|
This past June,
Google announced
that it was
establishing a
federal search
engine to help
people find
government
material on the
Internet.
In developing
this search
engine, Google
was recognizing
a basic fact of
life in the 21st
century –
mainly, given
the size and
scope of the
federal
government
today, Americans
need help
working and
navigating
across federal
agency lines.
But it’s not
just Americans
in general who
need this kind
of assistance.
Federal workers
in particular
need this kind
of help, as
well.
Unfortunately,
this is a fact
too often
ignored by
Federal
managers, who
are restrained
by a structure
and system that
was designed to
meet the needs
of the past
century, not the
current one.
Indeed, for
years, the
federal
government has
been told that
horizontal
management
across
traditional
agency
jurisdictions is
the only way the
country can deal
with complex and
seemingly
intractable
problems.
Presidential
Commissions as
wide ranging as
the 9/11
Commission, the
Commission on
Reforming the
Intelligence
Community, and
the Aerospace
Commission,
which I headed,
have looked at
different venues
of Federal
activity but
arrived at a
common
conclusion – the
need for greater
cross agency
decision-making.
The calls for
horizontal
management as
opposed to the
use of vertical
single mission
stovepipes for
strategy and
decisions are
not surprising.
Private industry
facing the
complexities of
management in a
world changed by
instant
information and
global product
cycles has torn
down vertical
structures and
replaced them
with leaner
management teams
capable of
responding
quickly to
changed
circumstances.
When government
is viewed in the
same light, its
failure to
change is stark
and
unacceptable.
In some cases,
largely under
emergency
conditions,
Congress and the
Administration
have responded
to the calls for
government
reform with
restructuring.
The formation of
the Department
of Homeland
Security and the
creation of the
Office of the
Director of
National
Intelligence are
examples. The
recommendation
of the Aerospace
Commission
calling for a
joint effort
between the
Department of
Transportation,
the Defense
Department and
NASA to plan and
implement a new
air traffic
control system
resulted in a
Joint Program
Office which is
working that
mission.
The problem is
that handling
government
reform and
restructuring
one issue or one
emergency at a
time is
micro-managing
an issue which
needs
macromanagement
thinking. Too
often the
restructuring
done in
emergency
situations is
thrown together
without much
thought beyond
the current
crisis.
Consider, for
instance, the
proposals for
taking the
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency (FEMA)
back out of the
Department of
Homeland
Security just
after the
Hurricane
Katrina mess.
Whether it was
right or wrong
to put FEMA into
DHS just after
9/11, the notion
of going back
and rethinking
the decision in
response to the
next crisis is
the antithesis
of proper
decision-making.
What should be
done is a total
rethink of the
structure of the
Federal
Government. The
last time such a
task was
undertaken was
the Hoover
Commission work
in the
post-World War
II era. The
generation of
leaders
following World
War II
recognized that
the Federal
Government faced
new
circumstances
and challenges
that belied
government
structures
dating back to
the 19th
Century. The
Hoover
Commission
recommendations
– many of which
were adopted –
went to
wholesale
changes in both
the executive
and legislative
branches of the
Federal
establishment.
In the 21st
Century, the
governmental
structures of
the mid-20th
Century are no
longer relevant
or workable.
Back then,
vertical
integration of
bureaucracies
made perfect
sense. Today,
those
bureaucracies
are locked
inside their own
definitions of
priority and
have become
intractable
cultures. Too
often the
cultures see
other Federal
agencies as
rivals and seek
not to cooperate
toward common
governmental
goals but rather
to hold on to
agency
jurisdiction and
predominance no
matter what the
cost to the
common good. In
Congress, many
of the most
bitter battles
involve issues
of committee
jurisdiction.
In a world where
every citizen
has more access
to detailed
information than
the most senior
Federal
bureaucrat had
just a few years
ago,
recalcitrant and
petrified
bureaucracies do
not produce
answers to
problems.
Rather, they are
problems
themselves. In a
world of
globalized
politics and
economics,
vertically
integrated
agencies cannot
act swiftly or
decisively
enough to
address problems
and crisis.
