More Governmental Secrecy
It appears that we have yet another shadowy governmental unit making decisions on security issues, or at least assisting in the making of those decisions. From today's NY Times:
The panel that guided the distribution of $711 million in antiterrorism money in a process that led to New York City's share being reduced by 40 percent is a shadow player in the war on terror, its work kept secret and its members shielded from view.
A collection of about 100 law enforcement officials and government bureaucrats from all over the country, the so-called peer reviewers who evaluated proposals for the Department of Homeland Security, took vows of silence, signing agreements that they would not reveal the substance of their deliberations.
...Mr. Foresman [the under secretary for preparedness at the Department of Homeland Security] added that the secrecy surrounding the work stemmed from security concerns about not divulging the vulnerabilities of certain localities. [Emphasis added]
Oh, please!
By this time, most of the general public knows what a lot of those vulnerabilities are: inadequately secure ports and mass transportation systems, total lack of security at chemical and nuclear plants, communication systems that don't work across all first responder agencies are just a few that come to mind. I'm certain terrorists in this country and out are fully aware of the holes in the security system.
What we didn't know, however, is that a super secret group of public safety officials from all over the country are evaluating grant proposals.
Working in groups of five to seven from geographically diverse, urban and rural regions, the panelists were given almost three weeks to grade the applications. They were to review the proposals and supporting documents and then rate the individual programs and overall applications on a scale of 1 to 5, using criteria like "shows clear purpose" and "describes expected outcomes."
After the panelists completed that work, they met in groups with a consultant from Booz Allen Hamilton who helped the groups reach a consensus score. Once the evaluations were complete, analysts at the Department of Homeland Security signed off on them and determined the amounts of the allotments.
...the peer review process was only one-third of the formula that ultimately determined how much money each state and urban area was to receive. The balance was the risk portion determined by the Department of Homeland Security. [Emphasis added]
While the input of local officials is certainly not a bad thing in and of itself, one could argue that a police chief of a small city in Florida might not fully understand the complex needs of the New York City Police Department, or that a Wyoming state official might not completely grasp the importance of a plan to secure the Port of Los Angeles.
Since the ultimate decision rests with the Department of Homeland Security anyway, why have such a secretive process up to that point? My guess is that it's a handy way to cover the Department and its head when the next big mistake is made. Secretary Chertoff will be able to point to the super-secret panel, and members of that panel have already signed a secrecy oath, so there won't be any dispute.
It's also possible that the process is secret just because this regime loves secrecy almost as much as it loves the power that governing in secret gives them.
Lewis Carroll would be so proud.
The panel that guided the distribution of $711 million in antiterrorism money in a process that led to New York City's share being reduced by 40 percent is a shadow player in the war on terror, its work kept secret and its members shielded from view.
A collection of about 100 law enforcement officials and government bureaucrats from all over the country, the so-called peer reviewers who evaluated proposals for the Department of Homeland Security, took vows of silence, signing agreements that they would not reveal the substance of their deliberations.
...Mr. Foresman [the under secretary for preparedness at the Department of Homeland Security] added that the secrecy surrounding the work stemmed from security concerns about not divulging the vulnerabilities of certain localities. [Emphasis added]
Oh, please!
By this time, most of the general public knows what a lot of those vulnerabilities are: inadequately secure ports and mass transportation systems, total lack of security at chemical and nuclear plants, communication systems that don't work across all first responder agencies are just a few that come to mind. I'm certain terrorists in this country and out are fully aware of the holes in the security system.
What we didn't know, however, is that a super secret group of public safety officials from all over the country are evaluating grant proposals.
Working in groups of five to seven from geographically diverse, urban and rural regions, the panelists were given almost three weeks to grade the applications. They were to review the proposals and supporting documents and then rate the individual programs and overall applications on a scale of 1 to 5, using criteria like "shows clear purpose" and "describes expected outcomes."
After the panelists completed that work, they met in groups with a consultant from Booz Allen Hamilton who helped the groups reach a consensus score. Once the evaluations were complete, analysts at the Department of Homeland Security signed off on them and determined the amounts of the allotments.
...the peer review process was only one-third of the formula that ultimately determined how much money each state and urban area was to receive. The balance was the risk portion determined by the Department of Homeland Security. [Emphasis added]
While the input of local officials is certainly not a bad thing in and of itself, one could argue that a police chief of a small city in Florida might not fully understand the complex needs of the New York City Police Department, or that a Wyoming state official might not completely grasp the importance of a plan to secure the Port of Los Angeles.
Since the ultimate decision rests with the Department of Homeland Security anyway, why have such a secretive process up to that point? My guess is that it's a handy way to cover the Department and its head when the next big mistake is made. Secretary Chertoff will be able to point to the super-secret panel, and members of that panel have already signed a secrecy oath, so there won't be any dispute.
It's also possible that the process is secret just because this regime loves secrecy almost as much as it loves the power that governing in secret gives them.
Lewis Carroll would be so proud.
posted by Diane at 5:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home