09/13/00

In electing these officials, the voters are merely placing these "representatives" in a position that represents the collective responsibility of their constituents. It is the voters' duty to see that the bureaucrats who directly administer public policy act in a responsible manner that reflects the long term wishes of the voters. These bureaucrats in most cases are "public employees" who have been in their positions long before the representative is elected and usually remain in those positions long after the representative has been replaced. They, to a much greater extent than the elected officials, are in actual control of the administration of public programs and the interpretation of policy. These folks who are actually in charge have no direct responsibility to the voters, with the exception of the appointed heads of departments who know going in that its likely their position will be filled by a new appointee when their "elected benefactor" is replaced. These appointed heads are to a great extent forced to rely on the knowledge and competence of the bureaucrats "under them"; so again, the real power is in the hands of the long term public employee/bureaucrat.

There is the additional fear that any change to a program might fail and that the blame for implementing this "new, failed policy" will result in the "unelection" of the heads "elected benefactor"....and the subsequent end of the department/agency head's tenure. This results in the tendency of those who we elect to represent us and their appointees proposing very little change...and view those coming to them with requests for change as simply asking them to take a risk...with no concurrent benefit. The result is our elected representatives usually make a little faux attempt to propose the change and so, when this lame attempt fails, they can always say "I tried". Leaving the bureaucrats in charge of public policy.

When a "lessor" bureaucrat, to whom the "blame" may eventually roll downhill, sees that a change is needed, they must then run this idea of a need for change up the chain-of-command with the near certain knowledge that they will be blamed for any failure of this proposed change, but not rewarded for any success. As a result very little change is proposed and even less actually comes to fruition. There is also the additional danger to the proposing bureaucrat that the "problem" that requires change is the direct result of decisions made years prior by a bureaucrat who is now among their superiors...with the attendant unpleasant consequences of (un)intentionally criticizing their superiors. Within the "system" very little incentive for change exists and a great deal of disincentive is present on a constant basis.

I think that all experienced wildfire fighters would agree that they work for a HUGE multiagency bureaucracy that is often not only hamstrung by the multiple layers of bureaucratic fiefdoms which exist, but also by the infighting among the mid- and high-level bureaucrats in each agency. For these major and several minor reasons, the national wildfire suppression effort is incredibly inefficient. There is also the legendary tenancy of all the agencies involved in wildfire suppression to siphon off funding from Fire (their bastard child) to other more "practical" uses. The elected officials on the legislative committees who, in effect, set the fire budget are therefore understandably hesitant to throw more money at the "problem" which is presented as fire danger but in effect is getting funding actually applied to Fire. Ergo the "underfunding" of Fire at less than "the most efficient level". More than a few "lessor" bureaucrats have risked their positions over the years in attempts to bring this problem to the attention of their superiors, the appointed heads of their agencies, and occasionally the elected representatives of the voters. In nearly every case, the only result is that their careers never have quite the potential that they had before they took the chance and did the right thing. This makes it even more difficult for any other lessor bureaucrat to stand up and say what needs to be said knowing it will likely change their lives in a similar unpleasant way.

So, am I saying that we should abandon all hope that there will be needed changes in how Fire programs are administered in our lifetimes? Absolutely not! I have discovered that there is an effective, legal, and relatively inexpensive way to bring about substantial changes in "public" policy at the state level...and I am fairly certain that these same unconventional tactics can be used at the national level with similar results. Unfortunately, it requires treating mid-level bureaucrats as "the enemy" (even though they are not) and not actually revealing to them what the "tactics" are. It also requires that those individuals involved in implementing those tactics be willing to risk their current carreers in fire to bring about the change. If there are individuals reading these posts that are sincerely interested in making needed changes, I encourage them to contact me directly at the email address below and we can discuss not only what changes need to be made but how we can make them happen.

Ab, I honestly tried to keep this post as short as possible...If people want specific examples to support my claims I can provide them...but thought that they would simply lengthen this post needlessly. I would be encouraged by concrete postings as to what changes need to be made in the national policy toward Wildfire suppression from the legislative level on down and I think there is no better forum to present them in than "They Said It". Now is the time to present them...and this is the place to do it.

Dana Linscott
Vice Chairperson
Minnesota Wildland Firefighters Association
linscott@rea-alp.com