ARTICLE: 'Job Vacancies At DHS Said To Hurt U.S. Preparedness: A Fourth of Top Positions Not Filled, Report Says,' By Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post, July 9, 2007; Page A01
This gapping of key personnel reflects how messed up DHS really is. People just don't want to work there. The kludging together of diverse units makes jobs on top a nightmare. With great diligence, DHS is maybe coherent in about 30 years--seriously. Why be a tiny part in that long, sad story if other jobs beckon with more immediate impact? Most senior officials sit in their jobs about 20 months, so you have to focus hard on maybe 1-2 things to accomplish during your stint, and DHS simply appears too foreboding in that regard, so top jobs go unfilled.
| Permalink |
Comments (4)
I wouldnt mind working for them, but who wants to work in the beltway? DHS need to get out into the H and bring some talent in.
Posted by citsar | July 9, 2007 12:00 PM
And maybe, just maybe, people don't want to be blamed if something goes wrong on their watch? Don't you just know that, that would be followed by an eternal round of Congressional inquiries, Presidential commissions, and the associated lynching by the media.
Posted by Albert Gadbois | July 9, 2007 3:35 PM
Shortly after 911, in a burst of patriotic fervor, I was trying to get a resume on Tom Ridges desk. (Anyone remember Tom Ridge?) I went to a good friend who had "beltway" experience. My fiend calmed me down and urged me to forget going anywhere near Washington. He warned me that DHS was going to be a huge, dysfunctional, bureaucracy. And that was BEFORE Katrina.
Posted by Ted O'Connor | July 9, 2007 5:38 PM
It's not just the bureaucracy (although that is certainly a factor) that is turning people off from the idea of working for DHS; it's the idea of working for a bureaucracy that gets slaughtered by public opinion when something goes wrong, and gets no credit (because there's no obvious 'victory' moment) when things go smoothly. It's like the CIA (victories are never seen, failures are PR disasters) but without the glamour.
Posted by Dan Q. Public | July 10, 2007 11:41 AM