are two levels of liability protection offered by the SAFETY Act*:

DESIGNATION: The Seller’s liability for products or services that are deemed “Designated Technologies” is limited to the amount of liability insurance that the US Department of Homeland Security determines the Seller must maintain. A limited form of Designation, called Developmental Test and Evaluation Designation (DTED), can also be obtained for promising anti-terrorism technologies that are undergoing testing and evaluation.

CERTIFICATION: In addition to the benefits provided under Designation, Certification allows the Seller of an anti-terrorism technology to assert the Government Contractor Defense for claims arising from Acts of Terrorism. Successful use of the Government Contractor Defense has eliminated all liability to defendants in pre-SAFETY Act litigation, and there is every reason to believe a similar result would occur in a SAFETY Act-related case. Technologies that receive Certification will be placed on DHS’s Approved Products List for Homeland Security.

By no means am I implying that the suggestions in Pfeifer’s article are not important. However, getting into the US market requires many strategies and a lot of work. To risk it all by not taking advantage of a risk mitigation tool like the SAFETY Act would represent a major flaw in any strategy.

* (Source: www.safetyact.gov)

Posted in Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Science & Technology | Comments

« Older Entries
©2008 Adfero Group. All Rights Reserved.