What's the matter with moving these federal workers to Kansas City? @CNNPolitics https://cnn.it/2MQYwK9

Basically moving statical and other white collar government employees to save on the high costs of cost of DC to low cost Kansas City, saving us taxpayers money. The employees say we don't dislike Kansas City and realize that with the cost of living we make money, but (1) we don't want to leave our homes (sorta inferred) and (2) we want to be near the power center of DC because it makes our agency more effective and powerful. Both understandable arguments. The government cost savings seem legit, also a an understandable argument.

The article is fairly balanced except with what appeared to me two be two non-sequiturs. There is a discussion about Amazon moving a facility location from DC to near Alexandria, which is about NIMByism, as rents and other costs in Alexander, a city we know well, are not really much different than DC. None of this is relevant to changing a government unit's location to save big time on rent and other costs. Corporations moved their units for a variety of reasons, sometimes to get out of regulation (notice how many American headquarters moved to places like Bermuda after the last big securities reform act?), cost savings, company politics (we need to be where are CEO wants to live), government handouts our whatever, but that has very little to do with government decisions I will say that when I look at my father's generation, employees moved all the time for jobs. It was also a way to get promoted. Employees seem much more reluctant to move these days - perhaps because both spouses work?

The second I did not get, was that employee protests were somehow seen as part of the deep state. CIA, NSA, stats people...? This really is about employees who don't want to uproot and see their work disputed versus cost savings, which seems like a trade-off that is a legitimate discussion.

I was faced with this twenty years ago.
Employees lose some of their employment rights in a relocation, compared to a base closure where they qualify for government employment preferences. Staying in DC area means they have quite a lot of high grade opportunities in the greater DC area working for other Government agencies, virtually none of which exist in KC.For my 36 year Federal government career it was generally understood that the same job in DC was one or two grades higher than in regional areas like LA or SF. This was in addition to COLA.

In reality the move will result in most of the positions being downgraded over the next few years, which saves money two fold, lower cost of living adjustment (resulting in lower retirement income) and lower opportunities for advancement as eventually many of the employees will find their positions downgraded one or two levels over the next five years. Baby boomers and others nearing retirement will be affected the most as they will have to work an additional 2,3,4,5 years to earn the same retirement income that they would receive staying in the DC area. The planned effect is income stagnation. Over the 12 years after the move to San Diego; I missed out on 70% of the COLA adjustments I would have had if I stayed in SF. In a sneaky move the Navy closed my base under BRAC, but transferred my job to San Diego eliminating the opportunity for Priority Placement elsewhere in the country. The engineers I supervised were not relocated and using Priority Placement were able to find jobs in higher grades and higher locality pay locations.

Twenty years ago, the FED were required to pay PSC (Permanent Change of Station) expenses for relocated employees, this is no longer required. DOA could play hardball and force the employees to relocate on their own dime. In my case when It was announced that our base was to be closed; I was offered my old job in a lower COLA area at a grade lower, only if I relocated at my own expense. I held out for two years, until the closure was eminent and I had been reassigned to San Diego eliminating by Base Closure employment preferences I had been trying to exercise.

I would suspect that less than half of the employees will transfer, much less. Clerical, lower grade employees will stay in DC (many of them may actually be temp or contract employees who will just be terminated). Probably half of the remaining employees are retirement eligible and under CSRS retirement and will just retire unless they planned to retire in KC. Those who do relocate will be the younger, not ready for prime time employees; the organization will be effectively neutered for several years.

Which may be the real intent.

sp4149 said:

---

I was faced with this twenty years ago.
Employees lose some of their employment rights in a relocation, compared to a base closure where they qualify for government employment preferences. Staying in DC area means they have quite a lot of high grade opportunities in the greater DC area working for other Government agencies, virtually none of which exist in KC.For my 36 year Federal government career it was generally understood that the same job in DC was one or two grades higher than in regional areas like LA or SF. This was in addition to COLA.

