Subj : Re: Hurricane recovery
To   : Finnigann
From : Richardw
Date : Mon Sep 12 2005 07:58 am

  Re: Re: Hurricane recovery
  By: Finnigann to richardw on Fri Sep 09 2005 08:55 pm

 > -=> richardw wrote to Frank Reid <=-
 > 
 >  ri>   Re: Re: Hurricane recovery
 >  ri>   By: Frank Reid to richardw on Thu Sep 08 2005 10:40 pm
 > 
 >  >  > I disagree.  We need one response team capable of dealing with whateve
 >  >  > disaster comes along.  The response is similiar *irregardless* of the
 >  >  > cause.  Provide a means of evacuation, food, medicine, shelter, and
 >  >  > apparently some baby-sitting at gun-point may be required as well.
 >  >  >
 >  >  > I don't see the need to fund 2 seperate agencies.  Everybody today see
 >  >  > to think we need a BIGGER government than the monolith we have now!
 >  >  > ugh!
 >  >
 >  > In a perfect world, I'd agree, but I think this disaster clearly exposes 
 >  > monolithic nature of a large bureacracy along with its inherent inability
 >  > respond/adapt dynamically.  Yes, no one anticipated a storm on that magni
 >  > (or the destruction it would cause), and no matter how well you plan, you
 >  > always have something you didn't expect.  But, collectively, we didn't ev
 >  > up a good fight on Katrina.
 >  >
 >  > I support a couple of the DHS agencies (formerly independent) directly, a
 >  > will say that there are still *significant* bureaucratic obstacles in res
 >  > and coordination.  In theory (and on paper), combining all those departme
 >  > makes good sense.  However, in reality, they just don't work seamlessly
 >  > together.
 >  >
 >  > I think someone probably modeled the organization after the (obviously ve
 >  > effective) military.  Our military can put "bomb on target" in a matter o
 >  > minutes after someone in D.C. conceives the idea.  We were obviously equa
 >  > effective in responding to Katrina, once engaged.  But there's a big diff
 >  > between the autocratic military chain-of-command that facilitates that ki
 >  > response and the bureacratic flow that governs most agencies, particularl
 >  > those which dispense funds rather than simply consumes them!
 >  >
 >  > I'm unconvinced that the former FEMA (as a standalone agency) would have 
 >  > any differently in this disaster, mainly because of the scope.  But I sus
 >  > we wouldn't have seen people suffering from dehydration while in earshot 
 >  > emergency personnel, while relief agencies were being denied access to th
 >  > by, essentially, a peer organization.  During emergencies, orders must be
 >  > to flow horizontally as well as vertically, and bureacracies just don't
 >  > facilitate that... so why make it taller?
 > 
 >  ri> I'm not saying make it taller.  I'm saying streamline the agency we
 >  ri> have now.  Fix the problem.  I don't think the solution is to add
 >  ri> another agency.  That's akin to buying another car when the fuel pump
 >  ri> fails.
 > 
 > How do you streamline an agency's whose job it is to anticipate and amilerat
 > whatever mother nautre and man care to throw at us?

Obviously there's a lot that can be done.  This disaster was feared for many
hours before it actually happened.  I would think assistance should have be on
"red alert" long before they were.  The problem was administrative.  So, I
think, you cut the 15 levels (or however many) of administration, thereby
lowering your financial expenditure, AND increasing the response time of the
remaining individuals.  Anyhow, I really can't answer your question without a
better understanding of the organisational structure of the agency in question.
I'm flattered that you might think I could.  But, in any case, why would making
another agency, to perform the same basic tasks, be any better?


.