So, we face the
question of what
to do. The
macro-political
answer is to
institute
another
Hoover-like
Commission. A
Commission with
broad authority
appointed by the
President and
Congress to look
at the entire
government
structure and
recommend
broad-based
reforms and
restructuring
would be ideal.
If instituted
and successful
in its mission,
implementation
of the
recommendations
in the face of
entrenched
interests would
prove
challenging, but
at least a plan
would be in
place. And, at
some point, the
wisdom of
having a
Federal
Government that
comports to
economic and
political
reality has to
lead to action.
But until we get
to Hoover-like
recommendations
and
implementation,
the
Administration
could take
meaningful steps
that would
result in vastly
more horizontal
decision-making
inside of
commonly shared
jurisdictions.
One possible
step that the
President could
take on his own
without the
approval of
Congress would
be to create
five “Super
Secretaries”
within his
Cabinet. These
Super
Secretaries
would assume a
policy
coordinating
function across
multiple
departments and
agencies and
would be
presidentially
designated from
among current
Cabinet
Officers. For
example, there
should be a
Super Secretary
for National
Security who
would coordinate
policy for the
Department of
Defense, the
Department of
State, the
Director of
National
Intelligence and
such other
agencies as the
President might
include. Other
Super
Secretaries
could encompass
Economy and
Trade; Justice,
Border and
Homeland
Security;
Energy,
Environment and
Science and
Technology; and
Human Resources
and
Transportation.
Several
important
reforms would
result from the
Super Secretary
restructure. The
President would
have a
manageable
number of key
advisors who
actually run
departments but
are forced to
think more
broadly. The
Congress would
have to respond
to the new
reality of a
restructured
policy function
in the Executive
Branch and make
Committee
jurisdictional
changes of its
own. Former
interagency
battle lines
would be
rethought in
light of broader
policy
initiatives.
Finally, because
the Super
Secretaries have
the ear of the
President, new
ideas and
priorities would
flow more
authoritatively
to the agencies.
Would there be
problems
implementing
such a plan?
Sure. Egos would
be bruised.
Entrenched
interests would
be challenged.
Boldness always
has its critics.
But the
alternative to
doing something
bold and
controversial
that moves the
Federal
Government into
21st Century
reality is to
accept the
present state of
dysfunction.Our
most successful
Presidents
generally ran
their
administrations
with a minimum
number of close
advisors and a
very broad
concept of
success. Abraham
Lincoln,
Franklin
Roosevelt and
Ronald Reagan
clearly defined
goals that
transcended
bureaucracies
and moved with
focused
determination
toward those
goals. The
Federal
Government as
now structured
frustrates that
kind of
leadership.
Government
disorganization
and dysfunction
are part and
parcel of public
disenchantment.
And when crises
are mismanaged
as a result of
dysfunctionality,
the political
consequences are
often severe.
In an article
commenting on
the Super
Secretary
concept, former
presidential
advisor James
Pinkerton stated
that the way the
Federal
government is
currently
configured is at
the heart of the
problem. “If you
will,” Pinkerton
wrote, “It’s the
system, stupid.”
Presidential
commissions have
said the same
thing time and
time again. The
public knows
that the
government is
not working
because they
witness the
results that
impact their
lives. No one
believes that
the present
state of the
Federal
establishment is
in sync with the
new realities of
politics and
economics; of
information
expansion and
information
security; of
global changes
and
confrontations
demanding swift
and decisive
action.
Just as the
Hoover
Commission was
established 60
years ago to
recommend
structural
changes to the
federal
government at
the end of World
War II, so too
do we need
another
presidential
commission to
make a similar
set of
recommendations
today. But until
such a
commission is
established, we
need to look for
ways to move us
closer toward
some of the
reforms we know
that are needed.
The
establishment of
Super
Secretaries
would do just
that. It would
be but one step
toward
addressing much
bigger needs.
But it could be
a super one.
RF
Robert S.
Walker is
Chairman of
Wexler & Walker
Public Policy
Associates. He
served as
Chairman of the
Commission on
the Future of
the United
States Aerospace
Industry. From
1977 to 1997, he
represented the
16th District of
Pennsylvania in
the U.S. House
of
Representatives. |