In reality the move will result in most of the positions being downgraded over the next few years, which saves money two fold, lower cost of living adjustment (resulting in lower retirement income) and lower opportunities for advancement as eventually many of the employees will find their positions downgraded one or two levels over the next five years. Baby boomers and others nearing retirement will be affected the most as they will have to work an additional 2,3,4,5 years to earn the same retirement income that they would receive staying in the DC area. The planned effect is income stagnation. Over the 12 years after the move to San Diego; I missed out on 70% of the COLA adjustments I would have had if I stayed in SF. In a sneaky move the Navy closed my base under BRAC, but transferred my job to San Diego eliminating the opportunity for Priority Placement elsewhere in the country. The engineers I supervised were not relocated and using Priority Placement were able to find jobs in higher grades and higher locality pay locations.

Twenty years ago, the FED were required to pay PSC (Permanent Change of Station) expenses for relocated employees, this is no longer required. DOA could play hardball and force the employees to relocate on their own dime. In my case when It was announced that our base was to be closed; I was offered my old job in a lower COLA area at a grade lower, only if I relocated at my own expense. I held out for two years, until the closure was eminent and I had been reassigned to San Diego eliminating by Base Closure employment preferences I had been trying to exercise.

I would suspect that less than half of the employees will transfer, much less. Clerical, lower grade employees will stay in DC (many of them may actually be temp or contract employees who will just be terminated). Probably half of the remaining employees are retirement eligible and under CSRS retirement and will just retire unless they planned to retire in KC. Those who do relocate will be the younger, not ready for prime time employees; the organization will be effectively neutered for several years.

Which may be the real intent.

---

Didn't appreciate all the different angles and impacts. Way more nuanced. Thanks.

A company I know of had units scattered all over the US.
It got that way because the parent aggregator had for years been shopping, accumulating small operators.
It had become an accounting nightmare, with every sub unit on their own accounting system, with different traditions about how to treat various things.

So, why not just move all these mini manufacturers to one central location and operate under one roof?
1. There had been a promise at the initial take over purchase they would not do that.
2. Potential loss of talent which had been the reason for purchase.

End decision was to move the accounting (only) offices of each sub-unit to Boise.
Only 10% of affected staffers agreed to move.

With the start of the new millenium, a new Federal policy was promulgated to limit file storage to only 3 years. Previously we had kept files indefintely which was a waste of space to some managers.

Actually it had provided key data requested during base closure on past maintenance and construction practices, in some cases requiring additional remediation costs. To avoid damaging FOIA reveals, just throw away the documents whenever possible.

This also means that when entering the fourth year of a presidential administration, most records of the previous administration will go missing, making it hard to compare results of the current administration. Of course there will always be the members of the deep state who will keep records to protect their own integrity.

sp4149 said:

---

With the start of the new millenium, a new Federal policy was promulgated to limit file storage to only 3 years. Previously we had kept files indefintely which was a waste of space to some managers.

Actually it had provided key data requested during base closure on past maintenance and construction practices, in some cases requiring additional remediation costs. To avoid damaging FOIA reveals, just throw away the documents whenever possible.

This also means that when entering the fourth year of a presidential administration, most records of the previous administration will go missing, making it hard to compare results of the current administration. Of course there will always be the members of the deep state who will keep records to protect their own integrity.

---

This is one I finally know something about, representing government units. The trigger for all the new record retention policies was the federal court rules on discovery, which actually provides safe harbors for both private and public entities for disposing of document if they had formal records retention policies. State courts then followed, and importantly attached legal privileges to disposing of records. As important, discovery was changed in large scale investigations and large scale litigation to be by computer searches, and records are to be maintained electronically. NOT IN PAPER, with certain minor exceptions. So led by a groups of outside consultants (this was a bonus for lawyers and accounting consultants) large companies and the government entities made this transition, at which point uniform approaches to keeping and disposing of certain types of documents became standardized, and accepted. This also assumed the transitions was done correctly, and that a sufficient computer system and cloud storage system was in place (in this regard the federal governments technology in many areas sucks).

ALSO IMPORTANTLY THIIS REQUIRED ALL PERSONAL ELECTRONIC RECORDKEEPING DOCUMENTS (PHONES, PERSONAL COMPUTERS) ON WHCIH ENITY WORK WAS CONDUCTED TO BE PART OF THE ENTITY RECORDS, WHCH IS WHY CLINTON AND TRUMP'S DAUGHTER ARE VIOLATING POLICIES. Having been intimately involved in the process in two large California entities, I can assure you that while certain documents deemed unimportant are destroyed in 1 to 3 years, most documents are maintained for decades or sometimes forever. All types of discovery, including FOIA and in the case of California, Public Record Act requests, are part of the process thanks to the courts, and the courts expect the retention plans to be reasonable (follow standards for different types of document disposal) or they impose harsh sanctions, often declaring whatever the other side was alleging to be deemed true.

There are literally thousands of articles on all this. It sounds like your entity may have done a piss poor job of implementing the record retention policy requirements, but these changes were certainly not imposed for the purpose of hampering FOIA reveals.

In the private sector I have been involved in two major office moves. Both were done, it was said, to increase efficiency and lower costs - neither did. Both involved moves from the Northeast to the South.

The 1st move was obviously done because the CEO wanted to move to Florida where he had a house. You can read more about this in the lawsuit Hertz Co. vs. Mark Frissora, a rare lawsuit of a company against its former CEO (I forget whether it was filed in Florida, New Jersey, Delaware, or where). I no longer work at Hertz - part of the exodus of employees discussed in the lawsuit. Mark Frissora was a terrible CEO who disgraced the company and exasperated the employees. After failing at Hertz he was immediately hired by Caesar's Palace to be CEO because in America, once you reach a certain level of prestige you are not allowed to fail (see Trump, Donald).

The 2nd move at least was reasonable strategically but it is just never efficient to uproot a workforce wholesale and expect a decent transition. When I was asked by a senior executive if I was moving I said bluntly, "no". They found room for me and others in the current office and now we have split offices and a project that is late and over budget and doesn't offer much in the way of savings.

As far as the government, I see no reason why the office can't be in Kansas City, however, I don't think the government should just uproot employees like that. If you want to move an office to Kansas City then open one there and staff it over the years while reducing employees in D.C. through attrition. I wouldn't recommend that for the private sector but I do for government where the profit motive is not the base requirement. I feel badly for the employees.

I also believe the Trump Administration has he ulterior motive of wanting to get rid of current employees that believe in science and climate change. They know most of the employees will be replaced and they'll be able to restaff with people who have a more conservative, anti-science, anti-intellectual worldview. I think that is the real goal.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

With the start of the new millenium, a new Federal policy was promulgated to limit file storage to only 3 years. Previously we had kept files indefintely which was a waste of space to some managers.

Actually it had provided key data requested during base closure on past maintenance and construction practices, in some cases requiring additional remediation costs. To avoid damaging FOIA reveals, just throw away the documents whenever possible.

This also means that when entering the fourth year of a presidential administration, most records of the previous administration will go missing, making it hard to compare results of the current administration. Of course there will always be the members of the deep state who will keep records to protect their own integrity.

---

This is one I finally know something about, representing government units. The trigger for all the new record retention policies was the federal court rules on discovery, which actually provides safe harbors for both private and public entities for disposing of document if they had formal records retention policies. State courts then followed, and importantly attached legal privileges to disposing of records. As important, discovery was changed in large scale investigations and large scale litigation to be by computer searches, and records are to be maintained electronically. NOT IN PAPER, with certain minor exceptions. So led by a groups of outside consultants (this was a bonus for lawyers and accounting consultants) large companies and the government entities made this transition, at which point uniform approaches to keeping and disposing of certain types of documents became standardized, and accepted. This also assumed the transitions was done correctly, and that a sufficient computer system and cloud storage system was in place (in this regard the federal governments technology in many areas sucks).

ALSO IMPORTANTLY THIIS REQUIRED ALL PERSONAL ELECTRONIC RECORDKEEPING DOCUMENTS (PHONES, PERSONAL COMPUTERS) ON WHCIH ENITY WORK WAS CONDUCTED TO BE PART OF THE ENTITY RECORDS, WHCH IS WHY CLINTON AND TRUMP'S DAUGHTER ARE VIOLATING POLICIES. Having been intimately involved in the process in two large California entities, I can assure you that while certain documents deemed unimportant are destroyed in 1 to 3 years, most documents are maintained for decades or sometimes forever. All types of discovery, including FOIA and in the case of California, Public Record Act requests, are part of the process thanks to the courts, and the courts expect the retention plans to be reasonable (follow standards for different types of document disposal) or they impose harsh sanctions, often declaring whatever the other side was alleging to be deemed true.

There are literally thousands of articles on all this. It sounds like your entity may have done a piss poor job of implementing the record retention policy requirements, but these changes were certainly not imposed for the purpose of hampering FOIA reveals.

---

The Entity was the Navy.
The vehicle was Outsourcing the IT Function.
The method was Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) software which could not access the previous software so instead of conversion, the computer data was discarded, (not enough money to convert). This was known in advance and protests were ignored. Senior officers did get high profile jobs with the COTS providers, planned career progression for most officers is management positions with defense contractors.
IT Security constraints require essential background info to be kept off government computers, in private background storage unknown to the agency.

sp4149 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

With the start of the new millenium, a new Federal policy was promulgated to limit file storage to only 3 years. Previously we had kept files indefintely which was a waste of space to some managers.

Actually it had provided key data requested during base closure on past maintenance and construction practices, in some cases requiring additional remediation costs. To avoid damaging FOIA reveals, just throw away the documents whenever possible.

This also means that when entering the fourth year of a presidential administration, most records of the previous administration will go missing, making it hard to compare results of the current administration. Of course there will always be the members of the deep state who will keep records to protect their own integrity.

---

This is one I finally know something about, representing government units. The trigger for all the new record retention policies was the federal court rules on discovery, which actually provides safe harbors for both private and public entities for disposing of document if they had formal records retention policies. State courts then followed, and importantly attached legal privileges to disposing of records. As important, discovery was changed in large scale investigations and large scale litigation to be by computer searches, and records are to be maintained electronically. NOT IN PAPER, with certain minor exceptions. So led by a groups of outside consultants (this was a bonus for lawyers and accounting consultants) large companies and the government entities made this transition, at which point uniform approaches to keeping and disposing of certain types of documents became standardized, and accepted. This also assumed the transitions was done correctly, and that a sufficient computer system and cloud storage system was in place (in this regard the federal governments technology in many areas sucks).

ALSO IMPORTANTLY THIIS REQUIRED ALL PERSONAL ELECTRONIC RECORDKEEPING DOCUMENTS (PHONES, PERSONAL COMPUTERS) ON WHCIH ENITY WORK WAS CONDUCTED TO BE PART OF THE ENTITY RECORDS, WHCH IS WHY CLINTON AND TRUMP'S DAUGHTER ARE VIOLATING POLICIES. Having been intimately involved in the process in two large California entities, I can assure you that while certain documents deemed unimportant are destroyed in 1 to 3 years, most documents are maintained for decades or sometimes forever. All types of discovery, including FOIA and in the case of California, Public Record Act requests, are part of the process thanks to the courts, and the courts expect the retention plans to be reasonable (follow standards for different types of document disposal) or they impose harsh sanctions, often declaring whatever the other side was alleging to be deemed true.

There are literally thousands of articles on all this. It sounds like your entity may have done a piss poor job of implementing the record retention policy requirements, but these changes were certainly not imposed for the purpose of hampering FOIA reveals.

---

The Entity was the Navy.
The vehicle was Outsourcing the IT Function.
The method was Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) software which could not access the previous software so instead of conversion, the computer data was discarded, (not enough money to convert). This was known in advance and protests were ignored. Senior officers did get high profile jobs with the COTS providers, planned career progression for most officers is management positions with defense contractors.
IT Security constraints require essential background info to be kept off government computers, in private background storage unknown to the agency.

---

FUBAR. Wow.

dajo9 said:

---

In the private sector I have been involved in two major office moves. Both were done, it was said, to increase efficiency and lower costs - neither did. Both involved moves from the Northeast to the South.

The 1st move was obviously done because the CEO wanted to move to Florida where he had a house. You can read more about this in the lawsuit Hertz Co. vs. Mark Frissora, a rare lawsuit of a company against its former CEO (I forget whether it was filed in Florida, New Jersey, Delaware, or where). I no longer work at Hertz - part of the exodus of employees discussed in the lawsuit. Mark Frissora was a terrible CEO who disgraced the company and exasperated the employees. After failing at Hertz he was immediately hired by Caesar's Palace to be CEO because in America, once you reach a certain level of prestige you are not allowed to fail (see Trump, Donald).

The 2nd move at least was reasonable strategically but it is just never efficient to uproot a workforce wholesale and expect a decent transition. When I was asked by a senior executive if I was moving I said bluntly, "no". They found room for me and others in the current office and now we have split offices and a project that is late and over budget and doesn't offer much in the way of savings.

As far as the government, I see no reason why the office can't be in Kansas City, however, I don't think the government should just uproot employees like that. If you want to move an office to Kansas City then open one there and staff it over the years while reducing employees in D.C. through attrition. I wouldn't recommend that for the private sector but I do for government where the profit motive is not the base requirement. I feel badly for the employees.

I also believe the Trump Administration has he ulterior motive of wanting to get rid of current employees that believe in science and climate change. They know most of the employees will be replaced and they'll be able to restaff with people who have a more conservative, anti-science, anti-intellectual worldview. I think that is the real goal.

---

Couple thoughts.

You would be surprised how many "transitions" in the private sector are done to accommodate the personal needs of a CEO or senior manager.

There are a lot more people like you that say no today, and you would think that would cause private employers to hesitate. Yet in my last year of practice it was amazing how many private sector clients were leaving SoCal.

This is not related to the data gathers in this case, but more of an observation. I don't think there is anything magical that the federal government has to be located on the greater DC area. As someone who has to deal with the Feds while representing local or state entities, having decisions makers all in DC often made these agencies out of touch (at least to the staffs of my California entities it appeared that way). My preference would be to have the management of these large agencies more decentralized. I don't know enough about this case to make a comment if that holds for data gathers or if the agenda attributed to the Trump administration applies.

wifeisafurd said:

---

This is not related to the data gathers in this case, but more of an observation. I don't think there is anything magical that the federal government has to be located on the greater DC area. As someone who has to deal with the Feds while representing local or state entities, having decisions makers all in DC often made these agencies out of touch (at least to the staffs of my California entities it appeared that way). My preference would be to have the management of these large agencies more decentralized.

---

As someone who has to deal with the Feds while representing local or state entities, having decisions makers all in DC often made these agencies out of touch (at least to the staffs of my California entities it appeared that way).

I realize there are many variables, but would you say the being "out of touch" over the last 20 years has:

gotten worse (if so, when did it begin? was it gradual?)

remained the same

BEARUPINDC said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

This is not related to the data gathers in this case, but more of an observation. I don't think there is anything magical that the federal government has to be located on the greater DC area. As someone who has to deal with the Feds while representing local or state entities, having decisions makers all in DC often made these agencies out of touch (at least to the staffs of my California entities it appeared that way). My preference would be to have the management of these large agencies more decentralized.

---

As someone who has to deal with the Feds while representing local or state entities, having decisions makers all in DC often made these agencies out of touch (at least to the staffs of my California entities it appeared that way).

I realize there are many variables, but would you say the being "out of touch" over the last 20 years has:

gotten worse (if so, when did it begin? was it gradual?)

remained the same

---

My first experience was 25 plus years ago trying to get a settlement on DDT dumped by a third party in the ocean. We had the leading authority on DDT remediation, a Cal Tech Professor on the phone (who said to cover it with cement and let it attenuate in the ocean, rather than remove it where it would disperse and kill marine life), and several senior engineering consultants and experts. The EPA local staff had followed the recommendation only to be overruled at the middle manger level, and than we got to listen to a Deputy and Assistant Administrators (both Harvard grads) constantly refer to thinking of " people out west" and wondering how our 50 foot tomb (designed by a bunch of engineering PHDs) would fall aport in an earthquake and all the other tragedies and poor engineering we suffered from in California (probably a veiled reference to the Loma Prieta earthquake damage). 12 years later, after tens of millions of attorney fees spent, the EPA agreed to "bunker" approach, after a compelling internal memo written by a regional administrator, who had been on that very same call (and overruled), demonstrated the engineering was sound. In the interim, no one was allowed to do anything about the DDT, which just seemed insane to me.

After that eye opening experience, the attitude encountered not being part of the DC establishment was pretty much one of being met with some skepticism, with some exceptions, while usually having very good responses from the regional offices. In fact, we often found it best to refer matters that were senior administrative decisions to lobbyist types in the DC scene, who seem to follow a revolving door in and out of these agencies, and knew the top staffers.

For those that often roll their eyes when I mention there is a beltway establishment or start talking about federalism of issues, live my life or talk to some senior state or local government officials in private.

Quote:

---

After that eye opening experience, the attitude encountered not being part of the DC establishment was pretty much one of being met with some skepticism, with some exceptions, while usually having very good responses from the regional offices. In fact, we often found it best to refer matters that were senior administrative decisions to lobbyist types in the DC scene, who seem to follow a revolving door in and out of these agencies, and knew the top staffers.

---

You've brought up an important topic,

I neither want to disrespect "career civil servants" nor be accused of having on proverbial "rose-colored glasses"

I want to give you a thoughtful response This necessitates asking for clarifications. By "staffers" do
you mean those whom a new Secretary/Administrator/Director has brought on-board? In most cases,
they have not come up through the ranks. => they hold a modicum of power as long as the political
winds don't blow against them.

BEARUPINDC said:

---

Quote:

---

After that eye opening experience, the attitude encountered not being part of the DC establishment was pretty much one of being met with some skepticism, with some exceptions, while usually having very good responses from the regional offices. In fact, we often found it best to refer matters that were senior administrative decisions to lobbyist types in the DC scene, who seem to follow a revolving door in and out of these agencies, and knew the top staffers.

---

You've brought up an important topic,

I neither want to disrespect "career civil servants" nor be accused of having on proverbial "rose-colored glasses"

I want to give you a thoughtful response This necessitates asking for clarifications. By "staffers" do
you mean those whom a new Secretary/Administrator/Director has brought on-board? In most cases,
they have not come up through the ranks. => they hold a modicum of power as long as the political
winds don't blow against them.

---

I very much mean the staffers at the top that come in and out and back again as administration changes (they hold a modicum of power as long as the political winds don't blow against them). Out here with the great unwashed masses in California, we typically start dialogs at the local or regional level with career staff guys who know the issues. Then, there is DC.

Quote:

---

After that eye opening experience, the attitude encountered not being part of the DC establishment was pretty much one of being met with some skepticism, with some exceptions, while usually having very good responses from the regional offices. In fact, we often found it best to refer matters that were senior administrative decisions to lobbyist types in the DC scene, who seem to follow a revolving door in and out of these agencies, and knew the top staffers.

.

---

Agencies differ greatly. The following are generalizations. Also, there's no rule-book that says this doesn't
go on at the state level,

There are, at least two types of revolving doors:
1. high-ish level government person to lobbyist and back and forth
2. high-ish level government person to high-ish level position in the industry he/she has
been "over-seeing" ....this includes consulting.

If lobbyists are supposedly only targeting staffers they presumably "know", I would think the success rate is quite low.

Career people who (by themselves or through contracts/grants) oversee the collection of and/or analysis of and/or dissemination of data/information may be very tuned in to local issues, They can influence
decision-making.

BEARUPINDC said:

---

Quote:

---

After that eye opening experience, the attitude encountered not being part of the DC establishment was pretty much one of being met with some skepticism, with some exceptions, while usually having very good responses from the regional offices. In fact, we often found it best to refer matters that were senior administrative decisions to lobbyist types in the DC scene, who seem to follow a revolving door in and out of these agencies, and knew the top staffers.

.

---

Agencies differ greatly. The following are generalizations. Also, there's no rule-book that says this doesn't
go on at the state level,

There are, at least two types of revolving doors:
1. high-ish level government person to lobbyist and back and forth
2. high-ish level government person to high-ish level position in the industry he/she has
been "over-seeing" ....this includes consulting.

If lobbyists are supposedly only targeting staffers they presumably "know", I would think the success rate is quite low.

Career people who (by themselves or through contracts/grants) oversee the collection of and/or analysis of and/or dissemination of data/information may be very tuned in to local issues, They can influence
decision-making.

---

My experiences were limited to agencies in the Interior Department, though my law partners had somewhat similar experiences with other agencies. But I suspect agencies do differ, and at both federal and state levels. My concern, and this comes from some one who represented state agencies, is how fast the Feds are to "federalize" all issues. That helped if our interests were aligned, given the Feds have far more resources. Interestingly, in the couple times we bumped heads in court with the Feds, I was surprised how much deference judges (including "liberal" judges) give to states rights and the 10th amendment. Something that might become relevant shortly as California takes on the Trump Administration.

wifeisafurd said:

---

BEARUPINDC said:

---

Quote:

---

There are, at least two types of revolving doors:

---

1. high-ish level government person to lobbyist and back and forth
2. high-ish level government person to high-ish level position in the industry he/she has
been "over-seeing" ....this includes consulting.

If lobbyists are supposedly only targeting staffers they presumably "know", I would think the success rate is quite low.

Career people who (by themselves or through contracts/grants) oversee the collection of and/or analysis of and/or dissemination of data/information may be very tuned in to local issues, They can influence
decision-making.

---

My experiences were limited to agencies in the Interior Department, though my law partners had somewhat similar experiences with other agencies. But I suspect agencies do differ, and at both federal and state levels. My concern, and this comes from some one who represented state agencies, is how fast the Feds are to "federalize" all issues. That helped if our interests were aligned, given the Feds have far more resources. Interestingly, in the couple times we bumped heads in court with the Feds, I was surprised how much deference judges (including "liberal" judges) give to states rights and the 10th amendment. Something that might become relevant shortly at California takes on the Trump Administration.



There are influential ???

---

On the smaller Federal agencies, basically everything other than DOD, I can see decisions kicked up above the local or even regional levels.
With the Navy, "Captain of the Ship is the Absolute Authority" prevails even on stateside bases. There is a lot of effort to avoid kicking it back to DC. Other DOD departments have very strong regional commands, only smaller DOD components like the Marine Corps, are HQ centric. And with the Corps they tend to follow Navy Regional guidance on Construction and Environmental issues.

An ignored fact is that many Federal agencies are Contractor operated. Decision making involving policy or guidance cannot be delegated to Contractors without HQ concurrence. In California, some
Federal agencies have hired the State of California to perform their function. In issues like Environmental remediation California makes decisions and only upon appeal or court order will it go back to DC. Outsourcing of Federal responsibilities can be hazardous, Only a couple of years ago an EPA contractor polluted the Animas River in SW Colorado, EPA found out on the 6 o'clock news as the river vividly turned mustard color in aerial views. EPA; like many agencies has far too few employees to fully, or even adequately, monitor Contractor work.

Many state agencies hire employees for their staffs, funded by the Feds, to carry out Federal responsibilities. In effect these state employees have become Federal Contractor employees. I suspect that 80% of the work of the Federal labor force is actually done by Contractor employees. I would not recomment Federal Policy to be developed by Contractors, who are not directly accountable to the citizens, I suspect that in many cases there is no alternative to bouncing it back to DC.

sp4149 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BEARUPINDC said:

---

Quote:

---

There are, at least two types of revolving doors:

---

1. high-ish level government person to lobbyist and back and forth
2. high-ish level government person to high-ish level position in the industry he/she has
been "over-seeing" ....this includes consulting.

If lobbyists are supposedly only targeting staffers they presumably "know", I would think the success rate is quite low.

Career people who (by themselves or through contracts/grants) oversee the collection of and/or analysis of and/or dissemination of data/information may be very tuned in to local issues, They can influence
decision-making.

---

My experiences were limited to agencies in the Interior Department, though my law partners had somewhat similar experiences with other agencies. But I suspect agencies do differ, and at both federal and state levels. My concern, and this comes from some one who represented state agencies, is how fast the Feds are to "federalize" all issues. That helped if our interests were aligned, given the Feds have far more resources. Interestingly, in the couple times we bumped heads in court with the Feds, I was surprised how much deference judges (including "liberal" judges) give to states rights and the 10th amendment. Something that might become relevant shortly at California takes on the Trump Administration.



There are influential ???

---

On the smaller Federal agencies, basically everything other than DOD, I can see decisions kicked up above the local or even regional levels.
With the Navy, "Captain of the Ship is the Absolute Authority" prevails even on stateside bases. There is a lot of effort to avoid kicking it back to DC. Other DOD departments have very strong regional commands, only smaller DOD components like the Marine Corps, are HQ centric. And with the Corps they tend to follow Navy Regional guidance on Construction and Environmental issues.

An ignored fact is that many Federal agencies are Contractor operated. Decision making involving policy or guidance cannot be delegated to Contractors without HQ concurrence. In California, some
Federal agencies have hired the State of California to perform their function. In issues like Environmental remediation California makes decisions and only upon appeal or court order will it go back to DC. Outsourcing of Federal responsibilities can be hazardous, Only a couple of years ago an EPA contractor polluted the Animas River in SW Colorado, EPA found out on the 6 o'clock news as the river vividly turned mustard color in aerial views. EPA; like many agencies has far too few employees to fully, or even adequately, monitor Contractor work.

Many state agencies hire employees for their staffs, funded by the Feds, to carry out Federal responsibilities. In effect these state employees have become Federal Contractor employees. I suspect that 80% of the work of the Federal labor force is actually done by Contractor employees. I would not recomment Federal Policy to be developed by Contractors, who are not directly accountable to the citizens, I suspect that in many cases there is no alternative to bouncing it back to DC.

---

This makes sense. My one experience with the Navy was procuring an easement b y negotiating with a private contractor and obtain the signature of the base commanding officer. The nature of the easement was such that it would have been kicked-up stairs if issued by an agency like the BLM. The contractor knew his stuff and the negotiations were straight forward.

My only experience with contractors on.a regular basis was with US Fish and Wildlife, and I thought there guys were all over the place on even the same issues, or their views would change depending on who was at Interior or who was suing them. In fairness, that agency was in everyone's cross-hairs.

One of my State clients' senior managers did serve as expert for the Feds and was one of the lead drafters of the clear air regs. He was supposed to represent the industry viewpoint (most people don't realize that government is the worst polluter; although, they also make the most effort to mitigate the damage they do).

I did not get much exposure to private contractors given the nature of my practice, but my understanding from relatives (especially those in the military) is that a material portion of the government has been outsourced.

sp4149 said:

---

An ignored fact is that many Federal agencies are Contractor operated. Decision making involving policy or guidance cannot be delegated to Contractors without HQ concurrence. In California, some
Federal agencies have hired the State of California to perform their function. In issues like Environmental remediation California makes decisions and only upon appeal or court order will it go back to DC. Outsourcing of Federal responsibilities can be hazardous, Only a couple of years ago an EPA contractor polluted the Animas River in SW Colorado, EPA found out on the 6 o'clock news as the river vividly turned mustard color in aerial views. EPA; like many agencies has far too few employees to fully, or even adequately, monitor Contractor work.

---

This will come as no surprise to you: morale at the EPA is low......not enough staff + "leadership"

Your statement in bold came up in the midst of another discussion,

Neighbor: "A friend of mine monitors contracts at the State Department.

Me: "Does she consider herself over-worked?"

Neighbor: "Oh, she's retired but they're making it worth her while to come in 2-3 days a week,"